ahanu

Before diving into the topic of "the Essence of God" and the Trinity, we must first answer a fundamental question: What does it mean when someone says "God is transcendent?"

In the Matrix, Keanu Reeves lives his daily life unaware he eats, breathes, grows up, and, for want of a more basic phrase, uses the restroom in a simulated reality. A reality exists that is "transcendent." It remains beyond human perception in this movie. Am I saying we exist in a simulated reality inside a highly sophisticated computer? No. This example, however, correctly illustrates the idea of transcendence.

Here's another way to express transcendence: consider the mineral, vegetable, animal, and, finally, human. Each has its own "sphere of reality," meaning its life and existence is according to the requirements of that stage. The mineral cannot comprehend the "world" of the vegetable, neither can the vegetable comprehend the "world" of the animal, neither can the animal comprehend the "world" of the human. Though each can comprehend "lower worlds," the "higher worlds" remain unknowable. For example, the mineral, vegetable, and animal cannot deviate from nature; however, humans have the ability to get on the internet, log onto facebook, and communicate with anybody anywhere (except for, at the moment, countries like China). Mental distance now means nothing; thus, the interet itself inteferes with the laws of nature and reveals humans have a reasoning power animals do not have. Now apply this rule further in the sense of transcendence: humans can not comprehend the "Essence of God," for this Reality is transcendent, but humans, by their reasoning abilities, can "believe" in God and provide a rational proof for God.


Splash! Now that you have dived in to the meaning of transcendence, let us talk about what it means to say Jesus is God. Some say Jesus is the incarnation of God, which sometimes means the "Essence of God" has descended into the body of Jesus and, therefore, our level of existence. If this is the case, the "Essence of God" is subject to this realm's conditions and imperfections. How can this be possible if, in the transcendent Life of God, only perfection exists? Instead, the "Essence of God" is reflected (not descended) in Jesus, just as a mirror held in the Sun reflects the Sun, and so Jesus said "the Father is in the Son."


To say the Divine Essence descended is illogical. Impossible. Consider a few examples as proof: the speaker himself cannot become the speech; the writer himself cannot become the writing; the musician himself cannot become the music; the painter himself cannot become the painting. However, the "speech," the "writing," the "music," "painting," or, as the Bible says, "the Word," has a mirroring nature, reflecting the Divine Essence.

Even scripture cannot reveal the Divine Essence: "Who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord?" (Psalm 89:6) "Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Savior" (Isaiah 45:15).

St. John Damascene said: "The Divine is infinite and unknowable, and the only thing that we are able to comprehend is Its infinity and Its incomprehensibility." Clement of Alexandria said: "No one can rightly express Him wholly . . . For the One is indivisible--without form and name." Origen said: "According to strict truth God is incomprehensible and inestimable . . . whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by the power of any human understanding, even the purest and the brightest." Tillich also calls the Divine Essence the "God above God."

Both the Christian and Baha'i agree the Essence of God is unknowable; however, "by contrast, Christian and Vaishnavite incarnation theology, although not alike in all respects, define God’s essence on the presumption that the divine essence incarnates itself within the limited human form in an absolute way," writes J. A. Mclean. A Catholic friend of mine on the comparative religion forums wrote to me the following words: "In the case of the Incarnation, the Essence did not choose a person through which to operate, rather than the Essence manifesting Itself through a person, the Divine manifests Itself as a person ... there is no distinction between the Divine Essence and the Person." Now we come to the difference between the Baha'i Trinity and the Christian Trinity. The Baha'i Trinity does not include the Divine Essence, while the Christian Trinity does. Abdu'l-Baha rejects the view of my Catholic friend, saying: "It is not that it [the human spirit] manifests God--that is to say, no part has been detached form the Divine Reality to enter the body of man." To say so would be equivalent to the analogy already provided above by Abdu'l-Baha, who said: "the speaker himself does not become the discourse." For Baha'is, for the speaker to become the discourse would be impossible.

Baha'i theology also agrees with this popular Islamic expression: "I was a Hidden Treasure. I wished to be known, and thus I called creation into being in order that I might be made known." There's an aspect of knowing God. The first thing the Divine Essence created was the Word, and, through the Word, all things are created. For example, a machine proceeds from a human maker, but an examination of the machine does not reveal the essence of the human. In the same way, "the Word" proceeded from the Divine Essence, but an examination of the Word does not reveal the Essence of God. When we say "God is knowable," we are refering to "the Word," which has a dual nature: (1) It has a station that speaks "from God," and (2) It has a station that speaks "from that which is other than God." The station "from God"

is the station of His unkown and unkowable Essence, the Manifestation of His Divinity. Thus, all His revealed divine verses stream forth on behalf of God . . . All else beyond this supreme Sign present within Him is His creation . . .

And within the inmost reality of all things there hath been, and will forever continue to be, a sign from God through which the unity of the Lord is celebrated. This sign, however, is a reflection of His Will present within it, through which naught is seen but God. However, within the Will, that supreme Sign is the Will Itself, the Supreme Mirror of God, which hath never referred, nor will it ever refer, to aught but God . . . He is the possessor of two signs, that of God and that of creation, and through the latter he worshippeth God and boweth in adoration before Him. In like manner, all things adore their Beloved through the sign of Creation, though it hath never reached, nor will it ever reach, beyond its own sign from God, which is present within it and pointeth unto Him."
-the Bab

These two stations of the Word are expressed in the Islamic Dispensation as follows:

(1) "I bear witness there is none other God but God"


(2) "I bear witness that Muhammad is the Servant of God and His Apostle"

The first station always remains unchanged throughout all of religious history, but the second station can change with each new Manifestation of God, affirming Jesus, Moses, the Bab, and so on. The Koran calls Jesus the Word: "O Mary, God giveth thee tidings of a word from himself whose name is the Messiah, Jesus" (Surah 3: 40, 45). If the Word has a dual nature, then one can speak of Jesus as God or as a Servant of God in this sense. It is a matter of perspective. The two stations of the Word are called divinity and servitude by the Bab. This is why Jesus can make statements saying the Father is in the Son, while, at the same time, pray to God.

Now we can begin talking about the Trinity, but, first, I need more clarity on the relationship between the Essence of God and the Word!! All this religious jargon is driving me crazy!!!

For example, how is it that the Divine Essence did not create the universe, but the Word did? The Bab makes it clear the Word created all things, not the Divine Essence. The Divine Essence, however, created the Word. This is where I'm confused. I don't understand the relationship between the two. Is the mirror analogy the only helpful expression?

cire perdue

You would probably grasp much better than I the book, GATE OF THE HEART, by N. Saiedi which reviews a huge amount of the Bab's Writings, if not all available. He reports that many things that have been said about the Bab's work are based on tablets taken out of a context of all of the Writings and are erroneous. E.G. Browne, MacEoin, and others have drawn some summary ideas that do not hold up when other works are viewed. Your topic is one reported well in this book. I did well to get through this incredible work and was grateful for what I was able to understand.

ahanu

Yes, I've been reading, reading, reading Gate of the Heart (which is great, by the way!), but the relationship between the Essence of God and the Word still remain fuzzy. Mostly it is due to the terminology. My desire is to reword it in a way I can understand it.

I've also been learning the Essence of God is similar to Apophatic theology in Catholicism and the Budda's silence about God!

Yeshua

What a fascinating post Ahanu!

As a Catholic myself it naturally intrigues me to read of a mature, enlightening discussion of topics relevant to both of our faiths.

If I can be of help in any way ie in explaining some of the finer elements of via negativa (Apophatic theology) and its relationship to the Essence of God in the Baha'i Faith and the Buddhist Nirvana; or pertaining to the Trinity and the relationship between the Essence of God and the Word, then please just ask me.

