Why do you believe what you believe?

[Servant19]

Let us analyse the Popes words with a bit of precision and clarity. Analysis of the Popes words reveals these things about the Ascension:

“…Ascension’ does not mean departure into a remote region of the cosmos but, rather, the continuing closeness that the disciples experience so strongly that it becomes a source of lasting joy…**This reference to the cloud is unambiguously theological language. **It presents Jesus’ departure, not as a journey to the stars, but as his entry into the mystery of God. It evokes an entirely different order of magnitude, a different dimension of being…The New Testament, from the Acts of the Apostles to the Letter to the Hebrews, describes the ‘place’ to which the cloud took Jesus, using the language of Psalm 110:1, as sitting (or standing) at God’s right hand. What does this mean? It does not refer to some distant cosmic space where God has, as it were, set up his throne and given Jesus a place beside the throne. God is not in one space alongside other spaces. **God is God **- he is the premise and the ground of all the space there is, **but he himself is not part of it. **God stands in relation to all spaces as Lord and Creator. His presence is not special, but divine. ‘Sitting at God’s right hand’ means participating in this divine dominion over space…

The departing Jesus does not make his way to some distant star. He enters into communion of power and life with the living God, into God’s dominion over space. Hence he has not ‘gone away,’ but now and forever by God’s own power he is present with us and for us…

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…."

1. Jesus did not go ANYWHERE into the cosmos, therefore His Return is also NOT from the cosmos, if according to Acts He will return in the same manner as His Ascension.
2. The term “clouds” is unambiguously (meaning there is no doubt) theological language. This means it is NOT historical or scientific language. The clouds have a SPIRITUAL meaning, they are not literal clouds, as he further asserts throughout this paragraph.
3. His Ascension refers to His entry into “the mystery of God”. An ambiguous statement that could be interpreted one hundred different ways. He adds further ambiguity by saying it is a “different dimension of being”…
4. It is asserted that “God is God”, He is “not in one space…”, and that “He Himself is not part of it”. Again, clearly asserting that there is no physicality whatsoever to this Ascension towards God. God is not part of this physical creation AT ALL.
5. It is later stated, however, that Jesus was “…participating in Gods powerful presence in the world”.
   What do you think this means when viewed in the light of “He Himself is not part of it”?

Baha’u’llah clearly states that we as “spiritual bodies” are not part of this world after death, yet we can participate in a powerful presence in the world, contributing to the development of arts and sciences.

Vouthon, you clearly said in post #147:

"…spoke of the “cloud” being “theological language”, he was suggesting that the sacred author was employing the usage of a stylistic metaphor common throughout the Jewish Tanakh RATHER than recounting some kind of more physical event, when he related this experience. " (capitals added)

…and then to say in post #212:

"I did not once suggest that the “Ascension” was purely “symbolic”. I said it was DESCRIBED with symbolic imagery such as clouds, rising up into the sky etc… The event literally took place however. "

…is bizarre. I would hope you were thinking that this was a symbolic event DESCRIBED with “literal” imagery…for “clouds” are literal entities, not symbolic entities, and it is a literal descriptor being used by the author, both in Exodus and the New Testament.

With metaphor, as is common today and as is common in the Jewish Tanakh, as you say, there is little to no historicity at all.

When I say, “I saw a light at the end of the tunnel”, it doesn’t mean that I am actually standing in a really long tunnel and I can actually see some light there…no…it means that I have found hope and guidance in a given project or activity. There is no ACTUAL tunnel, and there is no ACTUAL light.

In a similar vein, when a pillar of cloud is guiding Moses, it does not mean that a cloud was moving around, bending and weaving between trees and up and down sand dunes, leading the way. It is a means by which a “spiritual reality” can be conveyed to the reader at the time. It is again a symbolic event described with “literal” imagery.

THIS is what I truly believe Pope Benedict was trying to convey.

Dear Steve, I would again ask the question, in response to your post. Is heaven a physical place or a spiritual place?
Also when you say in your post above that

“and we do not believe that Jesus floated up into the sky somewhere never to be seen again”

…why would you believe that His return would be floating FROM the literal sky, with literal clouds and the sun “literally” not giving its light and a “literal” global knowledge of His Return and “literal” visual from all peoples on earth of His Return?

.

.

 

[Vouthon]

1. Jesus did not go ANYWHERE into the cosmos, therefore His Return is also NOT from the cosmos, if according to Acts He will return in the same manner as His Ascension…

Yes, he didn’t go anywhere in the cosmos and he will not return from anywhere in the cosmos

1. The term “clouds” is unambiguously (meaning there is no doubt) theological language. This means it is NOT historical or scientific language. The clouds have a SPIRITUAL meaning, they are not literal clouds, as he further asserts throughout this paragraph.

Yes, the clouds have a spiritual meaning and are not real clouds.

1. His Ascension refers to His entry into “the mystery of God”. An ambiguous statement that could be interpreted one hundred different ways. He adds further ambiguity by saying it is a “different dimension of being”…

Not really all that ambiguous. God is in Himself, in his Essence, unknowable. He is the Supreme Mystery that reveals Himself to man through the Son, Jesus, taking human form.

