Why do you believe what you believe?

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Please tell me, dear Judas, does Pope Benedict’s exposition on the meaning of “Ascension” diminish or enhance the Christian understanding of Christs departure into so called “clouds”?

First, better to say “Pope Emeritus,” he can no
longer be recognized as Pope, resigned and all . . .

It really does not change anything much, similar to how say-
ing Genesis 1 not being literal doesn’t change that there’s a
God and he’s the Creator.

Nevertheless, it does still show that Baha’u’llah could not be the Second Coming, being the product of
human reproduction, which is not how Jesus ascended into Heaven, whether you take the literal inter-
pretation or the one given by the Pope Emeritus (whom I’m not sure is the first to say it).

 

[Servant19]

First, better to say “Pope Emeritus,” he can no
longer be recognized as Pope, resigned and all . . .

It really does not change anything much, similar to how say-
ing Genesis 1 not being literal doesn’t change that there’s a
God and he’s the Creator.

Nevertheless, it does still show that Baha’u’llah could not be the Second Coming, being the product of
human reproduction, which is not how Jesus ascended into Heaven, whether you take the literal inter-
pretation or the one given by the Pope Emeritus (whom I’m not sure is the first to say it).

Ok that has avoided my question, but no matter.

I have had these conversations with you before dear friend and it is for the reasons that you insist that black IS white that I will refrain from debating it and arguing, that is not the Baha’i way

Let it be known that it is not Baha’u’llah that diminishes Christian understanding, He speaks Truth, and eventually, Christianity ratifies that truth, just as the Pope did in his clarification of “Ascension”

The posts speak for themselves, God bless you

.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Ok that has avoided my question, but no matter.

No it doesn’t.
You asked if it diminished or enhanced, I suggested neither.
I’m only a revert, so maybe Vouthon has a better answer for
this particular question.

I have had these conversations with you before dear friend and it is for the reasons that you insist that black IS white that I will refrain from debating it and arguing, that is not the Baha’i way

Perhaps you can tell me where I’ve been “black IS white”?
And I don’t see how you and I have not been debating this
whole time. You say something, I say something, you pro-
pose the Baha’i interpretation, I show show the long held
Christian interpretations (may have missed a one or two).
I call that debating, mild debate at least.

Let it be known that it is not Baha’u’llah that diminishes Christian understanding, He speaks Truth, and eventually, Christianity ratifies that truth, just as the Pope did in his clarification of “Ascension”.

Well the Christian understands that it was Isaac whom God told Abraham to
sacrifice, not Ishmael. The Baha’i Faith claims that Jesus is a created being
like any other prophet, not the very God himself who created all things. The
Christians say that when Jesus said “Before Abraham was, I AM,” we take
that to mean that Jesus was identifying himself with God, same with when
Jesus said “I am the First and the Last,” but the Baha’i (at least you) have
said that it was God speaking through Jesus, so Jesus was not identifying
himself as God. The Christian understanding is that Jesus saved us from
Death, you said “what’s the living and being conscious in Sheol?”

At some point you have to see that Baha’u’llah, in the same way as Joseph
Smith, John Newbrough, Muhammad, and all other prophets coming after
the time of Jesus have gone and challenged the Christian understanding.

 

[tonyfish58]

In terms of “clouds” being a metaphor for “Glory” I’m sure that many Baha’is on here will probably see in this respect further vindication for their belief that Baha’u’llah (The Glory of God) is the Second Coming of Christ.

I should make it clear that I would categorically reject this interpretation

The Bible tells us that as soon as Christ’s comes again, “everyone” will know instantly and the New Heavens and Earth will come into being. It is the traditional view of Catholics and Orthodox Christians that the second coming will be a sudden and unmistakable incident, like “a flash of lightning”.[Mt 24:27] They hold the general view that Jesus will not spend any time on the earth in ministry or preaching. He will appear to ALL in a single instant. He will not physically walk on the earth again and preach and talk. He will just appear, His Return will be known to all through a glorious miracle and in that instant everything will change. It will happen in an instant. In a blink of the eye.

To my mind, Baha’u’llah’s “coming” did not happen in this way. In this respect he cannot be the Jesus Christ we are expecting, despite all his many noble teachings. He declared himself to be a Manifestation of God in 1863 and this was not instantly known by every single human being alive. Even today, there are some people who have never heard of Baha’u’llah. The Baha’i Faith took many years to spread the message of Baha’u’llah’s advent. This is not consistent with how the Bible or Sacred Tradition describes the Second Coming of Jesus.

