LordOfGoblins

Well you know I made the tribute to orthodox on the resurrection some time ago. DId it work to concentrate his posting about the resurrection to that thread? Not as well as I'd hoped. In any case. Please put your understandings here about why the Bahai faith no longer adhere to the trinity understanding of God so that we dont have a smattering of concepts addressed all over the forum which convolutes things completely. Please if you will adress these issues separately it would bring a great deal of clarity to things. It does not help just throwing all the issues together in one post and excepting a Bahai to come along and answer all of them. One at a time please and separate them out. Is that so much to ask??? Thankyou.

Iconodule

Consider that the trinity is not a new concept but was a concept fully defined and defended at the council of Nicaea, now could any bahai say the following?

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible .And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets. In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

[But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.]

No Bahai in their right mind could say this as it is in direct contradiction, so how do some bahai claim to believe in the trinity? They have to by neccessity redefine it and make it something it was never known to be in the past, a spiritual relation between the son and the father and that is it, no more no less. That is not the trinity but rather taking a word and placing one's own meaning on it, which is exactly what Baha'u'llah in his ignorance did, thinking that by claiming to understand the trinity for Christians he completely contradicted it most likely because he did not himself understand it.

Now Bahai of this forum, please do not intend to reinterpret this creed, it is as it says and we must read this creed in the context of the fathers who made it to understand what it is saying. Arrius a Bishop from Alexandria was saying there was a time when Christ was not, and that Christ was made at a certain point, before all things, higher status than anyone single person (that includes all other prophets and or manifestations) but still inferior to God. The Council of Nicaea rose to combat this and voted against Arrius and his heresy thus we cannot simply redefine the words used in this creed so as to mean what the bahai might think "God of God" you may reinterpret to mean Jesus is the light of God, or some other thing, but no it is what it says. Jesus is the same substance as the father, there is no disctinction in their essence, that is to say the divinity of the father his subsance of his being is the same as the son's. So this is the trinity.

Now was this doctrine invented at Nicea? Certaintly not, since going to the bible would be fruitless because you would merely disregard any interpretation I give I think it is important to go to those who knew the apostles themselves in this regard for surely who else could understand the words of the apostles other than those who sat at their feet? And I shall go to my favourite Saint, Ignatius of Antioch in this regard.

"There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord." Chapter 7 to the Ephesians. And if we are to assume Ignatius was alone in this I suggest not.

"Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal
High-priest Himself the [Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in
faith and truth, and in all gentleness and in all avoidance of wrath
and in forbearance and long suffering and in patient endurance and in
purity; and may He grant unto you a lot and portion among His saints,
and to us with you, and to all that are under heaven, who shall
believe on our Lord and God Jesus Christ and on His Father that
raised him from the dead." Epistle to the Phillipians, Saint Polycarp,

The phrase which is important here is eternal which bares with it the same of God, that there was never a time when did not exist and all other translations to my knowledge translate it as such.

Now inbetween this time frame there were many others who talk of Christ as being God, Justin Martyr, Iraneaus of Lyons and the Like so this trinity is not something which was new to the third century. It was certaintly defined then as the necessity demanded it, and if Arrius never tuahgt his heresy and indeed no one did, we would not find a council neccesary and all Christians everywhere would still gladly confess Christ as God, as the majority of Bishops did then. And this all ties into my point in another thread, since the trinity and CHrist;s deity was there since the very earliest times after the apostles, when did the early church fall? Right at the death of John? Then what was the point of Christ coming in the first place if only to deceive? But I suppose even the quran garuntees that God wanted to deceive mankind at that point, and believe me if the bahai are true in this regard I could never follow that God.

ahanu

Whoa! Time for a quick history lesson.

See these quotes from a few scholarly works:

Arian Controversy, Theodosian Code, Justinian Code and the Trinity

Iconodule

Right perhaps you could actually respond to me instead of letting them do it for you, I do find it disconcerting to say the least if you can't even form your own opinions even if you quote them or make reference to them to me. I stand by what I said in that I believe the Bishops that attended the council were representative of most if not all the church at that time. Not denying that it certaintly became popular after Saint Constantine and become the majorit position then, but Nothing I said was in particular error. At least from what IM aware of.

But what a Tyrad against Saint Athanasius alright, sort of like what his enemies accused him of back in those times. But ultimately that was not the purpose of this thread, lets actually discuss the truth of the trinity.

ahanu

Fine. I'll write in my own words.

You would have us believe the majority of the Bishops "gladly" confessed Jesus is God? Yes. Would I have us believe that? No. Emperor Constantine threatened those who disagreed with banishment. I'm more interested in their motive for agreeing: how many agreed due to the threat of Constantine? While returning home, it was often heard that Bishops would withdraw their signatures, for Eusebius writes: "We committed an impious act, O Prince, by subscribing to a blasphemy for fear of you."

LordOfGoblins

I am at work so I cant give a full response yet. However I find it interesting that they say that calling Jesus being a 'created' is a blasphemy. I would say no. Anything that is not God has been created by the operation of his will. And even those that are pre-existant are still dependant and created by the creator God.
But of course, by saying Jesus is literally God and literally himself (not God), it is such a convenient way to overcome this obstacle. You jump him around back and forth to whatever category suits at the conversation in time without needing to have a fuller understanding of what Jesus Christ was. Thus you say almost as if, he was a bit of this and a bit of that. A bit of the holy spirit a bit of God and a bit of man, and we can wrap them all nicely up into one package and call that package 'God'. No, that is a flawed understanding... WHy should I give credance to people who are not even willing to admit that the cosmos is more than a few thousand years old? Such is their understandings of time etc. Are you telling me that this council of Niceas explanation of God sounds very impressive It only appears in a most simple way. No Abdul'Bahas explanation is far more impressive and I feel his light and reality and his power shining through his words that give me a glimpse that he was more than just a man. You can read it inside some answered questions..

Fadl

There is nothing wrong with the trinity, unless one is bound by literalism. Of course for the literalist, the trinity is not only problem.

If you will consider what Baha'u'llah has said in the Iqan, you will see that the trinity doctrine is fully explained and supported, even though the term 'trinity' is never used.

"Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: "I am God!" He verily speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His name and His attributes, are made manifest in the world... And were any of them to voice the utterance: "I am the Messenger of God," He also speaketh the truth, the indubitable truth. Even as He saith: "Muhammad is not the father of any man among you, but He is the Messenger of God."[Qur'an 33:40] Viewed in this light, they are all but Messengers of that ideal King, that unchangeable Essence."
The Kitab-i-Iqan, 178

"These Prophets and chosen Ones of God are the recipients and revealers of all the unchangeable attributes and names of God. They are the mirrors that truly and faithfully reflect the light of God."
The Kitab-i-Iqan, 142)

"The temple of man is like unto a mirror, his soul is as the sun, and his mental faculties even as the rays that emanate from that source of light. The ray may cease to fall upon the mirror, but it can in no wise be dissociated from the sun."
Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 346-7

So from the above passages we can surmise:

God (the father) is like the sun
The Holy Ghost (the spirit) is like the rays from the sun
The Manifestation of God (in a human temple) is like the perfect mirror

If the perfect mirror says "I am God," it is true, because it bears the perfect reflection of God within

If the perfect mirror says " I am but a mirror" it is true because it is not of the substance of the sun (although technically all the atoms of all matter is actually the stuff of stars...)

If the perfect mirror says "the light of God is within me" it is also true.

If the sun, the rays, the mirror were to say: "we are one" it is true.

Is this not, in fact, the meaning of the trinity?

So once again, we find that the Baha'i teachings are in full agreement with Christian teachings, even though not all Christians do believe in the trinity doctrine.

ahanu

Not according to the the Catholic Church.

Fadl

Maybe. But my point is that they are in fact on to something, even if they didn't pull it together like Baha'u'llah. Even so, they aren't and weren't the bunch of dummies folks try and paint them when it comes to the trinity.

I shared my analogy (which isn't actually mine at all) to a couple of different Catholics on separate occasions, and they thought it was a very coherent and agreeable explanation of the trinity. One, who had studied at seminary, told me he was going to use that, so I'm not sure if it is objectionable to Catholic theology or not!

tonyfish58

The doctrine of the Trinity as formed & now understood was a mistake.

The Spirit of Truth who is to Guide us unto all Truth, Baha'u'llah, has given the correct way to interpret the relationship of God, Christ and the Holy Spirit. Fadl posted that above.

Using Baha'u'llah's Key to scripture, then all prophets have this connection to a Trinity and they are all united as One.

Regards Tony

Yeshua

Well the "Sun" analogy was certainly used by the earliest Fathers of the Catholic Church, as in the Church Father Tertullian:


"We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun-there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled"

- Tertullian (160 – c. 220 AD)


I do not have time atm to speak long (have exam) however note that Christ is described as the "ray".

Ever wondered why the Christan Sabbath is "Sunday", the day Christ rose, the "day of the sun"? By the mid-2nd century, St Justin Martyr stated, "We all gather on the day of the sun"


Justin wrote to the pagan emperor Antoninus Pius (138-161) around the year 155, explaining what Christians did:

"On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place.
The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.
When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.
Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.
When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.
Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.
He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.
When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'
When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent."

Fadl

That's wonderful, Yeshua!

And when understood in this way, the trinity is a completely reasonable and monotheistic doctrine that is compatible to Baha'i teachings as well.

I think many Baha'is (we are only human after all) fall victim to their own background and, although Baha'is are prone to non-literal interpretation of scripture and theology, we have a tendency to at times condemn others to the literal interpretations that we assume they must have.

I am glad that you have shared evidence to the contrary, Yeshua. It really may be true that some imagine the trinity as some bizarre nonsensical three-headed deity, or, in the case of the Mormons, three distinct physical persons, yet that doesn't mean that everyone does, or that they necessarily did to begin with.

