Why do you believe what you believe?

[tonyfish58]

I’m saying your position is illogical, i.e., claiming at once to believe that through the Jews and the Christians is the first and second revelation, but then denying those revelations by invalidating what they actually say, as I said illogical and quite convenient, i.e., Muhammed could synthesize the two faiths to create what is now Islam, i.e., the "third’ revelation. Moreover, what proof do you have that God sent Muhammed except for Muhammed saying it was God who sent him (really)? I think I’ll stick to the more concise reporting and witnesses in the Bible (both old and new) that attest to Jesus’s divinity. God bless!

I found this writing from the Bab, the Gate to Baha’u’llah

PONDER upon the people unto whom the Gospel was given. Their religious leaders were considered as the true Guides of the Gospel, yet when they shut themselves out from Muḥammad, the Apostle of God, they turned into guides of error, notwithstanding that all their lives they had faithfully observed the precepts of their religion in order to attain unto Paradise; then when God made Paradise known unto them, they would not enter therein. Those unto whom the Qur’án is given have wrought likewise. They performed their acts of devotion for the sake of God, hoping that He might enable them to join the righteous in Paradise. However, when the gates of Paradise were flung open to their faces, they declined to enter. They suffered themselves to enter into the fire, though they had been seeking refuge therefrom in God.
Say, verily, the criterion by which truth is distinguished from error shall not appear until the Day of Resurrection. This ye will know, if ye be of them that love the Truth. And ere the advent of the Day of Resurrection ye shall distinguish truth from aught else besides it according to that which hath been revealed in the Bayán.
How vast the number of people who will, on the Day of Resurrection, regard themselves to be in the right, while they shall be accounted as false through the dispensation of Providence, inasmuch as they will shut themselves out as by a veil from Him Whom God shall make manifest and refuse to bow down in adoration before Him Who, as divinely ordained in the Book, is the Object of their creation. XVII, 4.

and this

"CONSIDER how at the time of the appearance of every Revelation, those who open their hearts to the Author of that Revelation recognize the Truth, while the hearts of those who fail to apprehend the Truth are straitened by reason of their shutting themselves out from Him. However, openness of heart is bestowed by God upon both parties alike. God desireth not to straiten the heart of anyone, be it even an ant, how much less the heart of a superior creature, except when he suffereth himself to be wrapt in veils, for God is the Creator of all things…Link - reference.bahai.org/en/t/tb/SWB/

God Bless - Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

Only because faith and reason should go hand in hand.

There are no truer words than that you have just spoken!

Shall we look at Reason? It has lots of connotations!

Regards Tony

 

[Servant19]

Servant19 is very uninformed regarding Church teaching. He believes that Pope (emeritus) B16’s book Jesus of Nazareth is a teaching of the magisterium.

Servant wrote:
“The book was written when he was the Pope. It is magesterial teaching.”

It is not. In fact, Pope B16 writes quite clearly that it is definitely NOT a teaching of the magisterium. In the forward to the book, the Holy Father states (bold mine): "It goes without saying that **this book in no way is an exercise of the magisterium **but is solely an expression of my personal search “for the face of the Lord (Psalm 27:8)”

It appears that he is unaware that the personal thoughts of a pope do not equal “a teaching of the magisterium”.

Secondly, in his book Jesus of Nazareth, Pope B16 does NOT state, at all, that the Ascension of Christ is symbolic.

That it was not a literal Ascension by Christ is never mentioned, not even once, by our theological giant, Pope B16.

Excuse me PR, but what I wrote was the official words of Francis Phillips who is the book reviewer for the Catholic Herald. Is the Catholic Herald a deviant Catholic Publication? If it is, I apologize. If it is a publication sanctioned by the Catholic Faith then Francis Phillips’ review here:

mercatornet.com/articles/view/jesus_of_nazareth_-_1

…where he states that this book is a magisterial work is an error of the official book reviewer of the Catholic Herald, not mine.

I have since purchased this book and will be reading it more closely in order to continue my interesting dialogue with brother Vouthon

.

 

[Servant19]

A symbol represents something in place of stating what that thing is explicitly. Symbolic language is used to describe “real” things but in indirect ways. Anything can be used as a symbol: light to signify hope, a snake to signify deviousness, darkness to signify ignorance, red to signify danger. When you use traffic lights to cross a road you are engaging with symbols: you know that red means “stop” and that green means “go”. This is symbolic language, using known common everyday things to communicate something deeper.

