Re: Fwd: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
On Jan 25, 2008 5:18 PM, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > gilberto, > :-) > awesome. we may be headed to some common ground. I don't see it but I hope you are right. > > ;"Sure, but it is easy to misrepresent another person's views while > attempting to speak on their behalf." > true enough. on the other hand, i don;t think anyone can, without some bit > of paperwork in hand to be deemed to be speaking for anyone else. The point isn't worth arguing about at this point. > > :'Common ground between who(m)?" > h..i would phrase that "for whom". and then answer, for anybody who is > willing to let go of their imposed identity. Given the discussions and arguments I've seen, common ground only really makes sense between specific groups or individals. Also, it is something symmetrical. So of you are serious about Bahais and Muslims finding common ground then that means you have to find a way of expressing your beliefs which Muslims could find agreeable and vice versa. Common ground is NOT achieved by insisting on how narrowminded the other person is. [claiming that adding context lead to common ground on Isaac/Ishmael and the crucifixion] > :"I don't see how your point has been made. Islam and Christianity still > basically disagree about those points. Adding context doesn't make > those diagreements disappear." > as i noted, this thread had already pointed out that "what Islam holds" > about the crucifiction narrative is not a single point...but a > spectrum. Sure, there are a range of beliefs which seem consistent with the texts. And I would say that for Islam this is especally true of the crucifixion. That still doesn't mean that everything goes. >why do i get a bit uh...wooofy? bellicose? pain in the neck ? about this? > because, as we can observe, people end up being told, well, if u are a > Moslem, you beleive this. if you are a Chrisitan, you bleive that. and the > world is filled with people who say, ok. i guess i beleive that, after all i > am a Moslem, Christian, etc. You can't tell me that there are no boundaries or parameters for acceptable Bahai beliefs > > why would Judaism or Islam care about whther it was isaac or ishmael? (i > shift to this becuase i am hoping it is easier to see). i would offer that a > claim to "legitimacy" "authority" or, as americans might put it, "manifest > destiny" resides in the answer. I don't know what you are talking about. I agree that the identity of the son isn't a terribly important question. I think in this discussion it came up merely as an example of how according to Islam (and the Bahai faith) the Bible contains statements which are definitely false. I'm not basing any kind of claims about land on the answer. > behaviours therefore can be justified and excused when they cannot be > reasoned. >but once the justification is found, it becomes valuable to others wishing > to use it, until it becomes the value itself. >Holy Text tells us that one on some mountain somewwhere or other a father > and son both agreed, well, this totay sux, but if it is what God wants, > ok. at which point of surrender, relief appeared. >this process for achieving a result--algorhythm--is independent of > Abraham, isaac, ishmael, other than Abraham being Cited as the Bringer of the > Algorhythm, that sacrifice is dependent upon free will. (there are of course > at least 70 other ways to interpret this...i'm just holding out what i see as > the most obviously useful today.) >the Text is viewed from the pov of the observer...and therefore there is > the appearance of Text, not the REality. > thus, :"Islam and Christianity still > basically disagree about those points. Adding context doesn't make > those diagreements disappear." > add Enuff Context, correctly, cuases Christianity and Islam to disappear, to > the precise extent that they hold themselves out as The Answer. You are not adding content, you are subtracting content (or abstracting) until the point of disagreement disappears. >:":" There are restricted situations where I'd be willing to go > > along with a pragmatic notion of truth." > > my dim recall of the scientific method is that there is no other. > > That gets into areas which I think are controversial even among > scientists." > may i offer, respectfullly, then...screw scientists. what's a scientist? to > my ears ur advancing a cultic model. YOU are the one who brough up the scientific method. > specifically: i occasionally coffee with a "professional > mathmatcian"--someone who spends 20-40 hours a week working on the riemann > hypothesis while providing matieral means by tuturoing college students and > playing poker. he often asks me for ways to explain math concepts to persons > from an "arts" background. he often tells me that no math truth can be taken > to general events..but says that general events can be taken to math to > "prove" their "reality". the "proof"? e
re: Fwd: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