Jesus “returns” to His perfect enjoyment with the Father of this primordial mystery.

1. It is asserted that “God is God”, He is “not in one space…”, and that “He Himself is not part of it”. Again, clearly asserting that there is no physicality whatsoever to this Ascension towards God. God is not part of this physical creation AT ALL.

Brother and friend, who said that God was part of the physical creation? That statement does not negate in anyway the departure of Christ’s glorified body at the Ascension. Of course God is pure spirit and what the Pope is saying with this is that Jesus did not “depart” to some far away region up in space or in the clouds. He rather went to be with His Father beyond space and time. In this manner God is present throughout the cosmos, keeping it in existence but not a part of it. Jesus is henceforth the same: universally present but not part of the material universe anymore.

1. It is later stated, however, that Jesus was “…participating in Gods powerful presence in the world”.
   What do you think this means when viewed in the light of “He Himself is not part of it”?

What I said above, that God is present throughout His creation but not “part of it”. As St. Josemaria Escriva describes:

“…All of creation, even the most material situation, is a meeting place with God, and leads to union with Him…All the ways of the earth can be an opportunity to meet God…He waits for us everyday, in the laboratory, in the operating theatre, in the army barracks, in the university chair, in the factory, in the workshop, in the fields, in the home and in all the immense panorama of work…Your ordinary contact with God takes place where your fellow men, your yearnings, your work and your affections are. There you have your daily encounter with God…”

***- Saint Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer (1902 – 1975), Founder of Opus Dei ***

But in spite of this universal presence, God the Father and Jesus now that He is “with the Father” are not “part” of creation. That would be pantheism. Jesus “left” the material universe at his Ascension. He is now present to us as His Father is present to us, spiritually and not physically. His glorified Body is beyond space and time with the Father in eternity.

Baha’u’llah clearly states that we as “spiritual bodies” are not part of this world after death, yet we can participate in a powerful presence in the world, contributing to the development of arts and sciences.

Catholics agree that the saints who have departed from this world in God’s grace continue to be “present” to us through spiritual intercession, the communion of saints. They are no longer “part” of the world but still “present” through God, as He is present.

On this, Baha’is and Catholics agree! Nonetheless this does not dispute the fact that in Catholic understanding Jesus, His Mother Mary and at the end of time all the faithful will exist for all eternity in a state of union with God with full glorified bodies, freed from the limitations of mortality, time and space etc.

…is bizarre. I would hope you were thinking that this was a symbolic event DESCRIBED with “literal” imagery…for “clouds” are literal entities, not symbolic entities, and it is a literal descriptor being used by the author, both in Exodus and the New Testament.

That is where we would part ways in our understand Servant “Clouds” are indeed literal things but the application of them in this passage is “symbolic”. It is not “literal clouds” that are being described at all but rather the image of a cloud is being used to signify a divine reality. The Glory of God is represented symbolically in the Bible as “clouds” so as to bring an incomprehensible reality down to the human “sphere”. clouds being recognisable to every person.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

It is again a symbolic event described with “literal” imagery.

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.

THIS is what I truly believe Pope Benedict was trying to convey.

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.

Dear Steve, I would again ask the question, in response to your post. Is heaven a physical place or a spiritual place?

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:

“…Incorporeal things [ie spirits] are not in place after a manner known and familiar to us, in which way we say that bodies are properly in place; but they are in place after a manner befitting spiritual substances, a manner that cannot be fully manifest to us…”

***- Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274), Summa Theologia, Supplement, Q69, a1, reply 1, Doctor of the Catholic Church ***

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

“…Heaven is untouched by time and place…whoever is able to read the scriptures aright is well aware that heaven contains no place. Nor is it in time…Nothing hinders the soul from knowing God as time and place. Time and place are fractions, and God is one…Whatever I know to be God’s will - the longer, the better, and the greater the pain, the greater the joy. For to do God’s will is heaven, so the longer the will lasts, the longer the heaven, and the greater the pain from God’s will, the greater the blessedness…”

***- Meister Eckhart (1260-1328), Catholic mystic, theologian and Dominican priest ***

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:

Heaven is Fullness of Communion with God

Heaven as the fullness of communion with God was the theme of the Holy Father’s catechesis at the General Audience of 21 July 1999.** Heaven “is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit,” the Pope said**.

1. When the form of this world has passed away, those who have welcomed God into their lives and have sincerely opened themselves to his love, at least at the moment of death, will enjoy that fullness of communion with God which is the goal of human life.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "this perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed is called “heaven’. Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfilment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness” (n.1024).

…

In the context of Revelation, we know that the “heaven” or “happiness” in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit.

It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing these “ultimate realities” since their depiction is always unsatisfactory. Today, personalist language is better suited to describing the state of happiness and peace we will enjoy in our definitive communion with God.

 

[Vouthon]

Catholics in our devotions such as the rosary, refer to the “mysteries of faith”: the “Joyful Mysteries” such as the annunciation and nativity of Jesus, the Mysterious of Light such as the Transfiguration, the Sorrowful Mysteries such as the crucifixion and the Glorious Mysteries, for example the Resurrection and the Ascension.

