Bahá'í

[Servant19]

Yes, of course he does.

Secondly, in one post you said you DO understand the essence of marriage, then in another post you said that you don’t, when I asked you what it was.

So, to finalise, which is it?

Do you or do you not understand the essence of the marriage sacrament?

 

[Servant19]

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.

But he DID say that no one can know the essence of God, except for God Himself. So what were you suspicious of?

 

[PRmerger]

Secondly, in one post you said you DO understand the essence of marriage, then in another post you said that you don’t, when I asked you what it was.

Please cite both of my posts–one where I said I do understand the essence of marriage and one where I said I do not understand the essence of marriage.

And then we can chat about your misunderstanding.

 

[PRmerger]

But he DID say that no one can know the essence of God, except for God Himself. So what were you suspicious of?

I am suspicious of your ability to understand Aquinas, as limned by your inability to understand my posts.

Again, Aquinas said that we cannot perfectly know God, but that ought not be confused with saying that no one can understand God’s essence.

Just like you applied, erroneously, my suspicions to Aquinas, when I said nothing remotely close to that, you also are erroneously interpreting Aquinas’ arguments.

 

[Porknpie]

But he DID say that no one can know the essence of God, except for God Himself. So what were you suspicious of?

Suggest reading the book on Aquinas in my signature. Author is Feser. It’s Aquinas for beginners but its a great read although still not always easy…

amazon.com/Aquinas-Beginners-Guide-Edward-Feser/dp/1851686908/ref=sr_1_21?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374325877&sr=1-21&keywords=Thomas+Aquinas

 

[ChristianBahai]

I’ve never understood why it is so important that Jesus’ physical body was resurrected. Jesus himself commanded his spirit the God when he died on the cross. We can all agree that none of us will need our physical bodies when we are in the spirit world with Jesus. Jesus of all has no use for his physical body not do I as a believer need his body to have been resurrected in order to justify Jesus’ as the Son of God. The next world is one of spirit - heaven is being close to or reunited to God our Father. Believing doctrine is not necessary to seek truth and find God in our lives.

With love and respect - ChristianBahai’

I would correct the first statement by saying the one miracle Jesus did that is of absolute importance was his ressurection.

 

[SteveVH]

So who is God, and who is the Father?

God is one, but not solitary. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, distinct only in relationship, but not in being or substance. The Father is God, whole and entire. The Son is God, whole and entire. The Holy Spirit is God, whole and entire, yet there are not three Gods, but one. The Persons are distinct but not separate. This is the divine mystery of the Holy Trinity, revealed to us through Jesus Christ. Yes, it is a mind bender; beyond our capacity to comprehend. But then we are trying to describe the only divine Being, for which we have no earthly analogy.

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve never understood why it is so important that Jesus’ physical body was resurrected. Jesus himself commanded his spirit the God when he died on the cross. We can all agree that none of us will need our physical bodies when we are in the spirit world with Jesus. Jesus of all has no use for his physical body not do I as a believer need his body to have been resurrected in order to justify Jesus’ as the Son of God. The next world is one of spirit - heaven is being close to or reunited to God our Father. Believing doctrine is not necessary to seek truth and find God in our lives.

With love and respect - ChristianBahai’

We are human beings. We will always be human beings. A human being is comprised of both a body and a soul (spirit). If one is lacking either a body or a soul, one is not human. The Christian belief is that we will be reunited with our bodies at the resurrection. We will have glorified bodies, however, incapable of corruption and decay. We will have a body like the glorified body of Jesus. When he appeared after his resurrection, he ate and drank with his disciples. He was not a ghost. His body was real. This glorified body, however, is no longer subject to the laws of physics. Christ entered a room with all of the doors and windows locked shut. He disappeared in an instant after breaking the bread on the road to Emmaus.

So we will be reunited with our bodies because that is what it means to be fully human. They will be perfect, glorified bodies, however; bodies that will live for the rest of eternity.

There is a belief among many that our bodies are just shells which house our true selves. This is not a Christian belief. Our bodies have dignity and meaning because Christ became incarnate. It was his body that was given as the price for our freedom. Our bodies are good, because they were made by God and he proclaimed that they were good. They are part of our identity, each one being unique to the person. I will never cease being me and part of me is my body.

