A Catholic Reply to the Commentary on Verses of John by Abdu’l-Bahá

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

As long as it's through the words of Baha'u'llah? No matter what anyone else thinks or believes -- it's all about Baha'u'llah for the next 1000 years?

The Bible also asks us to Test those that speak in the Name of God, so that will always be a choice RJM, as a Declaration was made by Baha'u'llah. There is no Compulsion to do so, other than the desire to do as Jesus Christ asked us to do.

The world is shaped by our collective choices.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

The Bible also asks us to Test those that speak in the Name of God,

Been there, done that -- Baha'u'llah fails, imo

IMO it would help if the 'offered' teachings of the divine new messiah were translated into intelligible form, instead of pseudo olde-worlde language millions and millions of words and pages

Logging out now

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Without broadening the discussion too far, how do you sit with Abdu'l-Baha's commentary that says:


Not according to the Hebrew Scriptures nor the New Testament.


Two things here:
1: When Scripture talks of the Spirit and a person, the two are distinct – a prophet is not the Holy Spirit personified or embodied – the two, the Spirit and the prophet, are quite distinct.
2: In saying 'conventionally said in speech and conversation' he's now talking in general and not Scriptural language, but then conflates the two.


Again, clearly not so. Throughout Scripture God speaks, angels speak ... from Genesis 1:3 on ...

I'm sorry, but this does rather speak of sophistry to me, not to explain Scripture but to explain it away ...

I see it is all explained in this diagram.

The Mirrors representing all the Messengers throughout the ages.

Regards Tony

 

[Ahanu]

It's quite simple, it means 'advocate' or 'comforter' – it was an understood in Hebrew

Thanks.

However, I wish it were that simple. I still don't fully understand what the word means. When we learn a new word, it also has connotations too. What does the word connote in that time period? What would immediately come to mind when hearing this term in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic if I were living in Jesus' social context? Because we do not understand the cultural code, we have scholars like Israel Knohl believing the Hebrew word was menahem, alluding to Menahem the Essene. Is the text preserving a tradition about "another Menahem" then? Does it retain a bit of historical allusion to this previous leader? What does that imply? It is important to understand the cultural code. Otherwise we'll read into John what is not there or miss the point entirely. To illustrate the problem, imagine you enter a new city like London where you have never encountered escalators. A sign reads: "Dogs must be carried on the escalator." Inhabitants of the city know it only applies to people that just so happen to have a dog. These people with dogs must carry their pets while on the escalator. The sign could be read other ways, resulting in a misreading. It could be read to mean you can only ride the escalator if you carry a dog. This particular misreading is unlikely to happen since we are all familiar with the cultural code, but if I were not familiar with it, then a misreading of the sign can occur. I do not understand the cultural code packed into words like paraclete/menahem/pârûqâ.

 

[wil]

Jesus is The Christ, in the same way one might say that Mohammed (pbuh) is The Prophet, or that Moses is The Lawgiver

Thomas The Christ
Tony The Christ
You are The Christ
I am The Christ

In my understanding we all have access to our highercellves, our perfect nature. It is we (and not any devil critter) that choose to live in this world.

Very few can live in this world but not of it.

Some in order to make the attempt separate themcellves in monasteries, or ashrams, madrasses, to study all the time....reducing temptation...OK for some, sorta cheating in my view.

 

[wil]

I see it is all explained in this diagram.

View attachment 3484
The Mirrors representing all the Messengers throughout the ages.

Regards Tony

I see that as everyone we meet. They are all our messengers, if you use our eyes to see and our ears to hear....but we most often use our mouths to speak eh?

 

[Thomas]

I see that Unity experienced was of One God.
Therein lays the final connection. At that moment one transcends Names and connects to the Glory that is of God.

Exactly – and me a Catholic and him a Sikh – what does that tell us?

 

[Thomas]

Thomas The Christ
Tony The Christ
You are The Christ
I am The Christ

In my understanding we all have access to our highercellves, our perfect nature.

We're talking about transcending nature, Wil, there's the rub.

 

[Thomas]

I see it is all explained in this diagram.

For me, as a symbologist, the diagram lacks precision is expressing the relationship between Creator and created nature.

When discussing the Transcendent, the Point stands above, the apex of a triangle, the referent points along the base.

When discussing the Immanent, the Point is in the centre of the circle, the referent points on the circumference.

Combined, you have a cone, and a spiral ... and so on through subsequent illustrations, such as the mandala and the maze, but in all these the transcendent/immanent are principle.

Once the diagram is corrected, Abdu'l-Baha's error is made evident – he seems to refute both the descent of the transcendent, and the presence of Immanence – so this is not simply refuting a Christian doctrine, he's refuting universal metaphysics – any spokesperson for any spiritual tradition would drive a horse and cart through his verbosity.

