One correct religion with the Truth (part 2)?

[tonyfish58]

Yes, one of my greatest frustrations is the merry-go-round that seems prevalent here.

To the point, however, Christ is either God Almighty or he is not. If he is not then Christianity falls on its face. There is no balancing act necessary unless one is interested in watering down the truth to make it more palatable to those who cannot accept it.

SteveVH - I would like to point out that no One Falls on their Face when it is the Love of God we discuss Dear Friend

We know we all fall short and we know that God is the best of forgivers

It is also not about watering down Truth, in Fact it is increasing the Flow of the Mighty River of Gods Words, a Mighty Ocean to which there are many Pearls Hidden in the Depths!

As to your statement “Christ is either God Almighty or he is not”. You could add or Both and none would be totally wrong

It is a shame that there seems to be a barrier we can not cross with this discussion - God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH - I would like to point out that no One Falls on their Face when it is the Love of God we discuss Dear Friend

If Jesus is not the almighty God then we are worshiping a false god and our faith is in vain, pure and simple.

It is also not about watering down Truth, in Fact it is increasing the Flow of the Mighty River of Gods Words, a Mighty Ocean to which there are many Pearls Hidden in the Depths!

And errors, and conflicts and contradictions which are just ignored. We are either in pursuit of truth or we are not. Christ never spoke of Muhammad and Muhammad rejects him as the Son of God. And you see no problem. God is not a God of confusion and conflict. Therefore both cannot be right.

As to your statement “Christ is either God Almighty or he is not”. You could add or Both and none would be totally wrong

Tony, do you believe the philosophical concept of “objective truth”? How in the world can Christ be “God” and “not God” at the same time? I’m sorry, but a little intellectual honesty is in order here. That statement is patently false.

It is a shame that there seems to be a barrier we can not cross with this discussion - God Bless and Regards Tony

Indeed.

God bless.

Steve

 

[tonyfish58]

Tony, do you believe the philosophical concept of “objective truth”? How in the world can Christ be “God” and “not God” at the same time? I’m sorry, but a little intellectual honesty is in order here. That statement is patently false.

God bless. Steve

Steve - In the end It boils down to what we can Understand - There is much clarity written on this subject. Baha’u’llah has written (I have added the thoughts re this subject in Bold Blue)

 "Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.... 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.

And in another similar passage:

The door of the knowledge of the Ancient Being [God] hath ever been, and will continue to be, closed in the face of men. No man's understanding shall ever gain access unto His holy court. As a token of His mercy, however, and as a proof of His loving-kindness, He hath manifested unto men the Day Stars of His divine guidance, the Symbols of His divine unity, and **hath ordained the knowledge of these sanctified Beings to be identical with the knowledge of His own Self**.

Abdul’Baha has written

Know that there are two kinds of knowledge: the knowledge of the essence of a thing and the knowledge of its qualities. The essence of a thing is known through its qualities; otherwise, it is unknown and hidden.

As our knowledge of things, even of created and limited things, is knowledge of their qualities and not of their essence, how is it possible to comprehend in its essence the Divine Reality, which is unlimited? … Knowing God, therefore, means the comprehension and the knowledge of His attributes, and not of His Reality. This knowledge of the attributes is also proportioned to the capacity and power of man; it is not absolute. info.bahai.org/article-1-4-0-2.html

My current understanding is we can know Christ as the Man that walked this Earth as a Manifestation of God or we Can Know Christ as Our God, we are told that both these views of God are not wrong if we do not argue about them. (There is a passage re this that I have run out of time to look for)

There is much written - This is a good Discussion - It is very comprehensive - bahai-library.com/cole_concept_manifestation

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[eddie_too]

the bahai who post here are not intellectually prepared to discuss the Roman Catholic faith.

this is apparent from their multitudinous posts the contain multitudinous misperceptions and errors concerning what the RC faith is and teaches.

the RC faith is nothing like the bahai"s who post here perceptions of it.

however, I, for one, am interested in knowing: 1) what Bahaullah provides mankind that has not already been provided by Jesus; 2) what the world needs now that Jesus did not already provide; and 3) why Christians should stop believing in what Jesus taught His apostles.

what Jesus taught the apostles is different from what Bahaullah teaches people. in fact, the dissimilarities between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of bahuallah far surpass the similarities.

from the top of my mind, at least through example, Bahaullah taught people that the seven sacraments have no role in his life or the lives of his followers. therefore, Bahaullah, if not in words at least through actions, teaches his followers and other human beings not to take advantage of the graces our Creator provides to all humans through His Incarnate Son and the Church He founded. for, Bahaullah himself refused to seek out and practice the seven sacraments.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve - In the end It boils down to what we can Understand - There is much clarity written on this subject. Baha’u’llah has written (I have added the thoughts re this subject in Bold Blue)

 "Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.... 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.

