Revealed Religions

[Zeluvia]

How many revealed religions, ie, ones that are revealed to humans through a prophet or other means are there?

Name them please, and their prophet...I think I might miss some, of course I know the major ones:

Christianity ... Jesus
Islam...Mohammed
Judaism....Moses

[shunyadragon]

How many revealed religions, ie, ones that are revealed to humans through a prophet or other means are there?

Name them please, and their prophet...I think I might miss some, of course I know the major ones:

Christianity ... Jesus
Islam...Mohammed
Judaism....Moses

From the Baha'i perspective revelaton occurs in cycles throughout human history and represents the spiritual advancement of humanity. Revelation is universal and all humanity recieves revelation through the [messiah, enlightened one, Lord, prophet]. Each cycle brings new knowledge to humanity as well and humanity as a whole recieves the message in some degree. The Adamic cycle begins with Adam the first human to know God. Revelation is essentially synonomous with Creation. Sometimes the knowledge comes through more that one messiah in one cycle, and others may be enlightened by the revelation. As with Buddha, Lao Tzu, Zoraster, and the enlightening of Confucus. Beginning in 1844 a new cycle has begun with the Revelation of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. I believe the changes in the world since that year make it very apparent that we have entred an entirely new world never before known in the history of humanity.

'If you split the atom, you will release a sun.'

Seven Valleys and Four Valleys' by Baha'u'llah.

Other messiahs are Krishna, and those that came to other regions like the Americas.

[Kenite]

How many revealed religions, ie, ones that are revealed to humans through a prophet or other means are there?

Name them please, and their prophet...I think I might miss some, of course I know the major ones:

Christianity ... Jesus
Islam...Mohammed
Judaism....MosesThere is just one revealed faith, and that is the one and only one which reveals that salvation is by faith in God alone. All other religions are faith in man's own efforts to reach a state of perfection. Jesus revealed that only by faith in him can we be saved.

After his death and resurrection, many of the Jews, the Israelites who should have accepted Jesus, carried on using the 'failed model' of Moses, which could never save, because it was put in place to show that salvation could not be by works! So modern 'Judaism' is in fact a figment, based on true revelation, but a complete misinterpretation of it. It is an attempt to gain justification (being accounted righteous) by works.

Islam also is an attempt to change God's revelation of justification by faith to a system of works (regular prayer, fasting, etc.) that gain heaven. It is not based on revelation, because it is claimed to be revealed to one man only, in secret. A deity could not use such a method, as it has no corroboration at all. Mormonism has similar hoax origin (via Joseph Smith and his 'spectacles'), and likewise supports justification by works. In fact all the 'Christian' cults (Seventh Day Adventists, Roman Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnessism, Eastern Orthodoxy etc.) add their own human sources to what has been revealed, changing God's revelation of salvation by faith into a message of salvation by human works that many find much more comfortable.

[Zeluvia]

Thanks Shuny, good list.

Is Confuciusism really considered a revealed religion though? I am looking more for those that specifically claimed divine revelation.

I appreciate your sentiment Kenite, but I am not a believer, I am just doing some thinking, and there is no difference to me between Jesus and any other "revealer", besides that, I think you are wrong, and Jesus emphasized works as well as faith.

[Kenite]

there is no difference to me between Jesus and any other "revealer"Jesus was revealed publicly, to a whole nation, not to an individual or two in a cave or behind a blanket. He performed miracles to show his divine origin. He was revealed after centuries of preparation and prophecy, which he fulfilled. There is no comparison between between Jesus and every other 'revealer'.

Jesus emphasized works as well as faith.We have a very simple choice. We either trust in the perfection of Jesus to represent us on judgment day, or we say that his goodness is not enough, and trust in our own goodness to get us through.

'Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?" Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent."' John 6:28-29 NIV

[James Peter]

Are you just interested in contemporary religions that have a reasonably sizeable following? Because most ancient religions at least claim to be based upon revelation (often through a semi-divine hero) and often they also claim to be vindicated by miracles. Very few religions don't actually claim to be, to some extent, revelations (anything which is based on the interaction of a god and humanity is by definition based on revelation, unless you wish to restrict revelation to written texts). Even somebody like Crowley claimed to be working on the basis of supernatural revelation...

