Bahá'í

[Servant19]

Give me an example of another claimant to a messiah and I will tell you why I believe Jesus over this other guy.

I would truly appreciate a list of criteria that enables absolute knowledge that Jesus was a Prophet (and I use this word with a capital P, also it enables like for like comparison with a false prophet, plus Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet too) and all other post Judeo-Christian prophets as false prophets?

If you asked me the same question requiring criteria to differentiate Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, the Bab, Bahaullah, Zoroaster, Buddha and Krishna from Mr. L. Ron Hubbard (false prophet), Sun Myung Moon (false prophet), David Koresh (false prophet), Rael (false prophet) I could provide you with a clear set of criteria in the form of a list.

Could you please provide a list of criteria?

 

[PRmerger]

I would truly appreciate a list of criteria that enables absolute knowledge that Jesus was a Prophet (and I use this word with a capital P, also it enables like for like comparison with a false prophet, plus Jesus referred to Himself as a Prophet too) and all other post Judeo-Christian prophets as false prophets?

If you asked me the same question requiring criteria to differentiate Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, the Bab, Bahaullah, Zoroaster, Buddha and Krishna from Mr. L. Ron Hubbard (false prophet), Sun Myung Moon (false prophet), David Koresh (false prophet), Rael (false prophet) I could provide you with a clear set of criteria in the form of a list.

Could you please provide a list of criteria?

Criteria that provides absolute knowledge that Jesus was a Prophet?

I cannot provide that because that is not the model that Christianity follows. We do not, ever, guarantee “absolute knowledge” that Jesus was a Prophet.

Our model is* fides quarens intellectum.* Faith seeking understanding. We start with faith, which is, among other things, an act of the will.

 

[PRmerger]

If you asked me the same question requiring criteria to differentiate Jesus, Muhammad, Moses, the Bab, Bahaullah, Zoroaster, Buddha and Krishna from Mr. L. Ron Hubbard (false prophet), Sun Myung Moon (false prophet), David Koresh (false prophet), Rael (false prophet) I could provide you with a clear set of criteria in the form of a list.

Could you please provide this list? Who devised it?

 

[arthra]

I think someone above posted that Baha’is accept the Manifestations of God … a concept that may be unfamiliar to some so I’ve posted a section of a favorite book of mine by Julio Savi “The Eternal Quest for God”:

bahai-library.com/books/quest/quest.06.html

One of the events that occurred today on 27 June, 2013 and has affected the Baha’is was the news that the House of Baha’u’llah in Baghdad was destroyed…

The House of Baha’u’llah in Baghdad is important to Baha’is because it was designated as a site of pilgrimage but due to the unsettled condition of the country there have been no formal pilgrimages there.

There was also an issue that was brought before the League of Nations many years ago that concerned the House of Baha’u’llah in Baghdad…

We’ll learn more about the details as they unfold.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

It was never argued that the father or the son or the spirit are the same in person, but rather what we have always maintained is that they are** same in substance or essence**. This is important and you need to understand this if you want any chance of talking about this subject.

That clarifies things a lot: you are using substance and essence as two different translations of the same thing then? Are they strict synonyms?

 

[Servant19]

Could you please provide this list? Who devised it?

Well if I may I will go through them one by one and hope that we can find some commonality in thought…

1. The Person of the Maifestation of God

““Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” - Baha’u’llah

…and here further elaborated by Abdu’l-Baha, where he calls these True Prophets (as opposed to false prophets) Spiritual Philosophers

"Some men and women glory in their exalted thoughts, but if these thoughts never reach the plane of action they remain useless: the power of thought is dependent on its manifestation in deeds. A philosopher’s thought may, however, in the world of progress and evolution, translate itself into the actions of other people, even when they themselves are unable or unwilling to show forth their grand ideals in their own lives. To this class the majority of philosophers belong, their teachings being high above their actions. This is the difference between philosophers who are Spiritual Teachers, and those who are mere philosophers: the Spiritual Teacher is the first to follow His own teaching; He brings down into the world of action His spiritual conceptions and ideals. His Divine thoughts are made manifest to the world. His thought is Himself, from which He is inseparable. When we find a philosopher emphasizing the importance and grandeur of justice, and then encouraging a rapacious monarch in his oppression and tyranny, we quickly realize that he belongs to the first class: for he thinks heavenly thoughts and does not practise the corresponding heavenly virtues.

This state is impossible with Spiritual Philosophers, for they ever express their high and noble thoughts in actions."

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

That clarifies things a lot: you are using substance and essence as two different translations of the same thing then? Are they strict synonyms?

I have seen the word been translated in the creed as either substance or essence. I am not an expert as to the greek but I understand the word was used by the fathers and that we can describe three basic positions which arose in the third century as to this subject.

Homoousius, these were the people who said the son has the same substance as the father, the same being, the same essence.

Homoiousius, these were the people who wouldn’t go as far as the Homousians in their defition but said the son is like in substance to the father.