 

[daler]

God is one, but not solitary. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, distinct only in relationship, but not in being or substance. The Father is God, whole and entire. The Son is God, whole and entire. The Holy Spirit is God, whole and entire, yet there are not three Gods, but one. The Persons are distinct but not separate. This is the divine mystery of the Holy Trinity, revealed to us through Jesus Christ. Yes, it is a mind bender; beyond our capacity to comprehend. But then we are trying to describe the only divine Being, for which we have no earthly analogy.

Steve, I think that you describe your position well here, and with few words, which is good. The problem many have with the Trinity, per se, is that it sort of comes off as a shell game at some point. The reason being (bear with me) that it is illogical:

1 ) “The Father is greater than I”
Translated: A is greater than B, therefore, B cannot be A

1. “These are not My words, but Him that sent Me”
   Translated: B is a subset of A, therefore, B is not A
2. “Why callest thou Me good. There is only One Who is good. That is God”
   Translated: A is not B, Therefore B is not A
3. “Nevertheless, not My will, but Thy will be done”
   Translated: B is not A, Therefore, A is not B

NEXT PROBLEM:

1. “I and My Father are One”
   Translated: B is equivalent to A. Therefore, A is equivalent to B

This, however, does not mean that B is A. Rather, it is better explained with the Mirror analogy whereof A is the Source of Light which is reflected in B

1. “He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father”
   Translated: The properties of A are in B

So, Yes! Absolutely! There is a mystery to it. But taken in the whole, the mystery is not “logically” solved by declaring A to be B. Rather, to understand this relationship and accept it for what it is.
Ok. So what is it? It is the station of Messenger.

“These are not My words, but Him that sent Me.”
“I came not to do My will, but Him that sent Me.”
“Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does."
“I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just”

For me, to say, “God in three Persons” divides and again multiplies God. ( I grew up singing that song in church, by the way

However, if we say that the attributes of the (physical) sun are reflected in the mirror, and understand that these are the rays of the Holy Spirit, then the puzzle is solved, for the mirror can still say with accuracy that the sun (Father) is greater than itself (Son), and the mirror (Son) can do nothing of itself. Also, these are not my rays (words), but Him that sent me, etc.

Do you see the plain logic in this? It solves the riddle. It really does. But what it requires is that we have a new understanding of the position of the Son in relationship to the Father. This is why Baha’is are using the term “Manifestation of God”, which, by definition, defines the Person of Jesus as the Point of the Manifest Light of God, which still allows for God to be greater than the Son, which is in keeping with His own words. For who are we to challenge His words?

The struggle, therefore, is to go against tradition. This is the struggle. For when we have been accustomed to saying something a certain way, and in conformity with our elders and authority figures, when we propose a new way of articulating “the mystery” of this relationship, we set ourselves up for being excluded from the group, i.e., those who have been conditioned to nod their heads in agreement and submit to their “authority” and the language which they use. No offense to the authority figures. God bless them! But if they still say the sun revolves around the earth, then I am obligated to say this is not in conformity with science and reason, for it is “the truth shall set you free”, not dogma.

 

[daler]

We will have a body like the glorified body of Jesus. When he appeared after his resurrection, he ate and drank with his disciples. He was not a ghost. His body was real. This glorified body, however, is no longer subject to the laws of physics. Christ entered a room with all of the doors and windows locked shut. He disappeared in an instant after breaking the bread on the road to Emmaus.

So we will be reunited with our bodies because that is what it means to be fully human. They will be perfect, glorified bodies, however; bodies that will live for the rest of eternity.

There is a belief among many that our bodies are just shells which house our true selves. This is not a Christian belief. …I will never cease being me and part of me is my body.