[Kenite]

Are you just interested in contemporary religions that have a reasonably sizeable following? Because most ancient religions at least claim to be based upon revelation (often through a semi-divine hero) and often they also claim to be vindicated by miracles.Which one would you recommend?

[James Peter]

I wouldn't recommend any of them, I'm just saying that it was a pretty standard way to claim authority for a new cult. "Apollo came to me in a dream..."

[Kenite]

I wouldn't recommend any of them, I'm just saying that it was a pretty standard way to claim authority for a new cult. "Apollo came to me in a dream..."Why don't you believe them? What is wrong, if anything, with their claimed authority?

[shunyadragon]

Thanks Shuny, good list.

Is Confuciusism really considered a revealed religion though? I am looking more for those that specifically claimed divine revelation.

Afar as Confucus, I stated that he was enlightened by the revelation, and not a revelation. There is an intimate association of Zorastrianism, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism that cannot be easily seperated. They all taught on earth within a relatively short time period.

[James Peter]

Why don't you believe them? What is wrong, if anything, with their claimed authority?

In my (subjective) opinion they are highly questionable. Ultimately the picture of God that they share does not fit with my own experiences of God. The biggest problem is that their authority is merely claimed - but that is no different to christianity really. Quite how you would prove that miracles which happened thousands of years ago, performed by or on people that there is no independent record of, I'm not sure. I think the answer is merely that you can't. Which is why I emphasise a combination of historical research (so that we can reconstruct what was actually believed and done) and have the expectation that the claims should be relevant today. If they aren't then they are irrelevant to me and so can be ignored. But the question wasn't how do you authenticate claims of revelation, merely who claims revelation.

[Kenite]

Beginning in 1844 a new cycle has begun with the Revelation of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.How is it known that this was revelation rather than human thought?

[shunyadragon]

How is it known that this was revelation rather than human thought?

As as known in any absolute sense, it is no more 'known' than any other religion. Different religions make claims that they represent revelation. As far as atheists are concerned thay all are human thought. The Baha'i Faith does have some basis for it's claims.

(1) The dates of fulfillment of prophecy of 1844 and 1863 were independently believed to be the dates of fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and prophecy of other religions by many groups around the world including millenial faiths in the USA and Europe and other places in the world.

(2) Baha'i described the New Age we have been in sense and prophecied accurately the events and changes in the world since.

(3) The Baha'i Faith brought a message that better meets the needs of the world today. There are many unique principles and spiritual Laws of the Baha'i Faith that were brought in anticipation of the needs of the world as it unfolds today.

[Kenite]

As as known in any absolute sense, it is no more 'known' than any other religion. Different religions make claims that they represent revelation. As far as atheists are concerned thay all are human thought. The Baha'i Faith does have some basis for it's claims.

(1) The dates of fulfillment of prophecy of 1844 and 1863 were independently believed to be the dates of fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and prophecy of other religions by many groups around the world including millenial faiths in the USA and Europe and other places in the world. Can you give evidence of this belief, please?

(2) Baha'i described the New Age we have been in sense and prophecied accurately the events and changes in the world since. What were those prophecies?


(3) The Baha'i Faith brought a message that better meets the needs of the world today. There are many unique principles and spiritual Laws of the Baha'i Faith that were brought in anticipation of the needs of the world as it unfolds today.That is purely a value judgment, which is obviously not shared by the great majority of people, well over 99% of the world population.

[Zeluvia]

I am not looking for a religion.

What I was looking for was the more obscure prophets that claimed divine revelation and have followers in the modern day.

Zoraster is one. John Smith is another. Krishna is one, that I would have never remembered.

[James Peter]

Ok if you are interested in those that have followers in the modern day I guess Crowley should be on you list. Quite what should be made of neo-pagan cults which have links to ancient cults based on revelation is a decision that you'll have to make for yourself.

