Bahá'í

[daler]

At some point these ideas get too big to be digested and discussed in a webforum, at least all at once. Please know you are in my prayers and that you have my best wishes, wherever your spiritual pilgrimmage leads you. I’m not running away from or “signing-off” on the dialogue, just not certain that I will be able to tender much more of a constructive nature if the conversation continues in this vein.

Flame. I appreciate your honesty and stating plainly what you think and feel. Let me say that I am not an atheist, by any stretch. In my youth, about forty years ago, I was for a few years, but I think that it was part of my search. I hope that I have not offended you by being too blunt and forthright with my own thoughts. I do agree that these ideas are big, and somewhat controversial for some to consider, but then again, so is the Lord.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Sen Cont:
If the Gospel or the new testament is living what do you mean by this living? Does it mean that the interpretation of the authors who wrote it in the first place, via their understanding and seeing of the world around them might be a little more mistaken than it is now? In that case you would be arguing the writers of the new testament didn’t really write what they were writing, or they were writing something they had little comprehension of. Is the new testament divinely dictated or divinely inspired? Clearly the biblical authors express themselves by certain language, different tropes or themes found in their works. Be it luke’s emphasis on the recounting the history, giving fact after fact which can be seen to be true in his Gospel and acts, or Paul’s personal letters to the churches he commends and reprimands. The authors of the gospels knew what they were doing and knew what they were saying and thus we should with all careful to know what they meant. It seems the bahai idea of a living word is a changing word, that is while it meant something for the apostles it now has a better meaning given (presumably) by God that the original authors did not intend. We could call it biblical abrogation.
Now while it was true during the 200s till about 381 and a bit more beyond it there was competition for various creeds which formed. Creeds were seen as a necessity, something to define their faith and we can know of the three main factions at about this time, The Homoousians, the Heterousians and the Homoiousians. That last faction was a little mirky on what they believed saying the son was like in essence to the father. None of this does anything to dispel what we see in the patristics as a fairly consistent picture of those who understood God as Jesus Christ the son, the father and the holy spirit. You need to provide an example of trinity, the term being used in a way which would contradict. You would need to demonstrate that the trinity was never settled, in fact you would need to find someone who understood your bahai definition of trinity, ie manifestation to God. But I believe you are ready to admit that theology didn’t exist then. I believe you are also willing to concede that the doctrine of the trinity gradually became ingrained into the churches of east and west, especially after the arrians died out and it became the standard orthodoxy of the church as whole.

Also why are you arguing as a sola scripturist? I never pretended that this definition of the trinity is from scripture alone, in fact the language we use is the result of centuries of bitter dispute of attempting to understand the relationship between the father, the son and the spirit which we see presented in scripture (Ie the Father is God, the Holy spirit is God, the Son is God and there is one God). To this end we may owe some debt to the philosophers who might have used these terms, though we owe more a debt to the fathers who worked hard to define these terms for us. It was never done apart from scripture, Athanasius, Basil and those great Trinitarian defenders would argue from scripture just as much as their enemies would, it was about trying to combat the heresy which threatened the divinity of Christ which I do not believe can be contradicted in the scripture. That being said, do you deny the existence of substance or essence? Or are you to say that this word cannot apply to God? Is not God existent? If God exists does he not compose of something? This something may be totally ineffable, totally indescribable, totally beyond anything in creation but is it not something? Is God not a person? Does God not think? Not say “I am?”

And what is unclear about these terms or understanding of the creed? IF we may define the Bahai God who is different from the Christian God we would see him as having one person and one essence of divinity. Is this somehow wrong to say? Let me remind you all essence is, in my definition, is that which composes an existent being, it has nothing do with physicality or being seen.

 

[Servant19]

Ignatio

I think what can clearly be stated is that there is little leeway for absolutism when it comes to interpretation of the Bible. Look at the vast array of Christian denominations there are, all claiming to be true.

Even look at St.Basils quote I posted earlier. This almost word for word describes the Bahai interpretation of the Trinity. Is St.Basil wrong too?

There are no limits to how one can interpret. Language barriers and subtleties also come into play too. There is no absolute truth, why would you claim such?