This terminology is not alien to Baha’is. One of Baha’u’llah’s scriptures is after all named, “The Gems of Divine Mysteries” and in the “Hidden Words” he claims to reveal the mysterious of God hidden behind the “veil”.

To illustrate my explanation of “symbolic” language in the Bible, let us therefore consider a “joyful mystery” that Catholics. Baha’is and Muslims believe literally took place, “the Virgin Birth”. While Baha’is do not use miraculous events as “proofs”, the scriptures makes clear that they have taken place and that this was one of them.

We can thus, all agree, that Mary did not have sexual intercourse to conceive Jesus but rather, as the Qur’an states, God said “Be!” and through the power of the Holy Spirit Jesus “was”.

As concerns the virgin birth, apart from the biological fact of Mary’s virginal conception, the Church has discerned symbolism in Matthew and Luke’s accounts:

The Virgin Birth also points to the uniqueness of Christ.** The Gospel writers were not ignorant: they knew that people were not normally born of virgins and they included the story of the Virgin Birth to express the uniqueness of Jesus **as well as his miraculous origins. Christ’s earthly life began in a miraculous way and ended in a miraculous way (the resurrection and ascension).

There is also symbolism of the Church in the Virgin Birth. Mary’s virginity has been perceived as symbolic of the righteous remnant of Israel, the Church. Also, Mary’s role as both virgin and Mother has been compared to the Church which creates new sons and daughters through baptism and who keeps the purity of the apostolic faith as pledged to Christ, her Spouse (1).

ancient-future.net/virgin.html

Now, the biblical account given by Luke states that, “the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God” (Luke 1:34).

Is this literal? Was Mary “overshadowed”? Did a ghostly “shadow” appear over her as she was infused with a foetus?

No, the Church has understood this as theological, symbolic language.

There is rich symbolism in the accounts of Jesus’ Nativity. Benedict XVI referred to the “symbolism” of God the Son being laid in a manger, the King of Kings being born in humble circumstances to represent the truth that the “meek shall inherit the earth”.

Does this symbolic language mean that the event cannot have taken place?

The Catechism says of the virgin birth:

497 The Gospel accounts understand the virginal conception of Jesus as a divine work that surpasses all human understanding and possibility: “That which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”, said the angel to Joseph about Mary his fiancee. The Church sees here the fulfillment of the divine promise given through the prophet Isaiah: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son.”

498 …The meaning of this event is accessible only to faith, which understands in it the “connection of these mysteries with one another” in the totality of Christ’s mysteries, from his Incarnation to his Passover. St. Ignatius of Antioch already bears witness to this connection: “Mary’s virginity and giving birth, and even the Lord’s death escaped the notice of the prince of this world: these three mysteries worthy of proclamation were accomplished in God’s silence.”

Because all the mysteries “surpass human understanding”, symbols are used.

 

[Vouthon]

Saint Augustine of Hippo explained the symbolism of miracles:

“…Let us ask the miracles themselves what they tell us about Christ, for they have a tongue of their own, if it can only be understood. Because Christ is the Word of God, all the acts of the Word become words to us. The miracle which we admire on the outside also had something inside which must be understood. If we see a piece of beautiful handwriting, we are not satisfied simply to note that the letters are formed evenly, equally and elegantly; we also want to know the meaning the letters convey. In the same way a miracle is not like a picture, something merely to look at and admire, and to be left at that. It is much more like a piece of writing which we must learn to read and understand…”

The Four Gospels all contain powerful warnings about the dangers of being impressed by signs and miracles without understanding their greater significance as Signs of the Kingdom of God.

Yet does this mean that the virgin birth and other miraculous events did not actually take place? No! The Bible, Qur’an and Baha’i scriptures confirm that they did

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I would have you Love Jesus as you wish to my friend. You are clear what you you believe, then follow your heart.

God bless and remember I do not want to fight a war of Words as you continue to try to add to mine. Mine was a simple statement and does not need to be complex.

Christianity has contributed much good to this world. It is the good I concentrate on and it is up to each person to consider what may be good and what may be not.

Regards Tony

Christianity hasn’t lead people away from the worship of the one and true God in your mind? Take in mind we actually, literally, absolutely, without qaulification, without metaphore without symbolism and without reserve worship and believe JEsus to be God. This is an acceptable belief to bahai? Does your God accept this?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

The Baha’is do believe in miracles surrounding the Manifestations of God, but do not present them as proofs and evidences of Their purpose, which is to educate humanity, elevate our latent potential, and become what it is to be fully human by fulfilling the following:

. “The first duty prescribed by God for His servants is the recognition of Him Who is the Day Spring of His Revelation and the Fountain of His 331 laws, Who representeth the Godhead in both the Kingdom of His Cause and the world of creation. Whoso achieveth this duty hath attained unto all good; and whoso is deprived thereof, hath gone astray, though he be the author of every righteous deed. It behoveth every one who reacheth this most sublime station, this summit of transcendent glory, to observe every ordinance of Him Who is the Desire of the world. These twin duties are inseparable. Neither is acceptable without the other. Thus hath it been decreed by Him Who is the Source of Divine inspiration.”

