The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[Ahanu]

So before the mid fourth century everyone believed in a solid firmament in Christian circles.



Scripture tells us it is solid.

The idea of the sky above us as a solid structure is shared by almost all pre-modern human cultures. It is best understood as a product of the pre-scientific mind, attempting to make sense of what it sees and offering an intuitive, though factually incorrect, account.

The sky is blue because it is full of water, like the sea.[1] Water doesn’t fall on us because something is holding it up, and that something is transparent, since we can see the blue hue of the liquid behind it.[2] This barrier is dome shaped, since we see the heavens above curving into the horizon and meeting the flat earth.

This understanding is so ubiquitous that some anthropologists consider it a “general human belief.”[3] As Paul Seely, a Bible scholar who works on the intersection of ANE literature and science, writes:

My Encounter with the Firmament - TheTorah.com

The Torah describes God’s fashioning the firmament (רקיע) on the second day of creation. This piece of the universe, however, doesn’t actually exist—a problem obfuscated in my yeshiva ed-ucation. | Oren Fass M.D.

www.thetorah.com

For instance, the air does not separate “water from water” as the verse states, nor would air or clouds exist prior to the creation of the sun and moon on day (time period) four in any cosmology that wanted to at least pretend to be scientific. Additionally, the word rakia simply does not mean air or clouds. Insofar as clouds, the Bible uses the term anan (ענן) or av (עב), not rakia. Moreover, the creation story in Genesis 1 clearly describes that whereas the sun, moon, and stars are placed in the rakia (בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם), birds—who fly through the air—are placed below the rakia (עַל פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם; literally “on the face of the heaven’s firmament”). Thus, rakia cannot refer to air. Moreover, as the Talmud already notes[18] and contemporary biblical lexica such as BDB and HALOT affirm, the etymology of the word rakia connects it with the activity of “hammering out” of a solid material, as would be done to turn tin or copper into a flattened dome. They are obviously not picturing air and clouds.[19]

 

[Thomas]

A good example is where Origen says the resurrected body will reside. He believed that the spiritual body could not exist in the same physical space as the earthly body, so your new body will be "suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven," which are located above the physical firmament.

OK. Do remember that Origen is not doctrine ...

Origen, it can be argued, saw the 'resurrected body' as purely a spiritual body, a body shaped by its eidos or form, the pattern of the soul. Therefore there is some identification between the person who died, and their resurrected body, but Origen does not – perhaps – therefore believe a resurrected flesh.

The Church however, generally believed in a bodily resurrection being a resurrection of the flesh, even though it was clear that the flesh of a particular person would have decomposed and 'vanished' into the earth.

 

[Thomas]

Can I just interject here ... you're spending a great deal of time discussing historical understandings of the nature of the world ... what's your point?

 

[Ahanu]

Can I just interject here ... you're spending a great deal of time discussing historical understandings of the nature of the world ... what's your point?

The "language of symbol" that "is common to all spiritual traditions" is not clear at all, as early Christian texts about spirituality prove to us. As Origen - a prominent early Christian theologian - shows us, there was a strong emphasis on literal interpretation, such as the descent of the Holy Spirit as a real, actual dove. Early Christian writers, such Justin Martyr, provide clear examples of a more literal approach to sacred texts than what you describe about words like "descend," "ascend," and "enter."

Therefore, considering that they are closer to the recorded events, we have to take Luke at his word when he wrote that "the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit came down in a bodily appearance, as if a dove, upon him." The imagery suggests physical descent and a physical dove. One would even think the dove to be a symbol. Abdu'l-Baha said: "Thus it is evident that the dove which descended upon Christ was not a physical dove but a spiritual condition expressed, for the sake of comprehension, by a sensible figure." He provides an additional example drive home the point: "For example, in the Old Testament it is said that God appeared as a pillar of fire. Now, that which is intended is not a sensible form but an intelligible reality that has been expressed in such a form." Not so with early Christians. Tertullian said:

Luke believed that the solid firmament opened to let the dove in and, uh, descend. Not just figuratively, but literally too.