Well, possibly this is an area in which we can agree. The highest and loftiest language we can foster in describing the essence of God can only diminish him. He is eternally above us in every way possible and we cannot come near to grasping Him in his majesty and glory.

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:8-9)

I am not sure I understand what Baha’u’llah is trying to say, however. The “Unseen” was certainly incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. St Paul tells us:

“For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form.” (Colossians 2:9)

The fullness of the deity would include God’s essence, even if it is hidden from our eyes and still beyond our comprehension.

After all this time in corresponding with Baha’i, I still really have no idea what the Baha’i definition of a “Manifestation” really is. If Jesus is just one Manifestation among many then we are not talking about the same thing. Jesus did not “inhabit” a body, or possess someone. He “assumed” human nature, once.

Maybe you could give me a short, concise definition of what you mean by “Manifestation” in order to facilitate this discussion. I know we have been over this before but I feel we will be talking past each other without defining our terms. So, if you don’t mind, just one more time.

Thanks.

Steve

 

[tonyfish58]

Maybe you could give me a short, concise definition of what you mean by “Manifestation” in order to facilitate this discussion. I know we have been over this before but I feel we will be talking past each other without defining our terms. So, if you don’t mind, just one more time.Thanks.Steve

Steve - Yes dear friend, there is not a lot of point going over and over, I agree

I have learned much from this Forum and I thank all that have shared their wisdom.

Let me try to impart the Baha’i Concept of Manifestation in my Own Words, please consider I will most likely not do it Justice This concept is in the Passages I posted Above

I will try it as a summery

God - Unknowable exalted above all concept and Praise that man can obtain and give.

Holy Spirit - All that is of God

Manifestation - The Vassal to which Gods Gives the Holy Spirit to Mankind.

Thus all the Manifestation Are One, they all are the Vassals of the Same Holy Spirit, they are the First and the Last, the beginning and the End.

The outer Vassal Changes in Each Age, but it has the same contents. In each age God pours out of the Vassal as He Willeth. Because the portion may be different in Each age, it does not mean the Vassal was not full and contain everything.

I will leave it there dear friend - God bless and with Love - Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

the bahai who post here are not intellectually prepared to discuss the Roman Catholic faith.

That dear Eddie too is most likely the truth of the matter

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

That dear Eddie too is most likely the truth of the matter

God Bless and Regards Tony

Why are you proud of that?

 

[Servant19]

And I agree with them. Christ humbled himself to take on human flesh. He became a true man, 100% human, while not giving up his divinity. From the aspect of his humanness the Father is certainly greater. But the fact that Jesus even refers to the “Father” indicates that he is speaking of his eternal relationship which could only be known through his divine nature. He expresses his divine nature through his human nature and both natures are inextricably linked in one Person. Jesus would not be Jesus without both a human and a divine nature. There is no separation. We call this the “hypostatic union”. We can discuss that further if you wish.

God bless.

Hello dear friend

I highlighted the “I agree with them” because it relates to your agreeing with Christians who should talk about Jesus as a WHOLE (not physical and Divine aspects which can be separated)…but the “whole” hypostatic union.

If we are to see Jesus as one single entity then why do Catholics separate the entities again when it comes to clarifying the meaning behind “The Father is greater than I”

Either Jesus (entire and whole) is lesser than the Father, or Jesus (entire and whole) is not lesser than the Father (in which case this contradicts the words of Jesus)

Can you clarify please.

.

 

[SteveVH]

Hello dear friend

I highlighted the “I agree with them” because it relates to your agreeing with Christians who should talk about Jesus as a WHOLE (not physical and Divine aspects which can be separated)…but the “whole” hypostatic union.

If we are to see Jesus as one single entity then why do Catholics separate the entities again when it comes to clarifying the meaning behind “The Father is greater than I”

Either Jesus (entire and whole) is lesser than the Father, or Jesus (entire and whole) is not lesser than the Father (in which case this contradicts the words of Jesus)

Can you clarify please.