Any Hindu would correct it, any kabbalist would too, any Sufi, any Hermeticist, any Platonist ... take your pick.

+++

I looked at translations of the text in Farsi and Arabic, and allow that there is a really in-depth knowledge and sense of what Abdu'l-Baha is saying to express what he's talking about accurately – so I am fully prepared to admit this is a bad translation – but then someone needs to correct it.

 

[Thomas]

Thanks.

However, I wish it were that simple.

There's a perfectly adequate explanation here – albeit wiki – but plenty of links to other commentary.

I particularly like these footnote references, which answer your point about whether He is there or not:

Brown, Raymond Edward, ed. The gospel according to John. Vol. 29. Cambridge University Press, 1970, 1141. Brown writes; "Thus, the one whom John calls "another Paraclete" is another Jesus. Since the Paraclete can come only when Jesus departs, the Paraclete is the presence of Jesus when Jesus is absent. Jesus' promises to dwell within his disciples are"

Kinn, James W. The Spirit of Jesus in Scripture and prayer. Rowman & Littlefield, 2004, 60. Winn writes; "Second, the whole complex of parallels above leads Raymond Brown to a more profound conclusion: the Holy Spirit continues the presence of Jesus. Thus the one whom Jesus calls "another Paraclete" is in many ways another Jesus, ."

Johnston, George. The spirit-paraclete in the gospel of John. Vol. 12. Cambridge University Press, 2005, 94. Johnston writes; "Brown cannot regard such parallelism as coincidental, and he is perfectly correct. His conclusion is that 'as "another Paraclete" the Paraclete is, as it were, another Jesus ... and the Paraclete is the presence of Jesus when Jesus is "

Marthaler, Berard L. The creed: The apostolic faith in contemporary theology. Twenty-Third Publications, 1993, 275. Marthaler writes; "Thus," writes Brown, "the one whom John calls 'another Paraclete' is another Jesus."17 The Paraclete is the presence of God in the world when Jesus ascends to the Father."

 

[Ahanu]

That's clever @Ahanu

But as Christ also speaks of the Father and of Satan in anthropomorphic terms as 'he'

The Baptist says he "saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him" (John 1:32). What does it mean for the Holy Spirit - a term not really mentioned much in the OT but found a lot in the DSS - to rest on him? Other translations have remain, dwell, or stay in place of rest. Now the Gospels do mention the dome of the sky cracked open to let the Spirit in. Not sure how far you are willing to go with your literal reading here . . .

Anyway, the fact the author mentioned this here is unnecessary if the Holy Spirit speaks without a human vessel to speak through. The writers of the Gospels seem to be wasting a lot of valuable ink if what you say is true in my opinion.

and considering the context of the passage where he is speaking directly to the living apostles,

Not sure why you emphasize "living" apostles. If they have eternal life, they are always living (Matt. 22.32). The Qur'an has a similar concept: "And say not of those who are slain in the way of God, 'They are dead.' Nay, they are alive, but you are unaware" (2.154).

and considering the later gospel account of the coming to the same apostles of the Holy Spirit as tongues of fire at pentecost

Abdu'l-Baha also affirms this, saying:

"[T]he Holy Spirit endowed the Apostles with the tongue of the Kingdom . . ."
(Twelve Table Talks given by ‘Abdu’l‑Bahá in ‘Akká)
www.bahai.org/r/381860614

to manipulate it to remotely arrive at the meaning of the Holy Spirit requiring human embodiment in order to 'speak', although I do not personally arrive at that intended meaning

So the Spirit cannot rest where it wants. It is restricted by the Trinity. Got it.

 

[wil]

We're talking about transcending nature, Wil, there's the rub.

Thomas The Christ

You transcend nature...

Can you truly deny your knowledge of same from our elder brother and wayshower...has not assisted you in this regard?

We read he had his doubts Thomas.

None are perfect but the Father (albeit our understandings differ)

 

[RJM]

So the Spirit cannot rest where it wants. It is restricted by the Trinity. Got it.

Manipulate, manipulate, manipulate to try to make the scriptures say what you want them to -- no doubt the desperate will manage to find a way. The Holy Spirit -- God -- rests upon whomever it chooses, and speaks in whatever way it chooses*

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit.” John 3:8

The Holy Spirit -- God -- is certainly not going to be restricted in its expression to the written words of Baha'u'llah for the next 800 years IMO

Anyway, I'm not a theologian and not equipped for detailed scriptural wrangling, so I'll just read from now on, lol

*Any time, any place, any religion -- or no religion, imo

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Exactly – and me a Catholic and him a Sikh – what does that tell us?