The Ascension is a Mystery. Christ departing the material universe, with His glorified body, and existing beyond time/place yet being present to us through the Holy Spirit. It needs symbols, such as clouds and the sky, to help the early Christians and us understand it.

I am therefore describing a real, literal truth when I use symbols. In your analogy, my prospects are brighter, hope has returned to my life, through the medium of a symbol “light”. If you say it is a “symbolic event” then nothing really happened. An event has to be “something”. It either took place or it didn’t.

When it comes to theology, this is necessary because the “realities” are above human comprehension and so “symbols” of things known to man have to be used to communicate deeper truths.

Thus the Ascension was a literal event that took place: Jesus’ glorified body departed from this universe and went to be with the Father beyond place and time. To explain this, symbolism was used: clouds, the sky etc. All this would indicate to ancient people that Jesus had “left” behind their visible world and gone “beyond”.

It is interesting to me that we seem to be at a sort of “impasse” in this respect.

You are fully entitled to think such and I thank you, friend, for sharing your understanding with us It is, as always, appreciated by me.

If I may answer for him, it is not a “place” really at all since there is no designated “space” or “area”. It is a state of being. Pope Benedict XVI actually stated once that, “Heaven is not a place and cannot be found on a map; rather it is where God’s will is done”.

However we have not been totally “averse” to describe it as a “spiritual place”, so long as one does not think this means a “space”. Thus St. Thomas noted:

However it is best to avoid using the idea of “place” at all since it isn’t “anywhere”. As Eckhart once explained:

Heaven is communion with God. The Book of Maccabees actually uses the term “Heaven” as a name for God. The Catechism describes it as “the entry of God’s creatures into the perfect unity of the Holy Trinity”.

Blessed John Paul II explained our understanding in this regard well:

Thank you brother Vouthon for your kind and well considered responses.

I truly appreciate your thoughts dear friend.
I have been away with the family and apologize for the delay in continuing our dialogue…

May I ask you, when you say that “heaven is communion with God” and that “God is a spirit” where does a glorified body fit into all of this?

Is heaven a “spiritual condition” or a “glorified body condition”?

Thank you and God bless

 

[PRmerger]

Excuse me PR, but what I wrote was the official words of Francis Phillips who is the book reviewer for the Catholic Herald. Is the Catholic Herald a deviant Catholic Publication? If it is, I apologize. If it is a publication sanctioned by the Catholic Faith then Francis Phillips’ review here:

mercatornet.com/articles/view/jesus_of_nazareth_-_1

…where he states that this book is a magisterial work is an error of the official book reviewer of the Catholic Herald, not mine.

Firstly, Francis Phillips looks like a woman, not a man. And what a book reviewer says is not to be taken as official.

Secondly, the book itself states that it is NOT in any way an exercise of the magisterium.

Thirdly, one ought to have even a rudimentary understanding of what constitutes an exercise of the magisterium after being here so long and in dialogue with Catholics, even if one is not Catholic. It’s clear, even if the forward did not mention the disclaimer that it’s not a magisterial document, that it wouldn’t be anything except the theological explications of a theological giant…but NOT official Church teaching.

Finally, Pope B16’s book in no way, shape or form says that Jesus’ Ascension was not a literal Ascension. If it were, you’d have to tell us (after reading the non-magisterial book) where the Holy Father believes Jesus is buried after his symbolic Ascension.

 

[Porknpie]

If it were, you’d have to tell us (after reading the non-magisterial book) where the Holy Father believes Jesus is buried after his symbolic Ascension.

Right. And no one at anytime has ever claimed to have the body of Jesus (want to disprove Christianity, find his body). I should add that no one at any time has ever claimed to have the body of his mother, Mary either (want to disprove Catholicism, find her body). Both are in heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

Right. And no one at anytime has ever claimed to have the body of Jesus (want to disprove Christianity, find his body). I should add that no one at any time has ever claimed to have the body of his mother, Mary either (want to disprove Catholicism, find her body). Both are in heaven.

Egg-zactly.

 

[Servant19]

Firstly, Francis Phillips looks like a woman, not a man. And what a book reviewer says is not to be taken as official.

Secondly, the book itself states that it is NOT in any way an exercise of the magisterium.

Thirdly, one ought to have even a rudimentary understanding of what constitutes an exercise of the magisterium after being here so long and in dialogue with Catholics, even if one is not Catholic. It’s clear, even if the forward did not mention the disclaimer that it’s not a magisterial document, that it wouldn’t be anything except the theological explications of a theological giant…but NOT official Church teaching.