Iconodule

# Ahanu, Im aware of Arrius being excommunicated but was that the general rule for all arians? And does that in of itself tell us that most of the Christian church was not trinitarian in it's theology? Certaintly the outcome of the council itself was not determined by Saint Constantine but he certaintly enforced the results later, while then becoming sympathetic to the arrians even readmitting Arrius to the empire (a bad decision on his part). But I still see no reason so as to deny that the majority of Bishops thought of God as trinity, given that these Bishops were not only from the same places but almost everywhere accross the known world, of course the western church was a bit left out though they had representatives from Rome to my knowledge and other places, as England didn't come at all to my knowledge, but that seems minor it the grand scope of things.
# "By Saying Jesus is Literally God and Literally himself (not God)". Im not sure what you mean by this and Christians jumping back and forward as regards to their doctrine. Perhaps you could clarify? Do you mean the Hypostatic union? I think it's self explanatory in it's creed of Chalcedon which can be found with a simple search. And also lets not confuse Orthodox, Catholics and Orientals with fundamentalist Creationists, you should meet some orthodox who speak very much in support of Evolution and the like, Like Fr Lazerus of Canadia Monastary. Its not at all clear what the consensus as to this topic was in the early church or even later church because it never became an issue which divided people, its in the realm of Theologumnia. So please clarify your criticism when you have the time.
# Now Fadl, its all fine that you reinterpret the trinity but to ignore what I said clarifying what the trinity has meant since the earliest times and explaining the creed serves no one. Please read what I actually said. Could you say as a Bahai that Jesus Christ is God From God, light of Light, of the same substance with the father? Could you say this? As the creed states? That substance being the fundamental nature of which one object, person or existing thing is composed of? That Jesus shared in all aspects in the same deity with the father? No you could not, so there is a contradiction, and these two defitions could not be both right. Which Is why I have a problem with the bahai basically hijacking the word tirnity so as to appear in union with Christians when they are really not.
Now in regards to the catholic that agreed with it. There are aspects which could be agreed to. Where you to say "the Light that is reflected however is not the true source of the light which is distinct from the mirror," and if this catholic were actually agreeing with his church (and I know the catholic Church's Official position on this matter" He would immediately have to reject such a thing. You cannot get around it, your Trinity is not mine.
# Tony, Now did he? I don't see that. He redefined a position which had been held since long before he existed.

Iconodule

Also a note, the Mormons do not believe in a trinity, they believe a triad of gods two of whom have physical flesh and one of whom is pure spirit. Guess which. So this isn't the trinity as has been classically defined. But while we should not think God is a three headed man, it may be helpful to think of such things in regard to understanding the trinity which really isnt at all that hard. Three persons sharing the same body, Three persons sharing the same substance.

Fadl

[QUOTE=Iconodule;27653]
# Now Fadl, its all fine that you reinterpret the trinity but to ignore what I said clarifying what the trinity has meant since the earliest times and explaining the creed serves no one. Please read what I actually said. [quote]

I certainly read what you actually said, but since communication is an interaction between two, it is possible that if I didn't get your meaning, that your words didn't convey what you intended, so let's not accuse each other of being inattentive. I think it is fine to represent your view of the trinity, and your understanding of it according to your particular creed, however, don't you think it a bit presumptuous on your part to speak on behalf of Christians of "the earliest times?"

YES

YES

YES

That depends on which 'substance' you are speaking of. If by 'substance' you are speaking of the spirit of Jesus, his station as christ (anointed), and as logos then yes:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:1

"And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 1:14



"I and the Father are one."
John 10:30

"...he that seeth me seeth the Father also. How sayest thou, Shew us the Father?"
John 14:9

If by 'substance' you are speaking of the body of Jesus the carpenter, son of Mary, born in Bethlehem, then no:

"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold, a gluttonous man and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners! And wisdom is justified by her works."
Mathew 11:19

"That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."
John 3:6

"And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good save one, even God."
Mark 10:18


The creed states what it does, that is not the issue. The issue at hand is not "what the creed states" but that it states something and we are attempting to get to the meaning of that statement. Even among Christians it is difficult to find two who understand it the same way, so why is it surprising that I, being Baha'i, similarly have a different understanding? Christ is also my Lord, were it not so, I could hardly be bothered or troubled to discuss these matters at all. If you want me to state it as the creed states it, then just [insert the creed here]. If it is a discussion of the meaning of the creed that you are after, this is what I thought we were doing.


This I can't say, it is true. However, I don't agree with your conclusion. There is only contradiction if one loses sight of the dual nature of Jesus: Jesus the son of man, the son of Mary, the carpenter, Jewish Rabi, Jesus who eats and drinks, Jesus who bleeds, Jesus who was born, Jesus who died, and Jesus who was the word at the beginning (logos), Jesus who was the Son of God, and Jesus who was the Christ. If you look at the wrong aspect, you get contradiction. For example, "that which is born of flesh is flesh and that which is born of the spirit is spirit" (reference above) or "flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Corinthians 15:50) which are in contradiction if you look at Jesus' son of man aspect. When you look, however, at his Son of God (born of spirit for "God is spirit" (see John)) then there is no contradiction at all.

Baha'is haven't hijacked the word. It is not in our vernacular at all, and I'm sure I've raised a few Baha'i eyebrows in this thread by appearing to embrace it. However, All I'm doing is showing that we do have teachings that are compatible with a certain view towards the trinity so that you can see it is not actually so that we are deeply and irreconcilably different as you seem to believe.

Well, I wouldn't have it any other way, honestly. We all have a duty to seek the truth for ourselves, and I certainly do respect your right to understand the trinity differently than me. But if you recognize that many Christian denominations have different views about it than yours, and yet you still call them brethren, as I hope you do, then I find it difficult to understand why you should not consider me your brother too, because Christ is my lord, and I only have a different understanding about certain theological issues rather than the whole scale revision and abandon you seem to think.

I would like to have you as a brother! Heck, Yeshua is of the Orthodox persuasion (Catholic) and we call each other brothers all the time! Is not hard either, for we are bother lovers of Christ and recognize our duty to love one another and share in our passion for matters of the spirit and truth.

Fadl

Well, that is your opinion, but talk to any Mormon, and they will tell you they do believe in the trinity, and then proceed to explain it as you've stated.

You seem have the belief that 'trinity' means the same thing to everyone, but if you check it out, you will see this is not the case.

Yeshua

Hi Iconodule

I'm so busy ATM with study that I cannot think straight, however I believe 100% in the Trinity.

The sun analogy is fully compatible with Catholic doctrine in terms of the "Sun" ie God the Father. However it falls down on two crucial points:

The crux: Catholics and all other Christians believe in "incarnation" as opposed to "Manifestation". Thus Christ for us is not simply a "mirror", a reflection of God but rather posseses in his Person the full Essence of God, IS God made flesh. To that end he is the "reflection of God's very nature" as St Paul explains, but our understanding of this "mirror" differs from the Baha'i conception as concerns Incarnation.

- The Baha'i conception enunciated by Fadl runs (roughly) as: God is the sun, the Holy Spirit is the suns rays, Jesus is the mirror shining the sun onto man. To say that the Holy Spirit is "sun rays" - in the Baha'i conception - could infer that the Holy Spirit does not have being, identity and conciousness - that the Holy Spirit has no personality in his own right. Jesus speaks of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person who can be "blasphemed". You cannot blaspheme something, that is to insult something, which does not in itself have being and persona.

- To say that Jesus merely reflects God perfectly like a mirror or water reflecting the image of the sun, is subtly but crucially different from saying that God actually became man, that God actually took on a body of flesh and entered into his creation as a human person, while remaining at the same time wholly transcendent from it. Christians do not believe that Jesus reflected perfectly the attributes of God, like the sun analogy presented, we believe that he was fully God and fully Man - not simply a reflection or copy of the transcendent, unknowable image or essence of God but actually the essence and very being of God made man, becoming human flesh for our sake. Christians believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, so we cannot say that there is a distinction between Jesus and God. We believe that Jesus is God in the flesh. In the Baha'i belief Jesus "reflects" God and so to all intents and purposes is God since, during his Dispensation, his person was the only means through which to know about God and have any conception of his attributes, his glory. However he is still a distinct entity from the Essence of God.


The Catholic Church teaches that Muslims and all other monotheists such as adherents of the Baha'i faith "adore with us the One true God". It can say this because, our understanding of God the Father is identical. Christians, Muslims, Jews and Baha'is all worship the same God in the person of God the Father. Since in the Catholic conception each of the three persons is wholly and fully God - and not a "part" of God which is the heresy of swendnborgianism - then Muslims, Jews and Baha'is do worship the "One true God" even though they differ from us in their understanding of God the "Son" and "the Holy Spirit".

Baha'is, nonetheless, are closer to the Catholic/Christian understanding of the Son of God, than all other non-Christian faiths. The concept of Manifestation, as opposed to Jesus being a mere prophetic figure without any divinity although sinless (ie Traditional Islamic belief), recognizes that Jesus and all Manifestations posses the station of "divinity" which is not possessed by ordinary human beings, and that Jesus - when he lived - was "God" in the flesh for humanity at that time and even for Christians now, in that he fully manifested all the qualities and attributes of God to so great a degree that to look at him was to gaze upon God in human form. However we diverge over the understanding of in what way Jesus is "divine" - Incarnation vs Manifestation

That's a brief description - since I am so short on time. Sorry I cannot elaborate but will when I get the time!