Steve, I sometimes believe that God gave us butterflies as a metaphor to understand such things. I don’t think the caterpillar comprehends the future state of itself, that it will leave the caterpillar body behind.
The difficulty is in that the caterpillar identifies itself with that physically limited form and has not ability to visualize life as other than a caterpillar.
The butterfly, on the other hand, has been set free, having emerged from the chrysalis of the physical world, so to speak. For it flies through the window of our understanding, not using the door of past experience.
That Jesus soared up into the heavens does not require Him to yet be constrained to the world of the caterpillar. He only appeared to us as a caterpillar because we are caterpillars. But he shows us somehow that we are more than that. That we are butterflies. His caterpillar body was nailed to the cross by some very nasty caterpillars, the Pharisee caterpillar club, the generation of Vipers, i.e., Hell’s Angels.
Yet His resurrected body was a butterfly. Now was this butterfly “composed” of physical elements? I don’t think so, but I understand how you do, for the stories in the Gospel speak of Him eating, etc.
Quite honestly, I question the stories at that point, because they no longer make sense to me. I don’t question my Lord Jesus, and never doubt Him, but I question the means and ability of people to describe His resurrected Self, and I think possibly (although I don’t know) that there may have been some kind of embellishments to convince people that He was resurrected when what resurrection really means is that He was now a butterfly, and personally, I don’t think butterflies eat leaves.
I need to resolve these contradictions in my own mind to keep my sanity. Something has to go. For me, I can’t do both the “He entered the room not using the door” and He is eating food, then disappearing, then floating off into space. It just doesn’t work for me.
What does work for me is that people do their best to describe something so profound and lack words to tell what happened, but know that it happened, and stories are told, and retold, and cast into forms which are “believable” to the audience and tailored to suit them.
Does that make me a heretic? Or a Baha’i? 20,000 killed so far by Muslim fanatics calling us heretics for breaking with tradition in Iran alone. Many more imprisoned, tortured, etc, including my wife’s aunt and two little cousins, my friend’s sister serving 20 years, another friend’s cousin hanged, ten women hung in one day not so long ago.
You see, it takes a different slant when “real” people, good people, are being murdered for belief in what others call heresy. All I’m looking for is sanity. And my definition of sanity must resolve the appearance and disappearance of Jesus, and somewhere along the line, I think somebody misinterpreted something and interjected their own ideas, some correct, some not so correct. For the modern mind is challenged by Jesus as flying off into physical space when He Himself said, “I came down from heaven, will ascend to heaven, and am now in heaven” while He was on the ground with us, born of Mary. Therefore, heaven is not a physical place, and hence, His ascension was not “up” in the physical dimension.
So “How?” do people describe His going and coming? when all they have to work with is caterpillar understanding…

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, I think that you describe your position well here, and with few words, which is good. The problem many have with the Trinity, per se, is that it sort of comes off as a shell game at some point. The reason being (bear with me) that it is illogical:

When the Son of God, the second Person of the Trinity, entered into human history, he assumed a human body and a human soul. This was a voluntary emptying of himself. The Scripture tell us that he increased in wisdom and in stature. Why? Because he was not God pretending to be a man. He was really a man. He had to acquire human knowledge in the same way that we all do; through experience.

At the same time, Christ was and is truly God and the Church teaches that Christ, by virtue of his two natures (human and divine), possesses two wills. They are, however, not opposed to each other. In his humanity, Christ willed all that he had decided in his divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit concerning our salvation. His human will submitted to his divine will which is the same will as the Father (there is only one God). It is in this act of voluntary submission that the Father is greater than the Son.

Concerning your equation, there is no mathematical equation which adequately describes the nature of one God in three Persons. We should not be surprised that the Creator of the universe cannot fit into a neat formula thought up by men. But to address your statement, you are correct that A is not B and B is not A. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are eternally distinct in their relationship. They are also eternally one in their being. A=C and B=C. God is wholly “other”. We have nothing in our limited human experience with which the nature of God can be compared. The scriptures tell us, however, that in Christ “the whole fullness of the deity dwells bodily” (Col 2:9)

1. “These are not My words, but Him that sent Me”
   Translated: B is a subset of A, therefore, B is not A

Yes, in his humanity he spoke the words given to him by his Father. Once again, we agree that A is not B and B is not A. They are distinct Persons who speak to each other and have a relationship.

1. “Why callest thou Me good. There is only One Who is good. That is God”
   Translated: A is not B, Therefore B is not A

We must remember that these words were used in a time, place and culture to which we are not at all accustomed. The Jews used phrases and techniques in communicating of which the modern reader is unaware. This is a particularly Jewish technique in answering a question. Jesus said something similar when Pilate asked him if he was the King of the Jews. His answer was “You say so.” In the case you bring up the young man had already called him “good”. Jesus was not saying “No, I am not good, only God is good, therefore I am not God.” He was actually saying that he was God, just as he was telling Pilate that he was the King of the Jews. It is an answer intentionally given to cause one to meditate upon his words and answer the question themselves.