Baha’u’llah opening paragraph to the Kitab-i-Aqdas, the Most Holy Book

reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GWB/gwb-155.html
.

.

Like I said, your argument could be applied to the virgin birht which you are forced to believe. I think you would much rather believe Jesus conceived naturally if you could get away with it. I say this in order to show how subjective your interpretation of the new testament is. What you want to be literal is literal, what you don’t want to be literal is non literal. Jesus couldn’t have been raised from the dead, but of course he was born of a virgin right?

 

[daler]

Like I said, your argument could be applied to the virgin birht which you are forced to believe. I think you would much rather believe Jesus conceived naturally if you could get away with it. I say this in order to show how subjective your interpretation of the new testament is. What you want to be literal is literal, what you don’t want to be literal is non literal. Jesus couldn’t have been raised from the dead, but of course he was born of a virgin right?

Ignatian,

. Scientific investigation of reality forces me to believe that the very earth and sun formed gradually over billions of years. At some point in this process of chemical chelation of atoms into minerals, plant life occurred in single celled organisms which multiplied naturally, affecting the oxygen in the atmosphere, preparing conditions for multi-celled organisms, both plant and animal.

. We can all agree that nature is filled with miracles and mysteries, at whatever stage of divergence and complexity. That somewhere along the line the cosmic fetal stage of suns and planets is birthed into what we are presently conscious of and can describe is the subject of much modern fascination, for we have developed the instruments of magnification, tools extending our insight across spectrums of energy, yielding ever-greater understanding.

. When we apply this rational to the spiritual succession of the appearance of Those whom we call Prophetic figures, or Manifestations, the tools of understanding this process are the very Words uttered by Them Who are the supreme Instruments of the will of God. Some of us pick up those tools, accept them, learn to use them and apply their methods, while others toss them aside, bound by pride, preferring whatever means accentuate their true motives according to the advantage they perceive themselves to gain by their rejection.

. “Say: Nature in its essence is the embodiment of My Name, the Maker, the Creator. Its manifestations are diversified by varying causes, and in this diversity there are signs for men of discernment. Nature is God’s Will and is its expression in and through the contingent world. It is a dispensation of Providence ordained by the Ordainer, the All-Wise. Were anyone to affirm that it is the Will of God as manifested in the world of being, no one should question this assertion. It is endowed with a power whose reality men of learning fail to grasp. Indeed a man of insight can perceive naught therein save the effulgent splendour of Our Name, the Creator. Say: This is an existence which knoweth no decay, and Nature itself is lost in bewilderment before its revelations, its compelling evidences and its effulgent glory which have encompassed the universe.”

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas p 142

. "Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him…

…From that which hath been said it becometh evident that all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things visible and invisible…"

Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh pp. 177-178.

.

 

[tonyfish58]

Christianity hasn’t lead people away from the worship of the one and true God in your mind? Take in mind we actually, literally, absolutely, without qaulification, without metaphore without symbolism and without reserve worship and believe JEsus to be God. This is an acceptable belief to bahai? Does your God accept this?

Is Your God the same as the one mentioned in the Old Testament?

I know mine is, so is our God the same?

Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Ignatian,

. Scientific investigation of reality forces me to believe that the very earth and sun formed gradually over billions of years. At some point in this process of chemical chelation of atoms into minerals, plant life occurred in single celled organisms which multiplied naturally, affecting the oxygen in the atmosphere, preparing conditions for multi-celled organisms, both plant and animal.

. We can all agree that nature is filled with miracles and mysteries, at whatever stage of divergence and complexity. That somewhere along the line the cosmic fetal stage of suns and planets is birthed into what we are presently conscious of and can describe is the subject of much modern fascination, for we have developed the instruments of magnification, tools extending our insight across spectrums of energy, yielding ever-greater understanding.

. When we apply this rational to the spiritual succession of the appearance of Those whom we call Prophetic figures, or Manifestations, the tools of understanding this process are the very Words uttered by Them Who are the supreme Instruments of the will of God. Some of us pick up those tools, accept them, learn to use them and apply their methods, while others toss them aside, bound by pride, preferring whatever means accentuate their true motives according to the advantage they perceive themselves to gain by their rejection.

. “Say: Nature in its essence is the embodiment of My Name, the Maker, the Creator. Its manifestations are diversified by varying causes, and in this diversity there are signs for men of discernment. Nature is God’s Will and is its expression in and through the contingent world. It is a dispensation of Providence ordained by the Ordainer, the All-Wise. Were anyone to affirm that it is the Will of God as manifested in the world of being, no one should question this assertion. It is endowed with a power whose reality men of learning fail to grasp. Indeed a man of insight can perceive naught therein save the effulgent splendour of Our Name, the Creator. Say: This is an existence which knoweth no decay, and Nature itself is lost in bewilderment before its revelations, its compelling evidences and its effulgent glory which have encompassed the universe.”