You might be interested to now that it was a high-ranking Catholic theologian and philosopher from the 1400s who actually came up with the idea of God as being, the "Absolute". The word "absolute" derives from the Latin absolutum and it first occurs as a noun in the writings of Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa, who, in his De docta ignorantia ( On Learned Ignorance, 1440), used absolutum to refer to God, as the being which is not conditioned by, limited by or comparable to anything else. It was Nicholas of Cusa (often called Cusanus) who actually coined the word "Absolute" and used it in referece to the Divine. It has since become one of the most common ways to refer to God in his incomprehensibility.

Read this extract:


It might actually be useful for you to read up on the views of some non-Trinitarian Christian sects such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who likewise teach that the Word of God created the cosmos but make a distinction between the Essence of God and the created "Word" which they identify as the pre-existent spirit of Jesus. Orthodox Christians like myself of course have an altogether different understanding.

You might also want to consider the distinction in Islamic theology between the Essence and the attributes of God and in Eastern Orthodoxy and Eastern Catholicism, the Essence/Energy distinction which posits that God is unknowable in his Essence but knowable in his Divine Energies - those activities, qualities and attributes through which he manifests himself to humanity.

The ousia or Essence of God in Catholic Christianities, is God as God is in himself. God, as He is in Himself, cannot be understood by any save Himself. 1 Timothy 6:16, "Dwelling in that inaccessible light, whom no man has seen or can see." Its like my mind. You cannot know my private thoughts. In the same way you cannot posses God's mind and private thoughts. However you can know what I am thinking in my mind through my actions and speech. In the same way God's mind - his Essence - is revealed through his actions and activities in the world. The attributes of God tell us what He is and who He is. It is the energies of God that enable us to experience something of the Divine. St John Damascene states that "all that we say positively of God manifests not his nature but the things about his nature."

His energies are also "Uncreated" along with the Essence...

BTW I too have read through "Gate of the Heart" in the past. Its a gripping read and it makes very hard concepts seem that little bit more digestive.

ahanu

What I find interesting is when Catholics accept the doctrine that the Essence of God manifests Itself as Jesus is this: It means there's no need for another revelation. However, if one says the Essence of God appeared in the Mirror, then the doctrine of progressive revelation can be accepted and the world religions can be reconciled. Interestingly, the Bab would say the Catholic view is heresy, while the Catholic would say the Bab's view is heresy! Sigh. Abdu'l-Baha even remarks that the Catholic view is "impossible." Again, the Catholic's expression of the Incarnation is like saying the Speaker himself can become the discourse. The Bab often corrects other sects within Islam because they confused the Divine Essence with the Primal Point, the Word. How do you feel about this tension?

Ah, yes, Abdu'l-Baha also has an interesting illustration to demonstrate this concept in his commentary on the following Islamic tradition: "I was a Hidden Treasure and loved to be known. Therefore I created the creation that I might be known." Consider a dot. He likens the dot to the Divine Essence, which contains all potential words and letters. The Names and attributes of God are totally annihilated in the dot. None of them are adequate to describe the Essence of God. They all fail miserably. Abdu'l-Baha said:

If Jesus manifests the Essence of God (as is believed in the Incarnation), then how can it be possible Jesus has comprehended the Essence of God? Do Catholics have a logical explanation, or do they all say it's just based on "faith?"

Also, is the Catholic's Incarnation a form of pantheism?

Yeshua

Hey Ahanu!

I love you man What an interesting question and conversation. You have one of those searching minds that I so admire. I'm currently studying for exams, so I'm not "on my game", but I'll give you a few answers...

You asked:

Bravo my friend! You have hit the nail on the head...OK...

This might sound like a strange question but, have you ever read the Lord of the Rings or watched the films? Most people are famaliar with the fantasy works of JRR Tolkien. You will know then that as well as being a damn fine writer, Tolkien was a devout Catholic. He was very "into" the semantics of Catholic theology and so he wrote a piece of literature in 1959 that would be right up your street. Its called, "ATHRABETH FINROD AH ANDRETH" and in it he tries to answer the very dilemna you pose. Your question, the one which so bambozled Abdu'l-Baha and lead him to say its "impossible", is how God the creator can enter into his creation, how a speaker could become the speech as you say.

Since you spoke about the "Matrix" above and Keanu Reeves, I thought I would also chip bck with an analogy or two from fiction works It makes it more interesting!

Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth (S. "The Debate of Finrod and Andreth") was a discussion between two characters, Finrod Felagund, an Elven King, and Andreth, a mortal woman that took place during the Siege of Angband (though when originally written was placed much later) and deals with the metaphysical differences between Elves and Men and the imbalances between their fates. The conclusions they come to concern the role of Men beyond Arda and even the Second Music (though not explicitly referred to).

I will give you an actual answer to your questions later on today or on Wednesday but right now I want you to read the "Athrabeth" extract below. Here's what Tolkien says: (ps the words in [] are my explanations of strange words in the mythology, not part of the actual text)

In the year 409 of the First Age, during the Long Peace before Melkor broke the Siege of Angband, an important conversation took place between Finrod Felagund and Andreth the Wise-woman. Finrod was a Noldorin Elf, Lord of Nargothrond, son of Finarfin and grandson of Finw, and known as Edennil (Friend of Men). Andreth was a human woman of the House of Bor, great-great-granddaughter of Bor the Old and great-aunt of Beren One-Hand (whom Finrod joined in the Quest of the Silmaril), and known as Saelind (Wise Heart). Their conversation is recorded in Athrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth, "the Debate of Finrod and Andreth" (which can be found in The History of Middle Earth X: Morgoth's Ring).
The subject of the "debate" between these two friends concerns the brevity of human lives. Is their mortality natural (as Elves had thought) or a result of Melkor the Morgoth's malice (as Men have reason to believe)?
In this conversation, life in Arda among the Children of Eru, the Elves and Men, is considered in three stages (or, perhaps, horizons): Arda Unmarred, Arda Marred, and Arda Healed. In the irretrievable past lies Arda Unmarred, the pure creation Eru (a.k.a. the One, Ilvatar) first made it to be. Finrod and Andreth's present is Arda Marred, a world tragically diminished and tainted by the evil of Melkor. In an unforeseeable (save by Eru alone) future is the possibility of Arda Healed (or Remade), the same Arda and yet unimaginably greater than even Arda Unmarred.
As Finrod and Andreth discuss the origin and meaning of human mortality, an astonished Finrod begins to speculate that healing Arda, "as agents of the magnificence Eru," is the great errand of Men: "to enlarge the Music [through which Arda and all of E was first made] and surpass the Vision of the World!"
Finrod places great trusting hope in the remaking or healing of Arda: "If we [Elves and Men] are indeed the Eruhin, the Children of the One, then He will not suffer Himself to be deprived of His own, not by any Enemy, not even by ourselves." Andreth, however, feels the sting of human mortality, and doubts. But some men, she admits, hope for healing: "Among the Atani, as you call us, or the Seekers as we say: those who left the lands of despair and the Men of darkness and journeyed west in vain hope: it is believed that healing may yet be found, or that there is some way of escape." "Those of the 'Old Hope,'" she says, even have an answer how Arda might be healed.


I hope the above will show you how our belief in Incarnation is wholly different from "pantheism". God is in all things not in a pantheistic way but in a "panentheistic" way, just as the imprint of an artist is embedded in his artwork. But this is "WHOLLY DIFFERENT" from the creator actually "entering into" his creation.

