On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 15:46:49 -0800 (PST), John Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will be gathered > > before their Lord [for judgement]. (Qur'an 6:38)" > > > This statement emphasizes that the gathering of the Lord will come about > > after the revelation of this Book, the Qur'an. This verse is in complete > > harmony with Baha'i view, and supports the stations of the Bab and > > Baha'u'llah. > > G: I don't think it gives positive support, they aren't even mentioned or > implied. And in order to harmonize it you have to qualify "anything" > to a certain degree. > > > J: There is no need to mention them directly in this verse, since their > merit stands on their Own persons and their Own writings. They have > reproduced texts equal to the Revelation of the Qur'an.
g: Ok, that's what you are claiming because of the Bahai writings. All I'm saying is that the particular passage in the Quran doesn't say that. J: Let me ask you, > what is the proof that Muhammad is the Prophet of God? Is there specific > reference in the Bible? Gilberto: Yes. I actually thought the Bahai writings agreed on this point. Don't the Bahai writings affirm that Muhammad is the Comforter promised by Jesus and/or the Prophet Like Unto Moses mentioned in Deuteronomy? > G: I agree that people aren't always prepared to hear what God is saying. > that is true. But what I'm saying is that those truths actually *are* > in the Quran in some form. It's not left out. In particular, because > the Quran itself says "We did not leave anything out of this Book" > > > J: Can you see that this is the same logic Christians use to reject > Muhammad. Gilberto: Firstly I don't know of any Christians who have made this same argument with regard to Islam. There are many arguments I've heard from Christians against Islam (usually involving slandering Muhammad or Islamic teachings somehow) but I've never heard the above. Secondly, the argument I"m making doesn't say to reject future religious figures but just that they are unnecessary. > > G: In the Bahai understanding aren't there several "Days of the Lord"? > > J: Yes, there are, but the people were not prepared to hear it, so it was > not explained in the Qur'an. This idea was explain in this day when the > people where gathered before their Lord, the Bab. What do you think makes this idea hard to understand. It's not intrinsically deep. There are religions which are alot older like Buddhism or Hinduism which see history in terms of repeating cycles. If the doctrine is true, I don't think there is anything which would make it hard to understand. > G: It seems weird. If judgement day is an event in ordinary human history > such that it was possible for most of the world to live through with > most people not even having an inkling that it was happening, is that > kind of odd? Are people "paid back" for their sins now, then at any > other time in history? > > > J: That is the explanation, and it is weird. Gilberto: But you didn't explain anything. You just asserted it was true. But if you look at the Quran something which is supposed to happen during judgement day is that they were supposed to be paid back for their deeds. So how did that happen when the Bab came? And then again with Bahaullah? > This was not explained in the > Qur'an because the people would not be able to understand or believe it. It > seems you don't understand or believe it, so I can see the Bab's point first > hand. :) Lol.... you didn't get what I was saying though. > "When the Apostle of God [Muhammad] appeared, He did not announce unto the > unbelievers that the Resurrection had come, FOR THEY COULD NOT BEAR IT. Had > they heard, they would not have believed." The Bayan 8:9 > G: That would be the Bab's claim. That would be convincing evidence to a > Babi or a Bahai but not a Muslim. > J: Just as the explanations you give about the perfection of the Qur'an are > convincing evidence for the Muslim but not the Christian and Jew. Gilberto: Ok, that doesn't make them right or me wrong. > G: How, in your opinion, did Muslims get the station of Muhammad wrong? > > J: "This Day is indeed an infinitely might Day, for in it the Divine Tree > proclaimeth from eternity unto eternity, 'Verily, I am God. No God is there > but Me.' " The Bayan 8:9 So in the Bahai writings the "divine tree" stands for Muhammad specifically? And again, how do Muslims get it "wrong"? Even in the Bahai faith, the Manifestation is not the essence of God. Peace Gilberto "My people are hydroponic" __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