.

God, the Creator, assumed the flesh of a creature. If I could become a fly and yet retain my human soul, I would be less than a man in my “flyness” yet equal to him in my soul, would I not? Jesus, entire and whole, is both God and man. Corruptible flesh is less than God in his divinity. There is no contradiction.

Do you have any response to the rest of my post?

 

[Servant19]

God, the Creator, assumed the flesh of a creature. If I could become a fly and yet retain my human soul, I would be less than a man in my “flyness” yet equal to him in my soul, would I not? Jesus, entire and whole, is both God and man. Corruptible flesh is less than God in his divinity. There is no contradiction.

Do you have any response to the rest of my post?

Hi Steve, hope you’re having a nice weekend

…can you please advise what the word “assume” means here?

Is there any situations in creation that can be used as an example to demonstrate “assumption” ?

Why would Jesus and Paul (especially Paul) refer to the corruptible body of Jesus? Surely it’s the incorruptible Divinity that’s of interest, no?

If Paul was interested in the corruptible Jesus I think it puts the foundations of Christianity on corruptible grounds.

Surely Paul refers to the “the God of Jesus” knowing that Jesus is Divine, incorruptible, not corruptible. He had no interest whatsoever in corruptibility…



(Very busy weekend. I will study and respond to your other points in a few hours dear friend, my apologies)

.

 

[Servant19]

What is the difference between the “Word” and the "Word of God? If the Word is co-eternal then, by definition, the Word was uncreated. If this uncreated “Word” is co-eternal with the “Word of God”, yet separated, are you not describing two gods; two eternal but separate entities? This would be a huge difference in our belief systems.

Hi Steve, there is no difference between the “Word” and the “Word of God”. I actually said there is a difference between the “Word” and the “**World **of God” meaning the Divine Essence.

In Baha’i cosmology, there is the World of God (the Divine Essence), the World of the Kingdom (the Word) and the world of creation.

The Divine Essence is beyond all knowledge. As attested in Catholic theology:

“A direct and intuitive representation of the Divine Substance [Essence] as It is in Itself, is manifestly impossible. Our knowledge of God is restricted to His attributes which we see reflected in creatures, and which we refer to the Divine Substance; but the Substance itself we have no power to apprehend.”

strobertbellarmine.net/wilhelm_scannell_09.html

Creation is an “emanation” of the Divine Essence. The Divine Essence does not “manifest” itself in creation. In order to manifest in creation, the Divine Essence would assume imperfection and this is therefore impossible.

God has absolute and relative attributes.
Again, in Catholic theology, we see:

11. There are two kinds of attributes in God, absolute and relative. – Although human reason cannot comprehend God, it can, however, acquire a knowledge not only of His existence, but also of some of His attributes. These attributes are of two kinds: some belong to God considered in Himself, and these are absolute attributes; the others belong to Him as Creator of the world, and these are relative attributes.

www3.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/cp37.htm

One of His absolute attributes is “aseity” and we do not see His absolute attributes, which form part of His Divine Essence, within creation.

His relative attributes however, do “emanate” within creation and are the basis for Creation.

So where is all this going?

Just like the sun emanating its rays, the actor and his action, the writer and his writings, the speaker and his speech, are all intimately linked in terms of time, so is the Creator and His First Emanation, known as the World of the Kingdom.

The World of the Kingdom (or the Word) is the First Emanation of God and is Co-eternal with Him. This does not mean that the World of the Kingdom actually IS the World of God, no, they are separate Worlds. And neither does this mean that the World of the Kingdom is another God, meaning we believe in two Gods. No.

In Catholic theology it is stated here:

“In this, however, is seen not the nature of the artist, but only his artistic skill which he has left impressed on his handiwork. Thus also, when we look at the order of creation, we form in our mind an image not of the essence, but of the wisdom of Him who has made all things wisely.”

Saint Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335 – c. 395) - Sermons on the Beatitudes (Sermon 6)

So you see the artist is not an artist until the MOMENT he produces art.

The writer is not a writer until the MOMENT he writes.

The sun is not the sun until the moment it emanates rays.

The Creator is not a creator until the MOMENT He creates.

The emanation is co-eternal with God. The World of the Kingdom, the Word of God is the First Emanation from God and is similarly eternal.