gilberto, :-) awesome. we may be headed to some common ground. ;"Sure, but it is easy to misrepresent another person's views while attempting to speak on their behalf." true enough. on the other hand, i don;t think anyone can, without some bit of paperwork in hand to be deemed to be speaking for anyone else. one can claim..or deny...that one is speaking to what he sees in what someone else is saying. this is somewhat like the appearance/reality issue...:-) :'Common ground between who(m)?" h..i would phrase that "for whom". and then answer, for anybody who is willing to let go of their imposed identity. to wit: :"I don't see how your point has been made. Islam and Christianity still basically disagree about those points. Adding context doesn't make those diagreements disappear." as i noted, this thread had already pointed out that "what Islam holds" about the crucifiction narrative is not a single point...but a spectrum. each pov within that spectrum is a mix of past interpretations --reports of appearances of truth--and a pov of the author at the time of writing. if someone says "Islam beleives" then they are, to one degree or another, merely " phrases from a completely different > conversation, rip them from their context, and respond to things I'm > not sure that any of the previous participanats intended." why do i get a bit uh...wooofy? bellicose? pain in the neck ? about this? because, as we can observe, people end up being told, well, if u are a Moslem, you beleive this. if you are a Chrisitan, you bleive that. and the world is filled with people who say, ok. i guess i beleive that, after all i am a Moslem, Christian, etc. for them...common ground. it matters not to me who is "right" or "wrong"--because we all are...both. why would Judaism or Islam care about whther it was isaac or ishmael? (i shift to this becuase i am hoping it is easier to see). i would offer that a claim to "legitimacy" "authority" or, as americans might put it, "manifest destiny" resides in the answer. behaviours therefore can be justified and excused when they cannot be reasoned. but once the justification is found, it becomes valuable to others wishing to use it, until it becomes the value itself. Holy Text tells us that one on some mountain somewwhere or other a father and son both agreed, well, this totay sux, but if it is what God wants, ok. at which point of surrender, relief appeared. this process for achieving a result--algorhythm--is independent of Abraham, isaac, ishmael, other than Abraham being Cited as the Bringer of the Algorhythm, that sacrifice is dependent upon free will. (there are of course at least 70 other ways to interpret this...i'm just holding out what i see as the most obviously useful today.) the Text is viewed from the pov of the observer...and therefore there is the appearance of Text, not the REality. thus, :"Islam and Christianity still basically disagree about those points. Adding context doesn't make those diagreements disappear." add Enuff Context, correctly, cuases Christianity and Islam to disappear, to the precise extent that they hold themselves out as The Answer. :":"restricted situations where I'd be willing to go > along with a pragmatic notion of truth." > my dim recall of the scientific method is that there is no other. That gets into areas which I think are controversial even among scientists." may i offer, respectfullly, then...screw scientists. what's a scientist? to my ears ur advancing a cultic model. specifically: i occasionally coffee with a "professional mathmatcian"--someone who spends 20-40 hours a week working on the riemann hypothesis while providing matieral means by tuturoing college students and playing poker. he often asks me for ways to explain math concepts to persons from an "arts" background. he often tells me that no math truth can be taken to general events..but says that general events can be taken to math to "prove" their "reality". the "proof"? exportability, repeatability, "fittedness." :"I'm not rejecting you or your idea. I'm saying I don't know what you are talking about. So if you are actually interested in communicating you should try a different approach." in the example offered--mules, equines--we have a set. donkeys and horses and mules all belong to the set. we can increase the number of mules by crossing donkeys and horses...but not by (with a 1x 10^6 exception) crossing mules and mules. what i thought would be self-evident to u, framed in such fashion, was that with many interpretations of history like the crucifiction or isaac/ishmael, the same is true. we need a "crossing" that >works<. and the definition of >works< is one that yields sweet fruit. :"I would say that the reality of a situation doesn't always match up with the apearance." i would say..always doesn't..:-) with the exception of the Manifestation. :" And I already pointed out
Fwd: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
On Jan 19, 2008 3:20 PM, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
G wrote:
>:"I really think you should let the other participants of the thread
> speak for themselves"
> it wouild be difficult to stop someone from speaking for themselves.
