Iconodule

By Eternal lets define it as this, as in a existance which has always been, an existance at which there was never a time in which the existance did not exist and continues to exist beyond time and before it.

Now I would like the Bahai opinion on this. Is the universe eternal, and i would prefer quotes from the Bahai founders themselves on this subject.

BruceDLimber

Hi!

The Baha'i Faith definitely says the universe had a beginning given that it was created, but it isn't expected to end anytime soon!

(And for the record, the common Christian "end of the world" thing is a mistranslation of the Greek word "eras" meaning "world" or age": the compilers of the KJV Bible picked the wrong meaning. The verse actually speaks of the end of the Age, which IOV already took place around a century and a half ago!

Please feel free to keep the questions coming: we LOVE 'em! :-)

Bruce

Yeshua

Abdu'l-Baha in "Some Answered Questions" was talking about the Universal Cycles of the Manifestations and then he said this remarkable statement:

"...In this way cycles begin, end and are renewed, until a universal cycle is completed in the world, when important events and great occurrences will take place which entirely efface every trace and every record of the past; then a new universal cycle begins in the world, for this universe has no beginning..."


Baha'i writer (and Hand of the Cause) J. E. Esslemont writes, "Baha'u'llah teaches that the universe is without beginning in time. It is a perpetual emanation from the Great First Cause." J. E. Esslemont, _Baha'u'llah and the New Era,_ 3d ed. (BPT, 1970), 204

However the point of this seems to be that God has already been creating, perhaps "Universe" might be referring to the broader reality or multiverse. However I think that one could make a strong arguement from the Baha'i Writings that the Universe had no beginning:


Know that an educator without pupils cannot be imagined; a monarch without subjects could not exist; a master without scholars cannot be appointed; a creator without a creature is impossible; a provider without those provided for cannot be conceived; for all the divine names and attributes demand the existence of beings.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 180

The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 281

LordOfGoblins

Hello. The universe had a beginging? I think you are mistaken there.

"If we could imagine a time when no beings existed, this imagination would be the denial of the Divinity of God. Moreover, absolute nonexistence cannot become existence. If the beings were absolutely nonexistent, existence would not have come into being. Therefore, as the Essence of Unity (that is, the existence of God) is everlasting and eternal—that is to say, it has neither beginning nor end—it is certain that this world of existence, this endless universe, has neither beginning nor end"

-Abdul-Baha
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-47.html
(fixed this link)

My summary.
THe univserse has no beginging and no end. Much like GOd himself.

Fadl

You are right, LOG.

God and creation are co-eternal because otherwise God would have changed his nature since there would have been a time where He was not the Creator. Now certainly this world, and possibly Universe had a beginning, but the system of God and creation predate it. Of course, it is also illogical to say 'before' existence since time is a part of existence. Therefore, 'before' (a time expression) existence has no meaning.

Iconodule

So here's my follow up question. If the Universe is eternal and was not therefore dependant on God for it's existence, is the Universe God in the bahai mind or is it seperate from God?

Fadl

Separate.

Iconodule

So the Universe is not God? In anyway? Okay. Now would you say the universe was without a Begining that there was never a time in which it did not exist? That it always was?

arthra

God is a Creator God so the process of creation doesn't "begin" at a certain point or "end" at another...

The Creator always had a creation; the rays have always shone and gleamed from the reality of the sun, for without the rays the sun would be opaque darkness. The names and attributes of God require the existence of beings, and the Eternal Bounty does not cease. If it were to, it would be contrary to the perfections of God.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 281

Iconodule

In order for something to be created it must have begun to exist. This logically follows for if it always existed and it was therefore not created.

IndependentInvestigator

Hey Iconodule,

A Creator doesn't necessarily imply a beginning, and eternal existence doesn't imply necessary existence (i.e., no dependence).

As I understand it, St. Thomas Aquinas argued that even if the universe is eternal it is not self-explanatory--it depends on God for its existence. In this case, the universe would eternally emanate from God.

All analogies break down somewhere, but I think this one might illustrate the point well enough. Imagine a source of light like the sun, except that it has always been shining and always will. The light that shines from it depends for its existence on the sun, even though it has always been shining. It would not be correct to say that just because the light has always shined, it is not dependent on its source.

In the same way, God may be conceived of as sustaining an eternal universe, beginninglessly and endlessly.

