Bahá'í

[daler]

Your not answering the question clearly. Obviously you believe they are different bodies, different physical entities throughout all of history but what is not answered is whether or not they are the same person. You believe in a personhood not dependant on the body right? That is the identity lays within the soul? Is the identity of the person who was Jesus of Nazereth, his soul, the same as the identity of the person who was Mirza hussain? Could Mirza Hussain say “When they crucified me I said, that is I the person talking to you right now “It is finished.””?

Bahai seem confused over this question, over alot of things their theology doesn’t have a ready answer too. The same thing happened in Christianity (you like to do that with your prophets, now do it with the movements after your prophets and recognise historic patterns), there was a need for Christians to clarify their positions for pagans and other Christians which were not directly accessible, hence it was found there was dissagrement and certain theologies grew and developed in certain places, more need for clarification. Im no prophet but I suspect bahai will have to grow beyond simply quoting their prophet and eventually figure some things out for themselves.

Ignatio, I will not quote Baha’i scripture here, as that seems to offend you. So this will come from my own understanding, as original as I can make it, being that which I have digested. Ok, friend?
There is undoubtedly a mystery going on here, one which does not have obvious and easily apparent answers, for they lie much deeper than ordinary human experience and understanding.
Let us first consider who John the Baptist was. When questioned by those sent by the Pharisees, he denied being the Christ, Elijah, or “that prophet”. So in his “own” personal and physical identity, he was none of the above. In the “exact same sense”, the rose in my back yard which appeared just this spring, is NOT the same rose which appeared a thousand years before. If it could speak, it would say (from that individuality) “I am not that rose.” and it speaks the truth.
Now. After John the Baptist was beheaded, Jesus was asked concerning him (John), and He said: “And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. …”

How is it that John himself denied that he was Elijah, while Jesus confirmed that he was?

Herein lies the answer: That rose which has appeared in my garden this spring has brought that selfsame beauty, fragrance, and purity of the previous rose. Hence, while not being the same rose in the manner of particulate matter existing before, the very “essence” of what it is to be that previous rose (Elijah) has indeed “returned” in purity and essentials in the rose of this spring, which has its own particulate matter and individual identity.

Now in the same way, I firmly believe that the Supreme Essence of Who Christ was, though Jesus with His particulate matter is not Mirza Hussein, in the same way that John the Baptist was not Elijah, has indeed “Returned” in this Spiritual Springtime, for those selfsame qualities of spiritual beauty, fragrance, and purity are apparent to me in the person of Baha’u’llah, the Glory of God, Whom Stephen saw standing with Jesus in the presence of God.

"But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up steadfastly into heaven, and saw the Glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, " Acts 7:55

Are They, Jesus and Baha’u’llah, separate human identities, born to different mothers, 1800 years apart, each with their own soul? Yes, that is true.

Are They One in Beauty, Fragrance, and Purity? Yes, that is also true.

Because you and I are looking from the human perspective, with all mortal limitations, we cannot “see” Them as They are, for we look through a glass darkly. We see at first that they are a mere mortal human like ourselves:

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brothers, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? …” Matthew 13:55

And before His crucifixion Jesus said, “Beholdest thou not the Son of Man seated on the right hand of power and might?”

No, they did not. Nor do you see Him as Christ returned in the Glory of the Father, but I testify to you that I do see Him, for I behold Him seated upon the right hand of power and might once again, the the person of Baha’u’llah.

The difference between us is this. You have not been on your road to Damascus, as you are yet Saul, whereas I have been on that road, and now am Paul.

Peace be unto you.

 

[PRmerger]

Aquinas said that the ontological argument to prove Gods existence is fruitless since no one knows the essence of God.

What do you think that means PR? Especially in terms of the word “essence”?

Please provide the quote in which he said this, and then we can discuss.

Aquinas saying “no one knows the essence of God” sounds pretty suspect to me. It doesn’t sound Thomistic, at all.

Now, if you posited that the Angelic Doctor said that no one can completely understand God’s essence, then I would say, “True, dat!”

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, Lets pretend we are in a philosophy class, abiding by the instruments of logic, or examining a theological statement being made.