All mankind is a brotherhood, however followers of the world religions are brothers in a special way and even more so the monotheists of the world are brothers in "particular" since we all agree on our understanding of God the Father - the ungenerated, unbegotten, in Essence unknowable, first Cause of creation and source of things "visible and invisible". In this shared understanding, we are all one, members of the same Body - the Body of Christ, whether "directly" (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants) or mystically joined to the Church through monotheism, conception of divinity, or in the case of atheists/agnostics/others the genuine search for transcendent truth.

All Christians, Jews, Muslims and Baha'is can agree on the first words of the Christian Creed agreed at Nicea which rocked the ancient Pagan world and put an end to Pagan idolatry in most of the world forevermore:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible

This was the FIRST declaration of monotheism in the Western world and throughout most of the then Pagan world! In my opinion it was Christianity's greatest contribution to humanity, since it finally made it possible for the One God of the Jews (and the Zoroastrians, despite the slight slip into dualism at that point) to be worshipped by the pagan, gentile peoples of the entire world. This one setence, changed humanity forevermore and allowed Islam, Sikhism and the Baha'i Faith - not to mention many thers - to come into existence.

Since each Person of the Most Blessed and Holy Trinity is fully and truly God, possessing the fullness of Divinity and the One, Shared Essence; it is correct to say that Muslims, Jews and Baha'is - and I would extend that to Sikhs and Hindus and many other as well - worship God the Father, and therefore that they worship, along with us Christians, the true God in his Fullness.

From the Catholic perspective, and from my personal perspective independent of my faith, Fadl is 100% my brother in love, spirit and truth (ie the truth of One God and much else beside) not to mention my brother in Christ, through his love of Christ, devotion to Christ and belief in Christ - which joins him mystically to the Body of Christ from which we both partake - even though we differ in our understandings of his station (Incarnation as opposed to Manifestation).

I end with some quotes...


"...The Indians are our brothers, and Christ has given his life for them...All the races of the world are humans, and of all men and of each individual there is but one definition, and this is that they are rational. All have understanding and will and free choice, as all are made in the image and likeness of God … All the peoples of the world are humans. All the races of humankind are one. Thus the entire human race is one.."

- Bartolomé de las Casas (c. 1484–1566) Catholic Bishop, defender of rights of native Americans, abolitionist and social reformer


"...For those who believe in God, all human beings, even the least privileged, are sons of the universal Father who created them in his image and guides their destinies with thoughtful love. The fatherhood of God means brotherhood among men: this is a strong point of Christian universalism, a common point, too, with other great religions and an axiom of the highest human wisdom of all times, that which involves the promotion of man's dignity..."

- Pope Paul VI



"There is only one God and He is God to all; therefore it is important that everyone is seen as equal before God. I’ve always said we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic. We believe our work should be our example to people. We have among us 475 souls - 30 families are Catholics and the rest are all Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs—all different religions. But they all come to our prayers...I believe that God has created each soul, that that soul belongs to God, and that each soul has to find God in its own lifetime and enter into his life. That is what is important. All of us need to seek God and find Him..Religion is not something that you and I can dictate. Religion is the worship of God, and therefore it is a matter of conscience. Each one of us must decide how we are going to worship. In my case, the religion that I live and practice is Roman Catholicism. It is my life, my joy, and the greatest proof of God’s love for me. I cannot force anyone to accept my religion---just as no man, no law, and no government can legally demand that anyone reject a religion that promises them peace, joy, and love. I love all religions... If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there. They come closer to God...Our purpose is to take God and His love to the poorest of the poor, irrespective of their ethnic origin or the faith they profess. Our discernment of aid is not the belief but the necessity. In our work we bear witness to the love of God’s presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists or agnostics become for this reason better men---simply better---we will be satisfied"

- Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta

LordOfGoblins

Well now I dont know what to say. Since we are all getting along so nicely there is absolutely no point in me going on a tirade to try and show why I thnk the trinity is not favourable. You guys just keep discussing amongst yourselves. It is far better in Abdul'Bahas eyes that the people of different religions get along in discussing their ideas rather than a vicious debate.
cheers everone and thankyou for making this thread a lot more pleasant. Thankyou also to Yeshua for his excellent posts. Truly a model Christian as far as I am concerned..

Yeshua

Dear Iconodule

This is the official teaching of the Catholic Church on other religions, from the lips of the previous Pope himself, quoting his own Papal Encyclicals:


"...In Nostra aetate, the Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, the Second Vatican Council teaches that "the Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and doctrines which...often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men" (Nostra aetate, n. 2). Taking up the Council's teaching from the first Encyclical Letter of my Pontificate, I have wished to recall the ancient doctrine formulated by the Fathers of the Church, which says that we must recognize "the seeds of the Word" present and active in the various religions (Ad gentes, n. 11; Lumen gentium, n. 17). This doctrine leads us to affirm that, though the routes taken may be different, "there is but a single goal to which is directed the deepest aspiration of the human spirit as expressed in its quest for God and also in its quest, through its tending towards God, for the full dimension of its humanity, or in other words, for the full meaning of human life" (Redemptor hominis, n. 11)...It must first be kept in mind that every quest of the human spirit for truth and goodness, and in the last analysis for God, is inspired by the Holy Spirit. The various religions arose precisely from this primordial human openness to God. At their origins we often find founders who, with the help of God's Spirit, achieved a deeper religious experience. Handed on to others, this experience took form in the doctrines, rites and precepts of the various religions.

In every authentic religious experience, the most characteristic expression is prayer. Because of the human spirit's constitutive openness to God's action of urging it to self-transcendence, we can hold that "every authentic prayer is called forth by the Holy Spirit, who is mysteriously present in the heart of every person". We experienced an eloquent manifestation of this truth at the World Day of Prayer for Peace on 27 October 1986 in Assisi, and on other similar occasions of great spiritual intensity.

3. The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. "The Spirit's presence and activity", as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, "affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions" (n. 28).

Normally, "it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)"...For the reasons mentioned here, the attitude of the Church and of individual Christians towards other religions is marked by sincere respect, profound sympathy and, when possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator and Saviour of the human race...May the Spirit of truth and love, in view of the third millennium now close at hand, guide us on the paths of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and of the dialogue of peace and brotherhood with the followers of all religions!"

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, General Audience Address, September 16, 1998, Vatican

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by LordOfGoblins Please put your understandings here about why the Bahai faith no longer adhere to the trinity understanding of God....

I have online a full article that explains in detail how and why the Christian doctrine is a man-made artifact that developed gradually over the course of several centuries and several church councils, the latter ones being directly responsible for the splitting of the Christian Church between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church, which split remains to the present day!

It's too long to post here (assuming you don't want a messages split into fully 18 parts), but I'll be happy to email it to you (and anyone else who'd like to see it); it was written by a Baha'i over 30 years ago.

To receive it, simply send me a private message with your email address.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Yeshua

I think that this Sermon by Fr Zlatko Sudac (a contemporary Croatian Catholic priest and mystic) applies perfectly to our duscussion of brotherhood among man, unity of the human race, and moving beyond religious divisions, it was spoken earlier this year by Fr Sudac during one of his masses:



Please watch it, as the Priest's words are very compatible with Baha'i teachings. He is a very inspiring speaker and these words moved me, even though it is so short and the translation into english of his speech falters sometimes.

ahanu

Okay. No problem then.

Iconodule

Fadl, you must not understand the creed, that is fine. But I explained it already and It does a diservice to not read that. The creed is in specific responce to arrianism and at the end decries any voice that should say there was a time when Christ was not. The creed is not a personal subjective thing, we know how it is to be read, it declares Christ as Fully God when it says he shares the same substance, which in the greek is much more clear. I have inserted the creed in my first responce and I garuntee you, you could never say Amen to it. Not without seriously corrupting the message (which we know from men like Athanasius and those who followed Nicaea).
Some Christians might find it hard, but often I find those that do find it hard never put much thought into it in the first place. Now misrepresenting the apostle Paul is one thing but lets understand Paul understood Christ as God and so did his students. But heres the thing heres what the trinity actually means, same substance. Don't ignore what Christians say about the trinity and try to redefine it, in this case you are actually admitting you think Christians have erred.
Now you have hijacked the word trinity as your trinity is not the trinity that those fathers of Nicaea would submit to. Its not about being in communion with each other (that could never happen unless you give up Bahai), its about discussing what the trinity is and comparing it to Bahai at this moment. And could you say this? Could you say amen to it? KNowing full well and NOT REDEFINING THE WORDS ACCORDING TO YOUR UNDERSTANDING (as many bahai deceptively do).
Jesus and the Holy spirit share the same substance of the father, drawing their divinity from him from all eternity, such that there was never a time when the son was not and the son always was.
Could you say this? Could you say amen to this? And Please Don't reinterpret it to Bahai and then say yes as you did with the phrases of the creed completely misunderstanding waht it's intention was while ignoring the last part of it. Don't be deceptive is what im asking you, be honest.
As in regards to mormons, no they don't believe the trinity most mormons I have talked to say the trinity is false. But the trinity is not personally subjective and Mormons aren't Christians, but are instead more akin to Pagans than anything (unless you think a God having Physical flesh as long as he was around is Bahai or True). i have defined the trinity and bahai have tried to sneak around the obvious, that Baha'u'llah did not explain the trinity he tried to reinvent it.
Now Yeshua heres what I ask you. Would you join the bahai and say.
"There was a time when the son was not."
"The son God only in the sense he is mirror of God's reflection, not as if his actual being were divinity."
I suspect should you not be a liberal catholic who ignores the teaching of his church you would have to side with me and say the bahai do not have the correct trinity. Or else I suggest you leave the Catholic church.