[Kenite]

In my (subjective) opinion they are highly questionable. Ultimately the picture of God that they share does not fit with my own experiences of God. The biggest problem is that their authority is merely claimed - but that is no different to christianity really. Quite how you would prove that miracles which happened thousands of years ago, performed by or on people that there is no independent record of, I'm not sure. I think the answer is merely that you can't. Which is why I emphasise a combination of historical research (so that we can reconstruct what was actually believed and done) and have the expectation that the claims should be relevant today. If they aren't then they are irrelevant to me and so can be ignored. But the question wasn't how do you authenticate claims of revelation, merely who claims revelation.I don't agree at all that the claims of miracles by 'pagan' religions fall into the same category as those recorded in the gospels. The man who performed miracles in the gospels changed the world, radically, globally, and permanently. For a mere carpenter on his own to achieve more than Alexander, Julius Caesar and every other caesar, and all the Greek sages combined is beyond belief, if he was not the founder of something far more important than any cult developed by a secular government in order to assist it in population control. That a few ordinary fishermen and other artisans should be galvanised into a belief that overcame persecution and death to 'turn the world upside down' (and most people don't know enough history to appreciate how much that has occurred) is totally precedented and indeed unique in history. It was not miracles that compelled belief, though. It was intellectual power, and, more than anything, the power of morally changed lives. It still is.

[keith]

How about contemporary New Religious Movements? If we include people alive now then how about Rev Sun Myung Moon or Sai Baba?

[James Peter]

I don't agree at all that the claims of miracles by 'pagan' religions fall into the same category as those recorded in the gospels. The man who performed miracles in the gospels changed the world, radically, globally, and permanently. For a mere carpenter on his own to achieve more than Alexander, Julius Caesar and every other caesar, and all the Greek sages combined is beyond belief, if he was not the founder of something far more important than any cult developed by a secular government in order to assist it in population control. That a few ordinary fishermen and other artisans should be galvanised into a belief that overcame persecution and death to 'turn the world upside down' (and most people don't know enough history to appreciate how much that has occurred) is totally precedented and indeed unique in history. It was not miracles that compelled belief, though. It was intellectual power, and, more than anything, the power of morally changed lives. It still is.

What of Muhammad then? Effect alone is not vindication. If a religion lasts for 400 years and then is destroyed does that mean it is inferior to one that lasts 700 years? For the most part religion and society cannot be seperated. It should probably also be noted that whilst 'Christianity' has survived for 2000 years it has evolved an awful lot over that period. Compare the Church of the 300s with than of the 700s and then the 1200s and then the 1600s and the today. Compare the Churches of Greece with those of Switzerland, Germany, England and France in the late 16th century. Yes, Jesus inspired a huge movement but it wasn't as if he set up a complete system of religious belief that has survived unchanged for 2000 years. If we are to be entirely fair we should also acknowledge that Jesus and the Apostles belongs firmly within a pre-existing tradition which they shaped and modified. A Jesus who was not born into the Levant would have been very different; influences on him (indirectly) can be traced to many cultures back a couple of thousand years. So, whilst I glad believe that the self-communication of God to man in the incarnation and passion of Jesus of Nazareth was the most significant event in history I also, if I wish to be intelectually honest, have to admit that placing that revelation about all other revelations is an act of faith. Certainly faith can and should be grounded in reason, and to make this post relevant to this thread I would say that in a world where so many scream to be given the true plan of God (for that is what revelation is) we have little choice except to evaluate claims. To say that because claims about Jesus are made in your (and mine) Holy Text and so they are of course more valid than claims made in somebody else's text seems to be incredibly arrogant. Reasons have to be given to consider (christian) 'Scripture' a more reliable and valid source than, say, the claims of Crowley or Smith. And being ancient alone isn't sufficient to make a claim true either...