With the statement is held the assumption that if we are speaking about “a Prophet of God”, and not someone who is a false prophet, then the quote is simply saying that if one is truly a Prophet of God, then he is proclaiming the same Faith as the other Prophets of God.
Within the accepted recognition of the prophets of Israel who are accepted by Christians, they all proclaim the same Faith. Right? That is, Moses didn’t proclaim a different Faith than Abraham, and Jesus didn’t proclaim a different Faith than either of Them.

Where the difficulty then arises is when each group fails to recognize further prophets than the last one accepted by their group. For example, Jews do not recognize Jesus, for He followed Moses, but they do not regard Him as authentic. The same thing occurs with Muhammad not being regarded by the followers of Moses or Jesus. Each has their reasons, or reasonings, for rejecting the next Prophet.

But you are completely missing the point. We are speaking of the Baha’i faith which holds all of the above “prophets” as true prophets of God. But these so-called prophets disagree with each other. I have no problem with a Muslim accepting Muhammad as a prophet and rejecting John the Baptist. That would be consistent. But the Baha’i accepts all of the above at the same time while ignoring the fact that their “prophesies” conflict with one another. One cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time, except in the Baha’i faith.

Then the Muslims say yes to Jesus

No, they do not. They deny his passion and resurrection, therefore they deny Christ. They have made their own Jesus to fit their own story.

As to Buddhists and Hindus, many of them accept Jesus, having no difficulty there.

Again, this is inaccurate. How can a Hindu accept the resurrection of Jesus and continue to believe in reincarnation? Do you see the conflict? Both cannot be true.

As to your question: “How do the Buddhists and Hindus feel about your position?” One can also ask: “How do the Jews feel about your position?” for it is the same position. Those Jews who recognize Jesus as are called Christians. The others feel whatever they do about the position of the Christians. It is the same.

But you agree that some can be wrong in their beliefs; that not every road leads to the same place; that there is truth and there is error, correct?

I do realize how difficult it is to resolve these differences. If it were easy, there would be no problem. But after 2000 years, the Jews have still not resolved the position of Christ relative to their beliefs, nor have Christians after 1400 years resolved the differences of Islam with their beliefs.

We acknowledge the truth that is present in all religions. We also acknowledge the error.

 

[Servant19]

My friends, there are contradictions even within the New Testament…

How do you reconcile that Jesus was the Father and not the Father, at the same time?

Human interpretation…

The unity of the Faith of God is not trying to say that they are united with the human interpretations, no, the Faith of God is united with its own Truth, not human interpretations of that Truth

 

[SteveVH]

My friends, there are contradictions even within the New Testament…

How do you reconcile that Jesus was the Father and not the Father, at the same time?

I don’t. Jesus has never been the Father. He is eternally the Son.

The unity of the Faith of God is not trying to say that they are united with the human interpretations, no, the Faith of God is united with its own Truth, not human interpretations of that Truth

Maybe you could rephrase this. I have no idea what you are saying.

 

[Servant19]

I don’t. Jesus has never been the Father. He is eternally the Son.

Maybe you could rephrase this. I have no idea what you are saying.

Well then there is no contradiction between the Faiths.

The Father, Allah, God (all the same)

The Son, the Prophet, the Manifestation of God (all the same)

Different terminologies from different LANGUAGES, that’s all

 

[daler]

But you are completely missing the point. We are speaking of the Baha’i faith which holds all of the above “prophets” as true prophets of God. But these so-called prophets disagree with each other. I have no problem with a Muslim accepting Muhammad as a prophet and rejecting John the Baptist. That would be consistent. But the Baha’i accepts all of the above at the same time while ignoring the fact that their “prophesies” conflict with one another. One cannot be a Muslim and a Christian at the same time, except in the Baha’i faith.

No, they do not. They deny his passion and resurrection, therefore they deny Christ. They have made their own Jesus to fit their own story.

Again, this is inaccurate. How can a Hindu accept the resurrection of Jesus and continue to believe in reincarnation? Do you see the conflict? Both cannot be true.

But you agree that some can be wrong in their beliefs; that not every road leads to the same place; that there is truth and there is error, correct?