 

[wil]

was but a messenger

That is the crux of the biscuit eh?

Therein lies differences...

Jews are waiting for a messiah
Christians believe they go on and are awaiting a return visit.
Muslims say nah, he was just another Jewish Prophet like our guy.
And Baha'i say our guys say your guys are all saying the same thing.

Folks like me say that we think yall make some good points, some really good ones that I can use....some others not so much.

I wouldn't etch it all in stone or net my life on it, oh yall ready did...oh.
.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

That is the crux of the biscuit eh?

Therein lies differences...

Jews are waiting for a messiah
Christians believe they go on and are awaiting a return visit.
Muslims say nah, he was just another Jewish Prophet like our guy.
And Baha'i say our guys say your guys are all saying the same thing.

Folks like me say that we think yall make some good points, some really good ones that I can use....some others not so much.

I wouldn't etch it all in stone or net my life on it, oh yall ready did...oh.
.

Setting ones foundation in faith om stone is the aim, as setting it on sand is warned against. The crux is no one has ever seen God, but we have seen the Messengers/Annointed Ones which have claimed they have given us a Message from God.

Therein lays all the complexities of Faith. The quandary of our choice between true and false prophets. The quandary of embracing the Spirit and not the flesh.

Baha'u'llah gave is more insights into how Gods interaction with humanity, these truths are in hidden meanings within tge ancient scriptures, and it was promissed that these meanings will be eventually given. Bible passages are available to support that reasoning.

All the best, Regards Tony

 

[wil]

The crux is no one has ever seen God, but we have seen the Messengers/Annointed Ones which have claimed they have given us a Message from God.

This I cannot refrutr and agree with.

 

[Thomas]

Luke believed that the solid firmament opened to let the dove in and, uh, descend. Not just figuratively, but literally too.

Yes, a miracle ...

 

[Ahanu]

Yes, a miracle ...

So, God miraculously transformed the solid firmament into a non-solid state, altering the manner in which heavenly beings descend to Earth through openings gates. In the modern era, this descent is no longer literally a physical movement up or down, but rather a figurative representation of a more profound spiritual or metaphysical process. It is indeed miraculous . . .

 

[Thomas]

In the modern era, this descent is no longer literally a physical movement up or down, but rather a figurative representation of a more profound spiritual or metaphysical process. It is indeed miraculous . . .

OK, I can see how you reason that.

Rather than thinking in terms of 'this or that' (eg. literal or figurative, spiritual or physical), I try to look in a 'this and that' way – that has consistently led me to the deeper insights of Scripture.

Putting the 'stumbling blocks' aside, we have the 'heavens opening' – something from 'outside' this world or aeon – manifesting itself within it. I emphasise 'outside' because the reality is the opposite – we are contained within the greater, rather than ab extra.

 

[Ahanu]

OK. Do remember that Origen is not doctrine ...

Origen, it can be argued, saw the 'resurrected body' as purely a spiritual body, a body shaped by its eidos or form, the pattern of the soul. Therefore there is some identification between the person who died, and their resurrected body, but Origen does not – perhaps – therefore believe a resurrected flesh.

The Church however, generally believed in a bodily resurrection being a resurrection of the flesh, even though it was clear that the flesh of a particular person would have decomposed and 'vanished' into the earth.

Resurrected "in the flesh" or not, it does not significantly change the cosmological outlook of ancient Christians in regard to "up" really meaning up. Least we get caught up in so-and-so is not doctrine, we can simply look at the words of Paul or words attributed to him for hints.

We saw earlier that not only was Origen influenced by Platonic philosophy, but Paul was too. As noted earlier, we see multiple heavens in his Platonic cosmology (2 Cor. 12.2–4). He believes "we were enslaved by the elements of the cosmos” when we were children (Gal 4.3). This enslavement to the elements of the cosmos is similar to what you would find in Plutarch or Philo - both thinkers strongly influenced by Greek thought. His use of terms like "powers" (exousia), "principalities" (archai), and "rulers of this age" (kosmokratores) in 1 Corinthians 15 echoes Platonic concepts of cosmic hierarchies and the influence of evil forces.