1. “Nevertheless, not My will, but Thy will be done”
   Translated: B is not A, Therefore, A is not B

Jesus said these words as he contemplated his suffering and death. Being human, he had a natural aversion to being tortured and crucified, not to mention taking on the sins of the whole world. But again, he submitted his human will to his divine will which is also the Father’s will. And again, we are not arguing that A=B and B=A. But the will of A equals the will of B because they share the same divine nature. They could not have separate divine wills.

I’ll have to get to the rest of your questions later as this post is going way too long and I am out of time.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

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

Again im not actually getting an answer, just avoiding of my question. I’ll phrase it this way. Is there only one soul called a manifestation that incarnates himself in different times in history. Or are there multiple souls called manifestations who each have their own incarnation for a certain time in history? The question should be easy to answer and shouldn’t require an entire book.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, I sometimes believe that God gave us butterflies as a metaphor to understand such things. I don’t think the caterpillar comprehends the future state of itself, that it will leave the caterpillar body behind…

I need to resolve these contradictions in my own mind to keep my sanity.  Something has to go.  For me, I can't do both the "He entered the room not using the door" and He is eating food, then disappearing, then floating off into space.  It just doesn't work for me.

What does work for me is that people do their best to describe something so profound and lack words to tell what happened, but know that it happened, and stories are told, and retold, and cast into forms which are “believable” to the audience and tailored to suit them.

Is it possible that you and I cannot grasp the infinite with our finite, caterpillar minds? Is it possible that we will grow real wings, not metaphorical wings, and glide with ease upon the air and feed on nectar instead of bitter leaves, even though we cannot even conceive of such a thing in our present, caterpillar state?

Does that make me a heretic?

No, it does not make you a heretic. You would have to know the Christian faith, adhere to the Christian faith and then reject some aspect of the Christian faith in favor of an erroneous doctrine in order to be a heretic.

Or a Baha’i? 20,000 killed so far by Muslim fanatics calling us heretics for breaking with tradition in Iran alone. Many more imprisoned, tortured, etc, including my wife’s aunt and two little cousins, my friend’s sister serving 20 years, another friend’s cousin hanged, ten women hung in one day not so long ago. You see, it takes a different slant when “real” people, good people, are being murdered for belief in what others call heresy. All I’m looking for is sanity.

Daler, this is so horrible. I will be attending Mass this evening as well as tomorrow and your family, friends and all of the others suffering under this persecution will be lifted up in prayer before the true and living Jesus Christ. In fact, I will arrive early so that this is specifically mentioned in our intercessory prayers before the whole congregation.

You are right. It does take a different slant when real people are being imprisoned, tortured and murdered because of their beliefs. We read of the persecution of Christians throughout the middle east and northern Africa. We read of violence in India between Hindus and just about everyone else. But I am sitting in a comfortable chair in southwest Colorado enjoying the mountains and clean air and contemplating Mass this afternoon which I will attend in absolute peace. I have no idea of the horror experienced by some of my brothers and sisters in this world. Thanks for the wake up call.

And my definition of sanity must resolve the appearance and disappearance of Jesus, and somewhere along the line, I think somebody misinterpreted something and interjected their own ideas, some correct, some not so correct. For the modern mind is challenged by Jesus as flying off into physical space when He Himself said, “I came down from heaven, will ascend to heaven, and am now in heaven” while He was on the ground with us, born of Mary. Therefore, heaven is not a physical place, and hence, His ascension was not “up” in the physical dimension.

We do not believe that Jesus flew off into space. The Gospel of Mark reads: “So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up to heaven and sat down at the right hand of God.” (Mk 16:19) Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:

“Christ’s body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys. But during the forty days when he eats and drinks familiarly with his disciples and teaches them about the kingdom, his glory remains veiled under the appearance of ordinary humanity. Jesus’ final apparition ends with the irreversible entry of his humanity into divine glory, symbolized by the cloud and by heaven, where he is seated from that time forward at God’s right hand. Only in a wholly exceptional and unique way would Jesus show himself to Paul “as to one untimely born” in a last apparition that established him as an Apostle.” (CCC par 659)

This is why it is so important that Scripture be read in the context of the faith which produced it. When separated from that faith and its ancient Sacred Tradition, its meaning is relegated to the imaginations and misinterpretations of men.