There, then comes into play the question, what is the purpose behind and Gods Will for mankind?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatio

I think what can clearly be stated is that there is little leeway for absolutism when it comes to interpretation of the Bible. Look at the vast array of Christian denominations there are, all claiming to be true.

Even look at St.Basils quote I posted earlier. This almost word for word describes the Bahai interpretation of the Trinity. Is St.Basil wrong too?

There are no limits to how one can interpret. Language barriers and subtleties also come into play too. There is no absolute truth, why would you claim such?

There, then comes into play the question, what is the purpose behind and Gods Will for mankind?

Are you suggesting that Saint Basil did not consider Jesus Christ God? And I don’t mean the bahai idea of calling manifestations God but they are not really God. You really want to get into this? You really think Saint Basil is on your side?

That being said you accuse me of absolutism but you absolutely reject the idea of Christ being God. And PLease do not say or quote your prophet saying “its okay to call manifestations God,” you know what I mean when i say Christ is God, so deal with that. You would have me absolutely deny Jesus Christ as God and that it was a later innovation to the Christian faith. Don’t be hypocritical and realise that you are just as absolutist as even teh stoutist Christian.

 

[Servant19]

Thank you Ignatio, I certainly am not here to take sides, I truly believe we are all one. Maybe re-reading the St.Basil quote will offer you a perspective. I will leave you in peace and I sincerely apologize if my post in any way offended you or anyone here.

Taking sides and disunity is limiting, unity (like the union of oxygen and hydrogen to create water) creates life.

I wish you well and God bless

 

[Servant19]

Having said that Ignatian, I have, yet again gone back to the quote I provided in post #135 and have come to the conclusion that it is EXACTLY what the Bahai definition if the station of Jesus is (and all Maifestations of God, as Baha’is identify them)

Can you tell me how you understand St.Basils words therein?

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

how do you determine that Ephesus rejected Constantinople? Which of the canons says “We fathers anathematize the teaching of the gathering of the 150 bishops at Constantinople.”

I believe it was canon 7 that rejected the Constantinople additions to the Nicean creed. But this is long ago stuff for me, and my point was NOT that the creed of 381 is not generally accepted. My point was that it does not have the clarity regarding the trinitarian relations that you claimed. Rather, by vagueness, it has become a point of unity (and a good thing too). But the downside was that this vagueness was achieved using the terminology of Greek philosophy, and is quite meaningless outside that framework. But it is I think possible to be Christian without becoming Hellenised first.

Re the Quran, I have a Master’s degree in Islamic studies. From that background, I observe that you seem to be reading into the text assumptions based on a literate culture with books everywhere. Where it says “judge therein” you suppose that this must be a book, because it’s referring to something solid. But for an non-literate people, books don’t have that solidity, it is the transmitted tradition that is solid. When the Quran refers to the Quran, it does not mean a book, and when it refers to the Torah it may not. When it refers to the Injil / gospel, it is probably not meaning a book, but rather the Gospel as a message. The same applies to the word “book” in the Quranic context - it is usually not a written book. For example, “He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Book (ketab) containing decisive verses - they are the mother of the Book (ketab) - while others are allegorical.” (3:7) When this was revealed, Muhammad had not written anything, so far as we know, and the people who recited this verse do not seem to have asked Muhammad to show them the book. Changes in material culture can have enormous effects on the meanings of words, and to read historically we have to take this into account.

 

[Mickey]

I have, yet again gone back to the quote I provided in post #135

You have cherry-picked that quote from St Basil’s letter regarding the difference between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις.

St Basil envisioned Jesus Christ as one equal in honour ὁµότιµος] to, and of one essence ὁµοούσιος] with the Father. Do you agree with this?

St Basil taught that the eternally ‘begotten’ Son of God, was in no way different from the ‘unbegotten’ Father – namely, that He was not aποίηµα [thing made] nor a γέννηµα [offspring] but of one and the same essence with the Father and therefore equally divine. Do you agree with this?

For St Basil, Jesus Christ, the begotten Son of God, possesses essentially the same divinity as that of God, his Father, and cannot therefore be considered radically different from the Father as was asserted by the heretic, Eunomius. Do you agree?