Tablets of Bahá’u’lláh Revealed after the Kitab-i-Aqdas p 142

. "Whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth is a direct evidence of the revelation within it of the attributes and names of God, inasmuch as within every atom are enshrined the signs that bear eloquent testimony to the revelation of that Most Great Light. Methinks, but for the potency of that revelation, no being could ever exist. How resplendent the luminaries of knowledge that shine in an atom, and how vast the oceans of wisdom that surge within a drop! To a supreme degree is this true of man, who, among all created things, hath been invested with the robe of such gifts, and hath been singled out for the glory of such distinction. For in him are potentially revealed all the attributes and names of God to a degree that no other created being hath excelled or surpassed. All these names and attributes are applicable to him…

…From that which hath been said it becometh evident that all things, in their inmost reality, testify to the revelation of the names and attributes of God within them. Each according to its capacity, indicateth, and is expressive of, the knowledge of God. So potent and universal is this revelation, that it hath encompassed all things visible and invisible…"

Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh pp. 177-178.

.

You clearly have no respect for me if you cannot form an opinion of yourself. I’m tired of you bahai running to your prophet whom you expect to answer questions to which he could not know the answer to because he did not receive these questions. This has nothing specifically do with the interpretation of texts of the new testament or any other. If you believe in what is spoken here incorporate it into your OWN responce which directly answers my question.

You have no reason to accept the virgin birth narrative as literal and reject the ascension narrative as metaphorical. It is simply something you are constrained to believe according to your religion and it is very blatant. I find it exceptionally hard to interpret luke in such a way in that we are expected to take some narratives as literal and some as figurative without explanation or hint and that this is the true understanding of things and the true meaning of the new testament.

Daler can you respect your opponent enough to not resort to a prophet who can only answer a very limited amount of things, him being dead and all. Petition your house of universal justice if you can’t think of anything for a responce.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Is Your God the same as the one mentioned in the Old Testament?

I know mine is, so is our God the same?

Regards Tony

Is your God Jesus who created the world? If not then we do not have the same God. Please do not attempt to redefine any of the words i have said. Do not lie to me, do not try to correct me and present it as if we are actually agreeing. You know what i have asked, you know what I mean, That Jesus one in trinity is responsible for creating everything that has been created.

I suspect you will try to reconcile our religions through any means possible, if you have to reinterpret my words to have the appearance of agreeing just so we worship the same God so be it. If you have to use my terminology but redefine it (Without tell me your redefinition) just to get me to agree with you on the surface than so be it.

I’m almost begging at this point but I know its useless for no matter what you are determined to believe we have the same God when everything in reality clearly shows we do not.

 

[Servant19]

Yes, he didn’t go anywhere in the cosmos and he will not return from anywhere in the cosmos

Yes, the clouds have a spiritual meaning and are not real clouds.

Not really all that ambiguous. God is in Himself, in his Essence, unknowable. He is the Supreme Mystery that reveals Himself to man through the Son, Jesus, taking human form.

Jesus “returns” to His perfect enjoyment with the Father of this primordial mystery.

Brother and friend, who said that God was part of the physical creation? That statement does not negate in anyway the departure of Christ’s glorified body at the Ascension. Of course God is pure spirit and what the Pope is saying with this is that Jesus did not “depart” to some far away region up in space or in the clouds. He rather went to be with His Father beyond space and time. In this manner God is present throughout the cosmos, keeping it in existence but not a part of it. Jesus is henceforth the same: universally present but not part of the material universe anymore.

What I said above, that God is present throughout His creation but not “part of it”. As St. Josemaria Escriva describes:

But in spite of this universal presence, God the Father and Jesus now that He is “with the Father” are not “part” of creation. That would be pantheism. Jesus “left” the material universe at his Ascension. He is now present to us as His Father is present to us, spiritually and not physically. His glorified Body is beyond space and time with the Father in eternity.

Catholics agree that the saints who have departed from this world in God’s grace continue to be “present” to us through spiritual intercession, the communion of saints. They are no longer “part” of the world but still “present” through God, as He is present.

On this, Baha’is and Catholics agree! Nonetheless this does not dispute the fact that in Catholic understanding Jesus, His Mother Mary and at the end of time all the faithful will exist for all eternity in a state of union with God with full glorified bodies, freed from the limitations of mortality, time and space etc.

That is where we would part ways in our understand Servant “Clouds” are indeed literal things but the application of them in this passage is “symbolic”. It is not “literal clouds” that are being described at all but rather the image of a cloud is being used to signify a divine reality. The Glory of God is represented symbolically in the Bible as “clouds” so as to bring an incomprehensible reality down to the human “sphere”. clouds being recognisable to every person.

(continued…)

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

I totally agree, but we are making progress I feel with your explanation of the meanings of “symbol” below:

"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. "

I totally agree, symbolic language should and is used to describe “deeper” or “spiritual” things to a human-limited perception. As human beings, limited to expressions of physical reality, we cannot really describe those things that belong to the deeper, spiritual realm, so we adopt physical things to symbolise those deeper realities.

We are totally on the same page here.

"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. "

This is where we need to utilize clearer, more precise language to understand each other fully, beautiful brother…

What is the “real, literal truth”?