The Baha'i argument here is actually quite interesting, I think. If it is in God's nature to create, then He must have been a Creator always. I'm not sure I accept the idea of absolute divine immutability, because it would seem to preclude any sort of divine action (since action entails a change of states), but if one does accept this idea, then it would seem problematic for God to have not always sustained the universe: He cannot "begin" to create at some point.

Or, in any case, that's how this interesting line of reasoning goes.

Don

Iconodule

Created I think necessarily means a begining, Creator only necessarily means that the being has created. I find a problem with the bahai religion if the Universe is truely eternal, and God is as well, that means there is an entity (the universe) which has the same status of God but is not God.

IndependentInvestigator

Ico,

Here is where the relevant portion of Aquinas's Summa Theologica begins:

Summa Theologica, Volume 1 - St Thomas Aquinas - Google Books

Aquinas speaks here of God being prior to the world either temporally ("by duration") or logically ("by nature")--i.e., His being the source of a beginningless world (meaning the universe).

I'm sure there's much more one could find on Aquinas's idea here, but here's a brief mention of it in a scholarly treatise on Aquinas:

The treatise on the divine nature: Summa theologiae I, 1-13 - Saint Thomas (Aquinas), Brian J. Shanley - Google Books

Since there was a lot of reciprocal influence between Christian, Jewish, and Muslim theologians throughout the Middle Ages, I would imagine that Aquinas's idea of God as (possibly) the Source, Cause, or Ground of a beginningless universe trickled down in some form to the Baha'i Founding Figures. Scholarly study could probably illuminate that question.

Don

IndependentInvestigator

Ico,

I don't think so, and there is a long tradition of Christian theology to the contrary. If God sustains the existence of the universe, then God is its source, whether this existence began at some point or has always been.

Personally, I'm not even sure it would matter if there was something else that existed eternally without God making it. Suppose the existence of a certain smelly lump of tar is just a brute fact--it has always existed, without its having been caused by God. In what sense would it be "equal" with God? Omnipotence? Omniscience? Omnipresence? Omni-benevolence?

The tar lump would have none of those divine qualities, so it would be "equal" with God only in the sense of being co-eternal with Him. This isn't "equality" with God, so far as I can see, unless one for some reason simply defines it as such, in which case one could worship the lump, though I'm not sure what the benefit of doing so would be.

Really, for the tar lump to be co-eternal with God would not make it in any meaningful sense "equal" with God; it would only make it share a single divine trait, and not a superlative one at that. Human beings share traits with God (e.g., consciousness and reason--nobler traits than brute existence), and that doesn't make us "equal" with God. So I'm not sure why beginninglessness would make a tar lump "equal" with God either.

Mind you, that's just me talking. The Baha'is--and Aquinas and the Thomistic philosophers--insist that God is the source of everything, tar lumps included, no matter how long they've existed. IF God were to withdraw His sustaining power from these things, they would cease to exist. They therefore don't share His attribute of self-existence: He alone exists by His very nature; all else depends on Him.

For God to be the source of all does not require that everything else had a beginning (though it all may have).

Does that make sense?

Don

Iconodule

Im not denying that God is the source of the universe, clearly God sustains and created the universe, in the begining God created the heavens and the earth. Creation ex nihilo a uniquely jewish idea which the pagans thought absurd.

But I don't see how it is logically possible that a universe eternally existing and a God eternally existing could have it's cause from God because it was never caused. Perhaps God could sustain it eternally but this just makes things even more complicated and convoluted.

IndependentInvestigator

So, what makes something God is not having a temporal origin? This is a sufficient condition for Godhood? If it could be shown that the lump of tar was without beginning, you would be indifferent about whether to worship it or God the Father? Or you'd worship both?

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, we need to talk! ;-)

Sharing some aspect of God's nature wouldn't make another thing God. If it did, we, sharing His image, would be God and should be worshipped--which is of course completely blasphemous and wrong.

Perhaps a starting point for further discussion of this point, if it needs it, would be to define "God." What definition would you use?

Don

Iconodule

I merely suggest it brings up a problem is does to have two eternals coexistant with one antoher. Especially if the second eternal is not God. How can something other than God share eternality with him? Are we not promised in the scripture God is the only one eternal? But I suppose the logical problem is what we face if the universe is eternal, we ultimately have a contradiction with science which actually demosntrates a definite start for the universe via the Big bang theory, and is there a realm in which God exists outside of the universe? Why does he need this realm? If the universe is eternal he should be able to perfectly fit in all his essence into this phsyical realm.

IndependentInvestigator

How so?

In this case, God alone would be a necessary being. Everything else would be utterly contingent on His will.