Yeshua

Dear Iconodule

Jesus, for me, is the Eternal Son of God through whom the entire universe was created. There was never a time when he was "not", that is the heresy of arianism - the idea that Christ is a "creature", rather than the Creator the Only Son of God, the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinity. Jesus is God in the flesh. He shares the One, Undivided Essence with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, with whom he is co-equal. That is my belief. Since this is a Baha'i Forum I rarely take it upon myself to explain my theological convictions. My lack of them on Baha'i Forums does not mean that I "lack them", it is rather that I do not find my Catholic theological beliefs to be appropriate topics for discussion on a Baha'i Forum Community that has so kindly welcomed me into it over the course of a year as a regular, respected and esteemed member. I only raise such topics if I am asked or if somebody else raises them or indeed if I see an error being written about Christian belief that I choose to correct, for clarity's sake.

Please do not mistake my love, respect and compassion for people of other faiths - and my belief that the Holy Spirit is not confined to the Holy Catholic Church (by which I mean also the Eastern Orthodox Church) but is active within the hearts and minds of all men offering salvation to all as procaimed by Blessed Pope John Paul II - with religious liberalism. I am in no way a liberal. I am an orthodox Roman Catholic who is faithful to all the teachings of the Church. The Church Fathers who taught about the genuine workings of the Logos in the ancient faiths and pagan philosophies of the Ancient World, and proclaimed that "all truth wherever it is found is Christian truth" and that all people of previous faiths and indeed of the present, who lived lives of virtue in accordance with "reason" (the Logos) were and are Christians, even if without intellectual belief in Christ; and who taught about such concepts as baptism by desire; nor the later theologians; nor the Second Vatican Council Fathers; nor Pope John Paul II were theological "liberals". All of them were ardent Orthodox Christians devoted to the genuine, inspired dogmas of the Church.

Everyone on Baha'i Forums can and will attest that I am a completely Orthodox Christian who in debates has never disparaged the beautiful and wondrous faith of the Baha'is in any way, while at the same time clearly setting forth and defending the teachings of my Church, when the occassion demanded (Ie in debates regarding the Trinity etc. never brought up by me directly since I am not here to preach Catholicism but to grow in love with my Baha'i brothers and sisters).


In the post I addressed to you above, I demonstrated why I (personally) as a Catholic cannot accept the mirror analogy as understood by Baha'is, although I would have preferred not have said this - only doing so in answer to a point you raised.

However I refuse to take "sides". I am always and everywhere neutral. I am not here to create divisions between people along faith lines but rather to reach out beyond the confines of faith and find men/women of love who share many truths, morals, attributes and a similar vision to myself and to promote and foster interfaith dialogue. In this dialogue, I fully accept and anticipate that the Baha'is will be able to add to and edify my understanding of my faith through the spiritual goods and sublime values and comprehensions that the Holy Spirit has seen fit to inspire in Baha'i Faith, and hope that I too can add to and edify the Faith of Baha'is. There is truth in all religions, and wherever truth is found it is the genuine inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the true working of the Logos, and should be embraced, preserved and considered. No truth, no matter in what religion or philosophy it is proclaimed, should be ignored - to do so, would be to ignore the genuine activity of the Holy Spirit and to limit the working of God's Spirit within the confines of one Body, which contravenes the scripture which clearly tells us that the Holy Spirit has been poured out upon "all flesh" and the Fathers who taught us that seeds of the Word can be found in all belief systems, as can genuine Christians - even when those people are passionately devoted to their own faith, since every genuine prayer, and every genuine hunger for and search after truth, is inspired of God and leads to God through whatever mystical means, joining that soul to the Body of Christ through baptism of desire. And according to the inspired authority of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, it is not just "individually" that God's presence exists in other faiths. No, for as Pope John Paul II explained above (in my quote):


"The Holy Spirit is not only present in other religions through authentic expressions of prayer. "The Spirit's presence and activity", as I wrote in the Encyclical Letter Redemptoris missio, "affect not only individuals but also society and history, peoples, cultures and religions" (n. 28).

Normally, "it will be in the sincere practice of what is good in their own religious traditions and by following the dictates of their own conscience that the members of other religions respond positively to God's invitation and receive salvation in Jesus Christ, even while they do not recognize or acknowledge him as their Saviour (cf. Ad gentes, nn. 3, 9, 11)"...For the reasons mentioned here, the attitude of the Church and of individual Christians towards other religions is marked by sincere respect, profound sympathy and, when possible and appropriate, cordial collaboration. This does not mean forgetting that Jesus Christ is the one Mediator and Saviour of the human race...May the Spirit of truth and love, in view of the third millennium now close at hand, guide us on the paths of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and of the dialogue of peace and brotherhood with the followers of all religions!"


I believe this entirely.

As a result, whilist I share 100% your conception of the Most Blessed Trinity and will articulate, explain and clarify it when our beloved Baha'i brothers desire to understand our beliefs, I will not "side" with you as I do not approve of the idea at all of ever having an "us v them" scenario involving two groups of people whom I love dearly in Christ. I cannot for the life of me imagine "siding" against anyone on this forum. I agree with you, in every matter where doctrine is concerned. You need not go through the list Trinity, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, the Episcopate, the Ecumenical Councils of the united Church in the first millenium etc. In every respect I believe in the same Faith that you do.

However to take "sides" and turn a mutual, loving exchange between educated minds into an "us v them", Christian vs Baha'i, ego-trip, "my religion trumps yours" debacle - no thank you. That's not very mature, enlightened, Christ-like or indeed helpful to either of our religions.

I am "ecumenical" not only by nature but also by religion, for Catholic means "universal" and thus the more insular the person, the more convinced of his own "rightness" and everybody elses "wrongness", the more determined to convince by any means other people to adhere to my understanding of Truth, the less "Catholic" that person is. Again that does not mean that I deny any objective theological truth as proclaimed by the Catholic Church. That does not mean that the "faith" is in any way watered down or denied. That does not mean that Christ is not God in the Flesh and the salvation of all men. It does not mean that within the Church the fullness of truth does not dwell. However it does mean that I appreciate the working of the Holy Spirit and the genuine breaths of the Holy Spirit outwith the visible confines of the Holy Catholic Church (Roman and Eastern Orthodox) and open my arms to every genuine working of the Holy Spirit in every man who is genuinly seeking God and following the path that he believes to be the correct one. I am thus completely "Catholic" - "universal" and inclusive, as were the Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria etc who recognised the Logos, the Word of God (Jesus) in the pagan philosophies of Rome, and according to Clement and Augustine in the Brahmins of India, the Magi of Persia and in every ancient culture and religion wherein God planted the seeds of the One, true, primordial Faith which St Augustine explained has existed from the beginnings of humanity and which every historical and contemporary human culture is a member of through the genuine working of the Holy Spirit, who is not constricted by the confines of religious denomination. The entire theological teaching of the Church - from the Fathers up to the ecumenical activities of the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II - attests to this. My ecumenical beliefs are not theological "novelties" of my mind but rather firm principles passed down in authentic Church teaching. I can show you from quotations if you need convincing ie from the Fathers, later theologians, Popes etc.

Much love in Jesus to you brother Icon

Iconodule

Im glad you agree with me on this issue then.

armin

I'm going to list what I think. This is just how I personally see it.

1. There was no clear chain of direct successorship after Jesus. Thus anything put forward however great and noble inherently has the human imperfection in it. Now had Jesus appointed a clear leader after his departure and that person came up with trinity then that would have been a different story; there would have been a direct line of God's authenticity in it.

2. Jesus is only God's son here on earth in this material world if one desires to interpret his station as scuh. The idea of God having a son in the spiritual realm makes no sense to me. Not only it begs the question that why would there only be a father son relationship here, and that we are defining God in our own earthly terms by saying he is one part of a relationship, it poses the question that maybe God somehow needed or desired a companion ... This image does not make much sense to me. To me, it sounds more fitting to Greek mythology and their Gods.

3. God, according to pretty much all religions, is transcendent to his creation. The idea that God was incarnated in a human form, meaning God was sustained in flesh and bones either in His entirety or partially, does not make sense to me. Again it sounds more like Greek mythology and the kind of things that Zeus for example would do. Also, in Baha'i teachings we say that God is unknowable, incomprehensible (I'm not sure if Christians do the same) ... saying Jesus, a man not unlike any other physically, was God is a contradiction to God's attributes and sovereignty in my opinion.

P.S. Also this interpretation by Christians IMHO is a direct, but somewhat more subtle (than other subjects), result of interpreting the Bible literally which everyone knows how it pushes religion into a collision course with science.

ahanu

Great point.

Iconodule wrote:

the Bishops of the church were the successors of the apostles,

I would love to see that proven, because, judging from what I know, that is what is claimed, and a claim may be different from what actually happened.

Yeshua

At the moment I'm studying law so cannot do justice to your question, as I promise I will though after the 21st of December next week.

I suppose a good start is to know what we actually mean by "apostolic succession". Apostolic succession is the transmission of authority, episcopal consecration, by the laying on of hands. In the Gospels Jesus freely gives His authority to the apostles in order for them to effectively convert others, conferring upon them authority to govern his Church on earth. So he did select true "successors", although nobody suceeds Christ in our view - rather he chose leaders and the Bishops succeeded them. As early as the Letters of 1 and 2 Timothy, which although not actually authored by the Apostle Paul but by a later disciple of the Pauline school who most likely drew on written sources directly from the Apostle and genuine biographical details of his life, most secular scholars still date the pastoral letters around the late 1st century, we see the clear primacy of the episcopacy (Bishops) as the leadership organs of the Church, the centre of unity at the local (diocescan) level and tasked with the duties and virtual office of the Apostles.