Jesus and Baha’u’llah are “MANIFESTATIONS” of that First Emanation.

In truth they are not Manifestations of God, they are Manifestations of the “World of the Kingdom”, or, “Manifestations of the Word of God”, or as noted in The Prologue, “The Word”

So you see, dear friend, the Word is co-eternal with the Essence of God, but is not the Divine Essence itself

Please feel free to study further these concepts here:

bahai-library.org/books/quest/quest.03.html

.

 

[SteveVH]

Steve - Yes dear friend, there is not a lot of point going over and over, I agree

I have learned much from this Forum and I thank all that have shared their wisdom.

Let me try to impart the Baha’i Concept of Manifestation in my Own Words, please consider I will most likely not do it Justice This concept is in the Passages I posted Above

I will try it as a summery

God - Unknowable exalted above all concept and Praise that man can obtain and give.

Holy Spirit - All that is of God

Manifestation - The Vassal to which Gods Gives the Holy Spirit to Mankind.

Thus all the Manifestation Are One, they all are the Vassals of the Same Holy Spirit, they are the First and the Last, the beginning and the End.

The outer Vassal Changes in Each Age, but it has the same contents. In each age God pours out of the Vassal as He Willeth. Because the portion may be different in Each age, it does not mean the Vassal was not full and contain everything.

I will leave it there dear friend - God bless and with Love - Regards Tony

Thanks, Tony. Much appreciated.

The term “Vassal”, however, leaves me a little puzzled and so I hope you don’t mind if I ask a follow up question.

Vassal implies a relationship of a master/slave, feudal lord/peasant; a position of forced subordination, if you will.

The Christian position is that Christ’s relationship with the Father is one of son ship, rather than subordination to a master. In his divinity he is equal to the Father. He was not forced to become man, but humbled himself voluntarily out of love for mankind. As I have said before, we believe that the only distinction between the Father and the Son is one of relationship, not of power, authority, glory or majesty.

It seems to me that the definition of a “Manifestation” being a “Vassal” has its roots in Islamic theology. Is this accurate in your view?

The reason this is important is because, in our view, Christ is unique among all other men that have ever lived due to his unique relationship with the Father. Neither Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha nor Muhammad even claimed to be the only begotten Son of God. Nor do I believe Baha’u’llah has made this claim (correct me if I’m wring).

Do you recognize this distinction between Christ and all other “prophets”?

Thanks again for your “to the point” response.

Steve

 

[joe371]

St Francis;12088131]

I really don’t think it’s morally right for any one religion to say they are the only true religion and that everyone else is wrong. If any one religion claims to be the only truth, then they must surely be a lie? What do you think?
​

Jesus did say:, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That said, the CCC has a nice approach to the matter:

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,326 "the first to hear the Word of God."327 The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”,328 "for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable."329

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day."330

842 The Church’s bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race:

All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .331

843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."332

844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:

Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.333

 

[Servant19]

Well, I would not agree that there is any “manifest confusion” between the Scripture and the official interpretation. The confusion lies in the fact that you are interpreting ancient texts, written 2000 + years ago, in a different language and in a different culture, using forms of expression that are not familiar to the modern reader, as I have previously explained.

One should ask the question: Why would the Catholic Church canonize a text that was in direct conflict with what it teaches? There is no conflict, only misunderstanding and ignorance on the part of those who believe they have the authority to interpret the Holy Book of the Catholic Church better than the Catholic Church.

The Church existed for approximately 400 years prior to choosing the texts that would make up the canon of Sacred Scripture. It specifically chose these texts based upon how they lined up with the deposit of faith given to it by the Apostles (Sacred Tradition). The Bible is a supporting document, not the source of the truth we received. The source was a Person; Jesus Christ.

G’day to you dear Steve

In regards to this area of discussion, I would agree, it makes no sense for conclusions to be made from the Gospels which directly contradict the established Teachings of the Church.

My understanding is that canonization of certain Texts which reveal the specifics of Jesus Revelation does not mean that the “canonizers” (if thats a word) were privy to the elaborate explications and interpretations that were deduced from the texts.

Here we have a whole set of source materials. We also have a whole set of Traditions that have been passed down from generation to generation.

To CHANGE an entire culture and set of beliefs amongst a vastly growing populace of Christians because the Text does not match fully the Tradition would be tantamount to disaster.