Sure, but it is easy to misrepresent another person's views while
attempting to speak on their behalf.
> on the other hand, there is speaking for one self, and there is speaking in
> the hopes of establishing some common ground where hearing can occur.
Common ground between who(m)?
> :" don't think that it
> makes sense for you to grab some phrases from a completely different
> conversation, rip them from their context, and respond to things I'm
> not sure that any of the previous participanats intended. "
> and thank you for making my point: how there came to be any appearance of
> disunity in what Text of any Dispensation Says about the crucifiction or
> isaac or ishmael.
I don't see how your point has been made. Islam and Christianity still
basically disagree about those points. Adding context doesn't make
those diagreements disappear.
> :"restricted situations where I'd be willing to go
> along with a pragmatic notion of truth."
> my dim recall of the scientific method is that there is no other.
That gets into areas which I think are controversial even among scientists.
> :"The true nature of the crucifixion isn't something which can
> be setlled by the behavior of Christians 2000 years later."
> not what i said.
> at alll.
> what i was aiming towards was that the Qu'ran Affirms that Underlying Form
> is in the Bible, and points tio persons making correct use of Said Forms.
I think you should flesh out more what you mean by that.and how it
connects to the crucifixion.
>:"If you are really trying to communicate something you should put a
> little work into saying how you think this analogy applies to the
> conversation at hand."
> thank you for for rejecting the idea based on some perceived failure in me.
I'm not rejecting you or your idea. I'm saying I don't know what you
are talking about. So if you are actually interested in communicating
you should try a different approach.
> :":"I think it is more faithful and more
> > appropriate to draw the line between appearance/reality.
> > imho that's a false taxonomy.
> How?"
>in that reality is >>observed<< through one sense or another, magnified by
> technology or not, and the observation of anything requires its "appearance".
I would say that the reality of a situation doesn't always match up
with the apearance.
> :"My comment about appearance/reality was
> specifically about understanding the crucifixion from an Islamic
> perspective. "
> yes. and as pointed out, the term "Islamic perspective" does not refer to a
> singularity but is the name of the set of a very large number of perspectives
> all of which have in common acknowledgement of Muhammed, and may have little
> else shared.
If you look back to the different threads I've actually been pointing
out already that there are multiple possible ways to understand this
from an (not the) Islamic perspective. And I already pointed out that
the appearance/reality distinction is something which makes sense to
me but I'm not trying to impose on others.
(Something I've noticed in your writing is that you often tend to
leave off pronouns, so you seem to de-emphasize where ideas come
from.)
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
sir,
my very sincere apoliogies, and a sincere assurance that there is no
patronisation, no deamning, no anything other than respect for ur pov in paying
attentiuon to the fact that ur cv seems to have a math flavour.
:"I really think you should let the other participants of the thread
speak for themselves"
it wouild be difficult to stop someone from speaking for themselves.
on the other hand, there is speaking for one self, and there is speaking in
the hopes of establishing some common ground where hearing can occur.
:" don't think that it
makes sense for you to grab some phrases from a completely different
conversation, rip them from their context, and respond to things I'm
not sure that any of the previous participanats intended. "
and thank you for making my point: how there came to be any appearance of
disunity in what Text of any Dispensation Says about the crucifiction or isaac
or ishmael.
:"restricted situations where I'd be willing to go
along with a pragmatic notion of truth."
my dim recall of the scientific method is that there is no other.
:"The true nature of the crucifixion isn't something which can
be setlled by the behavior of Christians 2000 years later."
not what i said.
at alll.
what i was aiming towards was that the Qu'ran Affirms that Underlying Form is
in the Bible, and points tio persons making correct use of Said Forms.
:"If you are really trying to communicate something you should put a
little work into saying how you think this analogy applies to the
conversation at hand."
thank you for for rejecting the idea based on some perceived failure in me.