 

[Servant19]

Archetype and prototype are clearly separate entities in St.Basils quote. Where in that quote does he talk about the Archetype and the Prototype being one in essence?

If you are making a statement with St.Basil as your reference point then the parts of that quote youre interpreting and explaining should be referred to.

For example:
“My understanding is ABC, since St.Basil says in that quote DEF”

A learning environment is thus created for all involved.

I’m here to learn, not take sides.
So in reality I can not answer your questions since you have not referenced your understanding of the paragraph in question.

It’s also not a single sentence that has been cherry picked. It’s a whole paragraph, and a long one at that, with NT references to provide even greater context.

 

[Mickey]

It’s also not a single sentence that has been cherry picked. It’s a whole paragraph, and a long one at that, with NT references to provide even greater context.

You did not answer the questions.

However, you most certainly cherry picked a paragraph, (from St Basil’s letter regarding the difference between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις), in an effort to make a claim that St Basil the Great affirms your Bahai understanding. I suggest you read everything St Basil writes about the subject before making such a bold claim. I assure you that he does not affirm your thought process on the subject. It will take you some time because St Basil has written volumes. The Cappodocian fathers were fascinating!

You can start here: amazon.com/Against-Eunomius-Caesarea-Fathers-Church/dp/0813201225

Because even at that time there were those who asserted the Son to have been brought into being out of the non-existent, the term homoousios was adopted, to remove this impiety. For the union συνάφεια] of the Son with the Father is without time and without interval ἄχρονος γάρ καί ἀδιάστατος]. The preceding words show this to have been the intended meaning. For after saying that the Son was light from light, and begotten, not made, of the essence of the Father, they went on to add the homoousion, thereby showing that whatever idea of light any one would attribute in the case of the Father will equally apply to the Son. For true light in relation to true light, according to the actual sense of light, will have no variation. Since then the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of them light, they rightly declared [them to be] homoousios in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature. For things, that have a relation of brotherhood, are not, as some persons have supposed, homoousios; but when both the cause and that which derives its natural existence from the cause are of the same nature, then they are called homoousios.
St Basil the Great****

 

[daler]

When the Quran refers to the Quran, it does not mean a book, and when it refers to the Torah it may not. When it refers to the Injil / gospel, it is probably not meaning a book, but rather the Gospel as a message. The same applies to the word “book” in the Quranic context - it is usually not a written book. For example, “He it is Who hath revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the Book (ketab) containing decisive verses - they are the mother of the Book (ketab) - while others are allegorical.” (3:7) When this was revealed, Muhammad had not written anything, so far as we know, and the people who recited this verse do not seem to have asked Muhammad to show them the book. Changes in material culture can have enormous effects on the meanings of words, and to read historically we have to take this into account.

Sen, This fits well with the verse and concept of the “Word”.
It doesn’t say In the beginning was the Book, but in a real sense you could use the two interchangeably. Thus, the Injil, or the Essential Gospel (Truth) is that eternal “Book”, pre-existent Word, a portion of that is revealed in each Dispensation, not linearly, but conceptually, although that term as well falls short.
In other words, the Book is the Word of God, spoken to us by the Mouthpiece of God in every age. It is not Ink and Parchment, for they are but a means to encode a portion of that which can be alluded to in the language of men.

As per the discussion regarding Christ as God, if by Christ is meant a man who is, say, 5 foot 6 and weighs an hundred and thirty five pounds and has brown hair, does that mean God is 5 foot 6, weighs 135 pounds and has brown hair. Absolutely not. That is a description of a Manifestation of God, not God.
However, when a person comes into the presence of the person of the Manifestation who happens to be 5 foot 6, 135 pounds, etc, one is in the presence of God.
When one stands next to the perfect mirror reflecting the light of the sun, one receives that light, and can touch the mirror without touching the sun. We cannot touch, nor crucify God in His Essence, but only the person of His Manifestation.

Hope this helps, everybody.