If we are using symbols to describe a spiritual event, then what is the physical event?

If I throw a ball into the sky, it physically goes up into the sky. I can describe how it got smaller in size as it ascended, I can describe the impact of the wind on its ascension, all describing it’s physical reality.

Was there a physical reality to Jesus Ascension?
Since, as you quoted from Pope Benedict, (and similarly from Thomas Aquinas), “Heaven is not a place, and cannot be found on a map…” there cannot be a physical reality in play here at all, since Jesus ascended to heaven.

The question then relies on our definition of heaven, and whether there are multiple heavens or, if the one heaven caters for “spiritual, incorporeal” entities AND the glorified body of Christ. A plethora of other questions arise as a result, (making this a theologically indiscussable concept) all because there is an avoidance to refer to Jesus as a Spirit too. Is there no chance whatsoever that The Most Great Spirit of Jesus is residing in the Kingdom of heaven overseeing all the other souls of servitude in the same realm? Does the interpretation of Scripture not allow for this at all? If not, why?

(Cont…)

 

[Servant19]

“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.”

Again, I totally agree, in the analogy of the tunnel and the light, “something” tangible happened that go me that hope to express such a metaphor.

It is that “something” that requires clarification in regards to Jesus Ascension. If there was a physical something happening, there would be no need for any metaphorical language, would there?
One would simply say (just like the ball example) that Jesus looked up, pointed to the sky with one hand, started floating above the ground, and as He ascended higher and higher, He accelerated up until I could no longer see Him as He progressed beyond the clouds.

What necessity is there for symbolism for such an event and occurrence?

If I was witness to this Ascension, I would describe it as such. But Pope Benedict, who obviously is privy to all Traditions and scholarly research on this matter, felt it necessary to say that “…does not mean he was taken to another cosmic location”…"…does not refer to some distant cosmic space"

When “I” witnessed a physical ascension, it was most definitely to another cosmic location…to another different cosmic space.

Do you see the anomaly, brother?

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.

TOTALLY AGREE!

But if Jesus PHYSICALLY ASCENDED, and was visibly seen with the eyes connected to the optic nerve, then there are descriptors that can describe that event without needing to resort to symbolic descriptors such as “clouds”…

Again, does this anomaly not intrigue you brother?

"That is where we would part ways in our understand Servant “Clouds” are indeed literal things but the application of them in this passage is “symbolic”. It is not “literal clouds” that are being described at all but rather the image of a cloud is being used to signify a divine reality. The Glory of God is represented symbolically in the Bible as “clouds” so as to bring an incomprehensible reality down to the human “sphere”. clouds being recognisable to every person. "

I don’t know if we do part ways, brother
We would agree that "Glory of God is represented symbolically in the Bible as “clouds” so as to bring an incomprehensible reality down to the human “sphere”. The Glory of God is a spiritual reality, and is represented by the cloud, which is a physical, literal reality.
I would like to understand if you think the Apostles actually saw Jesus in a cloud with their “physical eyes”, because if you do, it contradicts your understanding that this is “spiritual reality” and it makes it a “physical reality”? (As I have described above)

As has been described, dear friend, Jesus’ glorified body occupied a space, it had dimensions and was visibly seen as such by the Apostles to such a degree that touching it, to stimulate the physical neurones of the skin, was suggested. It is to this degree that the body occupied space. It was most definitely a partaker of a “cosmic location”. This “glorified entity” then became part of a non-cosmic spaceless location (termed “heaven”). How can it still occupy a “cosmic location” within that heavenly Kingdom?

I truly value your thoughts here brother. I really WANT to have the Truth within my heart. All I care about is God, not any names (such as Jesus or Baha’u’llah ) or attributes, but the Source of my being, and I really know that when the Truth hits my heart there will be absolute resonance and peace within my inner being, that part which belongs to my Lord. At the moment, I am searching Catholicism to see how it can line up with what I know is Truth in Baha’u’llah, for I know that Jesus is Truth too. But it must have the above questions answered for me to see it as truly from Jesus or made predominantly by man.

God bless you, sweet brother in God!

 

[Vouthon]

It is that “something” that requires clarification in regards to Jesus Ascension. If there was a physical something happening, there would be no need for any metaphorical language, would there?

Dear brother Servant

Thank you, once more, for your thoughts and questions.

Firstly let us discount the idea that Jesus physically “rose” from the ground. This is not an essential requirement to fulfil the Catholic doctrine of the Ascension.

Let me explain what “is” essential:

1. That Jesus had a glorified body, a physical body but one freed from the limitations of matter as we know it, such as space, time and form.
2. That Jesus was physically present or at least able to be seen in front of his disciples before his Ascension
3. That the apostles, through some ineffable, inexpressible mystery beyond human cognition, witnessed Jesus’ departure from the material universe and return, beyond time and place, to be with the Father in the fullness of His “glory” which the “clouds” signify. How this truth was conveyed to them, is not important. What is, is that the Ascension marks the moment when Jesus’ glorified body is no longer physically present in this creation.