Strangely, according to a follower of Paul, these evil forces can inhabit the air, which is the sublunar realm (Ephesians 2.2, 6.11). Other early Christians echo this as well. Athenagoras of Athens, for example, said fallen angels "haunt the air and the earth." Christ inhabits a realm higher up, not another dimension. Paul's clear about that: "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor archons nor powers … nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom. 8:39) Here "height" and "depth" refer to the heights and depths of different layers of the cosmos.

 

[TheLightWithin]

OK. Do remember that Origen is not doctrine ...

Origen, it can be argued, saw the 'resurrected body' as purely a spiritual body, a body shaped by its eidos or form, the pattern of the soul. Therefore there is some identification between the person who died, and their resurrected body, but Origen does not – perhaps – therefore believe a resurrected flesh.

The Church however, generally believed in a bodily resurrection being a resurrection of the flesh, even though it was clear that the flesh of a particular person would have decomposed and 'vanished' into the earth.

Doesn't it say somewhere in Paul's writings that the resurrection is to a spiritual body?

 

[Ahanu]

Doesn't it say somewhere in Paul's writings that the resurrection is to a spiritual body?

Lol! I was trying to avoid that debate, but, yes, there is a good argument for that.

 

[Thomas]

Doesn't it say somewhere in Paul's writings that the resurrection is to a spiritual body?

Well to be clear, the resurrection is of a physical body, but this time round the spirit takes precedence, and conforms the physical materiality accordingly.

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the cosmos, as to give the Son, the only one, that everyone having faith in him might not perish, but might have the life of the Age. For God sent the Son into the cosmos not that he might pass judgement on the cosmos, but that the cosmos might be saved through him."

The spiritual life is not a flight from the world, it is not the Plotinian flight 'of the alone to the Alone' – rather it is all-in-all ... the world is essentially and inherently a good, but mired by sin ... in removing sin, it is not the intention to remove the world, or the human being from it.

 

[Ahanu]

Well to be clear, the resurrection is of a physical body, but this time round the spirit takes precedence, and conforms the physical materiality accordingly.

John 3:16-17 "For God so loved the cosmos, as to give the Son, the only one, that everyone having faith in him might not perish, but might have the life of the Age. For God sent the Son into the cosmos not that he might pass judgement on the cosmos, but that the cosmos might be saved through him."

The spiritual life is not a flight from the world, it is not the Plotinian flight 'of the alone to the Alone' – rather it is all-in-all ... the world is essentially and inherently a good, but mired by sin ... in removing sin, it is not the intention to remove the world, or the human being from it.

To be clear? What kind of physical body? Therein lies the rub. It's still a body made of spirit that is composed of some sort of fine matter that Paul believes will ascend to the stars. This type of matter is what the gods and stars are made out of in Pauline thought. Any concept of Christ's body "dissolving" into another dimension is foreign to Paul.

 

[Thomas]

To be clear? What kind of physical body? Therein lies the rub.

A physical body in union with the spiritual so that they are one body.

It's still a body made of spirit that is composed of some sort of fine matter that Paul believes will ascend to the stars.

Is that in Paul's writing?

This type of matter is what the gods and stars are made out of in Pauline thought.

Is it?

Any concept of Christ's body "dissolving" into another dimension is foreign to Paul.

It's foreign to us all, I think?

 

[Ahanu]

A physical body in union with the spiritual so that they are one body.


Is that in Paul's writing?

A pneumatic body.

"In his supramundane state, Christ had been in “god-form” before his descent into “slave-form” (μορφὴ θεοῦ/μορφὴ δούλου, Phil 2:6–7), that is, into a body of flesh and blood. Presumably, in his postmortem manifestations—the only way that Paul would have experienced him—Jesus appeared in or as his pre-descent, god-form, a σῶμα πνευματικόv (which was the sort of body that characterized ancient divinity more generally). Transformation into pneumatic body, Paul taught, was guaranteed to believers whether living or dead: flesh and blood (“which cannot inherit the Kingdom of God”) would transition into spirit (1 Cor 15:50, cf. v. 44; Rom 8:29).4"
-Paula Fredriksen

Is it?

