I think this discussion is getting very frustrating because people seem unwilling to understand what I"m saying and are simply refusing to see where I am coming from or see it as having any validity.
I understand that if you ignore all the evidence that I'm mentioning and *choose* to not make certain distinctions Christianity and Islam are saying very similar things from a certain perspective. But they are not saying identical things. And one can also look at what Christians are saying and what Muslims are saying and see certain differences. But for some reason the Bahais in here seem to have a hard time recognizing those differences., On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 15:47:54 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gilberto, > > At 12:57 PM 1/13/2005, you wrote: > >>No. The Christian New Testament was finished (and presumably started) well > >>after Jesus earthly ministry. Bible-believing Christians necessarily have > >>to accept that revelation comes after Jesus.<< > > Except that most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians do not believe it > is a revelation which came "after" Jesus. Gilberto: Forget the quotes for a second. It is glaringly obvious in the ordinary way people use language that the New Testament was written, identified and compiled as a unit *after* Jesus Christ's earthly ministry. On the other hand, the Quran was publically recited during Muhammad's ministry. That is a real difference. You can choose to ignore it and say it doesn't matter. One can also chose to note it and recognize it. Gilberto: > >>And there is no clear Biblical statement that Paul completed the canon. The > >>canon came out of a loose consensus among the church on a particular body > >>of texts. In the inital stages there was some variation. The Ethiopian > >>Orthodox Bible has a slightly different New Testament for instance. The > >>Bible came out of a very human mediated process. There is no sense that God > >>decisively closed the canon and said this is the end of revelation.<< > One can argue about the intentionalities underlying many scriptures. However, > most of the historical branches of Christianity *believe* that the canon > ended (and the canonical differences are not very significant). I also do not > see how the "Bible" coming out of a "very human mediated process" relates to > the subject. Gilberto: There is a real sense in which for Muslims, the Quran came first and then "created" the Muslim community. The beginning of revelation marks the beginning of Muhammad's prophethood and the Quran guided the community from the very beginning. In contrast, the Church created the Bible. The Church existed as a community, and the writers produced the Bible to reflect on their own experiences with Christ. Because of that the "end" of the Bible is in some sense softer. It's not as if Jesus was writing the New Testament and it was clear that the revelation ended with his earthly ministry. There were other gospels floating around, other epistles, other books of "acts" other apocalypses. The boundaries of the text weren't directly mandated by Jesus (or even the apostles necessarily). > > >>The Bible specifically sees prophethood as an ongoing part of the Church.<< > > There is no such "thing" as the Bible. What can be said is that some of the > NT writers apparently believed that prophets, as they understood the concept, > would continue. (There is a debate among the various Christianities as to how > long that would occur. Some believe that prophecy, like tongues, ended with > the canonization of "the Bible.") Even the fact that the issue is debateable is another difference. There is a high degree of consensus that prophethood is over. And for many a person who doesn't believe that Muhammad was the last prophet isn't Muslim. In Christianity the point isn't made as strongly and isn't as clear. [..] > >>No. Even the Catholic Church teaches that ultimately Jesus is the only way. > >>That's why for them Jesus went to "hell" to preach to those who had died > >>before he had come in the flesh.<< > That is not what you wrote before. You said that "Jesus has always been the > only way to salvation." It was in that context that I referred to Calvinism. Gilberto: You chose to read what I wrote in a certain way. I don't know your intentions but you just seemed to want to marginalize what I'm saying and limit it to one or two groups of Christians. I think what I"ve been saying applies to most Christians. > >>Isn't it also part of the Catholic view. EVERYONE, and they mean. EVERYONE > >>is saved through what Jesus did on the cross. Whether they know it or not.<< > I am afraid I don't follow you. Correct. Now, if you had said, "Everyone who *is* saved receives their salvation from Jesus," I would agree with you. Gilberto: Yes, that was my intention. So you quote "I am the way, the truth.." relates to how people are saved. It doesn't imply an end of revelation. On the other hand, Muslims generally wouldn't say that people are saved by Muhammad in the same sort of way that Christians say people are saved by Jesus. Peace Gilberto "My people are hydroponic" __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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/[email protected] New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
