-- Forwarded message --
From: Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Oct 15, 2005 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: Interesting thread
To: Khazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10/15/05, Khazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
This servant will continue if any one shows interest
On 10/16/05, Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/16/05, Khazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm disappointed in you. It is INCREDIBLY dishonest to quote things out of
context in this way. You even cut the quote mid-sentence. Read more of the
passage.
[4.89] They
In other words, unlike the Bible, the Guardian may have believed that the
these three sets of later scriptures reflected the thoughts of Muhammad, the
Bab, Baha'u'llah, and `Abdu'l-Baha.
Dear Mark,
Baha'u'llah seemed to think that the Gospels reflected the 'thoughts' of
Jesus. I think the issue
The real question is how does the New Testament The Gospel. The
Quran was a specific revelation given to Muhammad, and transmitted to
the Muslim community and preserved by them.
What I would suggest is that The Gospel is similar a revelation given to
Jesus.
Dear Gilberto,
That seems to be the
Shoghi Effendi said that the Qur'an is an absolutely authenticated
repository of the Word of God, whereas it is only those portions of the
Gospels referenced in the Baha'i scriptures which are authenticated.
Dear Mark,
I don't recall him saying that only those portions of the Gospel's referred
On 10/15/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
So here is the million-dollar question:
What does authenticated mean? And what does *absolutely* authenticated
mean?
And here is where the issue of it being a letter written on behalf of the
Guardian and not the Guardian's own
I agree that you have a valid concern but I'm not sure how far
that takes you. No matter if you wanted to substitute some
synonyms here and there, it seems pretty clear that the Bible is given some
kind of qualified/limited approval while the Quran is spoken of in
different, and higher
No matter if you wanted to substitute some synonyms here
and there, it seems pretty clear that the Bible is given some kind of
qualified/limited approval while the Quran is spoken of in different,
and higher terms.
Yes, I'm not arguing that point.
If the Quran is picked apart by higher criticism
Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:"If the Quran is picked apart by higher criticism then the distinctionbetween the Bible and the Quran would disappear, which clearlyviolates the intention of the Guardian's words."Not necessarily. Nor do I think a scholar can avoid applying methods
On 10/15/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that you have a valid concern but I'm not sure how far
that takes you. No matter if you wanted to substitute some
synonyms here and there, it seems pretty clear that the Bible is given
some kind of qualified/limited approval
On 10/15/05, Susan Maneck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No matter if you wanted to substitute some synonyms here
and there, it seems pretty clear that the Bible is given some kind of
qualified/limited approval while the Quran is spoken of in different,
and higher terms.
Gilberto:
Yes, I'm not
Gilberto:
"If the Quran is picked apart by higher criticism then the distinction
between the Bible and the Quran would disappear, which clearly
violates the intention of the Guardian's words."
Susan:
Not necessarily. Nor do I think a scholar can avoid applying methods
to
This servant will continue if any one shows
interestPOINT 6 reaffirms the above
in
http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu/msg05969.html
** The religions of God have the same
foundation, but the dogmas appearing later have differed. Each of the
divine religions has two
So if you want to prove something about the Bible you need to study the Bible specifically and where it came from and how it was put together.
Okay. Before we get there, can you tell me what the Quran says the reason is for God sendingHis prophets? I suppose there were many reasons, or
On 10/14/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
I don't think we are saying the same thing. Something I've realized a
long time ago in my discussions with Bahais is that Bahais tend to
have a VERY different understanding of the role of time. If we really
agreed I don't see
Khazeh,
I for one am interested, so please continue. It's good to read and study and deepen on the Word of God and the Holy Scriptures, for without Them, we are lost in the sea of idle fancies.
Love,
BarmakKhazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This servant will continue if any one
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott:
The Injeel is the Gospels, the Evangel is the Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke
and John constitute the Gospel. The rest of the Christian New Testament is
commentary and NOT the Injeel or the
Gilberto: The Quran was a specific revelation given to Muhammad, and transmitted to the Muslim community and preserved by them.