In his commentary, Christopher Tolkien (JRR Tolkien's son) comments on the quotations which I've put forward (p. 335). He says that Finrod's statements about having Eru be both "inside" and "outside" the World in effect suggest the "possibility of complexity or of distinctions in the nature of Eru, which nonetheless leaves him 'The One'". Tolkien's discussion of inside and outside thus prefigures the concept of the Trinity and how Christ would come not to Middle-earth but to our own historical world. In the same way Tolkien referred to another "theological" event in Morgoth's Ring -- the fall of Man -- as depicted in the Tale of Adanel (part of the Athrabeth).

The proto-evangelion (earliest preparation for the gospel) of Middle-earth is found within the "Old Hope" of Men: that Eru the One, Ilvatar, will Himself enter into Arda to conquer Melkor the Dark Enemy of the World, remake and heal Arda, and rescue His children to be His own again. In this plan of healing Men will play a crucial role as agents of Eru. Finrod is amazed by the possibility.
Andreth is incredulous. It seems to her "all wisdom is against it," that the "Old Hope" is mere foolishness. How could it possibly be? But the ways of Eru are mysterious, beyond the understanding of Men. By foolishness Eru confounds the wise, by weakness He confounds the strong. Is it not through simple Hobbits venturing straight into Mordor that the One Ring will be destroyed in the Third Age?
....Perhaps Eru might even --dare we hope? is it too fantastic?-- enter into Arda as a Man Himself!!!!!!!

You asked:

Again I will answer you later when I have the time. I think there is a logical explanation although we all must admit that we cannot completely fathom the ways of God. I want to ask first though: What do you mean by faith? What also does "hope" mean?

Another Tolkien quote:

Tolkien explained the "panentheism" of God - being in the world but not in an incarnational way - with the idea of the "Flame Imperishable", who is like the Holy Spirit. The Bible explains that, "the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world...For thy immortal spirit is in all things" (Wisdom)


While the nature of the Flame Imperishable was much debated in the midst of Quenta Silmarillion, Section I, Ainulindale and Valaquenta:Ia, JRRT's own observations on the subject were never posted. In HOME X 'Morgoth's Ring', in Note 11 to Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth, he notes:

Quote:

This is already glimpsed in the Ainulindalë, in which reference is made to the 'Flame Imperishable'. This appears to mean the Creative activity of Eru (in some sense distinct from or within Him), by which things could be given a 'real' and independent (though derivative and created) existence. The Flame Imperishable is sent out from Eru, to dwell in the heart of the world, and the world then Is, on the same plane as the Ainur, and they can enter into it. But this is not, of course, the same as the re-entry of Eru to defeat Melkor. It refers rather to the mystery of 'authorship', by which the author, while remaining 'outside' and independent of his work, also 'indwells' in it, on its derivative plane, below that of his own being, as the source and guarantee of its being.

But this is not, of course, the same as the entry of Eru to defeat Melkor. Tolkien was thinking rather more of Jesus aspect: Iluvatar made incarnate into mortal flesh, thus he can enter into the World and will not shatter it, as Finrod says, but also can redeem the World from Melkor.

You say, my dear friend, that it is "IMPOSSIBLE" for God to enter into his creation. But who are you to say what IS "IMPOSSIBLE" for God? To GOD "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE" Jesus tells us. God is not LIMITED by his creation. Are you not limiting the power of God by saying "he CANNOT" do something?

No, the question of can/cannot is to my mind irrelevant, because as Finrod says it "limits the Measurelss" within spatial time and place. Rather the question you should be asking is: WOULD HE POTENTIALLY ENTER INTO HIS CREATION AND IF SO - WHY SO? AND IF NOT - WHY NOT?

Yeshua

Hey Ahanu

You said:

From a Catholic viewpoint (and I mean no offence to Abdu'l-Baha for whom I have the utmost respect) Abdu'l-Baha has got the wrong end of the stick, he has misunderstood the Christian Triune understanding of the Oneness of God. The Godhead has no "parts" in our theology!!!!!

That is in fact "heretical". God cannot be divided or split up into parts. So what is begotten of him, is not separate from him, but One with him. Jesus is 'eternally' begotten of God, meaning there was never a time when he did not generate/beget forth from God. God is One God in Three Persons: The Father, the Only Begotten Son and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father through the Son.

Abdu'l-Baha has fallen into what we Catholics would call the error of "Swedenborgianism".

This claims that the three persons are three essentials or elements of One God. Together they make one God: in the mathematical sense that one third plus one third plus one third make one whole. Or in the sense that body and soul and spirit constitute man.

This is erroneous for in each person of the Trinity the fullness of deity dwells (e.g. Colossians 2:9). Each of them does not have only a part of the divine essence.

No "PART" of the Divine Essence descended and was incarnate in the human body of Jesus, as Abdu'l-Baha seems to infer. Rather a "Person" of the Godhead who possesed in his totality all the fullness of the Divine Essence (which is shared equally and without distinction between the Three Persons of the Trinity) descended and became flesh.

This is what Saint Paul meant when he said:

"For in him (Jesus) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (Colossians 2:9)

The "whole FULLNESS" not a "part" as Abdu'l-Baha infers when he says: "that is to say, no part has been detached form the Divine Reality to enter the body of man"

The Catholic Church would actually FULLY agree with him. NO PART OF GOD HAS BEEN DETACHED FROM THE DIVINE REALITY TO ENTER THE BODY OF MAN BECAUSE GOD HAS NO PARTS!!!

I feel that he has misunderstood the Doctrine of the Trinity ie the issue of "the Personality" of God - the Three "Persons". He seems to envisage them as parts of the Divine Essence, when this is NOT the case. Both divine revelation (the Holy Scriptures) and reason can be appealed to as evidence to establish the truth of the oneness of God. The unity of God is still presented in full force in the New Testament, no less than in the Old Testament. "Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he" (Mark 12:32).

The Divine Name is numerically one, and yet in this One Name there are three persons distinguished: The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19-20).

The church receives her benediction from peculiar blessing for each of these Three (2 Corinthians 13:14).

Their different personalities are recognised (1 Corinthians 12:4-6). Christ refers to Himself with the pronoun "I," and at the same time to the Father as "He," and to the Spirit (who proceeds from the Father, and thus distinct from Him), again as "He," rather than "it," clearly meaning a person, not an influence or mere power. And yet these

Three possess the one indivisible divine essence, and are constituted distinct persons by certain incommunicable properties, not common in one with the other two.

They have distinct orders of operation, and consult and speak to each other. With reason then we worship "One God in trinity and trinity in unity; neither confounding the persons, nor separating the substance....And yet there are not three eternals, but one eternal.



Polytheism Polytheism maintains that there are many gods. But Scripture presents it as a foundational truth of all godliness this confession: "Hear O Israel: the Lord thy God is one Lord." "For us there is only one God."

Read:

So I feel I need to delve a little bit into our Trinitaian theology...

Jesus is fully God and Fully Man. To say that one part of him is not Divine and One Part is Divine is to split him into parts. This is plain wrong there is no division between his Divine and Human natures; they are united in one Person who is Both Divine and Human.

The Catholic Church expressly condemns the idea that 'part' of Jesus is not Divine and part is: He is a single whole, an undivided person with two natures and two wills, Divine and Human:

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man.

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin".

