[Avodah] Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun?

[hankman]

RMB wrote:
But mequbalim believe in progressive revalation. so what's the big If the
Ari could reveal something min haShamayim that wasn't known until him,
then why does niqud have to be miSinai in order to be "real"? The "only"
problem is asserting the antiquity of those parts of the Tiqunei Zohar
(eg the discussion of tzeirei on 7b). 

RMB also wrote:
Well, as I said, the reason can be. Niqud being min haShamayim and niqud
being miSinai are two different things. Particularly since we're talking
about statements made in the Zohar, and thus are already stated within
the context of progressive revelation.

CM notes:
I am not much of a mequbal so it is safe to say I have never heard of this idea of “progressive revelation.” If I intuit the meaning correctly then I have a major problem with this concept. Based on the hashkafot I was taught, this idea would be heretical grade A. Torah was revealed to man but once at Sinai. At any later time any claim for a new or additional revelation is false and any person making such a claim is per force, even if he is a known navi,  a navi sheker and to be punished as such. This seems to me to be squarely at odds with the idea of progressive revelation.  Whereas “Torah lo bashomayim hi” fits neatly with the hashkofot as I was taught, progressive revelation does not. What am I missing here?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120613/4553ea1b/attachment-0002.htm>