 

[PRmerger]

As per the discussion regarding Christ as God, if by Christ is meant a man who is, say, 5 foot 6 and weighs an hundred and thirty five pounds and has brown hair, does that mean God is 5 foot 6, weighs 135 pounds and has brown hair. Absolutely not. That is a description of a Manifestation of God, not God.

Of course it means that God is 5 foot 6, weighs 135 pounds and has brown hair.

Why wouldn’t it?

However, when a person comes into the presence of the person of the Manifestation who happens to be 5 foot 6, 135 pounds, etc, one is in the presence of God.

Actually, this could be applied to the Blessed Sacrament. When a person comes into the presence of the -]person of the Manifestation who happens to be 5 foot 6, 135 pounds, etc, /-] Blessed Sacrament, one is in the presence of God

 

[Servant19]

You did not answer the questions.

However, you most certainly cherry picked a paragraph, (from St Basil’s letter regarding the difference between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις), in an effort to make a claim that St Basil the Great affirms your Bahai understanding. I suggest you read everything St Basil writes about the subject before making such a bold claim. I assure you that he does not affirm your thought process on the subject. It will take you some time because St Basil has written volumes. The Cappodocian fathers were fascinating!

You can start here: amazon.com/Against-Eunomius-Caesarea-Fathers-Church/dp/0813201225

Because even at that time there were those who asserted the Son to have been brought into being out of the non-existent, the term homoousios was adopted, to remove this impiety. For the union συνάφεια] of the Son with the Father is without time and without interval ἄχρονος γάρ καί ἀδιάστατος]. The preceding words show this to have been the intended meaning. For after saying that the Son was light from light, and begotten, not made, of the essence of the Father, they went on to add the homoousion, thereby showing that whatever idea of light any one would attribute in the case of the Father will equally apply to the Son. For true light in relation to true light, according to the actual sense of light, will have no variation. Since then the Father is light without beginning, and the Son begotten light, but each of them light, they rightly declared [them to be] homoousios in order to set forth the equal dignity of the nature. For things, that have a relation of brotherhood, are not, as some persons have supposed, homoousios; but when both the cause and that which derives its natural existence from the cause are of the same nature, then they are called homoousios.
St Basil the Great****

The quote you gave here Mickey complies totally with Bahai knowledge on the station of the Manifestation of God.

I read nothing new here.

The question to you is, the quote I provided from St. Basil specifically talks about a mirror and its reflection of the Arcetype. What do you understand by this?

 

[daler]

Of course it means that God is 5 foot 6, weighs 135 pounds and has brown hair.

Why wouldn’t it?

The intent is to distinguish between the “person composed of physical elements”, which is part of God’s creation, and vary day to day, or year to year, from the Infinite, eternal Creator, and that the Creator is not the creation.
The physical form of Jesus was once a single cell, a zygote, etc. Do you apply the term God to a zygote, or say that God weighed only a thousandth part of a gram on this day, weighed 5 or 6 pounds at birth, etc.
Some believe that the Divine Essence of God is beyond human ability to perceive by any of the senses, for He is infinitely beyond dimension. The One that we identify with Him, Jesus, has a physical, biological form which does not apply to God, but rather to the One Who bares His Message to us. This, in keeping with, “No man hath seen God and lived”, and “The Father is greater than I”, etc.
If Jesus went on a diet or fasted and lost 20 pounds, does that mean God lost 20 pounds? No. This refers to the Divine Messenger, the human form which God created out of the elements.

I think we are using different words and phrases according to our understanding. By the Blessed Sacrament, you are referring to the bread and the wine, right? For me, these are symbols of His presence amongst us, for He was still physically present with the disciples at the time He said, “Do this in remembrance of Me”

 

[Mirza19]

IgnatianPhilo –
I am well aware of the historical development of the Doctrine of the Trinity. If I didn’t make clear before, let me make it clear now: I think the Church Fathers were simply wrong. As were all other Christian theologians. They were thinking in a context that appropriated Greek and Roman philosophical thinking, and thus tried to “explain” the meaning of the New Testament texts by implying what wasn’t there.

