Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Gilberto Simpson
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Mark A. Foster
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,

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Mark A. Foster
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Gilberto Simpson
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Mark A. Foster
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Gilberto Simpson
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Mark A. Foster
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Gilberto Simpson
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-09 Thread Mark A. Foster
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,

RE: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-08 Thread Khazeh Fananapazir
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-08 Thread Gilberto Simpson
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-08 Thread Popeyesays
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

Re: Responding with affection was [RE: Past Revelations] with references

2005-01-08 Thread Popeyesays
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