“So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:27)

And again:

*Matthew 24:30 *- “all the tribes of the earth … will see the Son of Man coming upon the clouds of heaven”

*Revelation 1:*7 - “Behold, he is coming amid the clouds, and every eye will see him”

In the same way we do not know how he will “be revealed” when he returns. The Bible tells us that the “Sign of the Son of Man” will appear and he will come again. In that instant a New Universe will come into being.

This did not happen in 1863. Baha’u’llah’s Declaration was not immediately known from “East to West”. Every single human being did not suddenly declare, “The Messiah has returned! I see him!” I don’t see any evidence of ordinary life across the whole world being disrupted in 1863. It just doesn’t fit what the Bible teaches and how the Church, with Sacred Tradition, has always understood what the Second Coming of Christ would be like and mean.

Rather Baha’u’llah’s message took many years to spread, and still to this day there will be people who haven’t heard of him. Paul said that we will all “be changed in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye”.

Jesus, now that He is Risen, cannot and will not return to ordinary life and live among us. Catholics believe this and the Bible and Sacred Tradition attest too it.

As a result, Baha’u’llah does not fit the bill for us since he is not Christ in His glorified form but a mortal man leading a mortal life just like Jesus did before His resurrection. This is not the Second Coming, Jesus will not lead another human life among men. He is glorified above all time and place.

This is why Jesus warned people to ignore any reports that He had returned and was somewhere on the earth. People will appear and do miracles on the earth (Matt. 24:23-27), but Jesus will remain in the “clouds”, that is exalted above all creation, time and space in His glorified state, and when he comes again it will be for the purpose of a “New Heavens and a New Earth”, not to lead a mortal life and die again.

I commend the Baha’is for correctly seeing that the “clouds” in the ascension accounts do not refer so much to physical clouds as they are linguistic indicators of the “Manifest Presence” and “Glory” of God. However it is after this that I must part ways with them as a Catholic.

I hope that my understanding in this respect has been sufficiently described by me.

Vouthon -The Symbolic meaning of Christs Return & Clouds are well explained by Baha’u’llah. The answer so simple yet so profound. An explanation that can unite us all in the Love of Christ and the Prophets.

Why would one not consider them This link is a good look at the subject- bahai-library.com/poirier_iqan_unsealing_bible

Regards Tony

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Vouthon -The Symbolic meaning of Christs Return & Clouds are well explained by Baha’u’llah. The answer so simple yet so profound. An explanation that can unite us all in the Love of Christ and the Prophets.
Why would one not consider them This link is a good look at the subject- bahai-library.com/poirier_iqan_unsealing_bible
Regards Tony

Different Jesus, Different Gospelenies the resurrection:

“We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.”
From a letter on behalf of the Guardian, “High Endeavours” pp. 69-70, “Lights of Guidance,” 2nd Edition, p. 368.Bahá’u’lláh wrote:“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare, ‘I am God!’ He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world…”
(Book of Certitude, p. 178)"
Show me where Zarathustra, your prophet, said “I am God,” show me also where Moses said it, the Buddha
also. Jesus never said “I am God” so explicitly, but he did say “Before Abraham was, I AM,” and also identif-
ied himself with the I AM in other places. I wouldn’t be surprised if Krishna, your prophet, claimed to be God
or a god, because in Hinduism, he is a god, one among many gods and goddesses
​

The site asked “Who Do Baha’is Believe Jesus Christ is?”, the site’s answer was
“Exactly who the Bible says He is”, but only in the Mormon sense, that the Bible
is not perfect (Isaac vs Ishmael), and that the Bible is right only in as much as it
can be used to support the Baha’i Faith.I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and
are turning to a different gospel ― which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you
into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should
preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
– (Galatians 1:6-8)

 

[Servant19]

Different Jesus, Different Gospelenies the resurrection:

“We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.”
From a letter on behalf of the Guardian, “High Endeavours” pp. 69-70, “Lights of Guidance,” 2nd Edition, p. 368.Bahá’u’lláh wrote:“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare, ‘I am God!’ He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world…”
(Book of Certitude, p. 178)"
Show me where Zarathustra, your prophet, said “I am God,” show me also where Moses said it, the Buddha
also. Jesus never said “I am God” so explicitly, but he did say “Before Abraham was, I AM,” and also identif-
ied himself with the I AM in other places. I wouldn’t be surprised if Krishna, your prophet, claimed to be God
or a god, because in Hinduism, he is a god, one among many gods and goddesses
​

The site asked “Who Do Baha’is Believe Jesus Christ is?”, the site’s answer was
“Exactly who the Bible says He is”, but only in the Mormon sense, that the Bible
is not perfect (Isaac vs Ishmael), and that the Bible is right only in as much as it
can be used to support the Baha’i Faith.I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and
are turning to a different gospel ― which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you
into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should
preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!
– (Galatians 1:6-8)

It took 2011 years for the term “cloud” to be clarified officially in the Catholic Faith.

Yourself included, I would say 95% of Catholics are convinced the Jesus Ascension to the clouds is a literal, physical occurrence.

The question is this, Judas, how do you KNOW for a fact that Jesus had a physical resurrection and not a spiritual one? Maybe in 2045, the Pope will clarify the meaning of resurrection for all Catholics also. For so many, it will be too late…

The Baha’i Faith does not deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ and categorically affirms that Jesus is very much alive!!
(It simply states that it has a spiritual and symbolic meaning, just like His Ascension)

Please can you also stay on topic.

We are not talking about Ishmael, Isaac, or Zarathustra or Jesus is God etc etc.

God bless you Judas

.

 

[Servant19]

[/INDENT]Bahá’u’lláh wrote:“Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare, ‘I am God!’ He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world…”
(Book of Certitude, p. 178)"
Show me where Zarathustra, your prophet, said “I am God,” show me also where Moses said it, the Buddha
also. Jesus never said “I am God” so explicitly, but he did say “Before Abraham was, I AM,” and also identif-
ied himself with the I AM in other places. I wouldn’t be surprised if Krishna, your prophet, claimed to be God
or a god, because in Hinduism, he is a god, one among many gods and goddesses
[/INDENT]

]

Dear friend, I think you would benefit from reading with more precision and clarity

The quote of Baha’u’llah clearly starts with the word “WERE” meaning that there is no need to find examples where these Messengers say that they are God…



.

 

[Kliska]

To deny the physical resurrection of Jesus is not to deny a faith belief, but rather to deny a historical fact that can be studied and researched as such, and that was presented as such in the scripture. Jesus rose physically from the dead. It happened, and the Apostles preached that very fact as recorded in scripture. They also died for that fact, not faith, but fact.

 

[kaneata]

In another thread, an interesting question was posed.

“Why do you believe what you believe?”

Some have had experiences that they attribute to God, miracles per se. How do we know that these miracles/experiences are not simple coincidences? And if they are an intervention of some form of Divine Providence, what are the factors which contribute towards believing in Christ, Moses, Muhammad, or Baha’u’llah?

How do people rationalise their beliefs?

What is the difference between true faith and blind faith?

Finally, what is the difference between belief and superstition?

I would be very interested to hear peoples stories and rationalizations of their experiences.

God bless you all!

.

Do you think that Catholics are believers in a blind faith since we aren’t testing your faith? That is what I’m coming away with from your posts and your suggestions to read your material.

You make a big deal about “a new revelation” about the clouds. That is supposed to make us question our faith?

You want us to come over to your beliefs, but you don’t understand ours. We also have a 2000 year history guided by the Holy Spirit. Why would we want to leave?

 

[Servant19]

Do you think that Catholics are believers in a blind faith since we aren’t testing your faith? That is what I’m coming away with from your posts and your suggestions to read your material.

You make a big deal about “a new revelation” about the clouds. That is supposed to make us question our faith?

You want us to come over to your beliefs, but you don’t understand ours. We also have a 2000 year history guided by the Holy Spirit. Why would we want to leave?

Thank you dear kaneata

If you go back to post 130 in this thread, you will notice that there is a direct accusation by Judas that the Baha’i Faith twists, and manipulates the Bible meanings.

I simply asked him if Pope Benedict was to be accused of such things also? Is that an unjust and blatantly unfair question to ask?

Your post is very simply a principally re-enactment of what the Jews said to Jesus and His Revelation.