Finally, Pope B16’s book in no way, shape or form says that Jesus’ Ascension was not a literal Ascension. If it were, you’d have to tell us (after reading the non-magisterial book) where the Holy Father believes Jesus is buried after his symbolic Ascension.

Yes, he is a woman (my bad)

The point isssssss…dear PR

It is the opinion of the Pope (during His papacy, may I add) that the Ascension of Jesus, while it did take place, had nothing to do with any physicality into physical clouds.

The “clouds” are symbolic, not the Ascension, and for this reason, the Ascension is not seen to be a physical entry into a physical cosmos containing clouds.

If the Pope believes that, then this carries some weight (and maybe it should be of sincere consideration by you)

The next thing to then consider is that the Return, if it is to be the same way as the Ascension is NOT from physical clouds either, as is commonly thought by ALL Christian denominations.

…

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, he is a woman (my bad)

The point isssssss…dear PR

It is the opinion of the Pope (during His papacy, may I add) that the Ascension of Jesus, while it did take place, had nothing to do with any physicality into physical clouds.

Well, if that’s what you mean that there were not any physical clouds, then all of us Catholics here ought to give you a

That is correct: we don’t have to believe that there were physical clouds.

But we do believe, just like the Holy Father does, that Jesus did indeed Ascend into heaven.

His body did not remain on planet earth.

 

[Servant19]

Right. And no one at anytime has ever claimed to have the body of Jesus (want to disprove Christianity, find his body). I should add that no one at any time has ever claimed to have the body of his mother, Mary either (want to disprove Catholicism, find her body). Both are in heaven.

Except that heaven is not a place for physical bodies dear friend

Neither is it a place of “physical clouds”…

.

 

[Servant19]

His body did not remain on planet earth.

You don’t know what happened to His physical body. There was a physical body crucifixion, then there was a glorified body resurrection.

How do you know the glorified body was not a part of the physical body and it got separated after death, leaving the physical body behind?

.

 

[eddie_too]

How do you know the glorified body was not a part of the physical body and it got separated after death, leaving the physical body behind?

i am not sure if it is deliberate, but asking how some one knows what occurred when someone was not present is a bit of a rhetorical trap.

i know that Jesus physical body left this created universe because of the testimony of the witnesses there at the time, and the validity of their witness has never been successfully impeached.

in addition, i have many reasons that support this knowledge.

to more specifically address the example of another possibility posed in the question, there were never two bodies, one glorified and one not glorified.

just as one can hypothesize the existence of a six horned purple cross between a giraffe and a rhinocerous, people can hypothesize imaginary concepts whose only connection to reality is that they come from the imagination of a human being. that is what the concept of two bodies is, a totally imaginary concept which cannot be supported by anything in reality. another example of this use of imaginary possibilities, how do you know obi wan kenobi is not a real creature?

 

[Servant19]

i know that Jesus physical body left this created universe because of the testimony of the witnesses there at the time, and the validity of their witness has never been successfully impeached.

in addition, i have many reasons that support this knowledge.

No, the physical body was simply “not there”. This does not mean the physical body had “left this created universe”…

"She said, “They have taken the Lord’s body out of the tomb, and we don’t know where they have put him!” (John 20:2)

This could mean several things…

.

 

[Servant19]

just as one can hypothesize the existence of a six horned purple cross between a giraffe and a rhinocerous, people can hypothesize imaginary concepts whose only connection to reality is that they come from the imagination of a human being. that is what the concept of two bodies is, a totally imaginary concept which cannot be supported by anything in reality. another example of this use of imaginary possibilities, how do you know obi wan kenobi is not a real creature?

Ok…what is the evidence available to prove that there was only one body?

 

[Vouthon]

May I ask you, when you say that “heaven is communion with God” and that “God is a spirit” where does a glorified body fit into all of this?

Is heaven a “spiritual condition” or a “glorified body condition”?

Thank you and God bless

Dear brother Servant

Thank you for the question!

Heaven is a state of being, defined by the Beatific Vision. It isn’t a place. It is therefore best defined, if I am to support one of your terms, as a “spiritual condition”. The best description of heaven still has to be Pope Benedict XII’s definition from 1336, which is de fide (dogmatically binding) or in other words an exercise of papal infallibility (ex cathedra) and clarifies it as wholly spiritual in nature:

By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence. Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.