For Christians Jesus IS God. When we pray to God we are praying to Jesus, when praying to Jesus we are praying to God - they are, for us, one and the same. Father, Son and Holy Spirit - that is WHO God is. WHAT God is, in terms of his nature, can be explained simply as One God, One Divine Essence. Jesus has fully and entirely that Divine Essence. He is thus God. There is only One Divine Essence but there are Three Persons in the relational sense. The divine nature is distinguished from the human nature in that it can subsist wholly and indivisibly in more than one person. The Whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. This means that the divine essence is not divided among the three persons, but is wholly with all of its perfection in each one of the persons, so that they have - I suppose one could say - a numerical unity of essence. While three persons among men have only a specific unity of nature or essence, that is share in the same kind of nature or essence, the persons in the Godhead have a numerical unity of essence, that is, posses the identical essence. Human nature or essence may be regarded as a species, of which each man has an individual part, so that there is a specific unity; but the divine nature is indivisible and therefore identical in the Persons of the Godhead - who are completely one in being/essence with no division. God is numerically one and the same. From this it follows that the divine essence is not an independent existence alongside of the three persons. It has no existence outside of or apart from the three persons. Just as a human nature is too rich and too full to be embodied in a single individual, and comes to its adequate expression only in humanity as a whole so the Divine Being unfolds itself in its fullness only in its threefold subsistence of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Your Nature, as a human being, is not uniquely yours but is shared by billions of your fellow human beings. In the same way God's nature is shared by the three Persons of the Trinity. The difference between you and God is that human nature or essence may be regarded as a species, of which each man has an individual part, so that there is a specific unity of body, soul and spirit or whatever else you wish to call it within a specific individual; but the divine nature is indivisible and therefore identical in the Persons of the Godhead, who share the One Divine Nature and truly have the same will, conciousness and being without any division, like there is between different individual men.

If I asked you: Who are you Ahanu?

You would reply, "I am Ahanu".

If I asked you: What are you Ahanu?

You would, I hope, reply "a human being".

If I asked God: Who are you?

He would say: I am Father, Son and Holy Spirit

If I asked him: What are you?

He would say: God

One God in Three Persons. Who God is and What God is are different questions, just like asking who you are Ahanu is different from asking what you are. Who refers to you in a relational, personal sense. What refers to your human nature. It is the same with God. In a personal sense God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit - THREE PERSONS! - get it PERSONAL sense. In terms of his nature God is simply God, the One, Undivided Essence, the Divine Being.

But in the end Who and What both refer to the same thing, a single concious being called Ahanu. In the same way, Who God is and What God is both refer to a single Divine Being, who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit = God!!!! without any division. God is One God in Three Persons.

I can now totaly understand why Abdu'l-Baha thought the Christian view was nonsense - he conceived it in terms of "Swedenborgianism" - of parts. To my mind, he simply misunderstood. No wonder he thought it was nonsense!!!!


Hope that helps and sorry for all the theological jargon

LordOfGoblins

Yeshua-"You say, my dear friend, that it is "IMPOSSIBLE" for God to enter into his creation. But who are you to say what IS "IMPOSSIBLE" for God? To GOD "ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE" Jesus tells us. God is not LIMITED by his creation. Are you not limiting the power of God by saying "he CANNOT" do something?

No, the question of can/cannot is to my mind irrelevant, because as Finrod says it "limits the Measurelss" within spatial time and place. Rather the question you should be asking is: WOULD HE POTENTIALLY ENTER INTO HIS CREATION AND IF SO - WHY SO? AND IF NOT - WHY NOT? "


Hmmmm. I have to say I dont agree. To God all things are NOT possible. Consider these statements as food for thought.

"If God is all powerful can he build a boulder too heavy for himself to lift?"

"Is it possible for God to be ignorant of something"?

"Is it possible for God to create another God or prophet of equal or greater power than himself?"

"Is it possible for God to change his own nature?"

God is all powerful remember but look at these traps.

Likewise I would consider "Is it possible for God to enter his own creation one and the same as these above statements". Ie no he cannot lower himself and he cannot also exceed himself (as some the above mentioned states are him exceeding himself). He cannot be more ignorant or obtain more knowledge than he already has either. For example an ignorant God undermines his own virtue of all-knowing and how can he become ignorant of something that he already created?
No I do not think this is possible for him. That doesnt imply that he lacks power, rather it implies that he LACKS LACK OF POWER. ie the fact he cannot descend into his creation shows he lacks lack of power as his creation is rather his own imagination- remember we are talking his essence here something that cannot be alluded to in substance or nature.


Yes for God anything is possible, but even that statement is limited and needs clarification (which I have attempted to do with my own limited understandings)

BruceDLimber

[QUOTE=Yeshua;19431]You might be interested to now that it was a high-ranking Catholic theologian and philosopher from the 1400s who actually came up with the idea of God as being, the "Absolute."QUOTE]

And this agrees exactly with the Baha'i scriptures, which say:

"Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof.

"Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth."

—(Gleanings, LXXXI, page 157)

Best! :-)

Bruce

Yeshua

[QUOTE=BruceDLimber;19461]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeshua You might be interested to now that it was a high-ranking Catholic theologian and philosopher from the 1400s who actually came up with the idea of God as being, the "Absolute."QUOTE] And this agrees exactly with the Baha'i scriptures, which say: "Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof. "Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth." —(Gleanings, LXXXI, page 157) Best! :-) Bruce

Yes we are COMPLETELY IN AGREEANCE AS TO "WHAT" GOD IS IN THE SENSE OF ABSOLUTE ESSENCE AND BEING.

But we differ in our understandings of WHO GOD is in a relational sense - both to his creation and to himself. In this regard Christians conceive of him as being Three-personned, a Tri-unity of Persons who each share and posses the fullness of the One, Undivided, Unknowable, Incomprehensible, Divine Essence.

God can be known "personally" for us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but he can NEVER BE KNOWN AS HE IS IN HIMSELF - IN HIS ESSENCE.

Love in Christ

LordOfGoblins

Even Baha'u'llah admitted he does not know Gods full purpose. And that is Gods purpose so how much less Gods essence. Personally it is a form of arrogance to assume that a human being contains the essence of God. If this were true there would be no need for prophets to come after Jesus. Think about it. Indeed he has been made the culmination of all things by Christian doctrine and it is a difficult standard for any other religion to measure against.

What is that quote from Baha'u'llah that every prophet has yearned after the knowledge of God but gone astray in knowing his essence. Does anyone know the one I am talking about?? If so can you please point me to a reference as a quick search on the iternet did not help me to find it.

Yeshua

Jesus said in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke "To God ALL things are possible".. This is a saying from the Q source so it was DEFINETLY said by Jesus and all scholars are unanimous on that point

But you are conceiving of God HIMSELF without INCARNATion entering into his creation.

The Question is not one of "possibility" but of "probability". If God can bend the laws of nature to produce a Virgin Birth, then he really can do "anything". Your human mind can place no limits upon him because your thoughts and concepts are confined to and defined by the known world with the Laws God created. But the Law-Maker can break his own laws.

God could if he so wished enter his Divine Essence into his creation without incarnating. This is PERFECTLY POSSIBLE. However God WOULD NEVER do that because exposure to his Divine Essence would completely annihilate and destroy matter. This is what happened when Moses went up Mount Sinai. God hid his face from him because if God revealed to Moses his face - his Divine Essence - he would have died!

God could have but he didn't want to kill Moses because he loved Moses. In the samme way God COULD enter into the Universe with his full Divine Essence but by doing so he would utterly shatter reality. So on this account Divine Essence descending without incarnation is POSSIBLE but IMPROBABLE.

But in my opinion God incarnating his Divine Essence and becoming a Person is not only POSSIBLE (ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE TO GOD) BUT IT IS ALSO PROBABLE BECAUSE IN THIS WAY REALITY COULD SEE GOD IN THE FLESH, PERCEIVE HIS DIVINE ESSENCE AS A PERSON, AS A MAN BUT NOT BE DESTROYED BECAUSE THEY WERE BEHOLDING IT IN HUMAN FORM, IN MATERIAL FORM, EMBODIED IN THE FLESH AND NOT IN ITS PRMORDIAL, SPIRITUAL FORM WHICH WOULD DESTROY REALITY ITSELF.