[Zeluvia]

What of Muhammad then? Effect alone is not vindication. If a religion lasts for 400 years and then is destroyed does that mean it is inferior to one that lasts 700 years? For the most part religion and society cannot be seperated. It should probably also be noted that whilst 'Christianity' has survived for 2000 years it has evolved an awful lot over that period. Compare the Church of the 300s with than of the 700s and then the 1200s and then the 1600s and the today. Compare the Churches of Greece with those of Switzerland, Germany, England and France in the late 16th century. Yes, Jesus inspired a huge movement but it wasn't as if he set up a complete system of religious belief that has survived unchanged for 2000 years. If we are to be entirely fair we should also acknowledge that Jesus and the Apostles belongs firmly within a pre-existing tradition which they shaped and modified. A Jesus who was not born into the Levant would have been very different; influences on him (indirectly) can be traced to many cultures back a couple of thousand years. So, whilst I glad believe that the self-communication of God to man in the incarnation and passion of Jesus of Nazareth was the most significant event in history I also, if I wish to be intelectually honest, have to admit that placing that revelation about all other revelations is an act of faith. Certainly faith can and should be grounded in reason, and to make this post relevant to this thread I would say that in a world where so many scream to be given the true plan of God (for that is what revelation is) we have little choice except to evaluate claims. To say that because claims about Jesus are made in your (and mine) Holy Text and so they are of course more valid than claims made in somebody else's text seems to be incredibly arrogant. Reasons have to be given to consider (christian) 'Scripture' a more reliable and valid source than, say, the claims of Crowley or Smith. And being ancient alone isn't sufficient to make a claim true either...
good, I hadnt thought of Crowley either, and have no idea of who Sai Baba is : )

[Kenite]

What of Muhammad then?Do we agree, then, that the pagan religions contemporary with Jesus are not to be compared with Christianity? They have negligible intellectual or emotional appeal today, and that has been the case since the spread of Christianity.

Effect alone is not vindication. Of course popularity is of no importance per se- but the means by which popularity is achieved is absolutely crucial. The carpenter's faith survived first the Jews, then the sword of the Roman Empire, without a blow being struck on its behalf. It eventually, by entirely passive means, forced the greatest empire the world had seen into nominal submission, turning out those 'revealed' religions, forever, in most cases.

But it was by the scimitar that Mohammad spread his religion, often directed against Christians; and not by Islamic martyrdom. You remember- 'The blood of the martyrs is seed.' That applied north of the Mediterranean, but Mohammed's men were so brutal that they completely wiped out Christianity from much of north Africa. Now if violence is needed to make a point, how true can it be? Who uses force but a liar? Intellectually speaking, Islam had shot itself in the head, surely, even before the Salman Rushdie fatwah reminded the world of its fragility.

So, whilst I glad believe that the self-communication of God to man in the incarnation and passion of Jesus of Nazareth was the most significant event in history I also, if I wish to be intelectually honest, have to admit that placing that revelation about all other revelations is an act of faith. I fully agree. If, as I have attempted to show, Christianity has far more in its support than other beliefs have for theirs, it does not make it true. I do believe, though, that once one has become a Christian, once one has tasted both the care of God, and the persecution of the world, one cannot have further doubts. But one cannot prove that in a forum!

Certainly faith can and should be grounded in reason, and to make this post relevant to this thread I would say that in a world where so many scream to be given the true plan of God (for that is what revelation is) we have little choice except to evaluate claims. To say that because claims about Jesus are made in your (and mine) Holy Text and so they are of course more valid than claims made in somebody else's text seems to be incredibly arrogant. Reasons have to be given to consider (christian) 'Scripture' a more reliable and valid source than, say, the claims of Crowley or Smith. And being ancient alone isn't sufficient to make a claim true either...I'm not convinced that so many are eager to find true revelation in today's world. In my view, formed by experience, the majority of those who are aware of the gospel are already in no doubt that the Christian revelation is the true one. What many do in our materialistic age is simply ignore that revelation. Other people are trying to find an evasion of Christian truth, as successive popes, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and many others have done and continue to do, with recourse to ever more absurd solutions, imv. Only a small minority truly embrace it.