We acknowledge the truth that is present in all religions. We also acknowledge the error.

Steve, Bare with me here, ok? We are looking at religious history going back thousands of years, most of which was oral for centuries before the various “traditions” were written down. There is much variation of the accounts and claims within and surrounding these various “histories”. There are metaphors to try and understand, there are some real “stretched” truths (?) and exaggeration and misinterpretation.
For example, “Muhammad cleft the moon asunder” What does that mean? Obviously, it is a metaphor, for the physical moon has never been cleft asunder. Does that, by itself, rule out every other claim about Him? No, it doesn’t.
Similar statements regarding Jesus, about multiplying loaves and fishes, for example, which some interpret as Him teaching, through His disciples being told to “share” what they had with the crowd, that men are indeed their brother’s keepers. The true miracle being the elevation of human society to acknowledge gentiles as worthy of generosity, etc.
So If Jesus “didn’t” pull bread and fish out of the sky, does that, by itself, rule out every other claim about Him? No, it doesn’t.

So even though a Hindu may believe this or that, whether regarding his own religion or something pertaining to Christianity, does not mean that at the roots of his ancient faith, there weren’t actual “Prophets” sent to the people by God for their spiritual education.

In the outer forms of religion, yes, of course, there are differences which conflict with reality, and with other "religions".   In general, the further back you go, the more bizarre the stories and claims associated with them are, in any literal sense.

“When religion,” says ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, “shorn of its superstitions, traditions and unintelligent dogmas, shows its conformity with science, then there will be a great unifying, cleansing force in the world, which will sweep before it all wars, disagreements, discords and struggles, and then will mankind be united in the power of the love of God.”

As to prophecies, there are some very, very interesting time and place prophecies from the religions concerning the coming of the Bab and Baha'u'llah.   We can go into some of that if you wish, whether specifically from the Old and New Testaments, or other religious traditions as well.

Note. These are not general one size fits whatever prophecies, but very specific, intersecting with one another, adding up to considerable evidence in the affirmative.

 

[SteveVH]

Well then there is no contradiction between the Faiths.

Lets take a look.

The Father, Allah, God (all the same)

We would say the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; Allah and God (all the same)

The Son, the Prophet, the Manifestation of God (all the same)

No. The Son is not a manifestation of God. He is not one in a long line of manifestations whose purpose is to fill in a piece of the missing puzzle. He is God, whole and entire. He is the fulfillment of all prior prophecies and revelations. It is he to whom the prophets point. There is no need for different manifestations of God when God himself has come to dwell among us in the person of Christ and remains with us in his Church.

Different terminologies from different LANGUAGES, that’s all

I would say different interpretations and understandings of God. And I would also say that where those different interpretations and understandings conflict discernment is necessary because they cannot both be correct.

 

[Servant19]

So who is God, and who is the Father?

 

[daler]

"But you agree that some can be wrong in their beliefs; that not every road leads to the same place; that there is truth and there is error, correct?

We acknowledge the truth that is present in all religions. We also acknowledge the error.

Yes, of course. I used to believe in Santa Clause and recall the very time and place that my big brother and sister told me he wasn’t real. It shattered my world, man!!!

For me, I personally don’t believe that Jonah was literally swallowed by a fish and survived inside its belly for 3 days until burped up. But, Hey! Who am I?
And I can’t quite accept that a snake and a donkey spoke either Hebrew or English cause they just don’t have the jaw structure, proper vocal cords, the right kind of tongue, and all that. But I accept that there is a reason the story was told.
I also can’t figure out where Jesus went if He ascended to a physical place up in the sky beyond the stratosphere. Hence, I look for a rational meaning to the story.
And if all those saints were physically resurrected from their graves, like, maybe… some Jews might have noticed? and a little blurb would have appeared in their history books?
So I figure, it has another meaning. Like many of those Jews who were in the graves of disbelief arose from the dead, as in, “Let the dead bury their dead”.

Please understand that I do not wish to criticize anyone who believes that Santa can come down every chimney in the world in a single night and bring presents, but at some point my thinking brain protests. Rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and saying this or that religion is utter nonsense, I look for metaphorical meaning to keep from going nuts!!