You have to ask yourself whether Incarnation of the DIVINE ESSENCE IS PROBABLE. IT IS POSSIBLE. THE QUESTION IS ONLY WHETHER ITS "PROBABLE". I THINK YES, YOU THINK "NO"

And who are you to place constraints upon God? As fully Human and Fully God Jesus had all the knowledge of God because he had a Divine Will but he also had all the Knowledge of Man. Its a perfect hypostatic union, not a half-God and half-Man entity

Jesus doesn't agree with you there. What right do you a finite creation have to place restraints upon your creator when you can only have knowledge of the metaphysics of this finite world and not the INFINITE?

This doesn't make sense to me, please explain further. It would be much easier if you conceived it in terms of POSSIBLE and PROBABLE. Anything is possible to God but not all things are PROBABLE.


In other words you agree with me but are edgy about admiting it I'm cool with that. I'm perfectly happy for you to believe its IMROBABLE for God to incarnate so long as you don't place restraints on your creator and say its not POSSIBLE

Yeshua

I agree that it would arrogance for a human being to "claim to have God's Essence". But your thinking from below, from the earthly plane not from above, from the spiritual plane.

If you look from below, it is indeed arrogant to claim that a human being has the Essence of God. But if you consider it from above, is it so incomprehensible for God to descend and become human because he loves the world so much?

I don't think so, whereas you do. That's the difference between our two faiths and I don't know how we can resolve it. That's why we're having this discussion.

Your thinking (I feel) in terms of:

Human = God's Essence

Whereas I'm thinking in terms of:

God's Essence = Human

I'm considering it from ABOVE - God becoming man, whereas your thinking of it in terms of man possesing God's Essence.

For us Jesus is not the "Man-God", he is the "God-Man". It is in fact considered heresy to think of him as the "Man-God". He is God made man, not man made/or is God.

A subtle difference but this slight difference in perspective makes all the difference.

LordOfGoblins

Of course. Baha'u'llah also said that God is allpowerful so I am not disagreeing with Baha'u'llah or Jesus.
Jesus also said "I am the way the truth and the light"- (is that correct?).
I am not disagreeing with this and I agree Jesus is this as well. However there is more to it then that which is why I constantly say dont take things at face value.
You have to go beyond and say what does "all-powerful" actually mean. Well it means all powerful relative to us. Relative to himself however he exists in his own sphere. I am not here to put limits on God but I do present things that cannot be reconciled by the statement "He is all-powerful" without some disclaimers. And as I said the disclaimers are the traps I mentioned. For example
how do you define power. Well they say knowledge is power (for example). So Does God have the power to become ignorant of something?

Answer 1: yes he does... conclusion: therefore he is not all-powerful since ignorance is by definition weekness and lack of power.

Answer 2: No he doesnt... conculsion. So your saying there is something he cannot do? Therefore he is not allpowerful.

So what I am trying to say is indeed there are sortof disclaimers when we talk about Gods power or things to consider as I would put it. Another one is that his essence is exalted beyond his creation and therefore cannot descend into it. Likewise our human essence cannot ascend into Gods station.

Consider this:
God=power, knowledge and infiniate. Utmost perfection.

man= week. Ignorant and limited.

Now question. Can perfection lower itself into imperfection? Can power become weekness??

I would say no. I am not limiting Gods power. As I said I am implying that he lacks lack of power. Because lack of power is the human condition and power is the God condition...

LordOfGoblins

Yeshua-"The Question is not one of "possibility" but of "probability". If God can bend the laws of nature to produce a Virgin Birth, then he really can do "anything". Your human mind can place no limits upon him because your thoughts and concepts are confined to and defined by the known world with the Laws God created. But the Law-Maker can break his own laws. "

I think I should mention again that we are talking about a change of his own essence. I am not talking about his power and lack of power. I am talking does he have the power to alter his own essence to descend into the man station. That is the point I would take issue with. THe virgin birth is fine because here we are talking about can he make a man from a woman without seemen. Yes he can that is a law of human biology that he wrote and has the power to alter. But here we are talking about changes of his own condition relative to himself. That is why I used those examples.
Does God have the power to create a prophet equal to his own power?
see that is relative to himself.
likewise. Does he have the power to alter his essence to make it into a mans essence (we all have a soul essence).
So here is where it gets tricky. Talking about Gods essence. So yeh there you have it, my view. Gods power is unlimited but when we talk about power of doing things relative to his own self or his essence then you cant take the same literal view.
Besides Gods essence never changes and that is another topic. And now I feel I have been blashphemous talking about as if I know something about Gods essence when I know nothing at all.

Yeshua

Again you are applying human understanding to God. God simply IS. He is beyond all such notions and earthly comprehensions as, "knowledge" and "ignorance". He defines all names and categories. However you also misunderstood the nature of "being". God IS. There was nothing before him and nothing after him. You misunderstand the omnipotence of God. Inherent contradictions and logical impossibilities do not fall under the omnipotence of God. By doing so you are once again limiting him and placing him into boxes. Augustine of Hippo in his The City of God:

“ For He is called omnipotent on account of His doing what He wills, not on account of His suffering what He wills not; for if that should befall Him, He would by no means be omnipotent. Wherefore, He cannot do some things for the very reason that He is omnipotent"

Thus Augustine argued that God would not do anything or create any situation that would in effect make God not God. He COULD he just WOULD NEVER do so. This BEING WOULD not become NON-BEING. This does not mean that God is not ALL-POWERFUL, he IS. That is reality. Its not that he doesn't have the hypothetical power to render himself into non-existence, or to create a rock he couldn't lift or to make himself ignorant. St Augustine's definition of omnipotence, i.e. that God can do and does everything that God wishes, resolves all possible paradoxes, because God, being perfectly rational, never wishes to do something that is paradoxical. Again we come back to the issue I told you about before of "POSSIBILITY" and "PROBABILITY". God CAN make himself ignorant. He COULD make himself NOT God. However because he IS rational and IS good and IS all-knowing, he would never WISH to make it otherwise. By throwing upon God ideas of paradoxicality one is likewise restraining him, bringing him down to our level. He is above such paradoxes.

Read:

Quote:

If God can do absolutely anything, then God can remove His own omnipotence. If God can remove His own omnipotence, then God can create an enormous stone, remove His own omnipotence, then not be able to lift the stone. This preserves the belief that God is omnipotent because God can create a stone that He couldn't lift. Therefore, in this theory, God would not be omnipotent while not being able to lift the stone. This is a trivial solution because, for example, an omnipotent being could create a boulder that the strongest human could not lift (it needn't do that anyway since such boulders exist) and then give itself the potency of an average human; it would then not be able to lift the stone. This solves nothing as the entity that is unable to lift the stone is not "God" as understood by the paradox, but a very average being with the same potency as a human. The solution only produces a reduced-potency "God"; it does not deal with the matter at hand: God maintaining omnipotence even while performing a task, the success or failure of which seems to imply impotence.

So I think your wrong to think in terms of "does" and "doesn't". Obviously God doesn't do things that are against his nature, because he wishes to be God and to always be God. Its a case of "WOULD" and "WOULDN'T". God COULD act paradoxically to his nature but he WOULDN'T ever WANT TO DO something that is paradoxical or against his nature

And who are you to say that God lacks lack of power? The question is not one of "can't" its one of "why would he"? Why would God act againt his own nature? He wouldn't. He could, but he wouldn't. Could COULD lower himself, its just a question of whether he WOULD WISH TO.