So “How?” do people describe His going and coming? when all they have to work with is caterpillar understanding…

How does one describe a supernatural event? They describe it just as they described it by using language that conveys a deeper meaning than the literal. But you are correct. Both you and I are working with caterpillar minds. I believe not because I fully grasp it, but because of the One who spoke the words. I believe Jesus ascended into heaven but I have no idea what that physically looked like. That is not what is important.

Once again, you and yours are in my prayers.

God bless.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I’ve never understood why it is so important that Jesus’ physical body was resurrected. Jesus himself commanded his spirit the God when he died on the cross. We can all agree that none of us will need our physical bodies when we are in the spirit world with Jesus. Jesus of all has no use for his physical body not do I as a believer need his body to have been resurrected in order to justify Jesus’ as the Son of God. The next world is one of spirit - heaven is being close to or reunited to God our Father. Believing doctrine is not necessary to seek truth and find God in our lives.

With love and respect - ChristianBahai’

If Jesus’s body was not ressurected the implication is clear. Death has won, death is will be victorius. Christians believe death is the enemy, death is not a good thing that liberates the soul from the body. We follow paul in this regaurd. We follow the early church in this regaurd where you have followed those who called themselves gnostics.

That being said, Jesus did have use of his physical body even after death. How else could he have eaten the fish and said he’s not a ghost to the apostles?

 

[arthra]

In case someone is wondering what the Baha’i view is of the resurrection of Jesus I think it is succinctly provided here:

Concerning the Resurrection of Christ you quote the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the account stresses the reality of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples who, the Gospel states, at first took Him to be a ghost. From a Bahá’í point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples’ experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified (as would have been the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.

~ The Universal House of Justice, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ

There is another sense in which we believe in the resurrection which is revealed in the Selected Writings Writings of the Bab:

For example, from the inception of the mission of Jesus – may peace be upon Him – till the day of His ascension was the Resurrection of Moses. For during that period the Revelation of God shone forth through the appearance of that divine Reality, Who rewarded by His Word everyone who believed in Moses, and punished by His Word everyone who did not believe; inasmuch as God’s Testimony for that Day was that which He had solemnly affirmed in the Gospel. And from the inception of the Revelation of the Apostle of God – may the blessings of God be upon Him – till the day of His ascension was the Resurrection of Jesus – peace be upon Him – wherein the Tree of divine Reality appeared in the person of Muhammad, rewarding by His Word everyone who was a believer in Jesus, and punishing by His Word everyone who was not a believer in Him

~ The Bab, Selections from the Writings of the Bab, p. 106

 

[daler]

Again im not actually getting an answer, just avoiding of my question. I’ll phrase it this way. Is there only one soul called a manifestation that incarnates himself in different times in history. Or are there multiple souls called manifestations who each have their own incarnation for a certain time in history? The question should be easy to answer and shouldn’t require an entire book.

Ignatian,
… Thank you for your patience with us. I understand your question. I needed to process it a while longer to attempt a useful answer to you. The problem, as I see it, is that our human perspective limits us to our own experience and comprehension.
That being said, I do personally believe the answer is not as simple as the question, and this is not dodging the question, but attempting to do it justice.
If we look at the individual human being through whom the One Eternal Manifestation of God appears from age to age, we see multiple, individual “Souls”, and the use of this term, “soul”, is the means by which we attempt to grasp some level of Their individual Identity. However, the use of the term “Soul” in regards to the Manifestations of God is like the use of the words, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, etc… Each of these days we individualize from our perspective, although they are all “manifestations” of the same sun.
Likewise, insofar as we can relate “at all” to these Holy Beings, Who are each the embodiment of the words, “I am the Alpha and the Omega”, they are One Soul, Who appears in the garb of a different human being to us, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Baha’u’llah.
I admit that this may not fit into the German model of "This ist this, unt dat ist datt. It ist really zatt simple, you see… " My friend Dr Klebel, sees the world very much through Austrian eyes. He vas formerly a Priest, und ist now one of zie Baha’is, you see…

I know you may have as much difficulty wrapping your mind around this answer as I do the Trinity, but I think that our mind does not have the capacity to go beyond this world and its symbols, for it is confined within the limitations imposed upon it by God.
To the sun, there is no day and night. Only day, or that which is beyond any definition days itself.
To the earth, and we who inhabit it, there is day and night, but not to the sun.