:":"I think it is more faithful and more
> appropriate to draw the line between appearance/reality.
> imho that's a false taxonomy.
How?"
in that reality is >>observed<< through one sense or another, magnified by
technology or not, and the observation of anything requires its "appearance".
:"My comment about appearance/reality was
specifically about understanding the crucifixion from an Islamic
perspective. "
yes. and as pointed out, the term "Islamic perspective" does not refer to a
singularity but is the name of the set of a very large number of perspectives
all of which have in common acknowledgement of Muhammed, and may have little
else shared.
:"I also don't think that Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry
is an issue of appearance vs. reality in the way you seem to be taking
it."
heard. imho "when" something is "true" and "where" it is true are closely
related.
imho the Text is replete with examples of perspectives only being true
"when" or "where".
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
well..no.
there is a 1 in 10^6 chance that a >>>female<<< mule may have been passed on
sufficient genetic matieral to be able to reproduce.
http://www.lovelongears.com/faq
beyond that what is a jack, in re equines?
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=jack
http://muleschool.com/_wsn/page8.html
as is recognised by law:
http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/fence/ar_fnc.htm
and common practice.
but thank you for demonstrating my point: "fixed" meanings require "fixed"
places.
when the meanings are moved, confusion can often result.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
On Jan 18, 2008 2:53 PM, firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> gilberto,
> :-)
> after i recalled ur skillset, ur reasoning becomes crystal.
I certainly don't feel understood. I do feel patronized by your
comments about my "skillset". I don't think your use of math/techie
analogies is helpful or conducive to communication.
> excuse me if i am replying to the wrong thread, but i would offer u these:
>
> :"Just because there are good decent
> people who are Christian doesn't prove that the Bible is a perfectly
> authentic text."
> that is not the thing being proved.
I really think you should let the other participants of the thread
speak for themselves on what they were trying to prove, especially if
you are wondering whether you are replying to the wrong thread (you
were). Hajir actually did try to argue that "The Bible narrative
cannot be wrong".
> the question was is the >>Book<< availablenot the Bible. saying Bible =
> Book has the arrow backwards.
>allow me to try it this way.
I'll allow Hajir to speak for himself.
> All of the Book of Algorithm's that people can make operational during that
> time segment is inside the set of Algorhythms in the Bible.
>whether the operations are performed properly is not determined by the
> Algorhythm, but by the >>>human<< operator.
>the operators in the Algorhythms are proven by having >>human<< operators
> be able to use Them.
> that many >humans< choose to mis-transcribe them is not evidence abut the
> Algorthythm.
> the fact that randomly pushing buttons on a t-83 will yield gibberish has
> nothing to do with whether standard deviation to at least 2s is hardwired
> into a t83.
I think it makes sense for you to start over with a new thread which
clearly states whatever it is you want to share. I don't think that it
makes sense for you to grab some phrases from a completely different
conversation, rip them from their context, and respond to things I'm
not sure that any of the previous participanats intended. If you
actually read the thread, Hajir was defending the Bible as a source of
propositional truth, specifically about the crucifixion. Not as a
source of algorithms
> thus:
> Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read
> > nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which
> > are) with them.
> now, what >>>matters<<< in Torah, Gospel and Qu'ran is >>>what works<<<.
>Baha'u'llah, to my poor memory, uses the expression "that which is
> conducive" as the name of this metric.
There might be a few restricted situations where I'd be willing to go
along with a pragmatic notion of truth but I don't think this is one
of them. The true nature of the crucifixion isn't something which can
be setlled by the behavior of Christians 2000 years later.
> or another tack:
> the set of equines includes mules. if we attempt to use mules to breed mules
> we will fail. this says nothing about the set of equines or the reality of
> mules, or whether mules are equines.
If you are really trying to communicate something you should put a
little work into saying how you think this analogy applies to the
conversation at hand.
>
> :"I think it is more faithful and more
> appropriate to draw the line between appearance/reality.
> imho that's a false taxonomy.
How?
> euclid's 5th will appear to be reality as long as we have a planee.