When “the stars shall fall from heaven” is understood through the lens of the Hubble telescope, it just ain’t a gonna happen, because they are all more or less the size of the sun and wouldn’t fit. So the metaphorical understanding may be that the “superstars” of religion have to fall from their heights, even as in the days of Jesus when he denounced the Pharisees as “Ye generation of vipers” (His words, not mine)

… “The people of Persia have turned away from Him Who is the Protector and the Helper. They are clinging to and have enmeshed themselves in the vain imaginings of the foolish. So firmly do they adhere to superstitions that naught can sever them therefrom save the potent arm of God—exalted is His glory. Beseech thou the Almighty that He may remove with the fingers of divine power the veils which have shut out the divers peoples and kindreds, that they may attain the things that are conducive to security, progress and advancement and may hasten forth towards the incomparable Friend.”

Baha’u’llah

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, Bare with me here, ok? We are looking at religious history going back thousands of years, most of which was oral for centuries before the various “traditions” were written down…

I’m going to just make a general statement in hope of clarification. I believe that the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Muslim, the Baha’i, the Jews, the Sikhs… all possess truth. I believe there is a sincere desire for God in all religions and that there have been truly good and wise leaders of most religions. The members sincerely seek to know God and to live a good life.

There is a longing in the human spirit that cries out to know God. The great majority of people on earth claim some religion. Throughout history people have taken various paths in a sincere search for God in order to answer questions concerning the human condition and our eternal destiny.

Let’s consider the belief that the sun is a god, just for arguments sake? We could not live without its light and warmth. It brings forth life and all life is utterly dependent upon it. It is easy for me to see how one could come to the conclusion that the sun is a god. Left to the human imagination, we have created many and varied ideas about this God whom we all seek. But then Jesus came and everything changed. The universe changed. The event to which the prophets pointed had occurred. God was with us.

We now know that the sun is not a god at all, but rather a creation of the true God as a gift to us. And so we now have a responsibility to our fellow seekers of God to let them know that the sun is not a god and that they should worship and follow the one, true God. We would not think it offensive to tell them that they were wrong in their belief, but rather an obligation out of love for them.

When Paul went to Greece he found temples built to honor the various Greek gods. And then he found a temple built to honor the “unknown god”. Paul told them that the God they did not know was the one, true God; the One they had been seeking without even knowing it.

I mean no dishonor to any religion. But I believe that they seek Him who they do not know. I would like them to know Him. God loves all of us and desires us to know Him. We must tell the world about the true Christ and we can accept no other in his place. Believing what we believe, how could we?

Sorry for the rambling but I just want you to know where I am coming from. I’m beat. off to bed.

God bless.

 

[daler]

I’m going to just make a general statement in hope of clarification. I believe that the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Muslim, the Baha’i, the Jews, the Sikhs… all possess truth.

When Paul went to Greece he found temples built to honor the various Greek gods. And then he found a temple built to honor the “unknown god”. Paul told them that the God they did not know was the one, true God; the One they had been seeking without even knowing it.

I mean no dishonor to any religion. But I believe that they seek Him who they do not know. I would like them to know Him. God loves all of us and desires us to know Him. We must tell the world about the true Christ and we can accept no other in his place. Believing what we believe, how could we?

Sorry for the rambling but I just want you to know where I am coming from. I’m beat. off to bed.

God bless.

Steve, Thank you for this up lifting post. It was wonderful to read, and essentially I share all of your noble thoughts towards your fellow men who are sincere in seeking God.
You know I grew up among the Lakota Sioux (Dances with Wolves) on a reservation in South Dakota and believer me, these people were close to God long before my grandparents homestead what had been their land for thousands of years. They pray fervently, most humbly, and sincerely to the Great Spirit, Wakan Tanka, Whom we call God. They are God’s children, and had Prophets sent to them, same as Israel, but it is not recorded in a written book, for they had no written language.
The virtues they possessed before contact with the Europeans would have drawn praise again and again from Jesus Himself. Of this there is no doubt. Even though they have something called the “Sun Dance”, this is seen only as a symbol of the awesome power of the One True God. They had a prophet called the White Buffalo Calf Woman who brought them Seven Sacred Rites, which they have followed for many centuries.
These people are very dear to me, for I was raised among them, many of whom were old and could not speak English. A brief view or their beliefs is in this link:

aktalakota.stjo.org/site/PageServer?pagename=alm_culture_rites

I also spent time with Buddhists who were devout, disciplined, and very wise. Surely they were close to God. Some people think that Buddhists don’t believe in Heaven and God, but that really is not true.