For a considerably better use of your time, I would suggest the following link which ultimately answers your question with the justice it truly deserves.
Please do more than a superficial reading of it and then get back to me.
Thank you, sir.

bahaullah.com/bahaullah-writings-god-part1.html

 

[daler]

Steve,
I can’t thank you enough for your heartfelt and personal reply, your sympathies and prayers. My heart is truly warmed by your earnest supplications to God in behalf of our loved ones. The horrors which are daily brought to us by the news, whether in Syria or India, Afghanistan or Africa, and anywhere on earth are too much for any of us to bare. Thus, we reach to God and beg Him to show us the way, and to give us strength and wisdom to know what to do.

… Those metaphorical wings are still “real” wings, though they flap in a heavenly dimensions. I sometimes think that they brush us now and then, although we are still crawling upon the leaves of “this” world. Surely there is a wisdom in the slowness of our vision to see into what we sometimes term the “next” world.
. It is really one world, or a single reality, but there is a veil between the two aspects. The fetus in the womb is veiled from this world, but busy growing eyes which are presently of no use to it, but which it will need when born into this one. Similarly hands and feet when it has nothing to grasp and nowhere to go.
. It is similar for us, I think. We are perhaps in a type of second womb, another stage of gestation for our souls to prepare for when we shed the chrysalis of this world. There is a sequence to it, and God has set it up this way. Yet it is also true that He has given us intellectual capacity to process information, including His Words, which are essential to our gaining spiritual understanding and insight.
. There must be a divine reason for this system through which we are in a process of turning towards the Sun of Reality, accepting the rays of the Holy Spirit which emanate from it, and are reflected by the Prophets Who walk in our midst, despite our awful treatment of Them, in every case!
. I believe the nectar to which you refer would be those Words and Utterances which are a bridge necessary to cross the gulf between the elemental world of the caterpillar and the “placeless” Kingdom of immortality, to which Jesus ascended, showing us the Way.

. What we term His “body” in such a state, seated at the “right hand of God”, I think goes beyond mortal comprehension. Such descriptions are suitable only to our limited conceptions and understanding. “Lord, can I sit on your right hand in the Kingdom?”
. How He appeared to the disciples is not ordinary, as you and I would appear to each other. My question is, Why did only believers “see” Him, while unbelievers did not.
. It is even as those visions in which He appeared to Paul, but not to those with him. Why did Stephen see Jesus and the Glory of God standing next to God, while those with him did not?
. Personally, I think the word “insight” falls short, yet is partially correct. The visions they describe go beyond what we normally infer with that word. They gazed into the realm of the King of the butterflies…

. There is a reason why a newborn kitten’s eyes remain closed for a while, even after it is born. It is forced to smell its way to the source of its nourishment, and not be distracted by this and that.
. I think perhaps it is the same with us. Our spiritual eyes open slowly, for we have other things to do while in the caterpillar state. There are trees to climb and leaves to eat!! No one in their “right mind” would want to be a Prophet, for theirs is a load no one would wish to carry knowingly. The brutes among us do them in, as well as those who follow Them too closely.

God bless

 

[SteveVH]

Steve,
I can’t thank you enough for your heartfelt and personal reply, your sympathies and prayers. My heart is truly warmed by your earnest supplications to God in behalf of our loved ones. The horrors which are daily brought to us by the news, whether in Syria or India, Afghanistan or Africa, and anywhere on earth are too much for any of us to bare. Thus, we reach to God and beg Him to show us the way, and to give us strength and wisdom to know what to do.

We agree that our finite minds cannot grasp the infinite. If we could fully understand God in our human state he would be no greater than us. And no we cannot grasp heaven, though we see shadows of it here on earth. We are limited by our human capacity. But even though we cannot fully grasp God, we can know that He exists. Even though we cannot fully grasp the words He spoke, we can, nevertheless, believe them. We have no idea what it will be like to have a glorified body, but we can know that we will have one.

