It seems like something very different is being claimed by Bahais
though. I don't think I've ever heard a Muslim call Muhammad the
Revealor. God was the source of the revelation, it was conveyed by
Gabriel, and given to Muhammad. (Saaws) Muhammad was more a passive
recipient in the process. That
Gilberto,
At 09:51 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
It seems like something very different is being claimed by Bahais though.
Very much so. Here are my own understandings:
The Baha'i concept of divine Manifestation is probably closer to the mainline
christologies of Protestantism, Roman Catholicism,
Oops!
The Angel Gabriel does not refer to something apart from Muhammad. It was a
metaphor for His divine nature, His Holy Spirit, which enabled Him, Mirza
Husayn Ali (Baha'u'llah's human side), to deliver His message.
I forgot I was talking about Muhammad.
With regards, Mark A. Foster 15
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:18:52 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto,
At 09:51 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
It seems like something very different is being claimed by Bahais though.
Mark:
Very much so. Here are my own understandings:
The Baha'i concept of divine
Hi, Gilberto,
At 11:47 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
But if there is this real distinction between the Manifestation and the
Essence of God, what reason would there be to blur that distinction with
language which could lead to confusion?
What language?
Is it in order to make it easier for people
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:08:31 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Gilberto,
At 11:47 AM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
But if there is this real distinction between the Manifestation and the
Essence of God, what reason would there be to blur that distinction with
language which could
At 01:25 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
When you say that the Manifestations can be called God.
Oh, okay. It is because Baha'u'llah has said that the Prophets can call
Themselves God:
Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: I am
God, He, verily, speaketh the truth, and
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 14:16:57 -0600, Mark A. Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 01:25 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
When you say that the Manifestations can be called God.
Oh, okay. It is because Baha'u'llah has said that the Prophets can call
Themselves God:
Sure I understand that. And what I'm
Gilberto,
At 02:30 PM 1/9/2005, you wrote:
Sure I understand that. And what I'm saying is that it seems like there is a
high potential for confusion.
And there are different viewpoints on this subject among Baha'is. However, I am
not sure that confusion is always a bad thing.
With regards,
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43251.html
Dear Gilberto of course in the spirit of the
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43251.html
Dear Gilberto of course in the spirit of the
Dear Khazeh,
You cut and pasted the following assertion:
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:14:52 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nowhere in the Gospels do we find any reference to the
unity of nations or the unification of mankind as a
whole. When Jesus spoke
to those around Him,
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 14:16:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 1:13:34 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gilberto:
Ok. Then if all that was vouchsafed to Bahaullah was already mentioned
to Muhammad, I just think it makes alot more
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 11:49:53 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
Ok. Then if all that was vouchsafed to Bahaullah was already mentioned
to Muhammad, I just think it makes alot more sense for me to look to
those great Muslim interpreters, scholars, and saints to unpack
Gilberto: I would say that in a real way there isa huge amount of content already contained in even just "La ilaha illaAllah" (No god but God) "and the rest is commentary" so even juststicking to the Quran is huge amount of fleshing out and unpacking.Alot more unpacking with details and examples
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 19:24:15 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Khazeh,
My original question:
So my question to you is whether you are willing to say:
all that is vouchsafed [to Baháu'lláh] was indeed Mentioned before [to
Muhammad]?
Peace
Gilberto
In a message dated 1/8/2005 3:41:20 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But Muslims aren't just resting with a part. Remember, we agreed. ALLthat is vouchsafed to Baháu'lláh was indeed Mentioned before toMuhammad. ALL of it. There is nothing missing.And in the Quran it says:We
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:59:21 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the Quran says of itself:We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will be gatheredbefore their Lord [for judgement]. (6:38)
Muhammed did not leave anything out of the Book that He was told to
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:43:50 EST, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 1/8/2005 2:59:21 PM Central Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
But the Quran says of itself:
We did not leave anything out of this Book, then all will be gathered
before their Lord [for
In message
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html
Dear Gilberto you make several points. This servant, again in the spirit of
amity and affectionate dialogue will remember! And number them and make some
replies. Please God you will look at them with a kindly gaze.
Gilberto:
Point 1]
In a message dated 1/8/2005 6:01:22 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Gilberto:Islamically the Quran wasn't written by Muhammad, it comes from God.
Who said different. Muhammed is the Revealor and I refer to that as authorship. Actually, Gabriel revealed the Qur'an to Muhammed
Gilberto: It doesn't seem to make sense to think that Muhammad was omniscient but then held back important spiritual truths from the ummah. The Quran doesn't suggest it.
John: It is explained by the Qur'an as the Qiyamah, Surah 75.
"1. I swear by the Day of Resurrection; 2. And I swear by the
On Sat, 8 Jan 2005 17:43:47 -0800 (PST), John Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto: It doesn't seem to make sense to think that Muhammad was
omniscient but then held back important spiritual truths from the ummah. The
Quran doesn't suggest it.
John: It is explained by the Qur'an
John: It is explained by the Qur'an as the Qiyamah, Surah 75. Gilberto: Could you specifically point to which verse you have in mind and howit points to what we are talking about?
John: What I meant wasthat there are things that will take placeduringQiyamah thatare beyond the
Dear Khazeh,
I'll focus on the more essential aspects to hopefully not get caught
up in details and stick to the more central issues.
On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 01:06:34 -, Khazeh Fananapazir
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist/m43290.html
Dear Gilberto
G: Could you specifically point to which verse you have in mind and howit points to what we are talking about?
J:
(1) On Al-Qiyamatu'l Udhma, the Great Resurrection, God will say things and answer questions that are not in the Qur'an:
[2:210] : Will they wait until Allah comes to them in
26 matches
Mail list logo
