<HTML><HEAD></HEAD>
<BODY dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>RMB wrote:</DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">But mequbalim believe in
progressive revalation. so what's the big If the<BR>Ari could reveal something
min haShamayim that wasn't known until him,<BR>then why does niqud have to be
miSinai in order to be "real"? The "only"<BR>problem is asserting the antiquity
of those parts of the Tiqunei Zohar<BR>(eg the discussion of tzeirei on 7b).
</FONT>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>RMB also wrote:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Well, as I said, the reason can be. Niqud
being min haShamayim and niqud<BR>being miSinai are two different things.
Particularly since we're talking<BR>about statements made in the Zohar, and thus
are already stated within<BR>the context of progressive
revelation.</FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>CM notes:</DIV>
<DIV>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?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Kol Tuv</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Chaim Manaster</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>