Jafar

I am wondering if anyone can explain to me, if Jesus Christ was God (or like God to us), why he constantly referred to God the Father?

I mean, if Christ (or any of the Prophets or Messengers) were God, why is there another God?

Did Christ or Baha'u'llah say why?

Trevathan

"... As it is said in the Gospel of John, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God";[1] then the Holy Spirit and the Word are the appearance of God. The Spirit and the Word mean the divine perfections that appeared in the Reality of Christ, and these perfections were with God; so the sun manifests all its glory in the mirror. For the Word does not signify the body of Christ, no, but the divine perfections manifested in Him. For Christ was like a clear mirror which was facing the Sun of Reality; and the perfections of the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, its light and heat -- were visible and apparent in this mirror. If we look into the mirror, we see the sun, and we say, "It is the sun." Therefore, the Word and the Holy Spirit, which signify the perfections of God, are the divine appearance. This is the meaning of the verse in the Gospel which says: "The Word was with God, and the Word was God";[1] for the divine perfections are not different from the Essence of Oneness. The perfections of Christ are called the Word because all the beings are in the condition of letters, and one letter has not a complete meaning, while the perfections of Christ have the power of the word because a complete *207* meaning can be inferred from a word. As the Reality of Christ was the manifestation of the divine perfections, therefore, it was like the word. Why? because He is the sum of perfect meanings. This is why He is called the Word.
[1 John 1:1.]

"And know that the proceeding of the Word and the Holy Spirit from God, which is the proceeding and appearance of manifestation, must not be understood to mean that the Reality of Divinity had been divided into parts, or multiplied, or that it had descended from the exaltation of holiness and purity. God forbid! If a pure, fine mirror faces the sun, the light and heat, the form and the image of the sun will be resplendent in it with such manifestation that if a beholder says of the sun, which is brilliant and visible in the mirror, "This is the sun," it is true. Nevertheless, the mirror is the mirror, and the sun is the sun. The One Sun, even if it appears in numerous mirrors, is one. This state is neither abiding nor entering, neither commingling nor descending; for entering, abiding, descending, issuing forth and commingling are the necessities and characteristics of bodies, not of spirits; then how much less do they belong to the sanctified and pure Reality of God. God is exempt from all that is not in accordance with His purity and His exalted and sublime sanctity.

"The Sun of Reality, as we have said, has always been in one condition; it has no change, no alteration, no transformation and no vicissitude. It is eternal and everlasting. But the Holy Reality of the Word of God is in the condition of the pure, fine and shining mirror; the heat, the light, the image and likeness -- that is to say, the perfections of the Sun of Reality -- appear in it. That is why Christ says in the Gospel, "The Father is in the Son" -- that is to say, the Sun of Reality appears in the mirror.[1] Praise be to the One Who shone upon this Holy Reality, Who is sanctified among the beings!
[1 Cf. John 14:11; 17:21.]"

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 205)

Orthodox

Excellent question. Indeed Christ was God the almighty, but so is the father and the spirit. This is called the trinity. One essence, substance or being, with three persons. this God. So it is not strange for Christ to pray to the father as if he were God, because he is God. This is the fellowship of the trinity in action, as Christ when he was made incarnate gave up the glory which was his so in order to be dependant on the father (see John 17:5 and 2nd Phillipians Chapter 2).

But that being said, None of the other prophets were God, they were men, men who sinned and fell short of the glory of God.

arthra

Orthodox,

Baha'is don't believe Jesus Christ was God... that maybe an Orthodox belief but it is not our belief. Jesus is a Manifestation of God and perfectly reflected the attributes of God..


Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived.

~ Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 49


God does not descend or incarnate Himself in our belief.

Orthodox

Im well aware of that, but I gave an orthodox answer.

arthra

And this is a Baha'i Forum.

Orthodox

That does not forbid another perspective.

FrankMc

What you're failing to appreciate is the Baha'i perspective on the reality of Christ. The Baha'i perspective encompasses all the prophets, but there are a number of references throughout Abdul Baha's writings in particular, which deal with Christ's utter sanctity. If you're posting here to pull people to Christianity - please, try to learn more about the big picture the Baha'i faith is positing. You'll find there is no schism with your fundamental beliefs.

Orthodox

Bahai fundamental beliefs and Christian fundamental beliefs are very different. We dissagree on who God is (You don't believe in trinity, and please don't say you do, you merely redefine the historic doctrine to your own version of it).