""Reviewingthe days of creation, Philo observes that, when establishing the firmament, Godcreated “the most holy dwelling place of the manifest and visible gods” (θεῶνἐμφανῶν τε καὶ αἰσθητῶν, Opif. 7.27). This cosmic realm is made of “the purest ουσία [substance],” as befits its holy tenants, the stars and planets."

". . . transformed into bodies of πνεῦμα, Paul proclaims, the redeemed will enter their celestial commonwealth, ascending ἐν οὐρανοῖς above the lunar border, to God’s kingdom (Phil 3:20–21; 1 Cor 15:20-44).59

59 For Paul’s ideas on pneuma, star-bodies, and sidereal redemption, see esp. Thiessen, Paul and the Gentile Problem, 133–60. Believers will meet the returning Christ in the sublunar “air” (1 Thes 4:17) then, transforming into pneumatic body, they will ascend even higher, to the upper heavens (ἐν οὐρανοῖς, Phil 3:20)."
-Paula Fredriksen

Up means up.

It's foreign to us all, I think?

No. I'll pull up some quotes later if you like.

 

[Ahanu]

Is it?

"In my own reading of Paul, I find it very suggestive that when he talks about the resurrected body, he speaks of it as a pneumatic body in the same context that he compares the resurrected body to astral bodies—sun, stars, and moon (1 Corinthians 15:35–49). To become a heavenly being and to enjoy the heavenly realm, one must become like the heavenly realm.

Here ancient scientists, following Aristotle, speak often of a fifth element of the cosmos, aether. Aetherial, heavenly bodies are material, but made of the best kind of matter—immortal, unchangeable, indestructible. Paul doesn’t use that language, but he uses the language of stars, and glory (doxa), and pneuma. And he uses the same language of the pneumatic bodies of the resurrection that ancient scientists do of aether."
-Thiessen

 

[Ahanu]

@Thomas

For example, RJM wrote:

I understand it [Christ's ascension] in the sense His natural physical resurrected body dissolved back into the Spirit, which surrounds and contains and permeates nature.

Spirit weaves nature. The Christ (Son) chose to incarnate in nature and when his mission was accomplished he returned to the Father (Spirit) from whence He came.

Spirit weaves nature, according to RJM, because it is in a higher dimension:

Well, my attitude here is that The Christ link between Spirit and nature, God and man, was begotten of Spirit before time began, and was and is therefore part of the (continuing) weaving of the temporal and physical dimension of nature by the eternal dimension of Spirit that surrounds and contains and permeates nature, like a room in a house.

Also, he wrote:

However both apply only to the ever-changing material universe (created world order) of time and space that ends in death. The eternal dimension of Spirit surrounds and contains and permeates the temporal dimension of Nature, as a house contains a room.

The walls of the room of nature (the created universe) are walls of time and space. There are many, perhaps infinite other dimensions within the greater house of spirit. Nature is just one of them.

My Father's house has many mansions.

And he wrote:

This timespace dimension of nature in which we are aware is just one of many other dimensions that interweave. There are great angelic multi-dimensional beings not limited by space and time, able to move between worlds and dimensions, imo. They might choose to reveal themselves to certain 'seers' or to remain hidden from man.

If he has not changed his opinion since then, I would conclude he has clearly left Pauline Christianity. It's distortion and manipulation of Pauline thought. These beings aren't in other dimensions. I say: "Look up. You will find them there according to Paul."

 

[Ahanu]

If he has not changed his opinion since then, I would conclude he has clearly left Pauline Christianity. It's distortion and manipulation of Pauline thought. These beings aren't in other dimensions. I say: "Look up. You will find them there according to Paul."

Well, I shouldn't imply he has abandoned Pauline Christianity completely. It's just not a full-fledged version. The same goes for any modern Catholic saying the ascension was only figurative or that Christ physically ascended and dissolved into another dimension.