Orthodox

So Larry you will not share your conclusions with me and answer these questions so that I may acheive a better conclusion? That is fine, but I can't help but be reminded of the mystery cults of ancient Rome and Greece that didn't give any knowledge until people came into it.

But that being said, Im not asking you to force me, Im asking you to answer me. My question about the early church and why it dissagrees with bahai has still received no satisfactory answer. The answers have been "Oh the church is only one part and then muhammad came and now we are the church" To which I have said one can only maintain sucha view if they are ignorant of Christian history. Christians have never taught bahai doctrines, the apostles of the desciples cannot be found teaching bahai and neither can the NT. And if one is the church today, what does one do about the historic church, the orthodox church that was established by Christ and exists to this day. Did Jesus just leave the church at one point and move to islam and then to bahai?

Livindesert

That is your opinion we on the other hand have seen things a different way.

That is due to who things needed to be taught people duuring the Christian dispensation then the Islamic dispenstation was brought about which added additional fufillment to religion.

The historic church is a valid way to learn about God in our view It is just past it's time in religous potency. Although I love reading the works of the Christian mystics and such and find myself very in tune with them.

Basically the way religion works is it starts out fresh then loses potency with age/changes in mans spiritual needs hence the need for a religous infusion through the manefestations.

Orthodox

You don't seem to understand what I mean, when i say they did not teach bahai I mean they contradict bahai. If the truth is the same why do they contradict bahai? Now you say the church is a valid way to view God right? Would you sing a hymn to the triune God? Father son and spirit? This is how the church views God. That being said orthodoxy has maintained and flurished, it converted the Russians and is second largest Christian church this day. So what you say doesn't match up. And there was no need for anything after Jesus as wtih JEsus's salvific action we needed no prophet, we await for Jesus the real Jesus not baha'u'llah.

Livindesert

Yes I would just look at the trininty and Father son etc...from a Baha'i point of view.

Orthodox

Once again you are refusing to acknowledge I am talking about the Christian view. For the father is equal to the son. The two religions contradict and yet ive been told that christianity is valid. and Cire actually said bahai rejected Christianity. So I don't know what to think.

Livindesert

Each dispensation is never given complete knowledge about spiritual matters. Each dispensation builds on the knowledge of the one that came before it. Also God only gives certian knowledge as needed by man in each dispensation.

I again turn to the elephant..

"When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?"

The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephants' head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).

The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the six blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." The Buddha then speaks the following verse:

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.[4]



So in other words what appears contradictory to man is not contradictory to God.

Orthodox

The point is that Christianity and the early church contradicts bahai in regards to Jesus. It cannot be merely certain revelations given every generation. This is the problem I have with bahai, the early church contradicts bahai and it came from Christ. Why?

Livindesert

What I am telling you is that from the Baha'i view there is no contracition and in our view our dispensation came from the second coming

Orthodox

Well all I can do is repeat that the church Christ established does contradict the bahai church. Your bahai view needs reform I think in order to actually answer this fact of history.

Im going into more detail.

The early church has taught that Christ was God, he became incarnate, and that he rose physically from the dead. All these concepts are derived from the first century tradition of the apsotles be it orally or in the gospel. This is proven from the works of disciples of the apostles and from the New testament.

The bahai teach that Christ was not God but that he was somewhat of an avatar of God. That he died and never rose from the dead. These were not taught in the first, second or third century and one cannot merely mark it up to lack of revelation, these are direct contradictions whcih can only be solved by reading a scripture that was always read as literal, gives us many reasons to read it as literal as metaphorical.

This is something the bahai have to reconcile.

Livindesert

The second coming gave us what we believe is the true reading of these passages which take into account Christian and Islamic dispensations. We have nothing to reconcile

Orthodox

These are not true readings sir. The true is taking the text at what it says unless it determines otherwise. For Christ did on the cross, no one denies this, even bahai admit this, but then the narrative becomes metaphorical? Why? there are no clues as to this, it continues as it was before Christ rose. Im sorry, but the gospels were not written with this intent, I trust the church of the desciples of canonized and wrote the New testament more than I trust a man 2000 years later.

Tell me. Who are you going to trust Tacitus on the historicity of Jesus, or a man who claims to be literally jesus 2000 years later? So you have not established bahai over the desciples and the church thank you. All you have done is make claims, that you are the church, that you have the right reading of scripture. I ask how you can say these things when you don't even know you are reading bahu'a'llah right. The foundation for your faith is sand.