> and when we do, the 5th is real.
> when we don;t, it's not.
I don't think we have the same understanding of geometry so I don't
think your analogy is useful. My comment about appearance/reality was
specifically about understanding the crucifixion from an Islamic
perspective. It wasn't meant to be general principle I Would want to
apply willy nilly to everything from Christian theology to Euclidiean
geometry.I also don't think that Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry
is an issue of appearance vs. reality in the way you seem to be taking
it.
-G
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
You can breed a male mule. It's called a Jack. It will be sterile however and
incapable of breeding anything.
Regards,
Scott
firestorm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: gilberto,
:-)
after i recalled ur skillset, ur reasoning becomes crystal.
excuse me if i am replying to the wrong thread, but i would offer u these:
:"Just because there are good decent
people who are Christian doesn't prove that the Bible is a perfectly
authentic text."
that is not the thing being proved.
the question was is the >>Book<< availablenot the Bible. saying Bible =
Book has the arrow backwards.
allow me to try it this way.
All of the Book of Algorithm's that people can make operational during that
time segment is inside the set of Algorhythms in the Bible.
whether the operations are performed properly is not determined by the
Algorhythm, but by the >>>human<< operator.
the operators in the Algorhythms are proven by having >>human<< operators be
able to use Them.
that many >humans< choose to mis-transcribe them is not evidence abut the
Algorthythm.
the fact that randomly pushing buttons on a t-83 will yield gibberish has
nothing to do with whether standard deviation to at least 2s is hardwired into
a t83.
thus:
Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read
> nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which
> are) with them.
now, what >>>matters<<< in Torah, Gospel and Qu'ran is >>>what works<<<.
Baha'u'llah, to my poor memory, uses the expression "that which is
conducive" as the name of this metric.
i hear an underlying pov in all this...that something must be "right" and if
it isn;t "right" it's "wrong"
and we're back to derrida:-)
or another tack:
the set of equines includes mules. if we attempt to use mules to breed mules we
will fail. this says nothing about the set of equines or the reality of mules,
or whether mules are equines.
:"I think it is more faithful and more
appropriate to draw the line between appearance/reality.
imho that's a false taxonomy.
euclid's 5th will appear to be reality as long as we have a planee.
and when we do, the 5th is real.
when we don;t, it's not.
now..is the 5th a spiritual principle, a physical event, an appearance, or a
reality?
how much is pi? :-)
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Military SF technothriller, Sword of the Dajjal, e-book from
http://www.booksforabuck.com/sfpages/sf_07/sword_dajjal.html
http://www.fictionwise.com/eBooks/eBook47261.htm?cached (later in the year in
print)
Erotic paranormal thriller Jars of Doom, out from Blu Phi'er 2008.
I BLog!: http://cscottsaylorsbooks.blogspot.com/
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
gilberto,
:-)
after i recalled ur skillset, ur reasoning becomes crystal.
excuse me if i am replying to the wrong thread, but i would offer u these:
:"Just because there are good decent
people who are Christian doesn't prove that the Bible is a perfectly
authentic text."
that is not the thing being proved.
the question was is the >>Book<< availablenot the Bible. saying Bible =
Book has the arrow backwards.
allow me to try it this way.
All of the Book of Algorithm's that people can make operational during that
time segment is inside the set of Algorhythms in the Bible.
whether the operations are performed properly is not determined by the
Algorhythm, but by the >>>human<< operator.
the operators in the Algorhythms are proven by having >>human<< operators be
able to use Them.
that many >humans< choose to mis-transcribe them is not evidence abut the
Algorthythm.
the fact that randomly pushing buttons on a t-83 will yield gibberish has
nothing to do with whether standard deviation to at least 2s is hardwired into
a t83.
thus:
Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read
> nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which
> are) with them.
now, what >>>matters<<< in Torah, Gospel and Qu'ran is >>>what works<<<.