God bless you

.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It took 2011 years for the term “cloud” to be clarified officially in the Catholic Faith.

We discussed the 2011, your math is way off, and we don’t (or
I don’t at least) know how long the idea of cloud being allegoric-
al has been around.

Yourself included, I would say 95% of Catholics are convinced the Jesus Ascension to the clouds is a literal, physical occurrence.

The question is this, Judas, how do you KNOW for a fact that Jesus had a physical resurrection and not a spiritual one? Maybe in 2045, the Pope will clarify the meaning of resurrection for all Catholics also. For so many, it will be too late…

Peter said it himself in Acts 2: “For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.
For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in grave, nor
suffer thy Holy One to see decay. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let
me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his tomb is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection
of Christ. For neither was he left in grave, neither did his flesh see decay. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.” (25-32)

The Baha’i Faith does not deny the resurrection of Jesus Christ and categorically affirms that Jesus is very much alive!!
(It simply states that it has a spiritual and symbolic meaning, just like His Ascension)
Please can you also stay on topic.
We are not talking about Ishmael, Isaac, or Zarathustra or Jesus is God etc etc.
God bless you Judas

BUT, you may not, but your religion does. Words of you
Guardian and Appointed Head of the Bahá’í Faith again:“We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a
time after His ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in
being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with
His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.”
– (From a letter on behalf of the Guardian, “High Endeavours” pp. 69-70, “Lights of Guidance,” 2nd Edition, p. 368.)

 

[Servant19]

What has 2011 got to do with any maths?

I’m not doing any maths, it’s simply when Pope Benedict officially announced the meaning of Ascension and clouds. There is no maths. It’s there right next to his name at the bottom of the quote

.

 

[Servant19]

We discussed the 2011, your math is way off, and we don’t (or
I don’t at least) know how long the idea of cloud being allegoric-
al has been around.

Peter said it himself in Acts 2: “For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved.
For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. Because thou wilt not leave my soul in grave, nor
suffer thy Holy One to see decay. Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. Ye men, brethren, let
me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his tomb is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection
of Christ. For neither was he left in grave, neither did his flesh see decay. This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.” (25-32)

BUT, you may not, but your religion does. Words of you
Guardian and Appointed Head of the Bahá’í Faith again:“We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a
time after His ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in
being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with
His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.”
– (From a letter on behalf of the Guardian, “High Endeavours” pp. 69-70, “Lights of Guidance,” 2nd Edition, p. 368.)

Yes, the Bahai Faith believes in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus. Why?

Because God is a Spirit, and the Father has no physical body, and if, as Pope Benedict states:

When Jesus was taken from their [the apostles’] sight by the cloud, this does not mean that he was transported to another cosmic location, but that he was taken up into God’s very being, participating in God’s powerful presence in the world…"

Then the post-resurrection “physicality” of Jesus is being questioned by the Pope too…

.

 

[rinnie]

In another thread, an interesting question was posed.

“Why do you believe what you believe?”

Some have had experiences that they attribute to God, miracles per se. How do we know that these miracles/experiences are not simple coincidences? And if they are an intervention of some form of Divine Providence, what are the factors which contribute towards believing in Christ, Moses, Muhammad, or Baha’u’llah?

How do people rationalise their beliefs?

What is the difference between true faith and blind faith?

Finally, what is the difference between belief and superstition?

I would be very interested to hear peoples stories and rationalizations of their experiences.

God bless you all!

.

I think it goes with common sense, gut feeling’s and what works for you.

The Church and the gospel works for me because it seems when you do what is right, believe in the word of God and do your best to obey it your life is content.

You can sleep at night, you can accept disaster when it comes around, and take the goods and the bad with a grain of GOD!

 

[rinnie]

Yes, the Bahai Faith believes in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus. Why?

Because God is a Spirit, and the Father has no physical body, and if, as Pope Benedict states:

When Jesus was taken from their [the apostles’] sight by the cloud, this does not mean that he was transported to another cosmic location, but that he was taken up into God’s very being, participating in God’s powerful presence in the world…"

Then the post-resurrection “physicality” of Jesus is being questioned by the Pope too…

.

How do you figure that. Christ being taken up to heaven and being united one in being with the Father means he is questioning the Trinity?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What has 2011 got to do with any maths?