[shunyadragon]

Can you give evidence of this belief, please?

First religion to outlaw slavery and indentured servatude specifically by law, prohibit rape (judaism, Christianity and Islam have no such law in their book), Haromony of Science and religion, and manditory education for all, the social and legal equality of men and women to name a few.

What were those prophecies?

The world wars (specifically). The process of globaliztion that has changed the world in everything from communication to the rapid changes inworld technologies.

That is purely a value judgment, which is obviously not shared by the great majority of people, well over 99% of the world population.

This was true at the same time in history as Christianity. Religion is not apopularity contest.

[Kenite]

First religion to outlaw slavery and indentured servatude specifically by law, prohibit rape (judaism, Christianity and Islam have no such law in their book), Haromony of Science and religion, and manditory education for all, the social and legal equality of men and women to name a few.Apart from being apparently ill-informed and ill-conceived propaganda, that is not what is requested. You wrote: '1) The dates of fulfillment of prophecy of 1844 and 1863 were independently believed to be the dates of fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and prophecy of other religions by many groups around the world.' Do you have relevant quotes, or cites, or even sites where evidence for this statement can be inspected?

The world wars (specifically). Where are the specific prophecies? Again, relevant quotes, cites, or websites are acceptable; nothing less will do. Unless there was a good measure of detail involved, it seems to me that world wars were quite foreseeable from c. 1850.

The process of globaliztion that has changed the world in everything from communication to the rapid changes inworld technologies. It seems to me that that process was already under way in the 19th century, and was predicted by Marx and other economists.

This was true at the same time in history as Christianity. Religion is not apopularity contest.But you seem to have made it one. You wrote that Baha'i 'better meets the needs of the world today'. That does not seem to ring true when just the Mormons number 15 million, and the JWs about the same. Anglicans number 70 million, Lutherans 66 million, and Assemblies of God 50 million. There are just 6 million Baha'is. I don't know what you mean by 'This was true at the same time in history as Christianity,' but if you mean that Baha'i's growth rate competes with Christianity, I think that is a great delusion. Baha'i is 150 years old; to have acquired 6 million members worldwide, when just the USA population is 250 million, looks fairly sluggish going to me, certainly for a religion that is supposed to be 'with it'. The JWs started at about the same time, and have more than double the Baha'i number. At the Baha'i rate of growth, mighty Rome would never have had to concede to 'the Galilean'. It is as well for Baha'is that religion is no popularity contest.

[shunyadragon]

Apart from being apparently ill-informed and ill-conceived propaganda, that is not what is requested. You wrote: '1) The dates of fulfillment of prophecy of 1844 and 1863 were independently believed to be the dates of fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and prophecy of other religions by many groups around the world.' Do you have relevant quotes, or cites, or even sites where evidence for this statement can be inspected?

Where are the specific prophecies? Again, relevant quotes, cites, or websites are acceptable; nothing less will do.

Topic of other threads. See below.

Unless there was a good measure of detail involved, it seems to me that world wars were quite foreseeable from c. 1850.

Really, by who?

It seems to me that that process was already under way in the 19th century, and was predicted by Marx and other economists.

Just one point Baha'i writings are before Marx, but the rest is basically not the point of this thread and complicated, and the subject of a number of threads including your derisive negative comments. There is already one or more threads on the Baha'i Faith and prophecy if your interested in continueing the dialogue



But you seem to have made it one. You wrote that Baha'i 'better meets the needs of the world today'. That does not seem to ring true when just the Mormons number 15 million, and the JWs about the same. Anglicans number 70 million, Lutherans 66 million, and Assemblies of God 50 million. There are just 6 million Baha'is. I don't know what you mean by 'This was true at the same time in history as Christianity,' but if you mean that Baha'i's growth rate competes with Christianity, I think that is a great delusion. Baha'i is 150 years old; to have acquired 6 million members worldwide, when just the USA population is 250 million, looks fairly sluggish going to me, certainly for a religion that is supposed to be 'with it'. The JWs started at about the same time, and have more than double the Baha'i number. At the Baha'i rate of growth, mighty Rome would never have had to concede to 'the Galilean'. It is as well for Baha'is that religion is no popularity contest.