As I said, for a populace of individuals and communities where the understanding was that the earth was flat, and life very uncomplex, telling them that Jesus was God (as per Nicean Creed and thereafter in Constantinople) is an incredibly uniting thing to continue with. Why introduce complexities? (please also let us not forget the bloodshed spilt over the establishment of trinitarian doctrine)

We worship Jesus. He is one with the Father, and we are all receiving the grace to place us in right relationship with God. God is pleased. Why change this?

And indeed, even today, God is pleased. However, Baha’u’llah has again come (just as He did in His “assumption” as Jesus) with a sword. It rips right through these “established” Traditions and offers light and clarity upon it all. Justa as Jesus ripped through the Law, Baha’u’llah rips through other veils and a new heaven and a new earth results.

During the Christian era, Paul refers the community as living in the Last Days.

Today again, we are living in the Last Days. Hallelujah!



.

 

[SteveVH]

So you see, dear friend, the Word is co-eternal with the Essence of God, but is not the Divine Essence itself

Then we are not speaking of the same Jesus. He is not a world. He is a divine Person and, as I have already pointed out, the fullness of God (which would include God’s essence) dwells in him bodily.

This is the reason that Christianity can never accept a faith tradition such as the Baha’i. Jesus is unique among all men who have ever walked the earth. He is God himself, essence and all, regardless of our ability to perceive. The entire idea of us needing another is contradictory to who we believe Jesus to be. He is the fullness of God’s revelation for all generations.

We use the same names (Jesus, God, Manifestation…) but we mean entirely different things. This makes communication nearly impossible.

 

[SteveVH]

G’day to you dear Steve

In regards to this area of discussion, I would agree, it makes no sense for conclusions to be made from the Gospels which directly contradict the established Teachings of the Church.

My understanding is that canonization of certain Texts which reveal the specifics of Jesus Revelation does not mean that the “canonizers” (if thats a word) were privy to the elaborate explications and interpretations that were deduced from the texts.

Then what criteria to you propose that they used in determining the canon of Scripture? Not to mention that, as Christ promised, they were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. They understood the texts very well or they would not have been chosen. There were over 400 documents considered for canonization of the New Testament books. They only chose 27. The rest may have been beautiful writings full of truth and wisdom, but they were not divinely inspired. The bishops of the Catholic Church discerned those that were inspired from those that were just… inspiring.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Servant19]

Then we are not speaking of the same Jesus.
He is not a world.

Hi Steve, by world, I don’t mean a planet or something silly like that. It means a “plane of existence” (probably the best term I can think of to explain it, off the top of my head)

He is a divine Person and, as I have already pointed out, the fullness of God (which would include God’s essence) dwells in him bodily.

I understand all you are saying here dear friend. But the “meanings” of these classic Christian sentences which are heard in all corners of the globe is what is critical.
What is “fullness” of God dwelling in Him bodily? When it is said “bodily” you are referring to His human aspect, but we know that His human aspect is not almighty, all-powerful, all-knowing. He said so Himself.

This is the reason that Christianity can never accept a faith tradition such as the Baha’i. Jesus is unique among all men who have ever walked the earth.

No Baha’i has ever doubted that.

He is God himself, essence and all, regardless of our ability to perceive.

Even Jesus Himself puts question to this statement. Even the Catholic theology which I have quoted on numerous occasions, which no-one wishes to address fully ;(

The entire idea of us needing another is contradictory to who we believe Jesus to be.

Baha’u’llah is not “another”. He is Jesus. You are struggling to understand beyond physical individualities it seems…

He is the fullness of God’s revelation for all generations.

Again, you are seeing the human Jesus, not the Divine Christ.

Let me try to put it into Christian terminology.
If God can assume a human form fully in one age, He can assume another body at another Age.
You judge whether He is or isn’t…I pray for you in your investigations

We use the same names (Jesus, God, Manifestation…) but we mean entirely different things. This makes communication nearly impossible.

Again, dear friend, in my post I used basically all Catholic quotes. Why is there a misunderstanding?

God bless you

.

 

[tonyfish58]

Thanks, Tony. Much appreciated.

The term “Vassal”, however, leaves me a little puzzled and so I hope you don’t mind if I ask a follow up question.

Vassal implies a relationship of a master/slave, feudal lord/peasant; a position of forced subordination, if you will.