That being said, I didn't com here with the intention of converting people or Proselytizing, I came to simply discuss important theological issues with bahai and bring another perspective. Of course I think it would be great if someone became Christian, but that wasn't the specific reason I came here.

And while bahai claim all the prophets I think their views on such are wrong, I just have to be honest and will dispute something said should I see it as wrong and hopefully it can be resolved and we may benefit from it.

FrankMc

Can you please outline for me the differences between the Christian and Baha'i belief on who God is, that you mention, and also the difference in interpretation of the Trinity. My baha'i knowledge is a little rusty, and I stopped being a Catholic when I was 13 years old, so I'm really unclear as to what you're talking about.

Orthodox

The Christian position most dominant today is that the trinity as termed by the Athanasian creed, THe Nicean creed, The fathers, Theologians and most churches of today even the non orthodox variety is that there are Three persons, The father the son and the holy spirit. They are distinct, so they are not each other. They have co-existed eternally within the essence of divinity which is theirs and thus there is One God for there is one essence which is divine while sharing a plurality of persons.

I have read the Bahu'a'llah teaching regarding trinity. Or perhaps it was the bab or shoogi Effendi, I can't exactly recall. But I do remember he utterly miscasts tthe trinity from what it has been described and defined as for about 1800 years. He makes it a metaphore and something it never was. He steals our word and applies his doctrine to it essentially.

FrankMc

Firstly I would say that just because something has been defined a certain way for 1800 years doesn't make it right. Secondly, you refer to three persons - well there's certainly a schism there with Baha'i belief, which maintains that God is infinitely exalted beyond such things as physical incarnation. And seeing as one is referring to the creator of the universe, that makes a lot more sense to me. I checked up - the main Baha'i writing on the Trinity is from Abdu'l Baha. I remember when I first read it, it made real sense to me, and it still does. Here's the central part of the discourse:
"....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 makes real sense to me as it explains the Trinity in Christ as containing God, while maintaining God's absolute exaltation beyond physical incarnation, and the Holy Spirit as the common agent. There is distinction, and also unity, between the three.

What do you object to in this? Does it not make sense to you?

Orthodox

See that isn't trinity. Trinity was defined long before bahai and is completely right. God is a triune God, some the church Christ established has understood. Its not that baha'u'llahs view doesn't make sense from a logical standpoint, its that it doesn't align with what scripture or the church CHRIst established has said. See if that view were true, it should have been taught by the church, in the bible and etc. Yet thats not what we find at all.

Livindesert

Here is the fullness of the teaching of the Trinity as revealed by Baha'u'llah through Abdul Baha his authorized interpreter.

Orthodox

Thats not fullness, that is heresy. The trinity was defined much before Abdul Baha I can assure you. What he speaks is utter blasphemy against God. The Trinity can be freely understood as I have clearly related it to you.

The trinity is this. There is One God, One essence, substance or being which is divinity, in that essence there are three distinct co-equal persons. This is the true trinity. Not that.

Lord have mercy.

FrankMc

Well my reply to that is contained in your answer - the teaching comes from the church Christ established - ie men other than Christ, who have no claim to direct divine knowledge. Had Christ himself provided that account of trinity, it would be wrong to reject it - but he didn't, it's a man-made construction, which does not stem from the divine source of Christ himself. Just because it's an old teaching doesn't make it right.
As to 'God is a triune God', I really don't know what you're on about, again, this is the teaching of men with limited knowledge. These are not Christ's own words. God in His essence cannot be other than absolute unity.
This may not align with scripture, but when the Baha'i explanation is the one that actually makes sense, I question the validity of that scripture. A 'triune God' is incomprehensible to me. A Trinity which encompasses Christ, the Holy Spirit and God, makes sense to me.
I really wonder why you are posting on this forum.

Orthodox

This is the teaching of men whom were taught by men by men by men of the apostles. It is also a concept found within scripture which I could readily establish. ANd I never said because it is old it makes it right. I say that it is maintained by Christ's church which Christ promised to protect makes it right. I would trust men who have a firm historical link to the church instead of a man who came 2000 years later claiming to "correct" something which needed no correcting.

And of course the triune God is incomprehensible, but it is understandable. You can understand the trinity. But not comprehend it. Like the concept of Eternity. Can't comprehend it understand the concept.