What necessity is there for symbolism for such an event and occurrence?

Because they are witnessing an even that is seemingly unnatural to the human mind and beyond anything we could possibly home to understand. They witnessed the passage of a glorified, resurrected human body through the power of the divine nature now animating it, outside the confines of creation itself; into the very being of God.

Likewise, the reader of the gospel has to understand that Jesus’ is no longer physically present. How? The best way to do this is to use the age-old idea of a body rising up into the sky. The Old Testament records this of Enoch and Elijah, the Greek myths have it, the Hindus even have it for certain Avatars. Because the ancients lived in a world were “up” beyond the clouds was understood as beyond the earth and reality as they knew, it is a symbol that describes this perfectly.

Now, Jesus may have up rose above the ground. Levitation would not be a miracle at all impossible to God. However he didn’t go up into the sky and go to another “region in the cosmos”. He went beyond this created reality into the Presence of God who is not in spatial dimensions or time. And so the doctrine doesn’t demand that Jesus physically rose up into the clouds. Jesus might have done this to help his disciples understanding that he was leaving the physical universe, since without advanced science they wouldn’t have understood his departure from creation itself any other way! However theologically his “Ascension” is not about levitating into outer space but about leaving the physical universe entirely with His glorified body.

(continued…)

 

[Vouthon]

As has been described, dear friend, Jesus’ glorified body occupied a space

No, Jesus glorified body did not occupy a “space” or else how did he appear in different locations seemingly at will and at once? How did he walk through closed doors? Why did the disciples not recognize him?

His body was no longer confined by space, time or form. It was glorified by God. Yes, at His will Jesus could let the Apostles feel his body’s true corporeality, even down to the wounds in His side.

This is the majesty and miracle of the Resurrection. It was unbelievable then and now. It represents the apex of human evolution, which is why Teilhard de Chardin the 20th century Catholic scientist and theologian, placed the “resurrection event” at the heart of human development and all history.

This is what, according to Catholic dogma, God desires for each and every single human being.

Catholics have a belief in non-bodily spirits. We call them angels, “angel” coming from the Greek for “messenger” and being a description of their role in relation to us rather than their nature, which is simply disembodied consciousness like God.

We do not believe that this is what God desires for humankind. We were not created disembodied spirits, we were created embodied spirits. The problem, however, is that our bodies and our spirits are no longer in harmony.

Our bodily urges conflict with our higher spiritual urges. Our body looks to the earth and attaches us to it, whereas our soul cries out for God and longs for union with Him.

God, in creating us as beings of both matter and spirit, wanted us to be the thing that returned creation to Himself. With our spiritual soul, our material bodies would gravitate towards Him, and thus all creation would follow our redemption and return to God. We are the only creatures, the only material objects, that have a spiritual soul like God’s own (although God alone is Pure Spirit).

That is why the 8th century Syrian St. John of Dalyatha said:

**"…Glory to you, Father and Lord of my life, who have made me the link of all creatures that in me all creatures might life up your praise…" **

The academic’s note for this verse of his 47th letter states:

"…Man’s role in the universe is to be a bond of love by his very nature - soul and body…"

We are therefore not satisfied merely with material satisfaction like the animals. Our soul longs for God.

Our soul was thus intended to “control” and “direct” our bodies. But in practice, sin made us lose that harmony. Instead our soul became subjected to the urges of our bodies and we looked to the earth rather than to God.

With God becoming man for us, dying a human death on the cross and conquering that death by divine power through his Divine Soul glorifying his earthly body and removing its limitations, in Jesus man now discovers the fullness of human evolution.

In his resurrection, we all have hope that no merely will we exist as disembodied souls but rather that we will exist beyond time and place with our full bodily reality, freed from its earthly limitations. This is the “New Heavens and new earth”, when al creation with man the pinnacle of material creation, will be “glorified” and “redeemed” from decay, sin and death.

The scripture says that in this reality “God will be all in all”. In other words, matter will find its completion in Him, beyond time and place.

**In our understanding, as I quoted earlier, glorified bodies do not need “containing spaces”.

Answer me this: Does the universe have “place”? Yes. It is in a sense a body, a body that is ever expanding in its own “space”. Dark energy drives this expansion of the universe. What is this universe, the macrocosm, expanding into? Nothing. The universe is its own place, its own containing space resting in God Himself. It needs no “space”.

In the same way, the glorified body becomes its own “universe” resting in God. Think about it. The universe is material creation itself but resides in no “place”. **

We all will be the same one day, by God’s grace, as St. Thomas Aquinas explained in the 13th century in his Summa:

A place implies the notion of containing; hence the first container has the formality of first place he means the universe or creation itself]… **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)

Thus St. Hildegard, a Doctor of the Church said during the 12th century:

“…Man contains the entire creation within himself, and the breath of life that never dies is within him…O human being, look to humanity. For humanity has the heavens and the earth and all created things within himself. It is one form, within which all things are hidden…The elements in the world are also within human beings…The body is the garment of the soul and it is the soul which gives life to the voice. That is why the body must raise its voice in harmony with the soul for the praise of God…”

***- Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), philosopher, mystic, visionary, artist, poet, composer, theologian and Doctor of the Catholic Church ***

 

[Vouthon]

In that quotation from the Summa, St. Thomas means to suggest that glorified bodies do not rely for their sustenance on the non-glorified creation, so they do not need to be contained in this material universe. Therefore the body of Jesus exists outside of the material universe, outside of space and time, no longer contained by any place as there is “nothing” outside of the universe; no space or place at all. At the Ascension, therefore, this is what happened to JESUS’ BODY, this is the state in which he exists, no longer contained by physical place.