The Christian position is that Christ’s relationship with the Father is one of son ship, rather than subordination to a master. In his divinity he is equal to the Father. He was not forced to become man, but humbled himself voluntarily out of love for mankind. As I have said before, we believe that the only distinction between the Father and the Son is one of relationship, not of power, authority, glory or majesty.

It seems to me that the definition of a “Manifestation” being a “Vassal” has its roots in Islamic theology. Is this accurate in your view?

The reason this is important is because, in our view, Christ is unique among all other men that have ever lived due to his unique relationship with the Father. Neither Moses, Zoroaster, Buddha nor Muhammad even claimed to be the only begotten Son of God. Nor do I believe Baha’u’llah has made this claim (correct me if I’m wring).

Do you recognize this distinction between Christ and all other “prophets”?

Thanks again for your “to the point” response. Steve

Steve - Firstly I acknowledge the Distinction that a Christian makes with the Station of Christ.

The word “Vassal” was just a term I chose at that time, it could also be said “Embodiment” of the Holy Spirit. The Term Son in itself designates our understanding of Christ. If we look at this Material Existence, A Son is Born from His Father, though not the Father He is the Embodiment of All He is. Thus the relationship can not be thought of a “master/slave, feudal lord/peasant”. But thought of as a Son wanted and brought into being as an expression of Love to be an expression of all the Father is.

You have stated “Christ is unique among all other men that have ever lived due to his unique relationship with the Father”. I would reply yes Christ did have a Unique Station and Relationship with the Father, but I understand this a little different because the Baha’i Writings and indeed the Koran have shed further light on that Station.

This is an interesting summary of How the Body of Christ is glorified, I have highlighted a couple of interesting statements;

"Bahá’u’lláh describes the manifestation as the mystery of divinity and the essence of self-subsistence, which is to say, it is a manifestation of these divine attributes. Nevertheless, the manifestation ‘seats itself’ upon the ‘throne’ of a human body. This metaphysical entity appears as a human being upon the planet earth. Bahá’u’lláh seems to say that there is a difference between the bodies of ordinary human beings and the human temple of the manifestation. The difference, however, is one of quality and not of kind. The body which the manifestation inhabits is composed of earthly elements just as are the bodies of ordinary human beings, but Bahá’u’lláh goes on to say that the body of the manifestation is to ordinary human bodies as diamond is to stones. Were it not for the bodies of the manifestations of God. Bahá’u’lláh says, the bodies of ordinary human beings would not have been created. bahai-library.com/cole_concept_manifestation#e

Dear SteveVH, a lot can be said about this and IMHO anything that we can say about this will never take away from the Glory of Christ. What it can do is assist with our understanding of why we are here!

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

Then what criteria to you propose that they used in determining the canon of Scripture? Not to mention that, as Christ promised, they were guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. They understood the texts very well or they would not have been chosen. There were over 400 documents considered for canonization of the New Testament books. They only chose 27. The rest may have been beautiful writings full of truth and wisdom, but they were not divinely inspired. The bishops of the Catholic Church discerned those that were inspired from those that were just… inspiring.

Peace.

Steve

Hi Steve, I am pitifully short in my understanding of what was contained in all the “rejected” documents and books. I have no doubt that they chose the correct books for the advancement of Gods religion at the time

There was obviously no book at all that said the exact words of the Nicene Creed, or that of the gathering at Constantinople. I genuinely believe that the gatherings at Nicea and Constantinople were to “advance” and “promote” and “strengthen in unity” the ideals of Christianity, not to finalise the Truth once and for all.

Even Paul, James and Peter did not see eye to eye initially when it came to the Law and breaking bread with Gentiles, circumcision etc etc. Canonization of a book did not settle that. It was the “gathering in His name” which settles these things, sometimes the Truth is not decided upon, but what is the “best” is decided upon and “unity” is of paramount importance for the community.

To claim that the later Christians understood the texts very well would imply that there should have been no need to construct a Creed, or for there to be a gathering in Nicea or in Constantinople. There would have been no need to persecute those that thought otherwise.

The books are not clear. Daniel sealed its full meaning. There is human interpretation involved, and the parties are several, otherwise what was the point of Nicea?

Even today, why do the Orthodox and the Catholics have differences if the “Church” knows what the teaching is?

The teachings, even though you may canonize them, does not grant you Truth in their meanings…



.