On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 19:04:14 -0800, Rich Ater <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [If I remember correctly, this was a response to the issue of whether the concept of progressive revelation, implied criticizing God for the previous revelations] > Gilberto: I think you have to be careful about how you go about doing it [presenting the doctrine]. > Bahais call their belief *progressive* revelation which strongly > suggests that the dispensations of the Bab and then of Bahaullah are > somehow deeper, more complete, more suitable, new and improved, or > otherwise better than what came before. And when Bahais start to articulate > how the Bahai writings have "progressed" over the Quran then the negative > statements come into the picture.Gilberto,
Rich: > Sorry it has taken so long. I would agree. I would ask you to bare in > mind that the Faith hasn't developed as many scholars as we'd like to think, > nor have we given serious thought to what progressive revelation really > means. If you read Baha'u'llah's comments on Islam and Muhammad you did get, > IMO, the concept of His or the Bab's revelations being superior in the sense > that some define progressive revelation. I believe that Baha'u'llah's > writings can give us a deeper understanding of the Qur'an than someone > reading it in the late 7th century had and that a better understanding than > someone in the 2nd century reading the Gospels would have been had by > someone reading it after being open to the Islamic revelation. Gilberto: I'm not sure I've read enough of Bahaullah's writings to say that he gives a particularly deep understanding. Some Bahai interpretations of Quranic passages I don't find terribly satisfying or super-deep. I think there are Muslim scholars, especially Sufis and others who interpret the Quran in ways which I find more impressive. But the larger point I would want to make is that if you are saying that over time, people can have a deeper understanding of certain texts, then I actually wouldn't have much a problem with that notion of progress. If, as quoted from the Bahai writings, the word of God is endless in meaning, then that suggests that Muslims could stick to the Quran and continue to study it, and find more and more spiritual depth the more time they spent in its ocean. Gilberto: I wouldn't > want to set the prophets against one another. Their various messages are a > repetition of the messages which came before. The differences are more > "horizontal" than "vertical" for example having Friday be the emphasized day > of the week rather than the Sabbath. The problem with those earlier > communities is that the original revelation was no longer being faithfully > transmitted. For example, I wouldn't try to say that the Quran was better > than the original Gospel or the original Torah. I would question whether the > texts in the current Old and New Testament really are the Torah or the > Gospel. Rich: Once again this has to do with our understanding. I know the Muslim > belief about the original Gospel and Torah. I think its specious. There is > nothing in the Qur'an to back it up. In a passage discussing the People of the Book, is the admonition: [2.79] Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn. On top of that there are several hadith (at least one specifically interprets the above verse) which are more explicit. And on top of that, even if the Quran and sunnah didn't verify the idea, I think the case for Biblical corruption is too strong to neglect. For example, if you read the Penteteuch (the "Torah") Moses' death is described at the end, in particular from the perspective of someone long after. So someone besides Moses obviously wrote that section. But then other passages of the Penteteuch are written in the same style. In fact, Biblical scholars almost universally accept the Documentary Hypothesis, which states that the Biblical Penteteuch had multiple authors (typically 4 are distinguished) and edited together centuries after Moses. So if that's true, the original revelation given to Moses (the actual Torah) is only a part of the Biblical Penteteuch. A similar argument could be made about the Gospels. If the Gospel is a revelation given to Jesus (similar to how the Quran was given to Muhammad) then the Gospel, if it exists in the NT at all is found in some portion of just the "red letters". But other elements are put into the mix as well. Besides, if you read about the history of the texts you would see that certain changes have taken place. 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