BTW, I think you're thinking of causality in only one sense, when there are several senses. Ever since Aristotle there have been at five types of causation discussed in Western thought: formal, final, instrumental, material, and efficient. I believe (though I could be wrong) that you're referring only to temporal, efficient causation.

Let's take a step back. Suppose the universe was created by God at a certain point (say, the Big Bang). Is it now self-existent? No. Most believers in God would say that it was not only created by God in its first moment but that He continues to sustain its existence. And suppose there is also a timeless realm, which God also sustains in existence. Does God not "create" the timeless realm because He didn't bring it into existence at a certain point? He would cause, or create, it in a different sense than I can cause a chair to fall over. And if He sustains the temporal universe, and always will, then He also "causes" it in a sense different than how I cause things. I "cause" things by doing something at point T1 that makes something else happen at T2. But God makes there be a T1 (and a T2) in the first place. This type of sustaining causation isn't temporal. It underlies the very existence of time.

So, yes, God can be a cause even in a sense different than doing something at point A to bring about something else at point B. Or at least we'd better hope so, because otherwise none of this exists! ;-)

Don

IndependentInvestigator

I'm not sure that either the scriptures or theology teach that only God has always existed. If they teach anything on this, it is that only God is self-existent.

But I don't see why something can't share some trait of God without being God, especially if the idea is that it only does so by His will! We, by His will, share His image. That doesn't make us God. If the universe by His will shares His temporal beginninglessness, by His eternal sustaining care, then it is still in every way subordinate to and contingent on Him.

I think the Big Bang may have been the beginning. But we don't actually know that. Our equations break down as we get back to the first fraction of a second of the Bang. And there may be a larger universe, or multiverse, in which ours exists. Or the universe may go through cycles, with the apparent beginning being only the start of a cycle.

I don't follow you here. Even if the universe were infinite in scale and eternal in duration it doesn't seem to follow that an Absolute immaterial timeless being would have to "fit" in it, or even what that would mean.

Hey, we should both get to doing something else in the universe, however long it's been here. It's Friday night! =)

Or, wait--maybe for you it's Saturday morning?

Don

Iconodule

Independant God is the first and the last, he logically is eternal. You can't deny that God has always existed eternally. This is basic logic and basic Christianity.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause. God did not have begining and therefore he is eternal and causeless.

But How can the universe by his will share in his beginingness? At a certain point he would have had to willed it to be as such, it can only be eternal if it is independant of him, God can't will something to be eternal if it was created, thats a logical impossibility.

InvestigateTruth

As AbdulBaha said in the Some Answered Questions, this topic is "the most complicated spiritual truth":

"Know that it is one of the most abstruse spiritual truths that the world of existence—that is to say, this endless universe—has no beginning."

Note that even though, the physical world outwardly is physical, but AbdulBaha uses the term "abstruse spiritual truths"

Other quotes from Abdulbaha from Some Answered Questions, that may help to understand the Baha'i explaination might be:

"absolute nothingness cannot find existence"

"Therefore, though the world of contingency exists, in relation to the existence of God it is nonexistent and nothingness.
Man and dust both exist, but how great the difference between the existence of the mineral and that of man!"


"...absolute non-existence cannot become existence. If the beings were absolutely non-existent, existence would not have come into being. … it may be that one of the parts of the universe, one of the globes, for example, may come into existence, or may be disintegrated, but the other endless globes are still existing. … As each globe has a beginning, necessarily it has an end, because every composition, collective or particular, must of necessity be decomposed; the only difference is that some are quickly decomposed, and others more slowly, but it is impossible that a composed thing should not eventually be decomposed.—Some Answered Questions, pp. 209–210

I find the Book of "Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era" also helpfull:

"The creation of a world, a daisy or a human body is not “making something out of nothing”; it is rather a bringing together of elements which before were scattered, a making visible of something which before was hidden. By and by the elements will again be scattered, the form will disappear, but nothing is really lost or annihilated; ever new combinations and forms arise from the ruins of the old."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, Pages 204-206

Iconodule

Thats almost identical to platonism in which it is positied there is a substance and a creator both co eternal and the creator didn't really create anything he just molded the physical existence into what is the universe. How interesting.

LordOfGoblins

That is why the old definition of creation does not quiet explain things. In terms of what is relative to God, he exists outside of time. Thus even though there may not be an instance in time where we have a created universe, it does not mean the universe is not created. In fact if we imply that there is an instance in time where God creates something, then we are in danger of saying that God is not unchangable. It is a difficult thing to wrap ones head around but it is like trying to comprehend infinity. Not easily done for the human mind.