Hajir: Agreed. Therefore, "the Gospel" must be the Revelation of God given to Jesus. Both of us already agree that Jesus was recipient of the Revelation of God. I
On 10/14/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto:
The Quran was a specific revelation given to Muhammad, and
transmitted to the Muslim community and preserved by them.
Hajir:
Agreed. Therefore, the Gospel must be the Revelation of God given to
Jesus. Both of us already
Human beings have the same basic needs And so if we have the
Quran, and the Quran (and sunnah, etc.) was
sufficient to guide the human beings living before 1844, and we still have
all those spiritual resources, then the same
resources are sufficient to guide human beings after 1844.
Gilberto:
What is wrong with imperfect traces of earlier revelation?
Hajir:
Because if they were imperfect for their time, they would not have been
sufficient traces of God's Revelation for their guidance.
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto (e-mail)
is
On 10/14/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Human beings have the same basic needs And so if we have the
Quran, and the Quran (and sunnah, etc.) was
sufficient to guide the human beings living before 1844, and we still
have all those spiritual resources, then the same
On 10/14/05, Khazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing that has to be established is that these Books of God exist. When
the beloved Guardian says about the Holy Qur'an that it is the **absolutely
authenticated Repository of the Word of God**
(Shoghi Effendi: The Advent of
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors wrote: I can defend the truth of Islam and Muhammed without being married to Uthman's version of the Qur'an. Muhammed was the
On 10/14/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am not married to Uthman's. If it is proven to my satisfaction that there
is another equally authentic Qur'an (like there may be other equally
authentic Gospels) I can adapt to that.
So I don't know what you were denying earlier. Here you
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/14/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: I am not married to Uthman's. If it is proven to my satisfaction that there is another equally authentic Qur'an (like there may be other equally authentic Gospels) I can adapt to that.So I don't
1. Hajir:
Doesn't make sense. This means that the resources available to the people before
622 (i.e. the New Testament) must have been sufficient to guide them for ever too.
1. Gilberto:
I actually have alot less of a problem with that than you do. I don'tneed to denigrate Christians
On 10/14/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Hajir:
Doesn't make sense. This means that the resources available to the people
before
622 (i.e. the New Testament) must have been sufficient to guide them for
ever too.
1. Gilberto:
I actually have alot less of a problem with
On 10/14/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I still see you moving away from what the Bahai faith says about the
Quran, towards what secular Westerns say about the Quran in a way
which undermines how Muslims understand Islam.
I am not
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/14/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: I still see you moving away from what the Bahai faith says about the Quran, towards what secular Westerns say about the Quran in a way which undermines
I don't think we are saying the same thing. Something I've realized a
long time ago in my discussions with Bahais is that Bahais tend to
have a VERY different understanding of the role of time. If we really
agreed I don't see why you would be asking the questions you are
asking or making the
Gilberto:
Do you think the Torah is sufficent now? Or would you say its deficient? Is the
Quran sufficent now? Or is it deficient?
Hajir:
I think there are two different parts to the Quran and the Torah. The
essential teachings and the social teachings. The essential teachings are for
the
Hello Benjamin,
If this is the next phase of human evolution, and God has sent his Teacher once again, what has the Teacher come to say to us that He may not have said in the past? In other words, what is unique to the Baha'i Revelation, beyond the changing of the Qiblih (sp?) and
Hello Benjamin,
If this is the next phase of human evolution, and God has sent his
Teacher once again, what has the Teacher come to say to us that He may not have
said in the past? In other words, what is unique to the Baha'i Revelation,
beyond the changing of the
Qiblih and
On 10/13/05, Khazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[extensive and deep comments on the Qiblah deleted]
Dear Khazeh,
I think you made some interesting points. The change in Qiblah is a
new thing which makes Islam, Judaism, Christianity and the Bahai
faith different from one another. But
Dear Hajir,
I think this was a good way to reformulate these issues. Let me try to
briefly answer them and see where we stand.
On 10/12/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can they [Christians] be the People of the Book if their Book [Gospel]
was really not among them?