The early Christians were extremely self-confident and assured of the Apostolic Succession. In fact so convinced where they of its authenticity, that they often challanged their Pagan opponents to go and check the records for themselves. Romans were meticulous with dates, and the Imperial Archives must have had an impressive range of documentation on the rise of the Christan sect. Scholars have discerned from the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus (AD 115), with near unanimity, that Tacitus drew upon a written Roman legal document connecting the sect of the Christians to a man named Jesus Christ who was on record as having been crucified under the procuratorship of Pontius Pilate. Maurice Goguel (Jesus the Nazarene, p. 43): "But one fact is certain, and that is, Tacitus knew of a document, which was neither Jewish nor Christian, which connected Christianity with the Christ crucified by Pontius Pilate." And Peter Kirby concurs: "The present writer believes that the most persuasive case is made by those who maintain that Tacitus made use of a first century Roman document concerning the nature and status of the Christian religion." Christianity was a pressing concern to the Romans, as it was the only rising sect, with significant geographical spread by the end of the first century and into the mid second, which undermined Roman authority since Christian communities practiced a philosophy of social mutualism which eventually led to the collapse of the Roman economic system of patronage; and, Christianity was the only religion in the Roman Empire which did not allow its followers to worship/venerate/sacrifice to Roman idols or take part in pagan festivities, which the Romans saw as extremely divisory. Christianity, was thus a subject of focus and scrutiny on the part of the Roman Empire. This is demonstrated by the letters of the Roman governor of Bithynia, Pliny the Younger in AD 111-113. By this time Christianity was already a significant enough concern to the Roman authorities that Pliny was begging the Emperor for help on how to suppress/deal with them! Can you imagine, how many documents of Rome on Christianity have been lost? We have miniscule amounts of evidence from that era for any historical movements, individuals or literary works, and even the portions we have (ie works of Tacitus, Suetonius) suffer from diverse lacuni. All we have is what archaelogists have been able to dig up and what Christian monks, Byzantine (Eastern) Roman historians, scholars and writers; and Muslim scholars in the Abbasid Caliphate managed to preserve from the collapse of Western Roman civilisation. Not a heck of a lot.

In light of all this, read these self-confident words of Tertullian [from wikipedia]:


"Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men”—Tertullian

He's challenging the Roman authorities. Tertullian was a jurisconsult, familiar with the Roman archives. Indeed he tells us himself that he had the privilige of often visiting them. Remember that the Church Fathers were among the intelligentsia of their era. They were of the upper class, equestrian and other high ranks, sophisticated scholars, often the greatest thinkers of their time. Such men would not surely challange their Roman opponents to go and check the records of the Churches and see for themselves unless they had possesion and/or knowledge of those very records. The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

In the same book, Tertullian wrote that “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.”

Among early evidence outside the Bible of Bishops being the successors to the Apostles, we have the writings of the apostolic father Saint Pope Clement I from around the year 80 - remarkable since some of the Apostles were still alive at this time (it was the very "end" of the Apostolic Age). He wrote, at this early stage:



"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" -

(Pope Saint Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).


We can see the pattern of authority founded by God, according to Clement above. God recognized the lordship of Christ, who in turn shared his authority with the apostles. The apostles then passed on their unique authority to the bishops who are empowered by the Spirit to preach the Gospel and shepherd the Church. This divine order is established by God for the good of the Church. The Church exists in communion with Christ as the means through which Christ is made present in the world. He uses, later in the letter, the OT example of Moses, showing that God appoints leaders as He did with the priesthood and those leaders appoint the next generation "with the consent of the whole Church." (1 Clement 44.2) Clement is familiar with Paul's letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians), referring to it in chapter 47, yet no NT text is ever quoted - his biblical citations and illustrations all come from the OT. Although he also quotes from Paul's letter to the Romans, his view of faith is more in line with James, "being justified by our works, and not our words." (1 Clement 30.3) This man is writing at a time when even Paul's letters and the not long ago composed Gospels were not yet even recognised universally and infallibly as "scripture". It was that early!


Is this not incredible? This man was the "pupil of the Apostles!" He refers to "OUR APOSTLES" (PLURAL - Peter and Paul") as being not only in Rome (ie "our apostles", possesive) but of "our" generation, within fond memory. This letter is authentically his, all scholars of any weight are unanimous on the fact that Pope Clement wrote this letter in the AD 80s-90s. In the letter, he mentions Peter and Paul of being "examples of faith in our generation". You could not get a person of higher authority in the Early Church or one closer in time if you tried! This is a trustworthy man, both historically speaking and morally speaking. His Letter was nearly included in the Bible but eventually put in the Apostolic Fathers collection, because it was thought unfair to accept his work while not accepting other second-generation Christian authors. To reject his words, is to reject the actual teaching of the apostles whom he knew and therefore Christ. Its too early, too trustworthy, too backed up with scholarship as authentic to possibly imagine denying. This man is a source of genuine early Christian teaching if ever there was one. It is in the fifth chapter of his letter that he makes mention of the deaths of the Apostles Peter and Paul in this manner:


"But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."

- (Pope Saint Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).


A mere 20 years after the deaths of Peter and Paul, at a time when other Apostles still lived (Ie John, who was not said to have died until around the late 90s or early second century), and when memories of Christ and of the Apostles who knew him were still fresh in the mind of many, and indeed of the mind of Clement - a man of great note who had the leadership role in then Christendom's most esteemed and authoratative Christian community (the Church in Rome) - who had personally known Peter and so it would seem Paul as well, is it not remarkable that we have such evidence of the office of Bishop? Can one provide such evidence for succession say for the caliphate in Sunni Islam, or for the monastic orders in Buddhism? No, one cannot in my opinion

From the letter referred to above, it seems clear that Clement ministered along with Paul in Corinth, which sat on the Achaean peninsula and was just a few days journey to Philippi. It is more than plausible to surmise that Clement might also have been a part of the ministry in Philippi.

As one reads through the first letter of Clement to the Corinthians, it is nearly impossible to miss the influence of the Apostle Paul. Clement uses phrases like, “grace and peace to you,” “let us be imitators,” “let us make every effort,” “may it never be,” “spiritual fruit,” “dear friends,” “dear brothers and sisters,” and he blesses those who receive his letter with a Paul-style blessing. Clement would go on to become arguably the most important Church Father after the ministry of the Apostles ended.

Clement is the first of those who are often called the “Apostolic Fathers,” which is a term that simply refers to those early church fathers who were connected to or discipled by the original apostles. Clement rose to the top once the Apostles had been killed or gone into exile. The church was facing some the most severe persecution it had ever known, and Clement was charged with bringing order, peace, and endurance to the Body of Christ even under the threat of death. Tradition holds that Clement was martyred. St. Irenaeus, of the second century, writes that Clement had personally known the Apostles Peter and Paul and that “the preaching of the Apostles still echoed in his ears” (Adv. Haer. III, 3.3). This is a man whose witness cannot be brushed over.

ahanu

Great response. I will think about it.

I see you quoted from Wikipedia, so I will quote criticisms from there too:

Many Protestants point to episodes described in the Hebrew Bible when the Jewish leadership became disobedient or strayed from the Divine command; God would then bestow that position upon an individual who was more obedient to his will---regardless of any claims that any other person might have sourced in tradition. An example of this would be when King Saul of Israel was removed by God due to his disobedience so that King David could assume the throne.[88] Protestants see apostolic succession in much the same way. In the view of many Protestants apostolic succession is not a matter of tradition, rather it is a matter of God safe-guarding his church by means of bestowing authority on those who best exemplify sound doctrine.

What do you think about that?

Perhaps the tradition is unbroken; however, maybe the tradition changed over time. I'm very doubtful of the Catholic Church's claim Jesus physically resurrected from the dead (see thread), but I think it would be easy to misconstrue what the first disciples taught about Jesus' resurrection. Besides, we have a cultural transfer of information. This may be a factor worth considering in explaining how this change could have taken place.

Fadl

This is where I have to tell you that I'm not actually interested in the creed, as I value truth more than any creed. I shared my belief with you and attempted to show how the faith has its own 'trinity' concept. I was also being sympathetic to the fact that those early Christians who formulated the creed were on to something, and that their motivation for formulating it was based on scripture and sought to make a coherent statement about what seemed to many as paradoxical verses. I think these were devout and learned men, and I think they faithfully sought an articulate and true formula of what they were able to surmise as such.

However, the Baha'i truths are not subject to the decisions of any council, because there is no higher authority than God himself, and God is the Knower and final arbiter in all things:

"Say: O leaders of religion! Weigh not the Book of God with such standards and sciences as are current amongst you, for the Book itself is the unerring balance established amongst men. In this most perfect balance whatsoever the peoples and kindreds of the earth possess must be weighed, while the measure of its weight should be tested according to its own standard, did ye but know it." The Kitab-i-Aqdas

So you see, using your creed to determine the truth value of Baha'u'llah is upside down and backwards to begin with.

If you want to believe Jesus is the same substance as God, that is your prerogative, I feel no need to change your mind. If you look at the Bible quotes and commentary I provided, you will see that such a view is not very Biblical. Bear in mind that this is a Baha'i forum and I am a Baha'i. That means we like to discuss the Baha'i view, for the most part, here. If I were interested in your view of the trinity, I could no doubt find some orthodox forum somewhere to discuss it and learn about it. As it is, I have never had such an inclination or interest so here I am. If you are only interested in your own view, perhaps you should follow my example, and hang out with those who are like minded at a forum of your choice which is established for that. But if you want to hang out among us, you ought to be more courteous, not because we can't take it, but because you do a disservice to your community and the Christian faith by showing pride and disrespect here.

Yeshua

Dear Ahanu!

Thank you for your reply! What I would argue to the Protestants is that just as Pope Saint Clement I explained 2,000 years ago, Moses appointed the levitical priests - the Sons of Aaron of the Tribe of Levi - to be his "successors". The priests became not just the ones who sacrificed and performed all the rituals or cultus, but judges of the law in judicial matters. The Bible says, "So Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests, the sons of Levi, who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and to all the elders of Israel".