Such a vision and enjoyment of the divine essence do away with the acts of faith and hope in these souls, inasmuch as faith and hope are properly theological virtues. And after such intuitive and face-to-face vision and enjoyment has or will have begun for these souls, the same vision and enjoyment has continued and will continue without any interruption and without end until the last Judgment and from then on forever.

This “intuitive vision” of the Essence of God enjoyed by the blessed, which is what heaven really is, does not consist of seeing with “physical” eyes as St. Thomas Aquinas explained:

I say then that God can nowise be seen with the eyes of the body, or perceived by any of the senses, as that which is seen directly, neither here, nor in heaven: for if that which belongs to sense as such be removed from sense, there will be no sense, and in like manner if that which belongs to sight as sight be removed therefrom, there will be no sight. Accordingly seeing that sense as sense perceives magnitude, and sight as such a sense perceives color, it is impossible for the sight to perceive that which is neither color nor magnitude, unless we call it a sense equivocally

newadvent.org/summa/5092.htm

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

Indeed when Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa wrote a commentary on the Qur’an in Latin during the fifteenth century, primarily for the pope to read and understand Islam in light of the Turkish conquest of Byzantium, he interpreted the ayats about paradise as metaphors and found it impossible to understand why so many Muslims believed in a “physical” heaven. Cusa argues that Muhammad was simply trying to teach the Arabs, through earthly imagery, that every desire would be satisfied in Paradise - yet not literally:

"…All temporal things die away, only the intellectual do not. Eating, drinking, luxuriating and more of the same, if they please at one time, displease at another and are unstable. However, to know and to understand and to see the truth with the eyes of the mind are always pleasant. And the older the man becomes, the more this pleases him and the more he obtains of it, the stronger becomes his appetite to possess it… If therefore the desire shall be perpetual and the nourishment perpetual, the nourishment will be neither temporal nor sensible, but rather only intellectual life. Hence, although the promise of a paradise, where there are streams of wine and honey and a multitude of virgins, is found in the law of the Koran, there are nonetheless many men in this world who [oppose] this. How will the latter then be happy, if they attain that there, which they do not wish to have here? It’s said in the Koran, that one will find wonderfully beautiful, dark-skinned maidens, with eyes which have large, bright white eyeballs. No German would desire such a maiden in this world, even if he had surrendered to the lusts of the flesh. One must therefore understand those promises as similitudes.

At another point the Koran prohibits copulation and all other pleasures of the flesh in churches or synagogues or mosques. However, one cannot believe that the mosques are holier than paradise. How shall that be prohibited in the mosque, which is promised yonder in paradise?

In other locations the Koran says that everything is found there that we desire here, since the fulfillment of all must take place there. Thereby it reveals sufficiently what it wants to say, when it says that such things are found there. For since these things are so much desired in this world, presupposing that an equal desire exists in the other world, then they will be found exquisitely and abundantly there. For it could not express that that life is the completion of all desires other than by this similitude. Nor did it wish to express to uneducated people other, more hidden things, but rather only that which appears felicitous according to the senses, so that the people, who do not have an appetite for things of the spirit, would not despise the promises.

The whole concern of him who wrote that law [Muhammad], therefore, appears to have been primarily to avert the people from idolatry. And to this end he made these kinds of promises and wrote down everything. However, he did not condemn the Gospel, but rather praised it, and thereby intimated that the felicity which is promised in the Gospel would not be less than that corporeal felicity. And the intelligent and the wise men among them know, that this is true. Avicenna prefers the intellectual felicity of the vision or fruition of God and the truth incomparably to the felicity described in the law of the Arabs. Nevertheless he adhered to that law. Likewise did the other wise men…"

***- Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa (1453), De Pace Fidei ***

So we have NEVER believed in a “physical” heaven.

Since glorified bodies, as I explained here in my last post: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11567083&postcount=232 do not rely for their sustenance on the non-glorified creation, they do not need to be contained in this material universe but can exist without a “containing space”. Glorified bodies can therefore exist outside spatial time in the state of “heaven” just as bodiless spirits, such as angels and humans before the glorified resurrection of the dead after Christ’s “second coming”, also can.

Angels are in the state of heaven but do not have glorified bodies, they are simply bodiless spirits. God Himself is “heaven”, since to be in “heaven” is to see Him as He Is in Himself without intermediary, and God is not physical in essence - in essence He is Divine, pure spirit, as He is in the Persons of the Father and Holy Spirit. Even after God the Son assumed human nature, the divine and human natures in Jesus do not “mix”, the Person of Son simply “added” a human nature. His divine nature is still not “human” but pure “Spirit”.