Livindesert

The trinity doctron was come up with when the apostolic church over time was disscussing the meanings of Jesus's saying in relation to there being one God.
I think they just went by the best information they had at the time. Now we have more information from Muhammed and the second coming and can answer the question of his statements better. At least from a Baha'i point of view

Orthodox

And yes you do have things to reconcile, once againm, the church in the NEW testament whcihc carried onto the second third and to today centuries. Did not believe in things as bahai did. THey contradicted the bahai, the desciples of the Apostles contradicted bahai. The desciples of the apostles of Christ contradict bahai. Why? Were the apostles incompetent did all their missionary work and establishing churches fail? Why? This is something I would like bahai to explain. When did this false teaching of Christ literally rising from the dead emerge in history? Or why was it lost? Or why were the gospels written without clear indications of there being literal and non literal parts? All these things bahai need to reconcile.

Orthodox

They had all the information they needed, they had the teaching of the church. Jesus taught the desciples for forty days conscerning the kingdom of God. And no the trinity doctrine was an establishing doctrine indeed, but they regarded Christ as God, clearly since the apostles to St Ignatius (and No not God as an avatar of God, literally God). We had no need of the quran, we have no need of bahai. Jesus paid for the sins on the cross, he revealed God on the Cross, and rose vindicating himself. No need for Muhammad.

Livindesert

And I came to a different conclusion than you but I respect your opinion and can see where you are coming from

I had a interesting experance a couple of months back I asked my toddler what is that when I was pointing into a mirror. She answered back Dada. Christ being a manefestation according to us is being a perfect mirror reflecting God. So in our view at the time it was o.k. to refer to the manefestation(Jesus) as God because that is what you see just as my toddler did not say a mirror when I pointed at it.
In fact it is perfectly o.k. to pray to Baha'u'llah because according to Baha'i theology he is our connection to God for this age.

Orthodox

Sigh why must you ignore what I mean by Jesus being God? Jesus was not merely an avatar, he was not a reflection whatever that means. This is what the early Christians meant, it is clear in ST ignatius and he was taught by JOhn who was taught by Christ. So why does this huge discrepency exist? Why are there two contradictory teachings? Did the desciples fail to understand Jesus or teach what jesus taught? You constantly have to go around and ignore the main meat of the argument.

And I pray and go to liturgy because that is the only connection to God for all ages since Christ.

Livindesert

There is no contradicition as both views are correct.

Orthodox

So Jesus is an image of God, an avatar of God, Not actually God himself, but is also God eternal? Right? So was st Athanasius right when he said:

"God became man, so that man may become God?"


Because I have explained the teachings of the fathers and the church, and I know of the bahai teachings. So when you say both are right, you are maintaining two contradictory statements as truth... Im sorry but I think you need to have a look at your theology.

Livindesert

Jesus was a manefestation of God. (now this part is my understanding) My understanding is that Man cannot become God because God is of a whole different existance than man. But what man can do is move infinately closer to God.

Yup just did and I see no problem :tongue

Orthodox

Living. You proposed that something can both apply to Christ and not apply to Christ that is divinity. You told me both views are right and the view you said is right was the early church view and that view included Christ as LITERAL God, not an image, not a mirror not the sun shining the actual God.

But bahai say Christ is merely an avater is not literally God, but an avatar of God. Alright, these views contradict. Thats the simple truth. Something you refuse to see. Its like your trying to avoid the conclusion from what you just said.

(Edit I apologzie I don't think you misrepresent St Athanasius you merely misunderstood him). St Athanasius is not saying in his writing that we can become God ontollogically. Indeed he was the champion of trinity, he recognized man could not become the divine, but rather he saying we may become as God, taking part in the divine nature of Grace. This doctrine is called theosis and something the church maintains to this day.

So yes, you do need to reconsider your theology.

Livindesert

Yes in a way that is as I have pointed out in my mirror example with my toddler. :cool

A manefestation is higher than man but lower than God. But it is correct for man to say a manefestation is God since God is what is reflected through the manefestation.

Livindesert

My answers might take a while to come as I am going to be off my break soon and have to go back to work.