In 1 Samuel we read:

[B]"So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. 7 And the LORD told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”


God reluctantly gave Israel a King. It was not his Divine Will.

Moses did not bestow his successorship upon earthly, secular kings like Saul or David. In fact he grudgingly conceded that the Israelites might want to set up "kings", but he never actually appointed a king. He simply gave regulations on how kings were to live and since he commanded that kings were not to have "many wives" - well David had thousands! So the Kings of Israel were not and are not Moses successors.

His successors were the Sons of Levi and the "elders", that is the scribes, who later became the Pharisees, the Rabbis. As you know the priresthood was perfectly intact until the coming of Christ. Even after the destruction of the Temple and death of priestly Judaism, the tribe of Levi still existed and Levites are granted honours in modern Rabbinic Judaism.

Shoghi Effendi said something very interesting with regard to the Catholic doctrine of Apostolic Succession:


"The Guardian agrees with you that the Bahá'ís should be very careful not to criticize or rather attack the [Catholic] Church. As we believe the Church of Rome to be the inheritor, so to speak, of Christ's teachings, the direct line, however perverted by men's doctrines, it certainly does not befit us to show antagonism towards it. We know it is out-dated. Tact is required!"

(From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer, March 22, 1950)


What does Shoghi Effendi mean by saying that the Roman Catholic Church is the "direct line" and "inheritor of Christ's teachings"?

To Catholic ears he is clearly referring too:

1) The Apostolic Succession of the Bishops of the Catholic Church (who are a direct line going to straight back to Jesus)

2) Sacred Tradition - the teachings of Jesus which were not recorded in the Bible but which the Catholic Church has always possessed.

In his Letter to the Thessalonians St Paul tells them to "hold fast to the traditions", distinguished these Sacred Teachings from the mere "traditions of men" ie customs.

The Catholic Church proudly proclaims just what Shoghi Effendi claims, with his infallible authority in the Baha'i Faith, about it: That we have an Apostolic Succession of Bishops going straight back to Jesus and and a Sacred Tradition passed down from the Early Church Fathers (Bishops) and always witnessed too in every age of the Church. In what other way could the Catholic Church be the unique "inheritor of Christ's teachings"? Every Christian Church has the Bible, so he surely cannot be saying that.

Rather he must be referring to Sacred Tradition. And I am going to show it too you in action, and confirm that Shoghi Effendi is correct. Abortion. Isn't explicitly condemned in scripture and yet Christians have always universally condemned it. Its clearly divinely inspired and taught by Jesus but its not in the Bible. Where do we derive this teaching from? Well, look and see...


Sacred Tradition is how the Church functioned and passed on Christ's teachings before the New Testament, how it did so after the New Testament and does so now. Sacred Tradition is intrinsic to Catholicism. It is Divine Revelation. Without consulting Sacred Tradition, which is Word of God for us, we will not be convinced of basically anything since the Bible is essentially a free for all on its own.


PS Sacred Tradition ended with the close of the first century and the start of the early second century with the death of the last apostle. Divine Revelation in Christianity, whether written or oral, ended with that death. Anything later constitutes "private revelation", which helps one to more deeply understand, apply and implement public divine revelation. But it [Sacred Tradition] was continually attested to in later generations, and if a Tradition was not consistently attested to universally in later generations, that it cannot be regard as Sacred Tradition because Christ gave the Church (ie the Bishops) the authority to determine what constituted true Sacred Traditions as opposed to mere speculations of men not taught by the divine Apostles. That is where the Church Fathers come in - determining true Sacred Traditions, passing them on, preserving them for posterity etc.

See Matthew 18:18:

"...I tell you the truth, whatever you [the Church] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven..."

To see Sacred Tradition in action, lets take the teaching that abortion is evil and cannot be condoned by Christians. This is stated nowhere in the Bible but Christ and Apostles clearly taught it.

This Sacred Tradition is attested as far back as the first century documents the Didache and the Epistle of Barnabus, written before the close of the Apostolic age:


The Didache


"The second commandment of the teaching: You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not seduce boys. You shall not commit fornication. You shall not steal. You shall not practice magic. You shall not use potions. You shall not procure [an] abortion, nor destroy a newborn child" (Didache 2:1–2 [A.D. 70]).


The Letter of Barnabas

"The way of light, then, is as follows. If anyone desires to travel to the appointed place, he must be zealous in his works. The knowledge, therefore, which is given to us for the purpose of walking in this way, is the following. . . . Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born" (Letter of Barnabas 19 [A.D. 74]).


Now lets trace this Sacred Tradition about a century later, the Apostolic Age has closed but this Sacred revealed tradition is still being attested to by Church authorities as universal Christian belief from Jesus and the Apostles:


Tertullian

"In our case, a murder being once for all forbidden, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from the other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one; you have the fruit already in its seed" (Apology 9:8 [A.D. 197]).


And 200 years after this:


The Apostolic Constitutions

"Thou shalt not use magic. Thou shalt not use witchcraft; for he says, ‘You shall not suffer a witch to live’ [Ex. 22:18]. Thou shall not slay thy child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. . . . if it be slain, [it] shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed" (Apostolic Constitutions 7:3 [A.D. 400]).


And now just over 20 years ago in the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church:


Modern Catechism of the Catholic Church

"...2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72


Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society..."


That abortion is unlawful for Christians is thus (undisputably) Divine Revelation since it is a genuine Sacred Tradition that has always and universally been taught by the Church.


Now you must admit. Is that not an INCREDIBLE continuity of moral teaching passed down from Bishop to Bishop?

Shoghi Effendi said that the Catholic Church has been partially at least "perverted by men's doctrines". The bodily resurrection would I suppose for Baha'is be in this category. And yet he upheld the Church's "direct line" to Jesus himself and its "inheritance" of his teachings. From above, you can see this loud and clear. And neither does Shoghi Effendi disparage Catholic teachings, rather he clearly states:


"A Catholic background is an excellent introduction to the Faith, and one that Mrs. ... should feel gratified for having had. Though doctrines of the church today are no longer needed -- as the Father Himself has come, and thus fulfilled the mission of Christ the Son yet the foundation they lay of spiritual discipline, and their emphasis on spiritual values and adherence to moral laws, is very important and very close to our own beliefs." (From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to two believers, August 17, 1941; Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 491)

Directives from the Guardian: 107 JESUS (Virgin Birth of)

"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Baha'i teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church."



One must thus reconcile these two statements of the Guardian: The Catholic Church according to him is the "direct line" and "inheritor of Christ's teachings" and on account of this should not be criticized or attacked by Baha'is despite some "perversion" by mens doctrines.

Its more complex than some think.

Now I'm studying atm! Sorry I can't give you the full answer I wanted to!

Yeshua

BTW I think this thread should probably have been placed in the Interfaith section

I'm not entirely convinced that its appropriate for General Discussion of Baha'i topics.

After all thats why an Interfaith section was introduced to this forum, so that people could discuss other religions or how other religions relate to the Baha'i Faith etc.

The Baha'i Faith does indeed have a "trinity" concept derived from Abdu'l-Baha, in particular, however its not a major tenant of the Baha'i Faith but rather Christianity, so I just think it might be more "at home" so too speak in "Interfaith".

Iconodule

# Armin, there is no clear leadership or successorship after the apostles? Those whom knew the apostles didn't seem to agree with you. Lets look at some quotes both Biblical and not. First from the very next generation.

Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter 40. Let Us Preserve in the Church the Order Appointed by God.
These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.
The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

Saint Clement to the Corinthians

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 2)

1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world. 1 Corinthians 2:6 And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside

Saint Iraneaus of Lyons

Chapter 6 To the Ephesians. Have respect to the bishop as to Christ Himself
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household, Matthew 24:25 as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do you hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

Chapter 3. To the Magnesians Honour your youthful bishop
Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop], in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.

Chapter 6 To the Magnesians. Preserve harmony
Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.

Chapter 7 To the Magnesians. Do nothing without the bishop and presbyters
As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do anything without the bishop and presbyters. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled. There is one Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is more excellent. Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.

Saint Ignatius of Antioch

Book Two Chapter One: two Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together, Matthew 1:18 as the account of the holy Gospels shows. But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem. But the same writer, in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one. But there were two Jameses: one called the Just, who was thrown from the pinnacle of the temple and was beaten to death with a club by a fuller, and another who was beheaded. Paul also makes mention of the same James the Just, where he writes, Other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother. Galatians 1:19

Book Three Chapter Two, 1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.
Chapter Four of the same book, That Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the churches from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum, is evident both from his own words, Romans 15:19 and from the account which Luke has given in the Acts.

2. And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear from his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed, in which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. 1 Peter 1:1

3. But the number and the names of those among them that became true and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend the churches founded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those mentioned in the writings of Paul.

4. For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or fellow-soldiers, as he called them, and most of them were honored by him with an imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony concerning them in his own epistles.

5. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and mentions them by name.

6. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete.

7. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. Luke 1:2-3 The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself.

8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, according to my Gospel.
9. As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy 2 Timothy 4:21 as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.

10. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier.

11. Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in the Areopagus (as recorded by Luke in the Acts) is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens.

12. But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our history.

Now thats alot to read but they establish a very good point which cannot be denied, there was a clear succession within the early church and believe me when I say this is not everything. I have't even quoted the Biblical stuff which further cements my point, I would simply reccomend you read Saint Paul's letters to Timothy and see for yourself the office of Bishops, Deacons and Priests as fundamentally apart of the church. So you are mistkaen on this matter. Now, no one person came up with the trinity, it wasn't invented by one person but rather seems to have been a common belief held around most if not nearly all Christian communities, I think those who attended the council are witnesses of that (coming from very diverse places east and west) as well as the Apostolic Fathers and their witnesss to the deity of Christ and things concerning that subject. What the trinity is, is defining what the church believes against what heretics taught, IE Arrianism.