Heteroousius, these were the people who said he was not of the same substance of the father.

THe Homoousians won, as we can see in history. They were the victorious ones.

 

[daler]

Old Testament prophemisstated sumber of standards to meet. I believe at least seven tests. Their prophecies had to be truthful, could not contradict the prophecies of previous revelation, could not promote worship of false deities, could not be offered for personal gain, had to be accompanied by supernatural signs, the prophet had to show forth high moral character, and if foretelling any future event, that event had to be full filled.

Baha’u’llah meets all of these criteria…

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

I have seen the word been translated in the creed as either substance or essence.

So the way you are using the words, the ousia is translated as substance or essence but means the same thing however it is translated. But then the hypostasis is also the substance, and it is supposed to be different to the essence : “Three Hypostases in one Ousia” Or do you not use that formulation?

 

[PRmerger]

Could you please provide this list? Who devised it?

Well if I may I will go through them one by one and hope that we can find some commonality in thought…

1. The Person of the Maifestation of God

““Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.” - Baha’u’llah

…and here further elaborated by Abdu’l-Baha, where he calls these True Prophets (as opposed to false prophets) Spiritual Philosophers

"Some men and women glory in their exalted thoughts, but if these thoughts never reach the plane of action they remain useless: the power of thought is dependent on its manifestation in deeds. A philosopher’s thought may, however, in the world of progress and evolution, translate itself into the actions of other people, even when they themselves are unable or unwilling to show forth their grand ideals in their own lives. To this class the majority of philosophers belong, their teachings being high above their actions. This is the difference between philosophers who are Spiritual Teachers, and those who are mere philosophers: the Spiritual Teacher is the first to follow His own teaching; He brings down into the world of action His spiritual conceptions and ideals. His Divine thoughts are made manifest to the world. His thought is Himself, from which He is inseparable. When we find a philosopher emphasizing the importance and grandeur of justice, and then encouraging a rapacious monarch in his oppression and tyranny, we quickly realize that he belongs to the first class: for he thinks heavenly thoughts and does not practise the corresponding heavenly virtues.

This state is impossible with Spiritual Philosophers, for they ever express their high and noble thoughts in actions."

Sorry, Servant. I am not understanding your point in the above post.

What criterion are you demonstrating here?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

So the way you are using the words, the ousia is translated as substance or essence but means the same thing however it is translated. But then the hypostasis is also the substance, and it is supposed to be different to the essence : “Three Hypostases in one Ousia” Or do you not use that formulation?

I see little difference in substance or essence, unless there is a particular sense you insist must be used for these words. Both essentially mean that which composes an existing entity (rather that seems to me the best definition). But yes since I ascribe to the creed and the fathers who say that in greek I agree with the statement “three Hypostases in one ousia,” So long as we understand what these words mean. Hypostasis within the Christian context of the creeds and the fathers refers to personhood, not substance or essence, but rather the identity of the father and the son and the spirit.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

I see little difference in substance or essence, unless there is a particular sense you insist must be used for these words. Both essentially mean that which composes an existing entity (rather that seems to me the best definition). But yes since I ascribe to the creed and the fathers who say that in greek I agree with the statement “three Hypostases in one ousia,” So long as we understand what these words mean. Hypostasis within the Christian context of the creeds and the fathers refers to personhood, not substance or essence, but rather the identity of the father and the son and the spirit.

That explains a good deal. Hypostasis in Greek means literally the underlying substance of a thing, which it may have in common with other things, as opposed to its idea (essence), which individualises it. But you are using hypostasis to mean what individualizes it, and ousia to mean hypostasis. And an essence for you is not what individualizes something, but a substance that can be shared with something else. So basically when we cross from Greek thinking to Christian thinking, the terms are reversed. Bahai theology uses neoplatonic thinking, and the terms have their original Greek meanings. If you read Bahai writings or discuss such things with Bahais you will have to bear in mind that “essence” or “essential reality” is the individuality, and is contrasted to the underlying substance(s).

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

That explains a good deal. Hypostasis in Greek means literally the underlying substance of a thing, which it may have in common with other things, as opposed to its idea (essence), which individualises it. But you are using hypostasis to mean what individualizes it, and ousia to mean hypostasis. And an essence for you is not what individualizes something, but a substance that can be shared with something else. So basically when we cross from Greek thinking to Christian thinking, the terms are reversed. Bahai theology uses neoplatonic thinking, and the terms have their original Greek meanings. If you read Bahai writings or discuss such things with Bahais you will have to bear in mind that “essence” or “essential reality” is the individuality, and is contrasted to the underlying substance(s).

Just curious do you still think the trinity makes little sense? Also do you accept historically that the definition of the trinity has been pretty much settled and universal since Constantinople? Sure there were groups that opposed constantinople but these were hardly predominant nor did they pose a threat to Christianity after this theology was firmly rooted within Every Christian church.