I'll explain true trinity to you.

ONe God, ONe divine essence, three distinct co eternal persons within the divine essence. One God, three persons.

and I post here because I want to discuss matters of theological significance of Bahai. So instead of complaining about my presence here, lets discuss, debate, learn and have a good time.

Also we don't need the word or concept to be in scripture or come from Christ explisively. Consider monotheism the word isn't there but the concept certaintly is.

FrankMc

The fundamental difference of opinion here is that for Baha'is, Baha'u'llah is no mere 'man who came 2000 years later' He is the manifestation of God for this day and age, and His teachings supercede what came before, just as the teachings of the Koran superceded what had preceded it. Divine revelation is progressive, and each subsequent revelation expands on the former - Christianity expands on Mosaic law, Islam expands on Christianity, the Baha'i revelation on Islam. With each subsequent revelation comes a greater outpouring of divine knowledge. It doesn't negate what has formerly been said - it expands and clarifies. A good example would be the surah of Joseph in the Koran which opens 'we shall now expound to you the best of all narratives', thus confirming the allegorical significance of the story of Joseph. It's an extrapolation on what was previously known.
I think if you're going to post here, you should really prepare by reading some of Baha'u'llah's writings. I recommend the 'Kitab-i-Iqan' to you. Among other things, it's a clear exposition on the cyclical nature of divine revelation.
And don't make statements like 'I'll explain true trinity to you' and then give an unintelligible account. All you're demonstrating is slavish adherence to dogma. You've explained nothing.

Orthodox

What do you think the orthodox believe? THat Jesus was merely man? No he was teh very God incarnate as man who came so that we may achieve theosis. Islam did not expand on Christianity, if it did it would ahve taught the salvific nature of Christ dying on the cross which is in the gospels and taught by the church so that claim has no meaning.

Unintelligable? The doctrine I espoused makes complete sense. One nature, which is divinity, three persons which are distinct within the one nature have eternally existed make God. Even atheists can understand this. It is a simple concept and there is nothing wrong with it at all.

I have done my fair reading of bahai documents and if you wanted my opinion on some of them you wouldn't want to talk to me again.

FrankMc

You obviously haven't spoken to many atheists recently...
three persons which are distinct within the one nature have eternally existed make God is, I repeat, unintelligible. There is no comparison with the clarity of Abdul Baha's exposition. You are espousing dogma which makes no sense whatsoever.
What are you trying to do on this forum - win converts? As I said in my last post, the Baha'i perspective is that this revelation supercedes what came before it. Many Baha'is come from a Christian background. If that had been satisfactory to them, they wouldn't have come to the Baha'i faith.
You adhere to unintelligible dogma. I prefer a religion with intelligible answers. More than that - to Baha'is, Bahau'llah's revelation is self-evidently of divine origin. If you've read his words and are untouched, you're really to be pitied - clinging to dogma when the self-evident truth is before your eyes.
Take Baha'u'llahs challenge. Read his writings, and try and produce even one sentence like it. Seriously - go ahead and try it. If, as you maintain, he's just a man, it should not be beyond your abilities.
And you can post your results here, and amaze us all:lol

Orthodox

It is perfectly intellegibe because you have not demonstrated otherwise. And alot of bahais go to Christianity, infact I would link you a blog of an orthodox convert from bahai. And intellgible answers certaintly aren't within bahai, simply look at the history of wworld religions sir.

The trinity is perfectly reasonable as a doctrine. You simply don't want to think about it I think. Three distinct persons within one essence or substance. There is nothing complicated in that.

arthra

If you really feel that what Abdul-Baha taught was blasphemy and heresy..then why are you here?

This thread began in 2009 and you seem to feel that it's alright for you to judge and condemn our teachings..

FrankMc

Your claims to wanting 'exchange of ideas' are evidently false, since you clearly hold the Baha'i writings in contempt. It's quite clear you're here attempting to win converts.
Ok, 'sir'. I repeat my former challenge, which you have ignored -
if you hold the writings of Baha'u'llah in such low esteem, then produce one sentence like it, and post it here for all of us to see.

Come on, clever man - just one sentence that matches Baha'ullah's utterance.
Put up or shut up.

Orthodox

So you want me to objectively give you a sentence which can beat the bahai writings? THis is the same rediculous challange the quran offers. There is no way one can objectivly prove one sentance, or a group of words together is better than the other. It is personal opinion. But I would post this wonderful Hymm.