InvestigateTruth

Good point LOG!
It reminds me the quote from Bible:

"God does not change'

If we say that there was a time that God had not created the world, and at some point He did, then that is to say, God was not a creator for a long time then He became a creator.
that would be a change in God who wasn't creator, then became creator.

Iconodule

When it says God does not change I don't think it means something like that. I believe it would be more referring to God's essence in which nothing can change, the divinity cannot cease to be divinity. Because in the bible God was not eternally creating (indeed such a notion that there are things being created eternally seems impossible to me as there would never have been a time which there was not a Creation therefore God really isn't creating anything he's just existing alongside it).

IndependentInvestigator

The idea of eternity is a confusing one.

Think of it this way:

Has God always existed? [I'm assuming you answer "yes" in your mind here.]

Has God always, at each moment, had a will? [Your answer will undoubtedly come to mind.]

Then, given what I'm pretty sure your answers were, why can't God have willed at each moment, no matter how far back we go, have willed that there be a universe?

Remember that the way in which God "causes" the universe to exist at each moment isn't like the normal sequence of cause and effect. God doesn't do something 10 minutes ago that causes the universe to continue existing in this moment. He does something right now that causes it to exist. His existence and will always sustain the existence of the universe at each moment. His will that the universe exist right now doesn't precede this moment, it underlies this moment.

Think of the way a magnetic field requires a magnet. Without the magnet being there at this moment, the magnetic field wouldn't be there either. It is in this way, and not just through a succession of events, that God causes (and thus continually "creates") the universe.

I'm not saying He didn't also originally begin the universe at a particular moment. I'm saying that whether He did or not the universe would still depend upon Him for its existence. The relationship isn't one just of sequence but also of dependence.

Don

Truthseeker96

Well i am just going to give a childish answer from what i understand. I see the creator and creations as like a etrnal cycle. And i heard a riddle that says there is no beginning to a circle in a harry potter book.... Lol yep thats my simple way of viewing it

LordOfGoblins

Coming from you who always says you have to take the most literal and face-value interpretation and not read into things according to your own understandings. Wow nice.
Where is your consistancy bro. We have to have a consistent historical standard by which to measure the bible... remember.
The problem is that you measure the idea of creation within the framework where we have observable created phenomina. Outside of the context of that framework however, we are outside of the context of time. You know that time is an intergral fabric of the universe right?
Just look at physics.
Time is related to movement, energy and mass.
E=mc^2

Iconodule

I am not a complete biblical literalist. I resent that remark. My Critique of the Bahai has always been in regards to what seems their seemingly subjective ideas regarding scripture that it can readily change from a Historic narrative (the virgin Birth) and then almost all of it become metaphorical with no indication or reason for doing so. Books aren't written in that way which is why such ideas are so silly Its hard to take it seriously. And I don't know what any of what you said has to do with the subject. Do you believe in something other than God being eternal? I just can't accept that as it seems to contradict the scripture and the entire history of Christian thought bringing us to the platonistic ideas of ancient greece. I think Baha'u'llah didn't recognise that the universe Creation Ex Nihilo was entirely logical and thus made the error he did.

And Independant I think there has to be a distinction between cause and create, you are straining to say that God can eternally create something, can he? Has God eternally been creating things alongside his existance and thus creating his own eternals apart from him? (for to create something through all eternity would mean that God has created an eternal himself). It doesn't make sense to me and seems to be a very muddled Idea.

IndependentInvestigator

Ico,

I didn't come up with the idea that God creates the world, not at a temporal moment, but continuously, nor is the idea a silly one. Rather, it is a coherent possibility that has long been identified as such within the Christian theological tradition. If you'd like to get over to the other side and argue Aquinas and every Thomist and many non-Thomistic thinkers of the last three quarters of a millennium of straining at a gnat, that's your prerogative. But if I were you, I wouldn't plan on winning that argument. Even if the idea turns out not to be true, it's hardly silly.

Let me draw an another analogy for you. The comparison is admittedly not exact, but it's exact in the ways that matter.

Take the creedal statements of the Trinity. The Son is said to be "eternally begotten" by the Father, while the Holy Spirit is described as "eternally proceeding" from the Father.

The way this is not similar to an idea of the universe eternally depending on God for its existence is that the universe would be emanated by God contingently, while the Son and Holy Spirit beget from / proceed from the Father necessarily. In other words, God could just suddenly stop producing the universe--even if He had produced it for the entire past eternity up until now. But the Father cannot stop begetting / sending forth the Son and the Holy Spirit, because to do so is intrinsic to His nature.