In Film studies, the “Kuleshov” experiment puts two, unrelated images together in an edit, and observes that the audience create a third sense of meaning by presupposing a connected relation. I think the historical Doctrine of the Trinity has done exactly this: created a synthetic meaning within the Biblical text that is not explicitly there.

In other words, I think the Church fathers were wrong, and Christian theologians were wrong. But unlike Catholics and Christians, I do not think this effects their salvation – or even the whole of their teachings. From what I understand, the Orthodox and Catholics recognize wisdom in the Church fathers but do not see them as infallible – they are only right insofar as the Church adopted certain stances from them. I would also say they “got things right,” but the Trinity is not one of them.

 

[Mirza19]

**But do you really believe in all of history that only the bahai have been able to preserve the faith? Not having it corrupted? You claim bahai is logically consistent with the new testament, well everyone else believed the same thing about their own, why can’t they be correct? Why does Ignatius of Antioch have to be a villain who lead people astray from the truth?

You also haven’t addressed my essential claim of how you can be assured you have the truth when you have examples in the past of everyone else failing. Your best response was that it’s a personal thing. But do you really believe in all of history that only the bahai have been able to preserve the faith? Not having it corrupted? You claim bahai is logically consistent with the new testament, well everyone else believed the same thing about their own, why can’t they be correct? Why does Ignatius of Antioch have to be a villain who lead people astray from the truth?.**

You’re right - everyone believes they are right. For this reason, we must turn to those tools God gave us to discern the truth – logic, rationality, history, science. We Baha’is call this the “Independent Investigation of the Truth.” You can use this to wade through competing religious claims to authority, and thus find the one most compatible with a logical conception of God.

However, theological “right” does not require a “functional” right. Even theologically “false” religions have a functional-social purpose. Moreover, just as the Catholic Church sees “shades of the light” in all religions, so do we.

We view our organization as invested with proper authority, and the only one able to teach the truth. This should not come off as such a radical claim to you, because you believe this very thing about the Catholic Church. Just as Catholics insist the Jews misread the Bible in not recognizing Christ, we think the same for Christians toward Baha’u’llah. You’re continued insistence that we are not “historically consistent” when your own religion does not meet your literal “historical consistency” requirement is simply demonstrates your selectivity that presupposes the accuracy of your own religion.

 

[Mickey]

The quote you gave here Mickey complies totally with Bahai knowledge on the station of the Manifestation of God.

No it doesn’t.

What do you understand by this?

I have already responded to this. Read all of St Basil in context. He was not of the Bahia understanding.

St Basil envisioned Jesus Christ as one equal in honour ὁµότιµος] to, and of one essence ὁµοούσιος] with the Father.

Do you agree with this?

St Basil taught that the eternally ‘begotten’ Son of God, was in no way different from the ‘unbegotten’ Father – namely, that He was not aποίηµα [thing made] nor a γέννηµα [offspring] but of one and the same essence with the Father and therefore equally divine.

Do you agree with this?

For St Basil, Jesus Christ, the begotten Son of God, possesses essentially the same divinity as that of God, his Father, and cannot therefore be considered radically different from the Father as was asserted by the heretic, Eunomius.

Do you agree?

 

[Mickey]

What do you understand by this?

St Basil speaks of Christ as: “begotten from the Father, the source of life, the wisdom, the power, the exact image of the invisible God.”

Do you agree with this?

 

[Servant19]

St Basil speaks of Christ as: “begotten from the Father, the source of life, the wisdom, the power, the exact image of the invisible God.”

Do you agree with this?

The words “begotten from” absolutely means distinction, they are SEPARATE entities

The words “the exact image of” absolutely means distinction, they are SEPARATE entities…

So in answer to your question, I absolutely agree with this…and so does Bahaullah…

 

[meltzerboy]

The words “begotten from” absolutely means distinction, they are SEPARATE entities

The words “the exact image of” absolutely means distinction, they are SEPARATE entities…

So in answer to your question, I absolutely agree with this…and so does Bahaullah…

Distinct but not separate entities, as I understand it. IOW, the three Persons of the Trinity have different functions and are relational in this way, but basically are the same substance or essence, similar to the way a person may have different functions or roles which are connected, but is nonetheless the same essential being who accomplishes these functions.