You missed my point. I was referring to Christianity in 150CE. All of which you are referring to is a very confused choice amongst various of the many denominations of Christianity. Nothing new, just the pews rearranged by personal preference.

[XaositectCrayon]

if you meen ones that sprout out of the Abrahamic line
Baha'i: Baha'u'llah
Rastafari: Haile Selassie
Druze: Hakim bi-Amr

beyond that I dont know...

[Kenite]

Topic of other threads.Give a link or two, if they actually answer the question. Until then, I regard your statement as false- and in any case, the manners of Baha'is as not even up to those of the irreligious. But whatever the truth of that, you listed three points, and none of them are supported here.

Really, by who? By any northern European with his/her eyes open to the vastly increased, and highly competitive global trade, vastly increased munitions capability, and a knowledge of recent European history, including industrial unrest, and the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars. It was hard to avoid such a conclusion, I think.

Just one point Baha'i writings are before MarxThe Baha'ullah's 'prophecies' date from 1867, which is, coincidentally, the year that Marx published Volume 1 of 'Kapital', having already published everything else of his (except Vols 2 and 3) since 1847. By 1867, Baha'is, and indeed everyone else involved in the European commercial and productive process, had very good opportunity to realise that globalisation was already in process, and hardly need to read Marx anyway. Though perhaps some contact of Baha'is did so, or simply read the newspapers regarding Marx.

You missed my point. I was referring to Christianity in 150CE. Are you sure? 'This was true at the same time in history as Christianity' means closer to 180. No-one has even raw figures for the size of the church at that date, let alone a percentage figure. What we do know is that a large number of spurious gospels and epistles had been written by then, which shows that Christianity was well known and well worth corrupting. Baha'i seems to be yet another spurious corruption, to me, yet another fostered in the Land of Great Darkness, the USA.

All of which you are referring to is a very confused choice amongst various of the many denominations of Christianity. Many of which are bigger than the whole of Baha'i! And presumably, more up to date! Presumably, more convincing! The JWs started after Baha'i, and have over twice the membership.

Nothing new, just the pews rearranged by personal preference.Should you really be here???? The personal preference of very many more than a paltry 6 million Baha'is! Well over 99% of the world population is not impressed by the 'modernity' of Baha'i. Most people I know think Baha'ism an absurdity, and not nice, either.

[XaositectCrayon]

Give a link or two, if they actually answer the question. Until then, I regard your statement as false- and in any case, the manners of Baha'is as not even up to those of the irreligious. But whatever the truth of that, you listed three points, and none of them are supported here.

By any northern European with his/her eyes open to the vastly increased, and highly competitive global trade, vastly increased munitions capability, and a knowledge of recent European history, including industrial unrest, and the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars. It was hard to avoid such a conclusion, I think.

The Baha'ullah's 'prophecies' date from 1867, which is, coincidentally, the year that Marx published Volume 1 of 'Kapital', having already published everything else of his (except Vols 2 and 3) since 1847. By 1867, Baha'is, and indeed everyone else involved in the European commercial and productive process, had very good opportunity to realise that globalisation was already in process, and hardly need to read Marx anyway. Though perhaps some contact of Baha'is did so, or simply read the newspapers regarding Marx.

Are you sure? 'This was true at the same time in history as Christianity' means closer to 180. No-one has even raw figures for the size of the church at that date, let alone a percentage figure. What we do know is that a large number of spurious gospels and epistles had been written by then, which shows that Christianity was well known and well worth corrupting. Baha'i seems to be yet another spurious corruption, to me, yet another fostered in the Land of Great Darkness, the USA.

Many of which are bigger than the whole of Baha'i! And presumably, more up to date! Presumably, more convincing! The JWs started after Baha'i, and have over twice the membership.