… “There is, O monks, a state (what we call heaven) where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither infinity of space nor infinity of consciousness, nor nothingness, nor perception nor non-perception; neither this world nor that world, neither sun nor moon. It is the uncreated. That O monks, I term neither coming nor going nor standing; neither death nor birth. It is without stability, without change; it is the eternal which never originates and never passes away. There is the end of sorrow.”

… “It is hard to realize the essential, the truth is not easily perceived; desire is mastered by him who knows, and to him who sees aright all things are naught. There is, O monks, an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed. Were there not, O monks, this unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed, there would be no escape from the world of the born, originated, created, formed. Since, O monks, there is an unborn, unoriginated, uncreated and unformed, therefore is there an escape from the born, originated, created, formed.”

… "“I am not the first Buddha who came upon earth,
nor shall I be the last.
In due time another Buddha will arise in the world,
a Holy One, a supremely enlightened One,
endowed with wisdom in conduct,
auspicious, knowing the universe,
an incomparable leader of men,
a master of angels and mortals.
He will reveal to you the same eternal truths
which I have taught you.
He will preach his religion,
glorious in its origin,
glorious at the climax,
and glorious at the goal,
in the spirit and in the letter.
He will proclaim a religous life,
wholly perfect and pure;
such as I now proclaim.” [13]

Ananda said: “How shall we know him?” [14]

The Blessed One said:
“He will be known as Metteyya,
which means ‘he whose name is kindness.’”

Many thousands of Buddhists believe Metteyya has appeared in the Person of Baha’u’llah, who fulfilled various prophecies, including “He shall come from the west of India”
Elam is from the west of India, in SW Persia, where Jeremiah said “The Lord shall set His throne”. Elam is also the place of Daniel’s great vision of both the first and second coming of Christ. The Bab (Gate) appeared in Shiraz, Persia, which is ancient Elam, in the year 1260, as foretold in Revelation, at the end of the 2300 days, also in the book of Daniel, the beginning of which was 457 BC to rebuild Jerusalem, prophesying 70 weeks (490 years) when Messiah Jesus would be cut off, i.e. 34 Ad.
By the same reckoning, the 2300 days (years) beginning in 457 BC yields 1844 AD (there was no year zero, so add 1), and 1260 AH (Muslim calendar) = 1844 = the 2300, when the Bab, in Elam, announced His Mission.
There is more, much, much more. The jigsaw puzzles around the world’s religions fit beautifully well together, painting an incredible picture. I can give more upon request, if interested.
Thank you for your most kind words, given in from your good heart and pure spirit.
God bless, Dale

 

[Servant19]

Please provide the quote in which he said this, and then we can discuss.

Aquinas saying “no one knows the essence of God” sounds pretty suspect to me. It doesn’t sound Thomistic, at all.

Now, if you posited that the Angelic Doctor said that no one can completely understand God’s essence, then I would say, “True, dat!”

Of course PR, I would love to read the whole thing again

Here’s the quote for you:

“Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.”

Summa Theologica - Thomas Aquinas

So, it seems Aquinas knows full well what “essence” means, yet you seem to have a new interpretation.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Its not you merely quoting a prophet that annoys me or offends me, its that whenever you quote a prophet its not clear how it relates to the actual question. Mirza Hussain was not some extra dimensional being who could anticipate later criticisms or concepts he had never heard of, he was totally ignorant of a lot of world views and facts and history so he could not respond to what I am saying a lot of the time.
Now you are comparing (as usual) Jesus to john the Baptist and that in the same way John was said to be Elijah Jesus was Mirza hussain. But in all the vague words you uttered my real question was not answered. Is the soul of Jesus the soul of Mirza Hussain? Is there a non material realm in which Mirza hussain can say “I am not Jesus” and Jesus can say “I am not Mirza Hussain.” ?