Baha'u'llah, to my poor memory, uses the expression "that which is
conducive" as the name of this metric.
i hear an underlying pov in all this...that something must be "right" and if
it isn;t "right" it's "wrong"
and we're back to derrida:-)
or another tack:
the set of equines includes mules. if we attempt to use mules to breed mules we
will fail. this says nothing about the set of equines or the reality of mules,
or whether mules are equines.
:"I think it is more faithful and more
appropriate to draw the line between appearance/reality.
imho that's a false taxonomy.
euclid's 5th will appear to be reality as long as we have a planee.
and when we do, the 5th is real.
when we don;t, it's not.
now..is the 5th a spiritual principle, a physical event, an appearance, or a
reality?
how much is pi? :-)
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
On Jan 18, 2008 4:54 AM, Brent Poirier Attorney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gilberto wrote:
> >>But then does it make sense to say that they "eventually crucified
> that divine Spirit, the Word of God"? Wouldn't these terms apply to
> the spiritual aspect?>>
>
> I think that here, the Master is referring to Jesus by these terms,
> rather than only referring to His spiritual aspect; just as Muslims (and
> Baha'u'llah) often refer to Jesus as "Ruhullah" i.e. "The Spirit".
So are you saying that in this passage where it refers to Jesus as
"that divine Spirit" it is actually refering to Jesus in his physical
aspect?
>
> >>But doesn't the Quran say that "Jesus, the Son of Mary" was not
> crucified? Wouldn't this term apply to the physical part of his body?
> The human part?>>
>
> This is not the only instance in the Muslim, Jewish or Christian
> scriptures where an event seems to be presented physically, where the
> Baha'i Writings say that nonetheless, the intent is entirely spiritual.
I didn't think it was really a big issue. Of course, in general, some
passages are physical, some are spiriual, some are both, etc. But
since this is an example where Christians, Muslims and Bahais will
mostly disagree about which is which, it might be worth studying more
closely and being more careful.
-G
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
Gilberto wrote:
>>But then does it make sense to say that they "eventually crucified
that divine Spirit, the Word of God"? Wouldn't these terms apply to
the spiritual aspect?>>
I think that here, the Master is referring to Jesus by these terms,
rather than only referring to His spiritual aspect; just as Muslims (and
Baha'u'llah) often refer to Jesus as "Ruhullah" i.e. "The Spirit".
>>But doesn't the Quran say that "Jesus, the Son of Mary" was not
crucified? Wouldn't this term apply to the physical part of his body?
The human part?>>
This is not the only instance in the Muslim, Jewish or Christian
scriptures where an event seems to be presented physically, where the
Baha'i Writings say that nonetheless, the intent is entirely spiritual.
Other examples would be, Moses striking the rock in the wilderness, the
brothers of Joseph appearing before Him, Jesus raising the widow's son
from the dead, Jesus giving bread to His disciples after His
crucifixion. All of these are presented in the Scriptures as physical
events, but the Baha'i Writings give an allegorical / spiritual
interpretation to them; and it is further my understanding that they
never occurred in the physical sense.
Brent
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent
by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and
for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by
federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please
immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message
and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Re: Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
Some of these answers seem inconsistent and I'm wondering if the issue
can be clarified. My understanding of what you are trying to say is
that the physical aspect of Jesus died on the cross but in some
spiritual sense, he survived. Is that correct?
On Jan 17, 2008 7:46 AM, Brent Poirier Attorney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 1. The Baha'i Writings state that Jesus was crucified:
>
> When Christ appeared, twenty centuries ago, although the Jews were
> eagerly awaiting His Coming, and prayed every day, with tears, saying:
> 'O God, hasten the Revelation of the Messiah,' yet when the Sun of Truth
> dawned, they denied Him and rose against Him with the greatest enmity,
> and eventually crucified that divine Spirit, the Word of God, and named
> Him Beelzebub, the evil one, as is recorded in the Gospel.
> (Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 44)
>
But then does it make sense to say that they "eventually crucified
that divine Spirit, the Word of God"? Wouldn't these terms apply to
the spiritual aspect?
>
> The Qur'an states (Rodwell translation) "And for their saying, 'Verily
> we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God' Yet
> they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his
> likeness... and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to
> Himself." (4:156)
[...]