Angels are in essence spirits, made to be disembodied spirits. Animals are in essence material creatures, made to be physical. Human beings are neither. We are in essence a combination of matter and spirit. We live in this world like animals but our spiritual soul longs for the Presence of God.

For humans to experience death like all other living things and thus be separated from their bodies is not in Christian theology seen as intrinsically good, as the deuterocanonical book of Wisdom explains:

"…for God created us for incorruption,

and made us in the image of his own eternity,

but through the devil’s envy [human] death entered the world…"

- Wisdom 2: 23-24

Man’s body was designed for “glorification”, his bodily impulses subjugated to his higher spiritual ones. However in practice, man choose to obey his animal instincts. Experiencing death like the animals is a consequence of this.

Christ’s resurrection heals this and gives man the opportunity, like him, to ascend to God beyond time and place in the state of heaven, with his whole being “body and soul”.

 

[eddie_too]

the proof is the oral testimony of those who witnessed the events.

in addition, paul sees Jesus on the road to Damascus. that is after Jesus’ Ascension.

it is difficult to understand how a bahai, who says out of one side of his mouth that he reveres, esteems and has the highest regard for Jesus; and, then out of the other side of his mouth says that Jesus slunk away like a sick dog, by Himself, and died alone, His body left to be eaten by the wild animals, has any integrity or makes any sense.

i suppose the answer is that the bahai who write like that are suffering from a profound igorance of the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church; and thus must be excused from culpability for the blasphemy such words are.

 

[josie_L]

You don’t know what happened to His physical body. There was a physical body crucifixion, then there was a glorified body resurrection.

How do you know the glorified body was not a part of the physical body and it got separated after death, leaving the physical body behind?

.

So Jesus has two bodies, i.e., no his glorified body still had the stigmata and the puncture wound on his side. When St. Thomas saw him he put his hands on the wounds and exclaimed, “My Lord and My God”. St. Thomas did not at first believe Jesus had truly resurrected until he placed his hands upon him and touched his wounds. It was this body which ascended into Heaven before the eyes of the apostles.

 

[josie_L]

I found this writing from the Bab, the Gate to Baha’u’llah

PONDER upon the people unto whom the Gospel was given. Their religious leaders were considered as the true Guides of the Gospel, yet when they shut themselves out from Muḥammad, the Apostle of God, they turned into guides of error, notwithstanding that all their lives they had faithfully observed the precepts of their religion in order to attain unto Paradise; then when God made Paradise known unto them, they would not enter therein. Those unto whom the Qur’án is given have wrought likewise. They performed their acts of devotion for the sake of God, hoping that He might enable them to join the righteous in Paradise. However, when the gates of Paradise were flung open to their faces, they declined to enter. They suffered themselves to enter into the fire, though they had been seeking refuge therefrom in God.
Say, verily, the criterion by which truth is distinguished from error shall not appear until the Day of Resurrection. This ye will know, if ye be of them that love the Truth. And ere the advent of the Day of Resurrection ye shall distinguish truth from aught else besides it according to that which hath been revealed in the Bayán.

How vast the number of people who will, on the Day of Resurrection, regard themselves to be in the right, while they shall be accounted as false through the dispensation of Providence, inasmuch as they will shut themselves out as by a veil from Him Whom God shall make manifest and refuse to bow down in adoration before Him Who, as divinely ordained in the Book, is the Object of their creation. XVII, 4.

and this

"CONSIDER how at the time of the appearance of every Revelation, those who open their hearts to the Author of that Revelation recognize the Truth, while the hearts of those who fail to apprehend the Truth are straitened by reason of their shutting themselves out from Him. However, openness of heart is bestowed by God upon both parties alike. God desireth not to straiten the heart of anyone, be it even an ant, how much less the heart of a superior creature, except when he suffereth himself to be wrapt in veils, for God is the Creator of all things…Link - reference.bahai.org/en/t/tb/SWB/

God Bless - Regards Tony

I have opened my heart to the Truth as spoken by God, not someone who proclaimed to be a prophet of God, but God Himself who came down from Heaven to become man so that He could save us from sin. His name is Jesus Christ or if you prefer the Word of God.

 

[josie_L]

Except that heaven is not a place for physical bodies dear friend

Neither is it a place of “physical clouds”…

.

That’s not what Muslims believe.