 

[Sen_McGlinn]

Just curious do you still think the trinity makes little sense? Also do you accept historically that the definition of the trinity has been pretty much settled and universal since Constantinople? Sure there were groups that opposed constantinople but these were hardly predominant nor did they pose a threat to Christianity after this theology was firmly rooted within Every Christian church.

Historically, the consensus was not achieved at the first council of Constantinople: that is obvious from all the later councils and synods which continued to argue the points. About the filioque for example. (The Bahai position (translated) is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In Bahai terms, the Most Great Spirit emanates through the Manifestation - so Bahai theology aligns with the Latin rite on this one). The 3rd synod of Sirmium banned the use of homoousios as unscriptural. But that was an outlier: the victors write history, and from the victors’ point of view, the outcome was never in doubt and it was one smooth process. Just don’t try to convince a historian of that.

Over the centuries there has been concensus about what the trinity does not mean: it does not mean Sabellianism or modalism, adoptionism, arianism, etc… It is not clear to me that there is any ground left that has not been declared heretical.

One of the Synods of Antioch (269) condemned Paul of Samosata, because he used the term homoousios to refer to a common substance out of which both Father and Son proceeded, or which it divided between them. But looking back to your message #293, you say

God is essentially composed of something, he exists and is real is he not? Therefore he can be described as being composed of that which makes God God, divinity for the lack of a better term. We in no way suggest in this distinction that the two can separated God from divinity, it simply serves to explain how the persons relate because you do not understand substance.

It was never argued that the father or the son or the spirit are the same in person, but rather what we have always maintained is that they are same in substance or essence.

I don’t bring this forward to point to your non-orthodoxy, but rather that all the orthodox positions so far as I can discover have at some point been condemned. The consensus seems to be more a matter of exhaustion than agreement, but also a wise realisation that every attempt to further clarify the Nicene formula is hubris: it is trying to hit above our weight. “Making sense” of the trinity is perhaps the wrong question.

 

[Servant19]

Sorry, Servant. I am not understanding your point in the above post.

What criterion are you demonstrating here?

Hi PR, the point to all this is to develop a list of criteria that would allow us to differentiate between a true Prophet (like Jesus and Bahaullah) and a false prophet (like David Koresh)

The first criteria is the fact that true Prophets manifests deeds that are a shining beacon of light manifesting the Glory of God. Their deeds attract the hearts and souls of men to denounce all worldly desires and sacrifice themeselves towards a dedicated service to their Lord and Master.

Would you disagree that this is one of the criteria to distinguish between true and false prophets?

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR, the point to all this is to develop a list of criteria that would allow us to differentiate between a true Prophet (like Jesus and Bahaullah) and a false prophet (like David Koresh)

The first criteria is the fact that true Prophets manifests deeds that are a shining beacon of light manifesting the Glory of God. Their deeds attract the hearts and souls of men to denounce all worldly desires and sacrifice themeselves towards a dedicated service to their Lord and Master.

Would you disagree that this is one of the criteria to distinguish between true and false prophets?

I would.

Would you agree that this criterion would include David Koresh? And Joseph Smith?

What is the second criterion on your list?

 

[Servant19]

I would.

Would you agree that this criterion would include David Koresh? And Joseph Smith?

What is the second criterion on your list?

There is no way that Bahaullah or Jesus’ life is even in the same galaxy as those of David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, you’re joking right???

Bahaullah, on innumerable occasions had people prostrating themselves at His feet the first moment they laid their eyes in him, such was the power of His radiance, as did Jesus.

I think there are marked and absolute differences, wouldn’t you agree?

We can move to number 2 once we are absolutely on the same page with number 1. As Bahaullah stated in His quote I gave above, it is the foundation of all the other proofs. Jesus’ radiance is not even in the same ball park as Koresh, and even a glancing study of Bahaullah’s life puts Him in the same ball park as Jesus, in relation to His deeds, to all those with unbiased minds.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no way that Bahaullah or Jesus’ life is even in the same galaxy as those of David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, you’re joking right???

Bahaullah, on innumerable occasions had people prostrating themselves at His feet the first moment they laid their eyes in him, such was the power of His radiance, as did Jesus.

I think there are marked and absolute differences, wouldn’t you agree?

Not based on your first criterion.

What differences do you see?

 

[PRmerger]

Jesus’ radiance is not even in the same ball park as Koresh, and even a glancing study of Bahaullah’s life puts Him in the same ball park as Jesus, in relation to His deeds, to all those with unbiased minds.

Can you be more specific about “radiance”?

My understanding is that Jesus did not “radiate” anything. In fact, he had a very, very difficult time convincing most of his contemporaries that he was anything except a no-name carpenter from a hick town.

 

[arthra]

Maybe radiance is a form of manifesting…

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.

King James Bible, John 3:21

1:1 *God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:
*
King James Bible, Hebrews 1:1