You will not find this convicinving, but your criteria is just silly. I did not come to convert. Whether you believe me or not I don't care. I came to talk and discuss theology. Important concepts. I want bahai to answer important things, as bahai I have talked to before simply ignored the hard questions.

Orthodox

I think it is alright to criticise anything. And likewise defend anything. Views exist to be criticised and defended. If they are true they hold up and if false they tpyically dont. Such as creationism and subjectivism.

pheonixduprese

We don't believe in defending our religion, orthodox. If someone is going to criticize us, then let them do so; it is better than the repercussions guaranteed by heated debate.

Orthodox

So you don't believe in defending the validity of your religion? Well thats fine but it makes me wonder why you became bahai in first place if you didn't engage and ask the really hard questions. How do you expect to ever convince anyone? Or does it not matter?

LarryK32

We don't try to convince anyone. We let them investigate themselves. Be honest. Do you know what 'proselytize' means?

Orthodox

To actively seek to convert one. That being said I didn't come here with that intent. I came here to hear the bahai side, have them defend their religion. And that hasn't happened. That being said larry many people have tried to convince me in this forum and they have all failed. So larry did you not ask hard questions to bahai before you converted? Did they give you the same answer your giving me?

LarryK32

I investigated independently. I read the writings and what they taught. I happened to agree with them. You don't. Lets leave it at that.

pheonixduprese

We don't defend our religion. We don't advertise our religion, for the same reasons that we don't accept donations from people outside of the Faith. We want people to discover the Faith themselves, and we have no need to prove the validity of it, for reasons we have been telling you all along.

Orthodox

Then you have shown me how bahai truely operates. Thank you. But I should say that we should not leave it at "We both dissagree lets go the other way," that doesn't benefit man. That makes man go back in time and actually divides man. UNless we come together and try to work out differences through discussion the bahai dream of world unity will never come to pass.

pheonixduprese

You speak the truth, my friend.

But you have so far not chosen to have "discussion..." you are interested in debate.

Orthodox

It depends on how one defines the word discussion. Discussion typically means talking on topic or topics of interest which can include criticism and etc. Debate likewise can have a similar meaning only debate is typically limited to one topic. Its up to you what we are having. I say we are having a discussion.

cire perdue

Actually it is not incorrect to say that Jesus was God, that Muhammed was God, and Baha'u'llah was God. God has no direct relationship to us, but through the appearence of the Phrophets of God we are able to comprehend God. We are unable to approach God without these Prophets. The difference in the teachings or revelation is based on what man at the time of that revelation is capable of understanding, yet usually the revelation is spiritually "above" them in order to uplift mankind. The Manifestations are "as in a mirror darkly" as found in the Bible. They are a Mirror that reflects God to us who are unable to comprehend our Creator. To say Jesus is God is not incorrect from a Baha'i point of view. However when you see yourself in a mirror, there is still not a direct relationship between you and the mirror. It is the object of these Mirrors to reflect God to us. We can never be of that station. We believe in the Holy Spirit as well.

It is interesting that the Emperor Constantine, a pagan who converted when there were 30 million Christians in his empire, supported the idea that Jesus was consubstantial with God and that the Arian belief that Christ was the Logos or the first creation of God was thrown out. So it is interesting to note that Baha'i beliefs are the same as early Christians until a pagan emperor who might have only grasped religion as he had known it (with gods having children with mortals, disguising themselves and walking among mortals, appearing as swans, and emperors who were declared gods) rather than new concepts that would have been more incomprehensible. Are you aware Cesar was called a son of god? It was one of his titles. There are marble inscriptions of that.