Any attempt we make in trying to described God can only diminish his true nature, majesty, power, glory… and love. Just knowing that God is greater and more glorious than we can imagine is enough. And He has already shown us how much He loves us. He gave His very life for us.

Have you ever wondered why we use the familial terms of Father and Son in describing God? We believe that God in his essence, is eternally a family consisting of the Father and the Son, and the love between them being so real that it constitutes another divine Person, the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is the image and likeness of God made more manifest in mankind than in the family. The two become one and the love between them results in a life so real that nine months later we must give it a name. The family is a trinity of sorts, repeated again and again.

The Scriptures tell us that we will become adopted sons and daughters of the Father and share in the very life of God, in his own family, the Trinity, for all eternity. While I cannot fathom what that will be like, I can believe it and desire it, and follow the teachings of the Church built by Christ himself in order to get there.

Peace.

Steve

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I would use the word “person” but bahai have difficulty trying to grasp the idea of personhood beyond humanity, that is when Christians say God is a person or three persons, bahai and muslims both say God is not a person. Of course bahai do not understand what we mean by the word person, Hypostases, an individual, with the ability to think, form the concept and idea that he is unique and apart from other entities or persons. I am not Daler and he is not me. Krishna is not Jesus and Jesus is not Krishna.

What your saying would suggest they are not really persons at all, but that would contradict what we know of them. Or do they only appear to act and behave like beings we associate with persons? When Moses (whom you say is God’s perfect glory) Disobeyed God and didn’t listen to him and was punished, did Moses himself exist to know that he was being punished? Or was he just some construct, not really anything of consequence but an example?

Are they persons? You are speaking far to vaguely with regards to this. Maybe this doesn’t matter to bahai, but one day when the criticism becomes more pronounced when bahai grows (and inevitably people will want a happy feel good religion with some basic ideas and structure that feels traditional and yet universal and yet new, while being totally wrong mind you) the bahai will need to define their position, perhaps start by doing it now.

Start by answering some questions meaningfully.

Are the Manifestations one person or persons? Do they have the ability to will? Do they have the ability to conceive as themselves as not God and not Human?
Are the manifestations of a different substance of the ultimate divine reality, i.e. God. Can the manifestations in a meaningful way be said to be Hetero-ousious to God? Of a different substance or essence or composition than that which God is?

Bahai like to knock Christians around for their councils and haven’t realised they have yet to have their own councils where they recognise the need for these terms that Christians have. Take in mind this is what you will need if you want to talk to Christians. Your prophet didn’t know Christianity and so he didn’t know how to address Christians on a level beyond basic beliefs that were commonly known and when his son tried to reinterpret the trinity (thus not addressing it at all) it shows he had either a poor teacher (his father) or wasn’t taught at all.

 

[daler]

We agree that our finite minds cannot grasp the infinite. If we could fully understand God in our human state he would be no greater than us. And no we cannot grasp heaven, though we see shadows of it here on earth. We are limited by our human capacity. But even though we cannot fully grasp God, we can know that He exists. Even though we cannot fully grasp the words He spoke, we can, nevertheless, believe them. We have no idea what it will be like to have a glorified body, but we can know that we will have one.

Any attempt we make in trying to described God can only diminish his true nature, majesty, power, glory… and love. Just knowing that God is greater and more glorious than we can imagine is enough. And He has already shown us how much He loves us. He gave His very life for us.

Have you ever wondered why we use the familial terms of Father and Son in describing God? We believe that God in his essence, is eternally a family consisting of the Father and the Son, and the love between them being so real that it constitutes another divine Person, the Holy Spirit. Nowhere is the image and likeness of God made more manifest in mankind than in the family. The two become one and the love between them results in a life so real that nine months later we must give it a name. The family is a trinity of sorts, repeated again and again.

The Scriptures tell us that we will become adopted sons and daughters of the Father and share in the very life of God, in his own family, the Trinity, for all eternity. While I cannot fathom what that will be like, I can believe it and desire it, and follow the teachings of the Church built by Christ himself in order to get there.

Peace.

Steve

Well, friend, that is a good post!