2. When it comes to Jesus being God's son what is important to note is that the bible says Jesus isn't just a son of God but the unique Son of God and this is amplified in the parable of the wicked ternards whom the person who dies at the end is clearly representing jesus and those sent before (representing the prophets) are just servants.

3. Now i hear this comparison alot, that Christianity is like paganism in this regard but it really isn't. Consider the ideas of Greeks, first we have Homer's Gods and Goddesses, very physical beings, who are greedy, sinful, prideful, ambitious and to a certain extent mortal, they could die. Is this the Christian concept of God? Which says God in his divinity is perfect, eternal, cannot die and the like? Clearly not. Or even consider the God of the greek philosophers whom was purely spiritual, they rejected the idea the flesh was of any importance or at least major importance and said all that was good is spiritual, I believe this idea had its beginings in plato but I need to do more research on this account but it certaintly was a greek idea, this much I know because of the gnostics and how they were influenced by Greek thought. So where does the incarnation fit into all of this? Are Christians saying God in his divinity became man? No, God's divine substance never changed, but rather he took onto himself an additional nature which remains distinct from his Divine nature but is connected in the person of the son of God, Jesus Christ. This is the Hypostatic union which classically most if not all Christians have held, excluding the Orientals, though im still not sure what they believe regarding this subject.

4. Interpreting the bible literally clashes with science? To an extent I suppose, I certaintly don't think genesis is literal and the earth certaintly isn't 6000 years old. But we cannot judge the bible as a whole. Some books were written for specific purposes. Some books are historical books, like the gospel accounts which are written in the style of History, not mystical literature by any means comparable to say the psalms or anything else which isn't literal.

Iconodule

Responce to Fadl,
The intent of those who wrote the creed was not to defend a paradoxical view for nothing in the trinity is indeed paradoxical it is quite logical in how we understand it, though its function as to how it works is as mysterious to us as to how eternity works yet neither of us would consider Eternity in of itself illogical or falsebecause we fail to grasp it, but we recognise it because of logical neccesity that something cannot come from nothing. In the same way the trinity is not explicitely revealed to us through the use of reason alone but through scripture and the implications of what scripture says and the conclusion of what scripture says about the son of God, the Holy spirit the comforter and the holy Father.
Now, Im using this creed to demonstrate the historic trinity when compared to the Bahai version of it. That is all, and clearly we see a conflict, Baha'u'llah no more explained the trinity than did the Modalists when they tried to fundamentally change what the trinity meant, rather he reinvented the concept, and tried to do away with the traditional trinity, thus the point of contention arises because Bahai do deny the trinity, andby Trinity I mean the actual trinity as I refuse to call what the bahai consider the trinity to be The Trinity.
Now indeed such a view is very biblical, never once do we see JEsus created, rather we see him existing before all things, being the right hand of the father who will judge us for all our sins, him creating and bringing forth all things into existence and him being with God and God. I think one of the most powerful quotes in demonstration of the Trinity is Mathew 28:19
"Go and baptise in the naem of the father, son and Holy spirit."
This is interesting because the use of name here in the singular for these three persons (and the Holy spirit is a person who talks to the apostles in the acts), leads me to the conclusion that they must share the same time. What is this name? Well what is the name of God in the Old testament, Yahweh, and no one here will dispute that the father is God. So I think this is a very powerful demonstration ofChrist being GOd. And it is not my intent to show pride or be disrespectful, but rather actually deal with some hard hitting topics, I can't be like Yeshua.

ahanu

The Letter of Barnabas was written in Greek. Tertullian, as far as I know, wrote in Latin and Greek. It does not account for my variable: the language barrier.

I find Nehemia Gordon's discussion of language issues in the New Testament fascinating. He argues the Gospel of Matthew, for example, was written in Hebrew.

"Matthew collected the words in the Hebrew language, and each translated them the best he could."
-Papias

Notice this Church Father recognizes the difficult task of translation. Gordon gives an example of misunderstanding.

In the Greek Matthew we read:

"The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not do after their works: for they say and do not"
(Greek Matthew 23.2-3)

It sounds like Jesus is saying you must obey the Pharisees, but earlier in Matthew 15 we learn this does not make much sense, for Jesus warns the disciples not to do according to the way of the Pharisees. In the Hebrew Matthew we read:

"The Pharisees and sages sit upon the seat of Moses. Therefore all that he says to you, diligently do but according to their reforms and their precedents do not do, because they talk but they do not do."
(Hebrew Matthew 23.2-3)

Notice the subtle difference? In the Greek Matthew it reads:

"all that they [the Pharisees] say"

In the Hebrew Matthew it reads:

"all that he [Moses] says"

In Hebrew Matthew 23.2-3 Jesus says the disciples must not obey the Pharisees!

The question now is this:

Are you going to believe in the Greek Jesus who is changing Torah or the Hebrew Jesus who is upholding Torah?

Other examples can be found in Gordon's video: .

Acts 26:14 is an hilarious example:

"I heard a voice saying to me in Aramaic, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

However, it should read "Hebrew" instead of "Aramaic." What happened there? Gordon says the Greek Matthew was translated from an Aramaic original and, in turn, the Aramaic was translated from the Hebrew original. If this is correct, this means the Greek is a third-hand translation from the Hebrew! Oh, by the way, although the example above is in Acts, there is also an example in Matthew in which Jesus said to speak Aramaic.

Baha'is also deal with a translation problem. Sen talks about the word "century" in his blog, where you will find the implications of mistranslation:

Century of light « Sen McGlinn's blog

Furthermore, we know interpolations (such as 1 Corinthians 14.34-35) exist in the Pauline texts. I will conclude with the words of Richard Carrier:

There can be no doubt that these passages are interpolations (1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16). This proves Christians had no problem doctoring the letters of Paul to make him say things he didn't say. And if they did this in these two cases, how many other passages in Paul are inauthentic? Remember, we caught these cases because we got lucky (the interpolators were sloppy, they just happened to pick things to say that contradicted Paul, and we just happen to have some telltale evidence in the manuscripts). Most interpolations won't have left such evidence (most will not so blatantly contradict Paul, and most of the ones, like these, that were inserted before 200 A.D. won't have just by chance left any evidence in the manuscripts). It is therefore necessarily the case that there are three or more interpolations in the letters of Paul that we don't know about (statistically, if most won't be evident, and two are evident, then there must be at least three not evident). Would you ever bet your life on which passage isn't one of them?

BruceDLimber

So, LoG, are you going to send me a private message with your email address so I can send you the article?

Regards,

Bruce

Yeshua

This is very interesting! Thank you Ahanu. I cannot comment much atm, but will when I get the chance.

I was aware of the Aramaic/Hebrew issue. It first came to my attention with the help of the truly meticulous translators of the NRSV translation (ie the footnotes).

I also know of the alleged Hebrew original of Matthew, which is pretty much taken for granted by a good number of the Fathers.

Very intriguing!

armin

Iconodule you pointed some good things in your post, and I appreciate your partial acceptance of some of what I said before (at least that's how I took parts of your response to be.)

Again I've some points to make so here it goes.

1. I respect your point of view, I just happen to see my, the Baha'i, point of view as more logical/sensible.

2. To me a clear chain of God's authentic presence is how we have it in our faith: The Prophet > the master > the guardian > the universal house of justice. This chain and the role the successor can play is all clearly defined within documents we have. I don't see the apostles as having enough authority to define and add anything to the faith established by Jesus, let alone the men following them (this is true about the Baha'i faith as well. For example Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'ullah's successor did not have the authority to redefine anything or to give Baha'ullah a newly defined station.)

3. Being a follower of a religion does not entitle us to anything in that faith. You being a Christian does not mean you own the Christian faith and it's teachings or Jesus just as I being a Baha'i does not entitle me to anything of this faith. I believe that I have a better understanding of the Christian faith, Jesus himself and his station through our teachings, and that Jesus has a much better appreciation for my understanding of him and his station. You have every right to believe your way of seeing things is right and I'm totally wrong and I don't dispute that. I want to add that I will never allow myself to disrespect Christianity and or Jesus. By using the pagans example I merely pointed out my view about how I feel the present day Christians have gone astray. I have in the past and will always defend Christianity and Jesus just as I would defend the Baha'i faith.

The idea I'm about to share is just an opinion I have and it's not a Baha'i idea. It originally crossed my mind with respect to Muslims, because of my unique background. I feel like for some people attaching themselves to such ideas makes them psychologically more content inside that they are the greatest followers of God on earth. In Islam, it's the idea that they are followers of God's latest and last prophet, and in Christianity that they are followers of God's latest and most holy presence on earth (God's son.) This of course does not apply to everyone or is not pointed at you, I just wanted to share it.

4. With respect to trinity, is there any mention of it, directly, indirectly, or in an implied way, in Judaism? Or in any other Abrahamic religion, or any other religion? My point here is that if trinity is what Christians claim it is (not all Christians), and the importance and key role it has for Christians, then why is it that no mention of it has been made before? All religions speak of one God, and His unitary essence, and as far as I know, it is purely a christian idea. If trinity is what Christians claim it is, intuitively I would assume that other religions would have mentioned it in some way. To me it's unlike God to hold back such an important matter of His essence from us.

Along the same lines, why is it that Jesus himself, God's son, didn't make this clear to us? It's beyond me to imagine any good reason for this. God Himself holds this truth back from us, God's son is incarnated and holds this truth back from us!? Why is that? And in all this, God's mere men come up with this idea? …

One last thing I want to mention is that all of this may make sense to you or some people and may seem like the most logical thing possible and if it is what you believe no one can make you think otherwise. This is just a crude example I'm hoping would help me convey my point; if one believes Zeus is the real God and everything about him and surrounding him, makes sense to that one person and seems logical, no man can make him/her think otherwise. In a way, no one has the right to do such a thing. After all we are talking about God, and we don't have the capabilities or senses to know Him directly but through His prophets/manifestations/incarnations … if that person truly believes that then it is not our job or duty to change that, it's between that person and God.