Nonetheless, the idea is that the Son and the Holy Spirit emanate from the Father, and that they do so "eternally". If the concept of eternally generating something is incoherent, then how is the concept of the Son and Holy Spirit endlessly begetting / proceeding from the Father coherent?

I know these ideas are strange. They take some working through. And I don't claim to have my mind completely wrapped around them. But some of the great theological minds of our own (Christian) theological tradition have found them coherent and plausible, and they seem that way to me. So, while you and I will certainly agree in finding much of Baha'i theology problematic, I don't think this is one of the better points to criticize it on. To criticize Baha'is as incoherent on this point is just as much to criticize some of the standard bearers of the Christian theological tradition.

Anyway, enough on this topic. We don't want this debate to be endlessly proceeding from us... ;-)

Have a great weekend!

Don

LordOfGoblins

Well then we are at an impass. You have shown before that you take things completely at face value to your utmost ability to do so. Even the concept of the stars falling from heaven in CHristian prophecy I had to make numerious numerous posts before you conceded that point in the resurrection thread, and the only reason why you did it is because you have to accept the fact that the cosmos cannot logically support stars falling from the literal heaven onto the literal earth.

"And Independant I think there has to be a distinction between cause and create, you are straining to say that God can eternally create something,"
I am not straining. I am simply saying when you take all the evidence into account, it does not support your conclusion. In any case time is a property of the existant universe. If I was to say, God exists outside of time. Does that make sense to you? Or does that statement go over your head? I am not asking for you to try and picture how it might work. That is not the point. Some things we must accept we cannot picture, and concepts relating to infinity is such an example..

"for to create something through all eternity would mean that God has created an eternal himself)."
I am not sure what you mean by this statement. What is an 'eternal'?

"I just can't accept that as it seems to contradict the scripture and the entire history of Christian thought bringing us to the platonistic ideas of ancient greece."
Contradict the scripture? So you would rather believe that the earth is a few thousand years old. Again it contradicts a literal understanding of the scripture, nothing more.

Iconodule

I have yet to see any bahai justify within the Gospels how one can justify the author meant for there to be literal parts and metaphorical parts with no way as to discern how. Perhaps we had to wait 2000 years for the answer?

Now A God who is eternal existing outside of time makes perfect sense logically and it follows for God could not exist in this universe which Scientifically (bahai love to go to science perhaps they only go to it when it works for them) began to exist, that this universe had a literal origin Trillions of years ago from whence all space, time and matter came into existance.

Now I knew the definition of eternal would be called into question within this thread which is why I defined it, that which has always been, never being a point in which it did not exist. If God continuely creates for all eternity God must have always been creating and there was never a time in which he did not create, therefore those Creations because they were created within that realm of eternity must be also eternal. This to me is an illogical impossibility, It's not possible that this happens. For to create causes something to exist and if it is eternal it cannot begin to exist therefore God could not have always been creating.

Once again IM not a fundamentalist Biblical innerantist. I'm not a Creationist despite your consistent attempts to paint that inaccurate picture onto me. It doesn't help your cause friend.

Fadl

Why should any Baha'i feel compelled to attempt it?

Could you do the same thing? I mean, there are metaphorical parts of Christian beliefs that justify Jesus being the Christ. Can you, using the Pentateuch and the Torah only, for example, justify your metaphorical Christian beliefs?

It seems rather like asking someone who possesses a key for opening a lock to open that lock without using the key.

IndependentInvestigator

So, to create means and only can mean for you to cause something to exist by taking action in one moment that leads to a result in a succeeding moment?

Note that in that case, God's "creation" of the universe at a "beginning" of time would not qualify as creation by your definition at all. If the universe had a beginning, then God caused it to exist in the very moment it did, and not by "prior" action. Theists generally believe that God upholds the existence of the universe in each moment.

God should be seen as willing the universe to exist either timelessly--in which case there's no reason His will could not uphold it for a past eternity and future eternity, or He should be seen as upholding the universe in each moment simultaneously with each moment.

This may seem impossible to you, but in quantum physics we have such simultaneous relationships. Change the state of one quantum particle and the state of a particle entangles with it changes, not in a subsequent moment, but simultaneously. Tiny quantum particles can bring about simultaneous action but God, as you conceive of Him, can't? Surely the Creator doesn't lack any capacity He has given to that portion of His creation.

