cont
But is this also how God of the bahai can be described as one? Does the God of the bahai have a substance or essence? Does he exist? Is he being as opposed to non-being (ie nothing)? Yes well obviously bahai consider that an absolute trait of God that he exists. Further more this God is not this world, his being is fully beyond this world, this world is so far from the perfection of God because God is spirit and not physical. But God exists. So we can say that this God of bahai is composed of something. What shall we call this unobservable, infinite, totally beyond comprehension thing? Divinity perhaps? One single simple unalterable, immutable substance which God is composed of which is distinct from his creation? If God of the bahai is not composed of anything then he is non-existent, if there is no essence or substance to this God then he doesn’t exist.
Are you starting to see my point? These terms should be able to be understood against your claims they make little sense, but I want to go on further and compare and contrast the trinity to the blasphemies found in Christian history.
- 1 The son is father, in that it was actually the father himself on the cross who died.
- 2 The son is a created being who at one time didn’t exist.
- 3 The son is not of the same “ousia” as the father, but like in substance to the father. (Ousia is the greek word for substance)
- 4 The Son and the Father are God but the holy spirit is not God
- 5 Jesus was never a human being but instead a spirit merely pretending to go through the motions as if he were human.
And these are the few that I can think of from the top of my head, I’m sure theres a lot more but these are generally the heresies which were dealt with. Each of these positions are against the Trinitarian position, and unlike these positions the Trinitarian position never died out. Yes there are small pockets that re-emerge and go on to believe in these things, be in the adoptionism of some messianics today or the arrianism of JW or in their own unique category (making Christianity out to be something akin to paganism) the Mormons. But we should take a look at the orthodox catholic understanding of Christianity and the trinity as opposed to these groups and the people who represented them. Be it Marcion, Paul of Samasota, Origen (I don’t think he’s as bad as most of the people on this list), Arrius, Eunonmius, Valentinius and etc.
When the fathers said there are three hypostases in one ousia, their opponents understood them and rejected what they said. Why can you not understand a term like Substance without conflating it with physical matter? All of this is to ultimately show the original point is that there was a consistent view within the Christian church as to what trinity meant. All other attempts died off and to say in the 21st century that the “bahai trinity” is just as valid as the “Christian trinity” is to ignore this indepth process by which the church over five hundred years of labour defined its position for all to see. I believe things were finally settled with chalcedon and its wonderful theology, even if coptics reject it but even coptics would agree there has been a consistent definition of the trinity in their church, since that one fellow Athanasius who I recall was Bishop there of whom they honour as Christians should.
So With all this said and done, where is the defence of the novel bahai trinity? Why should Christians call it trinity? It should be called (and I will persist in calling it) Manifestationism (that is the doctrine of an eternal and never ending amount of persons who perfectly resemble the Bahai God like a Mirror). Trinitarianism belongs to the actual Trinitarians, manifestationism to the actual Manifestatians.
"