It’s simple…

I’m not doing any maths…

Obviously…

…it’s simply when Pope Benedict officially announced the meaning of Ascension and clouds. There is no maths. It’s there right next to his name at the bottom of the quote

He’s not Pope, he’s Pope Emeritus, respectfully. Anyway, you use the number 2011 as though
the Church has existed for 2011 years. You understand that’s wrong, right? Jesus was born be-
tween 6 BCE to 6 CE, his Church was founded when he was about 33 years old, the Apostles
began evangelizing after Christ’s ascension into Heaven, first Gospels were not “written” until a
while after that, most of these factors I told you before. You are off by 33-70 years off.

And why do you still say “officially” as though Pope Emeritus Benedict was the first?
Again I admit that it is still news “to me”, but do we, DO YOU, know that he was the
first to say it? Get it now?

 

[Vouthon]

Yes, the Bahai Faith believes in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus. Why?

Because God is a Spirit, and the Father has no physical body, and if, as Pope Benedict states:

When Jesus was taken from their [the apostles’] sight by the cloud, this does not mean that he was transported to another cosmic location, but that he was taken up into God’s very being, participating in God’s powerful presence in the world…"

Then the post-resurrection “physicality” of Jesus is being questioned by the Pope too…

.

That is where you would be wrong brother

Glorified bodies do not need “containing” spaces. They are freed from the limitations of space and time as St. Thomas Aquinas explained in the thirteenth century in his Summa:

A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has the formality of first place, and such is the first heaven. Therefore, bodies need themselves to be in a place, insofar as they are contained by a heavenly body. But glorified bodies, Christ’s especially, do not stand in need of being so contained, because they draw nothing from the heavenly bodies, but from God through the soul. So there is nothing to prevent Christ’s body from being beyond the containing radius of the heavenly bodies, and not in a containing place. Nor is there need for a vacuum to exist outside heaven, since there is no place there, nor is there any potentiality susceptive of a body, but the potentiality of reaching thither lies in Christ (ST III, q.57, a.4, ad 2)

I should also add that Jesus being “at the right hand of the Father” has always been interpreted as a symbol, as Aquinas explained elsewhere:

And He came even to the Ancient of days.”[3] “And the Lord Jesus,** after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God.”[4] Now, it is not to be taken in the literal sense, but figuratively, that Christ is at the right hand of God. Inasmuch as Christ is God, He is said to sit at the right hand of the Father, that is, in equality with the Father**; and as Christ is man, He sits at the right hand of the Father, that is, in a more preferable place.[5] The devil once feigned to do this: “I will ascend above the height of the clouds. I will be like the Most High.”[6] But Christ alone succeeded in this, and so it is said: “He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father.” “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit Thou at My right hand.” (the Catechetical Instructions of St. Thomas Aquinas, 1273)

And in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

“…In these words we observe a figure of speech, that is, the changing of a word from its literal to a figurative meaning, something which is not infrequent in the Scriptures: for when accommodating its language to human ideas, it attributes human affections and human members to God, who is pure spirit and can admit of nothing corporeal. For, just as among men, he who sits at the right hand is considered to occupy the most honored place: so, transferring the idea to heavenly things to express the glory which Christ as Man enjoys above all others, we say that He sits at the right hand of His Eternal Father. Now, this does not mean actual position and figure of body, but declares the fixed and permanent possession of royal and supreme power and glory which Christ received from the Father…”

- The Roman Catechism (Sixth Article, 3), 1566

Methinks that you are getting ahead of yourself in assuming that our interpretations of certain verses of scripture are “new”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Yes, the Bahai Faith believes in a spiritual resurrection of Jesus. Why?
Because God is a Spirit, and the Father has no physical body, and if, as Pope Benedict states:
When Jesus was taken from their [the apostles’] sight by the cloud, this does not mean that he was transported to another cosmic location, but that he was taken up into God’s very being, participating in God’s powerful presence in the world…"
Then the post-resurrection “physicality” of Jesus is being questioned by the Pope too…

Pope EMERITUS Benedict.
Peter said that Jesus was raised from the dead, in the flesh, bodily resurrected,
thus restoring Eternal Life (after defeating Death by dying). So can you truly say
“I believe” or “I deny” the “bodily resurrection”?