There are probably few western Baha'is who are not aware of Christianity and many who have become more informed about Christianity by being Baha'is. Orthodox, I believe you overreach yourself in many of your posts. It appears you assume we do not know the things you tell us. Most of us know. The previous major world religions were inadequate when it came to describing reality and answering questions about why there are multiple religions and why some are saved and others not. I feel like any disagreement with you will be met with more argument with us. I note in your profile that you like to debate. I feel a bit put upon. I think others do also. If you seek agreement perhaps you should find a Christian forum. I see you repeating yourself regardless of what is said. I see the same arguments from you repeated over and over. One symptom of the decay of a religion is its inability to interpret scripture other than literally. Baha'is do not interpret as literally as you do. I believe you are in error in seeking to correct us. We already know what you think. We are being kind to you. It is okay for you to reject us. Early Christians were rejected. You are dealing with people who believe in a new revelation from God. We are called on to be more loving and serving than the norm, to abolish extremes of wealth and poverty, to accept all men regardless of their circumstances. Baha'is believe when 2 people argue they are both wrong. Aren't you arguing a great deal? There is nothing about Christianity that we as a group do not know. We have rejected the religion of Christianity, accepted Christ, and believe He returned and He unsealed (explained) the Book. I hope you can find somewhere you fit in, you obviously want to give. When someone does not accept any answers we give them, I believe it is because only that person can find answers, because nothing Baha'is say will be accepted. A Biblical reference for spiritual interpretation of scripture is that the people went to John the Baptist and asked him, "Are you Elijah who is to return before the Messiah?" and John denied being Elijah. The people then went to Jesus who informed them that John was Elijah. There is no disagreement or criticism we have not seen. Is it not best to leave to God those who do not agree with you, to let go and let God?

Orthodox

And no, the arian belief was much more confusing than that. It stated Christ was created but was teh greatest creation ever. DO bahai maintain this I don't think so. But you bring the example of Jesus being a reflection of God, but thats not what Christians mean. You misrepresent early christianity and try to avoid the issue. Christians have very clearly defined Jesus as God ONTOLLOGICALLY, that meaning he was literally God, he wasn't an avatar he wasn't an image of God, he was God as John 1.1 pronounces. So no once again these are two contradictory view points. Is Jesus God Ontollogically or is he not God? Answer the qeustion. Either Christianity is a valid way of viewing God or it is not, or two contradictory ideas can be right at the same time cire. I am aware the pagan emperors were called many things, but that does not draw connection sir, Was ceaser called Only begotton son of God? Lord of the sabbath? The Great I am? The First and the last? The one who holds the keys to hades and death? No he wasn't. And Constantine wasn't pagan, it can be assumed that he did not have an in depth knowledge of Christianity but he was certaintly loyal to Jesus, going as so far as to put the chi rho on his soldiers sheilds at the battle of Milan is it? I forget it was a bridge. It makes little sense for a pagan emporer to actively call the greatest council of Christian bishops at tthe time (which by the way had Christians since The diolcetion heresy and 99% of them agreed with trinity). So I have no reason to call St Constantine pagan and neither do you.

And No. lol The early Christians did not maintain a bahai belief, this is utter balony I have read the church fathers sir they maintain Christ as God, as early as St Ignatius of antioch this belief can be found int he fathers. Arianism was a recent heresy it was not taught in the early church it originated with Arrius, hence where we get the name. Arrianism.

ANd I dispute your claim they know more of Christianity. If that were true they would understand what I mean by trinity and I wouldn't have to continuesly clarify myself. Bahai only know a simplified version in which they can say our two religions agree! You yourself just did it by calling Jesus God yet not knowing that he is LITERALLY God as all Christians maintain.

Wait a minute what you are saying about rejecting Christianity is weird because every one else says that Christianity is true and right? Are bahais divided on this opinion because now I really am confused. And that being said you misinterpret my reasons for coming here yet again. I came to get answers from BAHAI, not refute bahai. I have hard questions about bahai and they remain unanswered. But Perhaps I should go away from people who refuse to answer questions.

Orthodox

ONe more thing, why do you take the reference of JOhn the baptist and apply that to the rest of scripture? Yes he was seen as Elijah but obviously not literally, but there is then no reason to apply this to the rest of the gospels. especially when they are so literal. the easiest answer is that he wasn't Elijah literally but was an Elijah like figure for that age as John clearly rejects being Elijah. Bahais reading the scripture. lol

pheonixduprese

You are becoming offensive, challenging our competence and, roundaboutly, our personal opinions.

Please, you seem to not be contributing to the community here; begin contributing quality things, or leave.

Orthodox

Well It might have been a bit cocky of me, so I won't do so again in the future. But honestly that reading of the scripture was absurd. I could do the same with the bahai writings and you would clearly reject would you not? I don't regret saying that but I will be more careful in the future thank you.

Did you read all my post or just that part? Because the rest of my post was quite contributive, it dealt with facts of the church, and corrected what cire said.

pheonixduprese

I did, of course, read all of your post, but this is trivial and unrelated.