I hope I
On 10/12/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me rephrase that, it didn't come out the way I meant it to:
The approach to answering these questions first involves admitting that the
*authority* of the Gospel was deeper, more profound, more spiritual than its
apparent inaccuracy.
On 10/12/05, Khazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks especially to Khazeh and Scott for all your kind words.
I just wanted to focus on a couple of comments which stood out for me.
**this Faith [the Bahai Faith] is now increasingly demonstrating its right
to be recognized, not as
Hi, Gilberto,
That's a totally seperate question. What you are saying about the Quran
doesn't follow from what you are saying about the Gospels,
especially given what the Bahai writings themselves say about the Quran.
Shoghi Effendi said that the Qur'an is an absolutely authenticated repository
On 10/13/05, Mark Foster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi, Gilberto,
Hi Mark,
Shoghi Effendi said that the Qur'an is an absolutely authenticated
repository of the Word of God, whereas it is only those portions of the
Gospels referenced in the Baha'i scriptures which are authenticated. However,
Therefore, the *importance* of the literal, perfect accuracy of the Qur'an may be overstated by the Muslim community. That's a totally seperate question. What you are saying about the Quran doesn't follow from what you are saying about the Gospels, especially given what the Bahai
On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At least we agree that the inaccuracy of the Bible wasn't the most important
quality of the Bible, since the Bible is still considered the Book (they are
called People of the Book). If inaccuracy isn't the most important thing,
then why
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Hajir,I wouldn't say that. I think there are certain problems which can beraised specifically with the Bible. I'm not sure I would say thatthere are NO other intact scriptures from the past. I haven't read awhole lot on the subject, but (if
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I think you are using "perfect" in a very bizzare way.
-
The "Book" as preserved by God is always perfect. I think that if people find changes in the book that are from the time of its revelation and re-include them, they would
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: At least we agree that the inaccuracy of the Bible wasn't the most important quality of the Bible, since the Bible is still considered the Book (they are called People of the Book). If
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam wrote:
At least we agree that the inaccuracy of the Bible wasn't the most
important
quality of the Bible, since the Bible is still considered the Book (they
are
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam wrote: At least we agree that the inaccuracy of the Bible wasn't the most important quality of the Bible, since the Bible is
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then I think you are using perfect in a very bizzare way.
Scott:
The Book as preserved by God is always perfect. I think that if people
find changes in the book that are from the time of its
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear Hajir,I wouldn't say that. I think there are certain problems which can
be
raised specifically with the Bible. I'm not sure I would say that
there are NO other intact scriptures from the past.
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Dear Gilberto, Why should "The Book" and "The Qur'an" be synonymous?It doesn't have to. But if you switch mid-discussion from one sense tothe other then that doesn't help with communication. One
Our dear brother Dr Iskandar Hai MD wondered if we pursue the same thread
over and over we shall not make progress. This is true but we should thank
God that these issues are not personalized and the spirit of dialogue is
there. I think I have said this before [and i do not wish to repeat it lest
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors wrote:
Dear Gilberto,
Why should The Book and The Qur'an be synonymous?
Gilberto:
It doesn't have to. But if you switch mid-discussion from one sense to
the other then
Gilberto,
At 10:40 AM 10/13/2005, you wrote:
So here is the million-dollar question: What does authenticated mean? And
what does *absolutely* authenticated mean?
When Shoghi Effendi used the word authenticated, he was generally referring to
the authority of the Baha'i scriptures, not to
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: Gilberto Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors wrote: Dear Gilberto, Why should "The Book" and "The Qur'an" be synonymous?Gilberto: It doesn't have to. But if you switch
"How can they [Christians] be the People of the Book if their Book [Gospel] was really not among them? I hope I answered that with the movie analogy. I wouldn't say that the book is not with them. But I would question the authenticity of the book.
How can the book be with them and at
How can the people be expected to be guided by a Book that doesn't exist, by a God who is Just?