You have to ask yourself the question: IS INCARNATION CONSISTENT WITH GOD'S NATURE?

All thoughts of "can" and "can't" are debilitating. God CAN do anything. He just WOULDN'T do some things BECAUSE HE FREELY CHOOSES NOT TO WORK AGAINST HIS OWN NATURE.

So please focus on the real matter: WOULD GOD NOT COULD GOD

And besides the Incarnation resolves ALL paradoxes to my mind...

As David Hemlock said: "David Hemlock has proposed an incarnational resolution: "On one small planet, lying in a manger, one incarnate babe could not lift the rocks He had made. All the rocks of all of the starfields in Him consist, with their whirling atoms; by Him were and ever-are all things lifted up (Col 1:17; Phil 2:5-8)."

LordOfGoblins

Who am I to say? I am sharing my understanding. There is no need to get rightous. Similarly I could say who are you to say that God can and has lowered himself into a human form. What blasphemy!!! see? We are discussing here. So you disagree that he lacks lack of power?
And yes I am aware of the paradox of the boulder. Anyway I think we are not getting very far so maybe I will just leave it at that. It is the matter of perspective that you are taking that I am someone who has come here to place limitations on what God can and cant do that I do not think is what I am doing. But the Bahai perspective is indeed that God cannot or has not lowered his essence into the form of a human as Christians claim. And in some ways the Bahais could become very indignant with Christians who say things like "All religions are purified by Jesus and reach there ultimate purpose after he raises them up".
Lol I chose to remain silent here but indeed there is alot that I would have said and did not for the sake of respect for your religion.

Yeshua

No were not. Again you misunderstand Christian Incarnation. God did not change his Divine Essence one iota when he became Jesus Christ - he simply became both Human and Divine in the Person of his Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ, the Word of God! He did not dilute, lessen or change his nature. He simply adopted a human nature in addition to his Divine nature. Two natures (Divine and Human), Two wills (Divine and human) in one Divine-Human person. No change, just adoption of a second nature in addition to the Divine one he had possessed since eternity.

But I'm not talking about "changes to his own condition relative to himself" if by "condition" you mean his Divine Essence. His Divine Essence was not dilluted when he became flesh - it was fused in a perfect union to a human nature. Two natures in One Person. The dogma of the immutability of God asserts that neither essential nor accidental change can ever occur in God. This dogma is true, not only in the Immanent Trinity but, as well as in the Economic Trinity. The Divine Essence is no more or less different in the Immanent Trinity than in the Economic Trinity; for as what Ludwig Ott have said: “Neither did the event of the Incarnation result in a change of the Divine Essence.” (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, 153)

The act of creation, and God’s relationship towards His creatures, that is, in governing the world, hearing and granting of prayers, in speaking to Abraham, appearing to Moses and the assumption of a human nature in the Incarnation, etc., was never construed by orthodox theologians as accruing change in God or in the Divine Essence. Thus, in the Incarnation, the Divine Person (Christ) operates in the human nature and through the human nature, as its organ, only through grace, and not as in the manner that He operates in the Divine Nature and through the Divine Nature, as its Organ, which is without mediation by anything created. Because the Divine nature is the natural Nature of Christ, while the human nature is merely His assumed nature, which He Himself created

LordOfGoblins

Ok here is a question.
If God does not change his essence when he becomes a man. Does a man change his essence when he becomes God?
How can you have it one way and not the other. Even if a man is complete perfection he is still a man. A mans essence /= Gods essence. So saying God did not change his essence when he became Jesus is what does not make sense... And indeed the trinity makes no sense either which is another topic.

Yeshua

Who am I to say? I am sharing my understanding. There is no need to get rightous. Similarly I could say who are you to say that God can and has lowered himself into a human form. What blasphemy!!! see? We are discussing here. So you disagree that he lacks lack of power?

It was for dramatic effect. I was not literally ACCUSING you. Have you never read a novel? No I don't agree that he lacks lack of power. He COULD make himself lack power, but he WOULD never do anything against his nature. So once more its a case of whether God WOULD do something not if he COULD, which whatever way you put it places constraints upon a transcendent God and brings him into the realms of human possibilities

And yes I am aware of the paradox of the boulder. Anyway I think we are not getting very far so maybe I will just leave it at that. It is the matter of perspective that you are taking that I am someone who has come here to place limitations on what God can and cant do that I do not think is what I am doing. But the Bahai perspective is indeed that God cannot or has not lowered his essence into the form of a human as Christians claim. And in some ways the Bahais could become very indignant with Christians who say things like "All religions are purified by Jesus and reach there ultimate purpose after he raises them up".
Lol I chose to remain silent here but indeed there is alot that I would have said and did not for the sake of respect for your religion.

I think your misreading of my dramatic "Who are you..." has led you down the garden path. It was a TURN OF PHRASE, not A LITERAL ACCUSATION! And I thank you for being respectful, it is very nice of you but I assure you that I would accept all your critiques without feelings of hurt, if they are presented in a pleasant manner. So no worries. Also I highlighted the part above which I thought was really key. "God cannot or has not lowered his essence" That is the WHOLE crux my friend. He CAN descend into human form but its simply a question of "Would he?" and you have correctly stated that your position, relative to your faith, is that HE HASN'T.

That's it. End of discussion. We agree to disagree!

LordOfGoblins

Catholic doctrine-"But I'm not talking about "changes to his own condition relative to himself" if by "condition" you mean his Divine Essence. His Divine Essence was not dilluted when he became flesh - it was fused in a perfect union to a human nature."

See this sortof thing cant be accepted. This is like saying power and weekness form a perfect harmonious union... or ignorance and knowledge.

Yeshua

Let me express it as simply as I can (and PLEASE read it fully):

Christ's divine nature didn't change at the incarnation. The divine nature can't change, as the Bible says it can't in Malachi 3:6, Numbers 23:19 and James 1:17. Christ's human and divine natures were completely united in the incarnation. He was fully Divine and fully Human.

The five main truths with which the Creed of Chalcedon summarized the biblical teaching on the Incarnation are:

1. Jesus has two natures -- He is God and man.
2. Each nature is full and complete He is fully God and fully man.
3. Each nature remains distinct.
4. Christ is only one Person.
5. Things that are true of only one nature are nonetheless true of the Person of Christ.

If his human nature "changed" then Jesus would not have been human. He is ONE PERSON with two distinct natures, Divine and Human. Neither mingles or dilutes or changes the other; they are just united in a perfect union.
The truths of Christ's two natures full manhood and full Godhood are pretty well understood and known by Christians. But for a right understanding of the Incarnation we must go even further. We must understand that the two natures of Christ remain distinct and retain their own properties. What does this mean? Two things: (1) They do not alter one another's essential properties, and (2) neither do they mix together into a mysterious third kind of nature.

First, it would be wrong to think that Christ's two natures mix together to form a third kind of nature. This is one of the heresies that the early church had to fight. This heresy taught that "the human nature of Christ was taken up and absorbed into the divine nature, so that both natures were changed somewhat and a third kind of nature resulted. An analogy to this can be seen if we put a drop of ink in a glass of water: the mixture resulting is neither pure ink nor pure water, but some kind of third substance, a mixture of the two in which both the ink and the water are changed. Similarly, this view taught that Jesus was a mixture of divine and human elements in which both were somewhat modified to form one new nature." This view is unbiblical because it demolishes both Christ's deity and humanity. For if Christ's two natures mixed together, then He is no longer truly and fully God and truly and fully man, but is some entirely different kind of being that resulted from a mixture of the two natures.

