Why couldn't Gabriel simply not have understood the message he was giving? Also, sometimes angels appear to refer to the Holy Spirit (as in Gabriel) or a Manifestation of God (as in Michael). Best Regards, Matt ----- Original Message ----- From: David Friedman Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 1:24 AM To: Baha'i Studies Subject: Re: Pamphlet for Christians >http://www.gto.org/Articles/b1.htm
In this article, the author made an interesting criticism I had not heard
before (or thought about), one that is surely worth addressing. He referred
to the verse about how no one knows the hour of Christ's return, not even
the angels in heaven, but only the Father. He connected that with the
Baha'i claim about Daniel 8 foretelling the time of the Second Advent. It
was pointed out that the angel Gabriel revealed the prophecy, which Baha'is
take as a prophecy of the time of the Second Advent, to Daniel. That
Gabriel meant to give a prophecy of the time of the Second Advent is seen to
be contradictory to Mark 13:32, which says that angels don't know. In light
of Mark 13:32 it was argued that Gabriel could not have revealed the time of
Christ's return to Daniel, and that the prophecy must have related to
something else. Does anyone have any thoughts about how to answer this one?
The author also refers to Baha'i claims that references to "angels" are
supposed to refer to human beings. Frankly, I'm flummoxed as to how one
could prove, from the Bible, that angels are actually humans. The
interpretations of Baha'u'llah and 'Abdu'l-Baha on issues like this and
Satan in the Bible appear a little anachronistic to me, and one would have
difficulty finding any historical mention of early Jews believing that
angels were humans or Satan referred to the insistent self, not some evil
being. Frankly I think that some interpretations in the Writings are
probably more what the passage should mean, or what they mean in this day.
'Abdu'l-Baha did *not* use textual means to show that the Adam and Eve story
shouldn't be taken literally. The lack of sense of the story has no bearing
on authorial intent. Are we to assume that all the silly stories of
antiquity were not meant to be taken literally, just because they are silly?
I can fully understand that a Christian might find 'Abdu'l-Baha's
explanation of the issue "non-biblical."
Regards,
David
_________________________________________________________________
Find your perfect match @ http://personals.xtramsn.co.nz with XtraMSN
Personals!
----------
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
----------
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st
news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st
http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public)
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
|