> "In regard to the verse, which is revealed in the Koran, that His
> Highness, Christ, was not killed and was not crucified, by this is meant
> the Reality of Christ. Although they crucified this elemental body, yet
> the merciful reality and the heavenly existence remain eternal and
> undying, and it was protected from the oppression and the persecution of
> the enemies, for Christ is Eternal and Everlasting. How can He die? This
> death and crucifixion was imposed on the physical body of Christ and not
> upon the Spirit of Christ."
> (Star of the West, Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 13)
But doesn't the Quran say that "Jesus, the Son of Mary" was not
crucified? Wouldn't this term apply to the physical part of his body?
The human part?
> "Regarding your question relative to Surih 4, 156 of the `Qur'an' in
> which Muhammad says that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Christ, but
> one like Him; what is meant by this passage is that although the Jews
> succeeded in destroying the physical body of Jesus, yet they were
> impotent to destroy the divine reality in Him."
> (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual
> believer, March 19, 1938; Lights of Guidance, Page: 498 #1669)
>
-G
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail")
is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be
confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The
information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts
or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail
in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and
permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Crucifixion of Jesus Christ
1. The Baha'i Writings state that Jesus was crucified:
When Christ appeared, twenty centuries ago, although the Jews were
eagerly awaiting His Coming, and prayed every day, with tears, saying:
'O God, hasten the Revelation of the Messiah,' yet when the Sun of Truth
dawned, they denied Him and rose against Him with the greatest enmity,
and eventually crucified that divine Spirit, the Word of God, and named
Him Beelzebub, the evil one, as is recorded in the Gospel.
(Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 44)
In this wise did they object to that Sun of Truth, although that Spirit
of God was indeed the One promised in the Torah. But as they did not
understand the meaning of these signs, they crucified the Word of God.
(Selections from the Writings of Abdu'l-Baha, p. 45)
Also see chapters 6 and 21 of Some Answered Questions, in which the
Master states that Jesus was crucified.
Just do a word search in Ocean for "crucified" and there is plenty on
the subject.
2. The verse in the Qur'an
The Qur'an states (Rodwell translation) "And for their saying, 'Verily
we have slain the Messiah, Jesus the son of Mary, an Apostle of God' Yet
they slew him not, and they crucified him not, but they had only his
likeness... and they did not really slay him, but God took him up to
Himself." (4:156)
Muslims generally understand this verse to mean that Jesus was not
crucified, that someone else (some say Judas) was crucified in His
place. Juliet Thompson asked Abdu'l-Baha about this verse, and received
this reply in a Tablet:
"In regard to the verse, which is revealed in the Koran, that His
Highness, Christ, was not killed and was not crucified, by this is meant
the Reality of Christ. Although they crucified this elemental body, yet
the merciful reality and the heavenly existence remain eternal and
undying, and it was protected from the oppression and the persecution of
the enemies, for Christ is Eternal and Everlasting. How can He die? This
death and crucifixion was imposed on the physical body of Christ and not
upon the Spirit of Christ."
(Star of the West, Vol. 2, No. 7, p. 13)
"Regarding your question relative to Surih 4, 156 of the `Qur'an' in
which Muhammad says that the Jews did not crucify Jesus, the Christ, but
one like Him; what is meant by this passage is that although the Jews
succeeded in destroying the physical body of Jesus, yet they were
impotent to destroy the divine reality in Him."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual
believer, March 19, 1938; Lights of Guidance, Page: 498 #1669)
"...The crucifixion as recounted in the New Testament is correct. The
meaning of the Qur'anic version is that the spirit of Christ was not
crucified. There is no conflict between the two."
(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual
believer, July 14, 1943; Lights of Guidance, Page 492)
There is also a Tablet from Abdu'l-Baha to Thornton Chase saying the
same thing, in response to a question about the verse in the Qur'an, but
I cannot find it.
Brent
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent
by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and
for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by
federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or
copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please
immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message
and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/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/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
