U.S. Muslims and Mormons share deepening ties (Jesus Christ, translation)

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Comprehend

Your first argument must have been hard to make with a straight face. How about we finish that one?

You claimed Joseph Smith recieved no new revelation.

I have demonstrated your assertion to be false.

Would you like to concede that you are wrong or should I continue to list revelations recieved by Joseph Smith and you can explain why you think they are not revelation?



I have to disagree with you. In what way do you think it is not incorrect to call people by the wrong name? They are two completely different individuals.... with different names....



ok...



No offense but it is retarded to use text that I do not accept as scripture in order to convi[n]ce me. Obviously the writings of Baha`u'llah hold no position of authority for me.

Quotations from scripture -- any scripture -- never prove a thing.

But they can demonstrate the reason for a belief, or an illustration of a point of view.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by kai

so what are you saying ? it sounds like a revelation to me!

It was a vision, like John the Divine had for the Apocalypse. Sometimes synonyms can be too sliperry for precise meaning.

vision:
2 c: direct mystical awareness of the supernatural usually in visible form

As opposed to: revelation:
1 a: an act of revealing or communicating divine truth b: something that is revealed by God to humans.

Sometimes one must chip away the excess to draw a distinction between to words when one wishes precision.

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

It was a vision, like John the Divine had for the Apocalypse. Sometimes synonyms can be too sliperry for precise meaning.

and there is little to support their fragile analysis of their vision all to often.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

vision:
2 c: direct mystical awareness of the supernatural usually in visible form

As opposed to: revelation:
1 a: an act of revealing or communicating divine truth b: something that is revealed by God to humans.

And so, Comprehend, the idea being that if anyone is receiving a "true revelation", a term I personally hold with more than a measure of contempt, they will be supportive of the basic tenants of all that came before them. If one deviates from this preconceived pattern, then said "revelation" is to be deemed somewhat questionable, as there is no possibility that those who had prior "revelations" could have possibly been mistaken or in error.

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

Sometimes one must chip away the excess to draw a distinction between to words when one wishes precision.

True, but I rather expect that most chip away just enough to reveal their own preconceived images.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by YmirGF

and there is little to support their fragile analysis of their vision all to often.

And so, Comprehend, the idea being that if anyone is receiving a "true revelation", a term I personally hold with more than a measure of contempt, they will be supportive of the basic tenants of all that came before them. If one deviates from this preconceived pattern, then said "revelation" is to be deemed somewhat questionable, as there is no possibility that those who had prior "revelations" could have possibly been mistaken or in error.

True, but I rather expect that most chip away just enough to reveal their own preconceived images.

Too little support? I agree. Visions and seers are personalized communications at most, to stretch them to cover humanity as a whole is to invite material failure in the stretching.

One should consider what a Prophet has to say about those who were Prophets before Him. If there is no respect for those previous individuals, one should not give too much respect to the self-praoclaimed Prophet.

I would point out that all Prophets (true or false) are in essence self-proclaimed. Individuals must make their choices based on their best efforts to evaluate the claim.

Regards,
Scott

[kai]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

.

Bahai's do not deny the crucifixion, Kai. Neither do we believe that the Qur'an denies that Christ died on the cross, we say that the Qur'an says that Jesus gave up the spirit on the cross, and the flesh is immaterial. The Gospels also confirm that Christ gave up the spirit on the cross.

Neither are Christians heretics in Islam.

You're carrying your argument to an unsubstantiated extreme.

Regards,
Scott

you could be right i may be being extreme ,but there are extreme differences in faith here, you say the quran says jesus gave up the spirit on the cross, ( is this Bahai )because many muslims have told me that Allah put another in jesus's place, and it is heresy in Islam to say Allah has a son and is a father isnt it ? and wasnt it because the jews and christians had become heretical that God sent his message to Mohammed and Muhammed’s triumph signaled an end to heresy

[YmirGF]

Originally Posted by Guitar's Cry

I think part of the idea is that the fine print is irrelevant when dealing with the person.

Um... which "person" would that be? Trust me, WeepingGuitar, the "fine print" in Islam trumps ALL else and is hardly a case of not being relevant, as you seem inclined to believe.

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by kai

you could be right i may be being extreme ,but there are extreme differences in faith here, you say the quran says jesus gave up the spirit on the cross, ( is this Bahai )because many muslims have told me that Allah put another in jesus's place, and it is heresy in Islam to say Allah has a son and is a father isnt it ? and wasnt it because the jews and christians had become heretical that God sent his message to Mohammed and Muhammed’s triumph signaled an end to heresy

Jews and Christians cannot become heretical by Muslim standards. A heretic is one who has declared belief and then preached counter to that belief.

A christian who preaches as a christian has not declared a belief in Islam, and therefore can never be a heretic; because Christianity is not heretical by Islamic standards. Particular Christian beliefs might seem blasphemous to a Muslim, but not heretical because the Christians are not declared believers in Islam.

A Baha`i who WAS a declared believer in Islam and then becomes a vocal Baha'i, would be advancing heretical notions, but would be an apostate.

I, on the other hand, have never declared myself a Muslim, therefore that I declare myself to be Baha`i is not heretical, nor am I an apostate, because I was never a believer in the first place.

Granted there are Islamic courts where that would be too much of a nuance to bear, but that is because those courts are essentially apostate, no matter how much they demand to be considered Muslim.

As to the issue of the death of Christ, the belief that a 'double' was executed is weak as hadith, and certainly non-Quranical in nature. As such a Christian can be declared duped or fooled by such a belief but not heretical in relationship to Islam.

Regards,
Scott