Second, even if we acknowledge that the natures do not mix together into a third kind of nature, it would also be wrong to think that the two natures changed one another. For example, it would be wrong to conclude that Jesus' human nature became divine in some ways, or that His divine nature became human in some ways. Rather, each nature remains distinct, and thereby retains its own individual properties and does not change. As the council of Chalcedon stated it, "...the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved..." Jesus' human nature is human, and human only. His divine nature is divine, and divine only. For example, Jesus' human nature did not become all knowing through its union with God the Son, and neither did His divine nature become ignorant of anything. If any of the natures underwent a change in its essential nature, then Christ is no longer truly and fully human, or truly and fully divine.

Jesus Divine Nature is thus distinct from and has no effect upon his human nature and vice versa.

He is only one Person. In other words, what this means is that there are not two Jesus Christ's. In spite of the fact that He has a duality of natures, He is not two Christs, but One. While remaining distinct, the two natures are united together in such a way so as to be one Person.

To put it simply, there is a certain sense in which Christ is two, and a different sense in which Christ is one. He is two in that He has two real, full natures one divine and one human. He is one in that, while remaining distinct, these two natures exist together in such a way as that they constitute "one thing." In other words, the two natures are both the same Jesus, and thus are one Person. As the Chalcedonean creed says, Christ is "to be acknowledged in two natures...concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ..."

Hope that helps

(I based my above post on this website: http://www.contendforthefaith2.com/hypo2.html)

LordOfGoblins

You realise here you are just explaining the trinity which is not really what my point was about with the all-powerful point. Its okay I am aware of the concept of the trinity... I was more talking about the issues which I presented before that present problems of how you define all-powerful. This is a more interesting topic to me. If you want to explain the trinity then dont worry. Had plenty of discussions with Orthodox about this. It is not that thought stimulating to read about it over and over again..

Yeshua

In God there are no paradoxes. He is the Coincidence of Opposites, according to Catholic theology. Did you not read my initial post to Ahanu?

I quoted stuff written by Cardinal Cusa who coined the term "the Absolute" for God, read:

Don't you see? Once more your limiting God within SPACE AND TIME!

Your claiming he CAN'T be two Things at the One Time or that he is not Above all such distinctions.

He is the "Coincidence of Opposites" so I think Catholic doctrine has got you a little bit there as well Just a little bit....

Yeshua

I didn't discuss the Trinity at all! This tells me you didnt ACTUALLY read it.

Where is the word TRINITY used?

I discussed merely Jesus' Divine and Human natures.

So will you please read it in full? If you don't then I will suspect you are just wishing to ignore my posts.

Read it and you will see it SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE TRINITY BUT IS IN ANSWER SOLELY TO YOUR QUESTION ON HUMAN AND DIVINE NATURES.

You asked me:

And I gave you a lengthy answer. So will you PLEASE read it and then critique it?

LordOfGoblins

you have probably read this from Abdul'Baha but your statement about limiting God by saying he cant be two things at one time reminded me of it so I thought I would post it anyway...

"Question.—What is the meaning of the Trinity, of the Three Persons in One?
Answer.—The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception. That Lordly Reality admits of no division; for division and multiplicity are properties of creatures which are contingent existences, and not accidents which happen to the self-existent.
The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence. 1
God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion 114 of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man 2 is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection. "

LordOfGoblins

I admit I have a tendancy not to read your posts properly as they are generally very long...

Yeshua

A Catholic would agree entirely with that statement, in fact that's what WE SAY and have said since the time of Cardinal Cusa in the 1400s:

Where I would disagree with Abdu'l-Baha is that he seems to think that we Christians believe that there are "parts" or divisions" in the Godhead.

Why do you still not understand that this is NOT how we view the Trinity? I've said it about a MILLION TIMES - THERE ARE NO PARTSSS OR DIVISIONSSS!!!!!! lol

Yeshua

The problem is Lord, if you don't read them then how can you say I am wrong?

If you don't read that post on Divine and Human natures then I cannot discuss with you. I hope you understand this? Its a game of "give and take" afterall. I've read all your posts.

And btw I'm sorry for the length

LordOfGoblins

But thats the thing. Three is a number that is divided into three parts. If it was united then three would be 1 (or numberless as Abdul'Baha says)...
A cake cut into three pieces is still a cake in three peices even though each piece is still a cake and before the cake is cut it is still a cake as well.

We have a cake and we cut it into three and that is the trinity... lol.

Yeshua

How can you compare God to a "cake"? God is utterly beyond all comprehension.

Go back and read post no.7

There you will find that I have already answered Ahanu on the very question you ask above regarding the Trinity.

I will pre-warn you however. ITS LONG - REALLYYYY LONG.

But the choice is yours whether you will read it or not If you do then the discussion will continue once you have critiqued the areas you feel we have it wrong.

The Trinity is not "parts". Each person posseses the fullness and totality of the Divine Essence which is One. Each person is fully "God" and yet "God" cannot be God irrespective of the two other Persons. The Three Persons are One in Essence, One in Will, One in Divine Nature, One in Action, One in Purpose and One in Eternity. They are "One God". Jesus is God, the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God - fully and completely.

It comes back to "who" and "what". In terms of WHAT God is: God IS God - One simple, Undivided, Essence. In this respect Jesus IS God because HE IS that One Essence, The Father IS God because he IS that One Essence and the Holy Spirit IS God because he IS that ONE ESSENCE.

But when we come to the question of "Who" God is in the relational sense - both to creation and to himself - then God is a unity of three "persons". He is: Father, Son and Holy Spirit...

Again I feel you are "limiting God". Human beings can only be one single "person", but God is not bound by spatial time or place. God can be One Being and yet be Three Persons on the relational/personal level.

The greek word "hypostasis" which is loosely translated as "person", does not mean person in the sense that we think of a "person" in English and I think it is this which confuses people.

In the Trinity doctrine, each person is understood as having the same identical essence or nature, not merely similar natures. Its not "Three people" with independent natures, wills, purposes etc. The members of the Trinity are co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action, and will. As stated in the Athanasian Creed, the Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, and the Holy Spirit is uncreated, and all three are eternal with no beginning. It has been stated that because three persons exist in God as one unity, "The Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" are not three different names for different parts of God but one name for God, because the Father can not be divided from the Son or the Holy Spirit from the Son. God has always loved, and there has always existed perfectly harmonious communion between the three persons of the Trinity. In the Trinitarian view, the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost share the one essence, substance or being.

I will qote again a part of what I wrote above to Ahanu but PLEASE read the whole post before you reply to me:

ahanu

Play a mind game with me. I follow a religious leader that believes nothing is impossible for God. "It's not impossible," my religious leader argues, "for us to have all been created today with ready-made memories of our childhood experiences, relationships, feelings, and so on. The universe didn't evolve over billions of years. No, God only made it appear so. Those dinosaurs were put there by God to confound the wise! Don't follow the Baha'is who say 'this world is very ancient!' They lie and say we have not all been created today! Even the textbooks that detail all of history to us are a lie. These histories were ready-made for us today by God!" I accept this truth . . . because nothing is impossible for God. You try to disprove it, but I only escape whatever rational proof you give by thinking up something to fit this everything-is-possible-with-God-scenario. Do you doubt my belief, Yeshua? If you disagree, I would readily say you doubt the power of the Creator.