I think God also gave us a conscience, with an intellect, and criticalfaculties. We live in world where there are lots of religions and lotsof "books" out there. I don't think all of life is
On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can they [Christians] be the People of the Book if their Book
[Gospel]
was really not among them?
I hope I answered that with the movie analogy. I wouldn't say that the
book is not with them. But I would question the
On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How can the people be expected to be guided by a
Book that doesn't exist, by a God who is Just?
I think God also gave us a conscience, with an intellect, and critical
faculties. We live in world where there are lots of religions and
On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... What makes the Muslims of Arabia so much
different from all the other peoples of the world that they were the
only
exception to this throughout all of history?
What does Arabia have to do with it? Most Muslims aren't Arab.
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If some other alternative Christian group decided to throw togetherthe Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of John, and theGospel of Mary in some other New Testament the same could probably besaid of that grouping as well.I can say the
The real question is how does the New Testament "The Gospel".
I see what you're saying. I think we are talking about two different things, so there are really 2 questions:
1. How is the New Testament "The Gospel"?2. How did existence of the New Testament qualify Christians as People of
You've only discussed free will.Gilberto:I don't see why free will is an issue in the above?
Hajir:
What I mean is, why the sudden change in God's way? Why does everyone get an imperfect version of truth except the people who lived after 622AD? It is more plausible that everyone was
The real question is how does the New Testament "The Gospel".
I see what you're saying. I think we are talking about two different things, so there are really 2 questions:
1. How is the New Testament "The Gospel"?2. How did existence of the New Testament qualify Christians as People of
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If some other alternative Christian group decided to throw togetherthe Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of John, and theGospel of Mary in some other New Testament the same
On 10/13/05, Hajir Moghaddam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The real question is how [is] the New Testament The Gospel.
I see what you're saying. I think we are talking about two different
things, so there are really 2 questions:
1. How is the New Testament The Gospel?
2. How did existence
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If some other alternative Christian group decided to throw togetherthe Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Peter, the Acts of John, and theGospel of
Gilberto Simpson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/13/05, Scott Saylors <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:[on the Quran] Gilberto, I am saying it will be as God wills it. Why should the two versions mean that one is God sent and one is not? --If you don't
One
thing that has to be established is that these Books of God exist. When the
beloved Guardian says about the Holy Qur'an that it is the **absolutely
authenticated Repository of the Word of God**(Shoghi Effendi:
The Advent of Divine Justice, Page: 49)
this
does not mean that the
Even the Baha'i Writings themselves speak of the Quran as being unadulterated. So, the question remains, if the Quran, which is the updated (in the sense of accuracy) version of the same Revelation of the past, and it hasn't become tainted over the years, why do we need another Revelation?
I think an approach to the answer involves admitting that the *authority* of the Gospel was deeper, more profound, more spiritualthan its literal, perfect accuracy. Therefore, the literal, perfect accuracy of the Qur'an may be overstated by the Muslim community.
Regards,
HajirHajir Moghaddam
Let me rephrase that,it didn't come out the way Imeant itto:
The approach to answering these questions first involves admitting that the *authority* of the Gospel was deeper, more profound, more spiritual than its apparent inaccuracy.
Therefore, the *importance* of the literal, perfect accuracy
Khazeh Fananapazir [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let me rephrase that,it didn't come out the way Imeant itto:
The approach to answering these questions first involves admitting that the *authority* of the Gospel was deeper, more profound, more spiritual than its apparent inaccuracy.
Even the Baha'i Writings themselves speak of the Quran as being
unadulterated.
I don't think they use the word 'unadulterated.'
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
Perhaps my understanding needs refinement; I guess this is just part of
my interpretation of what I've read; do you know the relevant passages
that state the Baha'i teachings on the Qur'an? Even though
unadulterated may not have been used, would it be inaccurate to use
that word to describe
Title: Message
"There is so much misunderstanding
about Islam in the West in general that you have to dispel. Your task is rather
difficult and requires a good deal of erudition. Your chief task is to acquaint
the friends with the pure teaching of the Prophet as recorded in the Qur'n,
201 - 275 of 275 matches
Mail list logo