Now you speak well, God is Spirit, the Father has no physical body, good, good,
but what has that to do with Jesus? Jesus is not the Father, the Father is not the
Son, the Son is not the Father, the Father is not Jesus, that is Modalism. How is
your point on the Father relevant?

I think you are wrong about the Pope Emeritus questioning the “physicality” of Jesus,
you will have to cite it for me please. What I think you read was that Jesus had trans-
cended into Heaven, and that the nature of Jesus’ body had transfigured. That doesn’t
mean Jesus wasn’t or isn’t physical.

 

[Vouthon]

Dear brother Servant

I think that you are getting a little bit overexcited about Benedict’s statement on “clouds”. It really isn’t as revolutionary as you seem to think. Theologians have long believed, and I mean for centuries, that “cloud” referred to the cloud of glory that wrapped Jesus in the vision of the Transfiguration, rather than a fluffy white cloud. It is thus symbolic of the disciples seeing Jesus in the full glory of His divine nature.

This is to do with “genre”. It is not a case of me or you simply saying, “this is symbolic” but rather using biblical criticism to discern what meaning the sacred author intended. Now, a cloud in biblical terms is a symbol for the divine glory. This is well established.

I can point you too numerous verses in the OT where cloud has a clearly symbolic meaning. This is not so for the resurrection…

What the Apostles saw was the translation of Jesus from earthly existence into eternity with His Father.

The ascension represents the fact that he will never walk among men again as he did in life but rather is in a state of eternal glory, even though as God the Son he is with each human being forever on earth.

To demonstrate this to them, yes it is possible that he was physically lifted up from the ground and then his disciples saw the “cloud of glory”, that is the fullness of His divine nature and majesty as he left worldly existence behind but remained with them as God. This is not essential, nonetheless, since heaven is not up in the clouds as St. Augustine once explained:

“…Our Father who art in Heaven”, what is this – Heaven? And where is Heaven? “… who art in Heaven – that means: in the saints and in the just. Yes, the heavens are the highest bodies in the universe, but they are still bodies, which cannot exist except in a given location. Yet if we believe that God is located in the heavens, meaning in the highest parts of the world, then the birds would be more fortunate than we, since they would live closer to God. Yet it is not written: ‘The Lord is close to those who dwell on the heights or on the mountains’, but rather: ‘the Lord is close to the brokenhearted’ (Ps 34:18[33:19]), an expression which refers to humility. Just as the sinner is called ‘Earth’, so by contrast the just man can be called ‘Heaven’…” (St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermo in monte II 5, 17).

His Ascension wasn’t him bring lifted up into the clouds, the clouds are a symbol for the glory of God. It was a change of state and not a change of place because heaven isn’t a place and glorified bodies do not need “space” as my quotation from St. Thomas explained.

In all honesty, I just don’t see what is so explosive abut what the Pope Emeritus said

 

[Servant19]

Thank you brother Vouthon and Judas for your responses. Naturally questions arise from your posts. If I may list them?

1. In the Roman Catechism, 1566, (quoted by Vouthon) it states that “…God, who is pure spirit and can admit of nothing corporeal.” If God is pure spirit, and Jesus clearly says in the resurrection stories that He “is not a spirit”, how then is Jesus God?
2. Following on from the study of this statement from the Roman Catechism, how does this align with the concept of incarnation? Namely, “God…can admit of nothing corporeal”?
3. Brother Vouthon, the concept of symbolism with clouds may not be revolutionary and fixed to Benedict’s statements, but the reality is that the literal-ness of Jesus Ascension is asserted by Catholic adherents, even by those who are pretty well versed and have completed RCIA. Why is such a critical aspect of Jesus’ life not universally known?
   I can quote very well versed Catholics on this forum who were critical of Baha’is for referring to Baha’u’llah’s passing as an “Ascension” because it was not a literal Ascension into the clouds. If this symbolic meaning has been known since the 1500’s, how would you rate the Church’s efforts in making this understanding universally known amongst its adherents?
4. If there are two entities, one being the Father (who according to Catholicism is “pure spirit”) and the other being Jesus (who is now a “glorified body” and not a pure spirit), then for Jesus to “be taken up into Gods very being” surely they should occupy the same substance no? One is pure spirit and the other is not. How would one clarify this dichotomy please?

Happy new year to you all, and God bless

.