Vague statements and quotations do not answer central issues, I want a clear and non vague response. I have no idea what you mean by the essence of John the Baptist was the essence of Elijah. I assume you mean in the same sort of spirit, the same sort of goal and the same sort of meaning placed upon them, is this case? I would agree that John was figurative of Elijah but Jesus was not figurative of Mirza Hussain. Mirza Hussain doesn’t hold a candle to the one who will judge everyone, the uniquely begotten son, the ONLY mediator.

Now you claim to be paul on his road to Damascus but what you really are is Simon Magus, not comprehending anything and replacing truth with falsehood. We can stop speaking like that if you care to, that pointless rhetoric and have a real discussion should you wish to stop.

 

[Servant19]

Hi Ignatian

When I was at school, my primary school teacher taught me that an atom contains a nucleus, and a surrounding cloud of electrons. The nucleus contained protons and neutrons.
Sounds familiar right?

When we discussed the atom amongst my friends outside of school, one of my friends had the gall to say that the nucleus actually contained some electrons!!! (The cheek of it!!)

We mocked him a lot and told him that he’s going to fail his tests etc etc.

Lo and behold, come secondary school we were open minded enough to partake of some “further” education…I was really against it, because I said that my primary school teacher was the ONLY teacher and the source of ALL TRUTH for the school (I really truly LOVED my primary school teacher, can you tell? He did after all sacrifice soooooo much of his life to tell me all I needed to know)

Anyway, one day my secondary school teacher told me that “THE NUCLEUS CONTAINS ATOMS, NEUTRINOS, POSITRONS AND MORE!!!”

I told my friends who were similarly offended by this teacher “Who is this extra dimensional being? What a false teacher he is!!” And proceeded to dismiss all credibility of the teacher…

Sounds familiar yet?

When you ask “Is the soul of Jesus the soul of Mirza Hussain?” …there is soooooo much the Bahai Writings explains about this that I truly hope you investigate this for yourself. You’re level of comprehension requires so much accompaniment that I genuinely blew out a deep breath of self-frustration and I asked myself “Where on earth do we start to explain all these concepts to Ignatian?”

I pray that you will one day feel impelled to investigate these concepts properly without prejudice. At this moment in time, the prejudice is ooooozing out of your posts.

When you are ready, maybe you will be ready to read “The Revelation of Baha’u’llah” by Adib Taherzadeh, which is a big book. I “hope” you will read it without prejudice and it may explain some things to you and show you all the electrons, positrons and neutrinos that you “choose” to not learn about.

God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Of course PR, I would love to read the whole thing again

Why does that make you confused?

Here’s the quote for you:

“Now because we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self-evident to us; but needs to be demonstrated by things that are more known to us, though less known in their nature — namely, by effects.”

Summa Theologica - Thomas Aquinas

So, it seems Aquinas knows full well what “essence” means, yet you seem to have a new interpretation.

I think that Aquinas is saying that we cannot completely know God’s essence. He affirms this a bit later in his arguments here:

"Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

As such, his definition of essence is no different than mine.

 

[Servant19]

Why does that make you confused?

I think that Aquinas is saying that we cannot completely know God’s essence. He affirms this a bit later in his arguments here:

"Yet from every effect the existence of the cause can be clearly demonstrated, and so we can demonstrate the existence of God from His effects; though from them we cannot perfectly know God as He is in His essence.

As such, his definition of essence is no different than mine.

So just as Aquinas cannot understand the essence of God, you think he understands the essence of His sacraments?

 

[PRmerger]

So just as Aquinas cannot understand the essence of God, you think he understands the essence of His sacraments?

Yes, of course he does.

 

[Servant19]

Aquinas saying “no one knows the essence of God” sounds pretty suspect to me. It doesn’t sound Thomistic, at all.

Firstly, I hope you are now less suspicious of Aquinas’

 

[PRmerger]

Firstly, I hope you are now less suspicious of Aquinas’

If you read Aquinas the way you read my responses, it’s no wonder you are posting such misinformation.

I never said I was suspicious of Aquinas. Please read the post again to see what the referent was.