No, the Essence of God would not potentially manifest Itself in the body of Jesus. From a Baha'i perspective, you have misconstrued Paul's words. You said:

Consider the words of Paul: Jesus "is the image of the Invisible God" (Col 1:15). The Greek word for image is eikon, the very same word Plato used to describe the reflection of the Sun in the water. So when Paul says "God was in Christ," or that "in Jesus the whole fullness of deity dwells bodiy," Paul speaks of God's reflection, like the Sun in a Mirror. I'm sorry, but you need more proof Paul is speaking of the Incarnation of the Divine Essence. Rather, he was speaking of the Incarnation of God's attributes and names, or the Word.

As for your understanding of what Abdu'l-Baha said, you must look at my quote in context, for Abdu'l-Baha was not addressing Catholics, but Laura Clifford Barney's question: "In the Bible it is said that God breathed the spirit into the body of man. What is the meaning of this verse?" Abdu'l-Baha does indirectly address the Catholic's Trinity when he remarks:

Catholics do believe "the manifestation of the reality" of the Divine Essence manifests Itself as Jesus, for, again, my Catholic friend said: "the Divine manifests Itself as a person ... there is no distinction between the Divine Essence and the Person." In Abdu'l-Baha's terminology this would be "proceeding from manifestation"; however, Abdu'l-Baha, clearly grasping the Catholic's error, says, instead, it is the "proceeding through emanation." As for the division into parts, this could have been another belief he was addressing, while I thought it was a reference to the Catholic Incarnation.

ahanu

I will address the other questions in the future if God is willing.

Please refer to the post above. I believe it shows Abdu'l-Baha understood the Catholic's doctrine of Incarnation.

Yeshua

I will answer your post on Wednesday Ahanu

However I would just like to say that your "mind-game" above reminded me of words Baha'u'llah uttered.

This is Baha'u'llah talking about himself and it oddly reminded me of your religious leader

Quote:

Were He to pronounce water to be wine or heaven to be earth or light to be fire, He speaketh the truth and no doubt would there be about it; and unto no one is given the right to question His authority or to say why or wherefore. Whosoever raiseth objections will be numbered with the froward in the Book of God, the Lord of the worlds. 'Verily He shall not be asked of His doings but all others shall be asked of their doings.' He is come from the invisible heaven, bearing the banner 'He doeth whatsoever He willeth' and is accompanied by hosts of power and authority while it is the duty of all besides Him to strictly observe whatever laws and ordinances have been enjoined upon them, and should anyone deviate therefrom, even to the extent of a hair's breadth, his work would be brought to naught...Verily if he declares the right to be left, or the south to be north, it is true and there is no doubt therein. Verily He is to be praised in His deeds and to be obeyed in His command. He hath no associate in His behest and no helper in His power; He doeth whatsoever he willeth, and commandeth whatsoever he desireth (Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, p. 108)

cire perdue

Okay, I can follow a bit of this, but something that I seem to know if it is correct as a Baha'i, IS that one does not have to be connected or to enter something to effect it. One can feel emotions of others. Light is not a lamp, and heat is not fire. This is the analogy that seems to be missed by the above "models". Another simplistic model, pun, I can build a model railroad town, but I cannot enter it physically, but I can certainly create, destroy, and effect it.

A newly converted previously pagan emperor backed the idea that Christ was consubstantial with God. It seems to me that the error of all but the Baha'i arguments is not considering the effect of God's existence which is the Holy Spirit which emanates and is manifested by the Messengers.

The Creator is greater than its creation.

Okay, I'll shut up, and maybe someone can explain how far off I am if I could grasp it.

ahanu

I will give an example.

What is gravity? If you do not already know the answer, come back to this page after you find the answer.

I'm holding a pen in my hand. I drop it. It falls to the floor. Will it fall 9 out of 10 times or everytime? Well . . . I have faith it will fall everytime. Now let us consider four sayings.

I believe in the law of gravity.
I have faith in the law of gravity.
I know about the law of gravity.
I understand the law of gravity.

Each saying is somewhat different--with some sayings being more different or similar than another. If you watched the 1951 movie Royal Wedding, you will see a man dancing. He dances on the floor. Then he dances on the walls. Finally, he dances on the ceiling. If this really did happen, it would shake my faith in gravity. If you really, really have faith in gravity, then you would try to find a logical explanation. You search, search, and search, trying to figure out how the man in the Royal Wedding could dance on the walls and ceiling. Suddenly, you discover the man was in a rotating room. The camera was fixed in relation to the room, and so the room moved with the camera in place, creating the illusion the man was dancing on the ceiling. Since your point of reference is the camera, you don't know you are turning.

I can't make you have faith in gravity. You may see the movie and declare, "I don't believe in the law of gravity, for I saw a man dancing on the ceiling and walls!" In short, you might believe the pen I drop will not fall everytime, but 9 out of 10 times.

Faith is a process. It is the coming together of knowledge and action. I have knowledge of the law of gravity, and so when I make the action of dropping the pen, I have such a faith in the law of gravity that the pen will fall everytime, not 9 out of 10 times.

ahanu

Could you please provide the source so I could see that quote in context, Yeshua?

Baha'u'llah has given us the Book of Certitude (knowledge) and the Most Holy Book (action) so that Baha'is can have faith in him.

cire perdue

Faith is not dependent on my ability to think or perceive. Faith would encompass that it is an acceptable when the pen does not hit the floor, will not leave the hand. Faith is ultimately a function of the "heart" with the mind and sould. Intuitive perhaps? Faith based on argument/reason is like cereal without milk. I have always found an answer to my questions though I may wait years. Faith is there. Fortunately I don't think there are any real examples of a situation in which gravity does not work. It may be inaccurate to argue using physical laws as an analogy. I have never been tested in faith like a physical law that ceased to work. My questions have always been a matter of growth beyond my stance at the point of question. Baha'is are cautioned about futile sciences that start and end with words.

LordOfGoblins

Yeshua. I compared Gods division to a cake because Orthodox compared it to a three headed animal. So I thought this was an ok comparison in Christianity. Obviously in Bahai no such analogy exists because as Abdul'Baha says, God is free from single or multiple. So therefore the number three is not special to God as it would be in Christianity.

ahanu

Hi Cire Perdue,

I disagree, because you're saying faith can only work in uncertainty. If this conclusion is wrong, please correct me.

I'm a little confused when you said: "My questions have always been a matter of growth beyond my stance at the point of question. Baha'is are cautioned about futile sciences that start and end with words." Before this you say, "I have always found an answer to my questions though I may wait years." This is why I say you're saying faith can only work in uncertainty. After you know the answer, then you can disregard faith--at least that is how I view what you have said.

I think you've vaguely grasped it. In your model the model railroad town would be "the Word." The town doesn't really create things, however. Yes, the Maker of the model railroad town could not enter into it.

Baha'is make an excellent example already with the mirror to make a distinction between two different interpretations of Incarnation. The Sun does not become the mirror, but the Sun appears in the mirror. If the Sun does become the mirror, this would be the Catholic doctrine of Incarnation. If the Sun appears in the mirror, this would be the Baha'i doctrine of Incarnation (the Incarnation of the names and attributes of God, or "light" and "heat").

The best way for me to picture this relationship between the Word and the Essence of God is with simulated reality. Pretend we exist in a simulated reality. This simulated reality is created by a highly advanced computer. The computer creates all things. We, living in the simulated reality, call it "the Word." In turn, the Essence of God created the computer.

Keeping with this analogy, according to the Bab, He is "the computer program" (or "Word") that creates all things, while the Programmer (the Essence of God) is unknowable.

The Baha'i will say the Programmer cannot become the program, while the Catholic will say the Programmer can become the program if He so wishes and manifest Himself as Jesus. Remember, I'm just using the simulated reality analogy to show the relationships between the Word and the Essence of God.