Should you really be here???? The personal preference of very many more than a paltry 6 million Baha'is! Well over 99% of the world population is not impressed by the 'modernity' of Baha'i. Most people I know think Baha'ism an absurdity, and not nice, either.

yet you forget they are a branch off of Islam... that in itself should show you exactly what was holding them back. The followers of mohammed arent too into innovation.

Besides it's the same elitist bull that got YOUR profit murdered in the first place. If you believe the new testement.

[Kenite]

yet you forget they are a branch off of Islam.I forget nothing of the sort.

that in itself should show you exactly what was holding them back. The followers of mohammed arent too into innovation.And the Jews were, I suppose! And Muhammad had the same trouble. It's nothing unusual for new religions to meet strong initial opposition. If Baha'ism was so modern and universal in its appeal, it could, in the modern world, have immediately avoided Islamic opposition.

[XaositectCrayon]

I forget nothing of the sort.

And the Jews were, I suppose! And Muhammad had the same trouble. It's nothing unusual for new religions to meet strong initial opposition. If Baha'ism was so modern and universal in its appeal, it could, in the modern world, have immediately avoided Islamic opposition.
well it's obvious you know nothing of early Christian history...

[Kenite]

well it's obvious you know nothing of early Christian history...It's handy when things are 'obvious'. It relieves a defeated poster from having to concede. That can't possibly apply here, though. :wink:

[XaositectCrayon]

It's handy when things are 'obvious'. It relieves a defeated poster from having to concede. That can't possibly apply here, though. :wink:
heh, just read the wikipedia entry on the history of Christianity and think long and hard about the time they were in...

besides, if anyone right in the name of your ghost would be so universal... why are there still Jews?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE]heh, just read the wikipedia entry on the history of ChristianityWhat for? A good laugh? Wikipedia tells us that 'The Roman Catholic Church traces its origins to the Apostles Peter and Paul'!

If you want church history, ask me. Got that? (Only half joking!)

why are there still Jews?Because people love to get to 'heaven' all by themselves.

Why are there still Muslims?

[Timothy Leary]

I am not looking for a religion.

What I was looking for was the more obscure prophets that claimed divine revelation and have followers in the modern day.

Zoraster is one. John Smith is another. Krishna is one, that I would have never remembered.

I think you mean Joseph Smith (the founder of Mormonism)

What about religions that were allegedly revealed by the God(s) of that religion themself (or themselves)? Do those count as revealed religions?

[James Peter]

[QUOTE=XaositectCrayon]What for? A good laugh? Wikipedia tells us that 'The Roman Catholic Church traces its origins to the Apostles Peter and Paul'!

If you want church history, ask me. Got that? (Only half joking!)


I think that the wikipedia article in question is very carefully worded and is entirely accurate. The Roman Catholic Church does trace its origins back to the Apostles Peter and Paul; that is different to saying that the Roman Catholic Church was founded by Peter and Paul. All it states is that the RCC claims that legacy, it is the one doing the 'tracing'...

[Aletheia]

Moses (Judaism)
Jesus (Christianity)
Muhammed (Islam)
The Bab (Bahai)
Crowley (Pagan? Golden Dawn?)
Gerald Garner (Wicca)
Joseph Smith (LDS)
Buddha (Buddhism)
Lao Tsu (Taoism)
Krishna (Hinduism)
Whoever wrote the "Urantia" book
Whoever wrote "A Course in Miracles"
Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science)
L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology)

Some of those may be a stretch, but I think all claimed "divine" revelation of some sort.

[Zeluvia]

Moses (Judaism)
Jesus (Christianity)
Muhammed (Islam)
The Bab (Bahai)
Crowley (Pagan? Golden Dawn?)
Gerald Garner (Wicca)
Joseph Smith (LDS)
Buddha (Buddhism)
Lao Tsu (Taoism)
Krishna (Hinduism)
Whoever wrote the "Urantia" book
Whoever wrote "A Course in Miracles"
Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science)
L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology)

Some of those may be a stretch, but I think all claimed "divine" revelation of some sort.
Hmm good summary, Hobbit like whom?