 

[tonyfish58]

Is your God Jesus who created the world? If not then we do not have the same God. Please do not attempt to redefine any of the words i have said. Do not lie to me, do not try to correct me and present it as if we are actually agreeing. You know what i have asked, you know what I mean, That Jesus one in trinity is responsible for creating everything that has been created.

I suspect you will try to reconcile our religions through any means possible, if you have to reinterpret my words to have the appearance of agreeing just so we worship the same God so be it. If you have to use my terminology but redefine it (Without tell me your redefinition) just to get me to agree with you on the surface than so be it.

I’m almost begging at this point but I know its useless for no matter what you are determined to believe we have the same God when everything in reality clearly shows we do not.

IgnatianPhilo - No use getting uptight about it, we just have to at this time to agree to disagree

But you will always be in my heart and I will always wish the best for you

As there is only One God, then yes we do worship the same God!

You have chosen another path other than I, I see the Paths joining in a most beautiful garden that is being showered in the rays of the the Holy Spirit of all religions. You may see that Most Great Garden as only being showered by the Son of God.

But that is fine dear friend, we both can still enjoy the garden and look at what we want to look at, no one forces us to view more then we want to.

Stay well Stay Happy and may our Love of God bind us together to do well for Humanity.

Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

You clearly have no respect for me if you cannot form an opinion of yourself. I’m tired of you bahai running to your prophet whom you expect to answer questions to which he could not know the answer to because he did not receive these questions. This has nothing specifically do with the interpretation of texts of the new testament or any other. If you believe in what is spoken here incorporate it into your OWN responce which directly answers my question.

You have no reason to accept the virgin birth narrative as literal and reject the ascension narrative as metaphorical. It is simply something you are constrained to believe according to your religion and it is very blatant. I find it exceptionally hard to interpret luke in such a way in that we are expected to take some narratives as literal and some as figurative without explanation or hint and that this is the true understanding of things and the true meaning of the new testament.

Daler can you respect your opponent enough to not resort to a prophet who can only answer a very limited amount of things, him being dead and all. Petition your house of universal justice if you can’t think of anything for a responce.

Dale my friend got a bit a serving from you did He not

IgnatianPhilo - I just would like to let you know that Baha’u’llah did indeed address every issue that mankind is faced with that would fulfill “Guide you unto all truth”

But as I have said above to you, this is part of our view of the Most Great Garden. You are invited to look at what we see, but you do not have to.

But dear friend all you say to us will not stop us looking

If you do not wish us to share our view of this with you, please say and we will go on to show others.

I would hope you would like to share, but by attacking Baha’u’llah you only add further beauty to this Most Great Garden for us.

Why, because all the rejection in the world is what happened to Christ, look at what His Garden produced.

Regards Tony

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

IgnatianPhilo - No use getting uptight about it, we just have to at this time to agree to disagree

But you will always be in my heart and I will always wish the best for you

As there is only One God, then yes we do worship the same God!

You have chosen another path other than I, I see the Paths joining in a most beautiful garden that is being showered in the rays of the the Holy Spirit of all religions. You may see that Most Great Garden as only being showered by the Son of God.

But that is fine dear friend, we both can still enjoy the garden and look at what we want to look at, no one forces us to view more then we want to.

Stay well Stay Happy and may our Love of God bind us together to do well for Humanity.

Regards Tony

I asked you a question.

Is your God Jesus who created the world? if you answer in the negative we have established we believe in Gods which are starkly different. If we go on to ask more questions about the idenity of our Gods through either their actions or what they have said much more will be revealed. My God said the creation is good and never intended for mankind to die, did your God intend for man to die?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Dale my friend got a bit a serving from you did He not

IgnatianPhilo - I just would like to let you know that Baha’u’llah did indeed address every issue that mankind is faced with that would fulfill “Guide you unto all truth”

But as I have said above to you, this is part of our view of the Most Great Garden. You are invited to look at what we see, but you do not have to.

But dear friend all you say to us will not stop us looking

If you do not wish us to share our view of this with you, please say and we will go on to show others.

I would hope you would like to share, but by attacking Baha’u’llah you only add further beauty to this Most Great Garden for us.

Why, because all the rejection in the world is what happened to Christ, look at what His Garden produced.

Regards Tony

He did not address every issue specifically. Sure you can apply general principles of his teachings but he did not write a conpendium answering every single objection to the bahai faith because he was just a man, limited and could only write a limted amount of things. But I see no justification behind your interpretion of the text only an attempt to back off from a question you cannot answer because you do not know the answer and nor did your prophet.