Orthodox

Why, why must you continuelly ignore what is said. The fathers did not view Jesus as God in that way. The same fathers and early church you said was right. They said Jesus was GOD LITERALLY, He was literally GOD INCARNATE. I don't ype caps because Im angry, but because I think big words help make a point.

So no. You will not get away with saying oh hes God, but only like a mirror is the person who it reflects. No sorry, you can't do that. That was not the view of the fathers, that is the bahai view. You have affirmed both. You have affirmed two views that contradict each other. Thus you have committed logical fallacy. The Law of non contradiction please look it up.

So please, if you respond one more time by saying "He is God but only God in the sense he's an avatar and thus not really God" It shows me you are not taking the fathers and the churches conclusion WHICH DO NOT STATE THIS. I REPEAT LOOK AT WHAT YOUR Saying.

Its like me saying I'm a married bachalor, thats impossible.

Livindesert

That is because you are man not God my brother :wink

I refer you to the elephant once again

A king has the blind men of the capital brought to the palace, where an elephant is brought in and they are asked to describe it.

"When the blind men had each felt a part of the elephant, the king went to each of them and said to each: 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?"

The men assert the elephant is either like a pot (the blind man who felt the elephants' head), a winnowing basket (ear), a plowshare (tusk), a plow (trunk), a granary (body), a pillar (foot), a mortar (back), a pestle (tail) or a brush (tip of the tail).

The men cannot agree with one another and come to blows over the question of what it is like and their dispute delights the king. The Buddha ends the story by comparing the six blind men to preachers and scholars who are blind and ignorant and hold to their own views: "Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus." The Buddha then speaks the following verse:

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.[4]

Orthodox

Livin has ignored me once again. He refuses to acknowledge his logical fallacy and hide behind a wall of "Oh their just two parts of the one thing." No Livin, you cannot get away with this. As i have established the early church Did not believe what bahai did. IT CONTRADICTED IT. You say it is true, you say bahai is true. THIS IS A LOGICAL FALLACY sir. Perhaps logic doesn't amtter to you livin. But Im sorry it is a valuable tool for judging reality. You are either doing two things, either you cannot see the glaring mistake right before you, or you are on purposely trying to avoid it. And I hope to God it is the second one because at least then that makes you know what you have done.

I ask you one thing. Simply admit from your view that the early church is right along with bahai. Therefore Christ is both ontollogically and literally God, But he is also not god only being a ray or image of God. Simply admit this. You have to in order to maintain that the early church and fathers were correct. BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THEY TAUGHT, dont just take the bahai, take the fathers you said were true.

You believe the early church to be correct. But you blind yourself. No you tell yourself in spite of the evidence (which I can give you btw) that the early church believed Jesus was just a mirror of God. Sir I say this completely seriously, you show the signs of someone who is in denial of what basic reality is.

Orthodox

And a married bachalor is impossible, because a bachalor is someone single. a married person is someone who is together with another. It cannot exist. God is not illogical, he is logic. He defined this logic.

Livindesert

Actually I said the early church believed Jesus was God which is a correct way of looking at a manefestation from a Baha'i point of view as we are commenting on the image in the mirror.

So is Jesus God? Yes and No.

Orthodox

Lol, except the early church did not view it as bahai do. Your inserting your beliefs on people who did not have them. Its like me saying the bab taught that Christ physically rose. I haven't read many works of the bab, But he is truth therefore he is in line with the church. This is another fallacy, I can't recall the name though.

The Church and bahai directly contradict Livin, this is something you need to realise. Something you don't want to admit to. Its a scary truth, but it is reality. Once again the way they believed Jesus to be God was not the way you believe Jesus to be god. you don't actually think Jesus was literally God, the church fathers did. So when you say both are right, you are proposing two contradictory truths.

But perhaps I'll put it in words that you understand. The Fathers of the church thought Jesus was God in the way that they will WORSHIP Christ. Do the bahai worship Christ? No, they don't. Because he is truely not God in Bahai, but instead a god.

pheonixduprese

He's not A god, he's a sending of God to propel mankind further down the path of spiritual Knowing.

Orthodox

Well he is not THE God, the eternal one, which is the point I am making. Livin wants to maintain that both the fathers and early church Christ established and bahai movement are right. However they say different things, contradictory things such as Jesus is God, Jesus is not God literally. Livin does not want to admit this as anyone can see.

pheonixduprese

Jesus is not God unless through your personal findings of truth you find him to be Him. The only way that Jesus is God is if you believe, personally, that he is.