[Kenite]

[QUOTE=Kenite]
I think that the wikipedia article in question is very carefully worded and is entirely accurate. The Roman Catholic Church does trace its origins back to the Apostles Peter and PaulSo explain how it does that. Don't explain how it claims to do that. Explain how it does that.

[Kenite]

Moses (Judaism)Why is Judaism not named after Moses?

[shunyadragon]

Why is Judaism not named after Moses?

Names are just a convenient word and some times there is cultural reason such as, Hinduism is not named after Krishna, Islam is not named after Mohammod, or Baha'i is not named after Baha'u'llah (Baha here has a different meaning or conotation in Baha'i).

[XaositectCrayon]

Moses (Judaism)
Jesus (Christianity)
Muhammed (Islam)
The Bab (Bahai)
Crowley (Pagan? Golden Dawn?)
Gerald Garner (Wicca)
Joseph Smith (LDS)
Buddha (Buddhism)
Lao Tsu (Taoism)
Krishna (Hinduism)
Whoever wrote the "Urantia" book
Whoever wrote "A Course in Miracles"
Mary Baker Eddy (Christian Science)
L. Ron Hubbard (Scientology)

Some of those may be a stretch, but I think all claimed "divine" revelation of some sort.


Crowley = Thelema
it's got it's own set of gods but it's pantheistic so they all make up a deist god anyway. It's more of a froidian system of ritual magick (spelled with a k for the number 11, which meens hidden energys).

[Aletheia]

Crowley = Thelema
it's got it's own set of gods but it's pantheistic so they all make up a deist god anyway. It's more of a froidian system of ritual magick (spelled with a k for the number 11, which meens hidden energys).

:doh: That's right. I knew that. Really I did. :teeth:

[Kenite]

Names are just a convenient word What is convenient about 'Judaism'?

[shunyadragon]

What is convenient about 'Judaism'?

Language is just a two dimensional method of communication and words evolve simply at the convenience of those that use them. It is the human mind that gives the greatermeaning and dimension to language.

Its simply a seven letter word in the English language to describe a religion that follows the Hebrew traditions found in Hebrew scripture like the Torah.

Words may be like stones to build walls, and launched as weapons, or they may flow like water and no know boundary.

[Kenite]

Language is just a two dimensional method of communication and words evolve simply at the convenience of those that use them. It is the human mind that gives the greatermeaning and dimension to language.

Its simply a seven letter word in the English language to describe a religion that follows the Hebrew traditions found in Hebrew scripture like the Torah.

Words may be like stones to build walls, and launched as weapons, or they may flow like water and no know boundary.Thank you for your reply, shunyadragon. It is good to share a little wry humour occasionally.

[Yakkity Yak]

Is Confuciusism really considered a revealed religion though? I am looking more for those that specifically claimed divine revelation.

The infallible Center of the Covenant (Abdu'l Baha) said that Confucius was a Divine Manifestation (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.346).

The infallible Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) states, "Confucius was not a Prophet (Manifestation)" (Lights of Guiddance, p.349).

Take your pick.

[shunyadragon]

The infallible Center of the Covenant (Abdu'l Baha) said that Confucius was a Divine Manifestation (Promulgation of Universal Peace, p.346).

The infallible Guardian (Shoghi Effendi) states, "Confucius was not a Prophet (Manifestation)" (Lights of Guiddance, p.349).

Take your pick.

Neither are infalliable in the sense you describe, and actually Abdu'l Baha are not manifestations of God, Abdul'baha is the Servant Shoghi Effendi is only the guardian of the cause. Their knowledge is not considered infallible, only their interpretations of the Laws and Guidance of Baha'u'llah is considered as infallible. The question whether Confucius was a manifestation of God is not an issue.

Actually Confucius, Buddha and Lao tze all taught at about the same time and are part of the same revelation. Confucius and Lao tze were 'enlightened' by the revelation of Buddha.