It tells me we are able to embrace our One God and find a unity in our diversity, on a Global scale.

There are many called to this Oneness, but it's reality lays beyond any devisional thoughts that we may have created. I do not think any thoughts that our faith, or any Faith is superior in understanding, can stand up to a sincere and heart born oneness in God

I see the near future will eventually be built upon a unity founded in our diversity, that does not necessarily transcend our nature and nurture. I see a Most Great Peace will achieve that goal.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

For me, as a symbologist, the diagram lacks precision is expressing the relationship between Creator and created nature.

Have you read the provisional translation of the "Tablet of the Universe" by Abdul'baha?

Spoiler: Here

https://bahai-library.com/abdul-baha_lawh_aflakiyyih

Yes the diagram is not complete. It is an example of how God does not need to decend for us to witness the Light and Attributes of God through the Annointed 'Self of God".

I truly and humbly ask Thomas, do we know anything of God but what Jesus the Christ displayed as the example of the Names and Attributes and What the Jesus and the Prophets have written? Can any concept we have of God transcend the knowledge of Jesus the Christ?

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

Have you read the provisional translation of the "Tablet of the Universe" by Abdul'baha?

I have just now skimnmed through it, and note that he contradicts his own statement in the document referred to above with regarding to ascending and descending – so this leaves me with a problem – assuming he's not contradicting himself, he's making conditional statements. So to get to grips with what he actually means, you'd have to read everything, and better if you could read it in its native language.

That's an issue for me ... too verbose, and lacking in metaphysical rigour.

Yes the diagram is not complete. It is an example of how God does not need to decend for us to witness the Light and Attributes of God through the Annointed 'Self of God".

No, it's wrong because of it's metaphysical inexactitude.

In common language, your 'manifestations of God' are prophets, but prophets do not declare themselves 'manifestations of God', so I wonder why that is said?

To be annointed is to be ordained in an office (prophet, priest or king) by the will and power of God – specifically by the power of the Holy Spirit of God – and everywhere Hebrew, Christian and Islamic Scripture, this is spoken of in terms of ascent and descent.

Nowhere does a prophet describe himself as a 'self of God'.

The language of ascent and descent, of the above and the below, inward and outward, is universal, its unequivocal. It's there and axiomatic to every authentic spiritual tradition. Why he should choose to deny it can only be in pursuit of an agenda – and that is clear.

+++

I truly and humbly ask Thomas, do we know anything of God but what Jesus the Christ displayed as the example of the Names and Attributes and What the Jesus and the Prophets have written?

Yes. The Book of Nature.

'Pagans', to use an inadequate and innacurate term, had an insight, a knowledge, a most profound sense of God through means other than the Bible. You can't write that off ...

Can any concept we have of God transcend the knowledge of Jesus the Christ?

No ...

... which is why I can only humbly wonder why you choose to ignore the clear implication of the words of Christ, in favour of a human rationalising that depends on – as I have argued – flawed argument?

If you wish to continue the discussion, please don't quote more texts at me.

Better to go back to my initial critique, and point out the flaws in that.

 

[Thomas]

I truly and humbly ask Thomas, do we know anything of God but what Jesus the Christ displayed as the example of the Names and Attributes and What the Jesus and the Prophets have written? Can any concept we have of God transcend the knowledge of Jesus the Christ?

To put it bluntly – when it comes to what Jesus has written (your words), and what someone else has written, if the two do not coincide, then for me that casts doubt upon the the other.

 

[Faithfulservant]

The Baptist says he "saw the Holy Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and resting upon him" (John 1:32). What does it mean for the Holy Spirit - a term not really mentioned much in the OT

I feel the need to correct this. As the term Ruach Elohim - Spirit of God was very active in the OT.

https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/blog/the-holy-spirit-in-the-old-testament/

 

[Thomas]

Thomas The Christ

Nope.

Thomas in Christ, yep.

You transcend nature...

Something cannot transcend its own nature, that's illogical.

 

[Ahanu]

I feel the need to correct this. As the term Ruach Elohim - Spirit of God was very active in the OT.

https://www.thomasnelsonbibles.com/blog/the-holy-spirit-in-the-old-testament/

I am not referring to that phrase. The phrase holy spirit (qōḏeš rûaḥ) only occurs three times in the OT as far as I know:

But they rebelled
and grieved His Holy Spirit.
So He became their enemy
and fought against them.
Then He remembered the days of the past,
the days of Moses and his people.
Where is He who brought them out of the sea
with the shepherds of His flock?
Where is He who put His Holy Spirit among the flock?
(Isa. 63.10-11)

Do not banish me from Your presence
or take Your Holy Spirit from me.
(Ps. 51.11)