Orthodox

So if I believe in the giant pink purple elephant in space with a flap jaw chalk, it is real? I'm sorry, reality is not defined by my beliefs alright. You see, Ceaser existed whether I believed him to or not. God exists independant of my belief and yours. We don't define God with our beliefs he defines himself.

pheonixduprese

First, if you have adequate reasoning to believe that the giant elephant in space is god, and he has somehow proved this to you, and you weren't on an acid trip, than yes, if it's what you believe, it is real to you.

Spirituality isn't affected by reality. We're already bending the rules of reality to justify religion; so therefore when it comes to faith, the rules must be broken if you want to achieve theosis, or "going to heaven," or being close to God after you pass.

Orthodox

Only God can bend the rules of reality. Mankind can only work within them. And no It isn't just faith although there is a major part of it. It is also logic and thinking which convinced me of God and still convince me. So that being said. rules of reality? To justify religion? Religion and reality are not at odds my friend. At least not my religion it is perfeclt in line with the reality of this world.

And who said anything about the Elephant in flapjaw space with a tuning fork being God? He's just in space floating around. I believe him to be there, so he must be there, according to you right? Does this mean I am God because I believe God to exist, it makes God exist, therefore I created God, therefore am greater than God?

Do you not see how silly what you have said is?

Livindesert

We worship God through his manefestations connected to God through them. I have even heard we can pray to Baha'u'llah because praying to him is praying to God but maybe someone like Arthra would be able togive you better information on that aspect of the Baha'i faith.

But according to the second coming Jesus is a manefestation. I would say that they worshiped according to the information they had for thier dispensation and or They were so overcame by God through the manefestation that they worshipped Go through the manefestation. A more experienced Baha'i could be of more help to you.

Either way when I read and studied the Gospels for myself I actually came to the Baha'i view before I even knew who they Baha'i were due to my reading that thier are many things the Father alone knows and the son comes in glory of his Father. But that was just my personal experience and opinion just so you know where I am coming from.

Livindesert

Exactly God has defined himself directly through the second coming to us. So when are you going to sign up :wink

BruceDLimber

On the contrary, the fact that Christianity (and Jesus) are valid and God-sent has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with whether or not the trinity is valid!

And in fact, that doctrine was cooked up gradually (i.e., in stages), centuries after Christ by a committee! Indeed, it was disagreement over part of the resulting creed that resulted in the split between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches which remains to this day!

Further, I have online a detailed article about how the trinity doctrine came about which I'll be most happy to email you if you give me an address to which to send it!

Peace, :-)

Bruce

LarryK32

You could just link it.
But I was talking with my friend(the one who legitimately defended Al Qaeda from a legal viewpoint and won) and he used logic to back up any miracles that anyone did. Of course, they'd have to be incredibly lucky.

Orthodox

It was more than the fillique that resulted int he catholics seperating themselves from the body sir. It was a gradual mix of theology, culture and situations. Theologically the west had accepted St Augustine and his teachings which the previous fathers never taught. They believed the pope to be supreme over the other bishops. And they added to the original creed the word "Fillioque" without an eccumenical council. Then finally the pope sent his ambassador to the east and condemned us for changing the creed when in fact it was the other way around. You need to learn church history because you are ignorant of it.

And Bruce you seem to be ignoring the point, livin has explisively said that the early church and fathers are right. THEY BELIEVED IN TRINITY, the actual trinity from the Nicene and chalcedonian creed not your bahai trinity. He posits two contradictory view points and tells me their just peices of the puzzle not realising he has committed gross logical fallacies.

ANd livin you have refused to acknowledge your logical fallacy once again. You said the early church and fathers were right, you also say bahai is right. But they contradict. and they do contradict sir. Im repeating why they contradict because I have said it ten times. Why won't you admit this? Truth is scary I know but you should admit to it.

Clex19

@Orthodox

I don't know if you've read this yet or if someone's posted this before, but concerning the Trinity:


THE TRINITY

Question. -- What is the meaning of the Trinity, of the Three Persons in One?

Answer. -- The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception. That Lordly Reality admits of no division; for division and multiplicity are properties of creatures which are contingent existences, and not accidents which happen to the self-existent.

The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence.

God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.

Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors -- one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit -- that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly.

The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.

This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.

It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 115)