Yeshua

BTW Ahanu,

I was reading through the Letter of 1 Clement, which I already mentioned above (written about AD 80) and found an interesting reference to the Resurrection (I'd read it before but forgot about it), which I wonder how you might interpret. Since 1 Clement is so early and has such great authority and is not biblical, what it has to say is I think important. But what do you think it is suggesting? Here it is:


"...So, having a share in such great and glorious deeds, let us hurry toward what was from the beginning handed down to us, the goal of peace, and let us look intently to the Father and Creator of the entire world. Let us stick close to His magnificent and surpassing gifts and benefactions of peace. Let us see Him with understanding, and look with the eyes of the soul to His patient will. Let us consider how without wrath He is toward all His creation...The Father, merciful and compassionate to all, has compassion for those fearing Him, gently and kindly giving out His gifts of grace to those approaching Him with a single mind...Compare yourselves to a tree: take [for instance] the vine. First of all, it sheds its leaves, then it buds, next it puts forth leaves, and then it flowers; after that comes the sour grape, and then follows the ripened fruit. You perceive how in a little time the fruit of a tree comes to maturity. Of a truth, soon and suddenly shall His will be accomplished...Let us consider, beloved, how the Lord continually proves to us that there shall be a future resurrection, of which He has rendered the Lord Jesus Christ the first-fruits by raising Him from the dead. Let us contemplate, beloved, the resurrection which is at all times taking place. Day and night declare to us a resurrection. The night sinks to sleep, and the day arises; the day [again] departs, and the night comes on. Let us behold the fruits [of the earth], how the sowing of grain takes place. The sower goes forth, and casts it into the ground; and the seed being thus scattered, though dry and naked when it fell upon the earth, is gradually dissolved. Then out of its dissolution the mighty power of the providence of the Lord raises it up again, and from one seed many arise and bring forth fruit.

Let us consider that wonderful sign of the resurrection which takes place in Eastern lands, that is, in Arabia and the countries round about. There is a certain bird which is called a phoenix. This is the only one of its kind, and lives five hundred years. And when the time of its dissolution draws near that it must die, it builds itself a nest of frankincense, and myrrh, and other spices, into which, when the time is fulfilled, it enters and dies. But as the flesh decays a certain kind of worm is produced, which, being nourished by the juices of the dead bird, brings forth feathers. Then, when it has acquired strength, it takes up that nest in which are the bones of its parent, and bearing these it passes from the land of Arabia into Egypt, to the city called Heliopolis. And, in open day, flying in the sight of all men, it places them on the altar of the sun, and having done this, hastens back to its former abode. The priests then inspect the registers of the dates, and find that it has returned exactly as the five hundredth year was completed.

Do we then deem it any great and wonderful thing for the Maker of all things to raise up again those who have piously served Him in the assurance of a good faith, when even by a bird He shows us the mightiness of His power to fulfil His promise? For [the Scripture] says in a certain place, "You shall raise me up, and I shall confess to You;" and again, "I laid down, and slept; I awaked, because You are with me;" and again, Job says, "you shall raise up this flesh of mine, which has suffered all these things."

Having then this hope, let our souls be bound to Him who is faithful in His promises, and just in His judgments. He who has commanded us not to lie, shall much more Himself not lie; for nothing is impossible with God, except to lie. Let His faith therefore be stirred up again within us, and let us consider that all things are nigh unto Him. By the word of His might He established all things, and by His word He can overthrow them...Let us then draw near to Him with holiness of spirit, lifting up pure and undefiled hands to Him, loving our gracious and merciful Father, who has made us partakers in the blessings of His elect..."


(Pope Saint Clement I, Letter to the Corinthians [AD 80])


What kind of "resurrection" does Pope Saint Clement, pupil of the Apostles, declare at this very early stage - near the end of the Apostolic Age?

Clement relates the resurrection first to nature and then to the myth of the Phoenix, which was a very important symbol to the early Christians. The Church Father Lactantius is the author who wrote the longest poem on the phoenix in history. The mythical bird became popular in early Christian art, literature and Christian symbolism, as a symbol of Christ representing his resurrection, immortality, and life-after-death.


“Not surprisingly, early Christian writers construed the phoenix as a symbol not only of resurrection in general but also of Christ himself and his resurrection in particular.”

—David L. Jeffrey, A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature (1992)


Baha'u'llah also employed this imagery:


O Son of Spirit
Burst thy cage asunder, and even
as the pheonix of love soar into
the firmament of holiness.
Renounce thyself and, filled with
the spirit of mercy, abide, in the
realm of celestial sanctity.

Baha'u'llah


I would really suggest that everyone read the Apostolic Fathers - the late first and early second century, second-generation Christian writers whose texts are the oldest outside of the Bible and who lived in the generation near the end or just straight after the time of the Apostles. They provide priceless information on the Early Church and its teachings.


Remember that according to scholars:

"...The document known as 1 Clement is one of the oldest extant Christian writings outside of the New Testament canon and is therefore one of our most significant sources with regard to the life and theology of Early Christianity...Clement was a well-known and significant figure during his lifetime..." - Odd Magne Bakke


BTW

"...More recently a date during the 60s or 70s of the first century has been proposed for 1 Clement..." - Nicholas H. Taylor, 2009

"...Recent studies have considered for 1 Clement a date of [no later than] AD 70..." - Klaus Haacker, 2003

"...Jefford (2006) dates 1 Clement to the 60s..." - Dan G. McCartney

So it appears to have been written even earlier than the Church Fathers thought, according to the most recent scholarship.

Considering that Peter and Paul were executed in the year AD 64-67 a possible date in the 60s is really significant, since in the Letter he refers to the deaths of Peter and Paul which would mean it was written like a year or two/three years after their deaths. As you can probably imagine that makes Clement, well, important to say the least.

ahanu

Clement has been dated to the last years of the 90s CE by Andrew Gregory and Christopher Tuckett in “Paul’s Influence on ‘Clement’ and Ignatius” in Trajectories through the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers. Richard Pervo, in his book The Making of Paul, believes 1 Clement was written in the late 90s CE. Bart D. Erhman, in Lost Christianities, dates 1 Clement in the late 90s CE. Like you, I have also found three scholars supporting 1 Clement was written in the late 90s, but why?

Consider a passage from the text:

"owing to sudden and repeated misfortunes and calamities which have befallen us . . ."
(1 Clement 1.1)

Scholars usually interpret this to refer to the persecution of the Church waged by Domitian, who reigned from 81-96 CE. This is debatable.

If the dating of 1 Clement is dated in the 60s, then why does 1 Clement refer to the Church of the Corinthians as ancient?

"the ancient Church of the Corinthians . . ."
(1 Clement 47.6)

The passage above is another reason scholars subscribe to a later date. This is debatable.

Scholars point out 1 Clements speaks of the Temple in Jerusalem before it fell. This is debatable.

Scholars also point to a passage saying they witnessed the youth in that community grow old. This is debatable.

The date of 1 Clement can range from 67 to 100 CE. It's like interpreting quantum physics: nobody knows for sure. Even if it is earlier than 90 CE, it does not mean resurrection in 1 Clement 26.3 is the resurrection Paul wrote about.

As said earlier, I accept Richard Carrier's interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15. In regards to 1 Clement in the light of what Paul wrote, Carrier says:


Though 1 Clement 26:3 affirms the risen body will be made from the flesh of the mortal body, this comes immediately after 1 Clement 25, where our resurrection is likened to that of the Phoenix, which Clement describes without qualification as the bird destroying its old body, then rising from its ashes, but leaving the bones behind, which it then carries home (for burial). This is still a two-body resurrection analogy: a new body is fashioned from the flesh of the old, yet there is still a corpse (a skeleton) remaining in the grave.[14]

Clement's idea is not entirely Pauline: e.g. for Clement the new body is of flesh, which Paul explicitly denied, and Clement says nothing about the different properties and compositions of the two bodies that are central distinctions for Paul. Since Clement's scheme is notably different, we cannot conclude that Paul would have agreed with anything else Clement said, as we already know Paul would have disagreed with at least some of it.

1 Clement 24 does not use the analogy "in almost the exact same words as Paul." To the contrary, it uses notably different concepts and phraseology, indicating Clement does not have the same knowledge or ideas as Paul. Clement says the "dry" seeds cast onto the ground "are dissolved" (dialuetai) "and then" out of their dissolution (ek tês dialuseôs) the "mighty power of the Lord's plan" raises them up, and "from one, many grow and bear forth fruit." This is all very different from Paul, who does not mention one seed producing many other seeds in a subsequent stage of fruit-bearing (an idea that makes little sense as a theory of resurrection but sounds a lot like a confusion from another statement, like that of Jesus, noted from John above, that from one death would come many saved). Moreover, Paul says exactly the opposite of what Clement does here: Clement says God raises the actual seeds cast on the ground (auta, "the seeds themselves" or "the same seeds"), whereas Paul explicitly denies this and says the risen germ is not the one buried. Paul also doesn't say the buried seed is "dissolved" (completely destroyed) and then magically restored, he says the buried seed dies, and a new one rises (thus he is distinguishing two components: the seed that dies, which would correspond to the shell, and the seed that rises, which would correspond to the germ inside). By contrast, Clement imagines the entire buried seed is dissolved and then reassembled (which suggests he doesn't know the basic facts of agriculture, and certainly has no idea of there being two components to a seed).