By choosing to see creation as exclusively temporal "efficient" causation, you've stacked the deck, seemingly, against a beginningless universe.

Yet even here I don't think your argument against a beginningless universe works.

Suppose, as a thought experiment (Einstein would be proud!) we take each moment of the universe and plot it hypothetically on a number line, assigning each moment an integer. The moment you're reading this we'll call "moment zero."

If for each moment of the universe God had to will the universe to exist in a prior moment, then we can label as moment -1 the one at which He willed moment zero. But when did He will moment -1 to occur? At moment -2. You want there to be a first moment in this series, and you assert that logically there must be. But, in fact, the only logical contradiction would be to insist that the set of negative integers must have a first number--a number "Negative Infinity." There is no such number. Infinity is an endless set. If it were a number, a limit on the set, then our future infinity would have to end at some point. At some point the clock that tracks eternity would strike "Infinity," and there'd be nothing.

The fact is that for every number on the line, one can always identify a lower number just by subtracting one: SO, for every moment, one can always posit a prior moment in which God could have caused the current moment.

Now, to really try to get myself to exist this discussion at this point in time... ;-)

Don

Iconodule

Because the bahai claim it, that suddenly the shift from historical narrative to metaphorical is built into the bahai narrative that is the only plausible reason they can deny the ressurection which flows instrumentally within the texts of the gospels, the Bahai have to assert, "Well thats just suddenly metaphorical now." despite no one in the last two thousand years except maybe the gnostics and docetics (the latter would have viewed almost the entire thing as metaphorical at most, not just parts).

Now I can justify some parts within the gospel which I think were not exactly literal but used to cast the scrope presented in the gospel. One example would be Satan apparently showing all the nations of the world to Jesus on a mountain, we know that there is no such mountain in that area that could possibly see that much, and Mathew who was a Jew likely knew this as well, what it was is to cast the idea of what Satan was offering Christ, the world. Not entirely literal. This however cannot compare in my opinion to the ressurection narratives which are full to the brim with historicity that even skeptical scholars won't deny them. Why are we to assume immediately after the Crucifixion that it becomes a metaphorical event? There is no justification in the text, and in fact the text would seem to go through great lengths to disprove this idea. What is the signifficance of an empty tomb that really wasn't empty? What is the signifficance of Jesus eating Fish if he really wasn't there? What is the signifficance of JEsus explaining the torah and the prophets to the apostles saying "that Christ should die and be raised again" (and we know what raised means in this context it was not something spiritual the jews did not have this concept, thats a later gnostic concept which would take this view, not a first century jewish concept) if he wasn't there? It simply seems to me a desperate attempt on the bahai founders to justify their gnosticism in this regard without any care or detail given to the text.

Fadl

But the Gospel is not part of the Torah or Talmud, so you are not holding yourself to the same standard that you would ask of us.

Iconodule

I never said the gospel is part of the torah, and its especially not like the Talmud. I am holding you to a standard that you ought explain why sudden narrative changes happen. What is the metaphorical reality of Jesus being presented as a physical being eating a physical fish and this demosntrating that he is before the apostles physically "spirits cannot eat"? It doesn't seem to make sense, if the authors true intended as the Bahai irroneously claim that he never appeared to the apostles and they just suddenly inexplicably became inspired, the authors could have just have easily written that in. They would have followed the apostles immediately after the death of Christ telling us their thoughts and feelings. Instead this Just mislead everyone in early Christianity into thinking that Christ physically rose. Were the apostles just incompetent or hugely misunderstood? I think under the bahai view it is the former.

BruceDLimber

OK; so stipulated.

Bruce

Iconodule

Now I know when it comes to speaking about eternality terms like time and that often don't seem to apply. I still see a fundamental problem with this idea of God creating the universe through all eternity and problems with the concept if the universe is eternal itself and puts out logical contradictions which cannot be resolved. I will need to find a demonstration of this by Dr William lane Craig explaining why, but right now I can't seem to locate it. Perhaps later.

And as I said, how can an eternal create an eternal? When the very nature of creation implies bringing something into existence when it was not before?

LordOfGoblins

Who cares about that stuff. You just want to take the most diffucult the most obscure things and connections from Christianity to Bahai that people have written whole books about to explain and just cry foul all day long. Frankly it becomes tiresome to read your posts. Forget about all the evidence forget about all the connections, just focus on the parts that are not obviously proven and do a song and dance about them all day long. I hope you enjoy your life as it is a pointless one...