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

[Thomas]

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.

I think you couldn't be more wrong.

Living in a monastic community is as about as tough as it gets. It requires living every virtue to be full-on – love of the other, humility, charity, and so on – there's no escape.

Living in the 'real world' we can kid ourselves. You can't in the cloister, it's always in your face.

+++

The manifestation of ills in the ranks of the ordained is not so much a problem of the ordained life, as an issue with the fact that many entered the life not with a vocation, but because they were sons and daughters without inheritance. It's not the life is wrong, it's that they're not suited to it.

+++

 

[wil]

Living in a monastic community is as about as tough as it gets. It requires living every virtue to be full-on – love of the other, humility, charity, and so on – there's no escape.

no escape...exactly.

Now living in the world but not of it i see as different...that was my point.

It had it's value and I am certain that many monks are not running away.

I don't think they are running away. I do think it has value.

Nor do I think it an easy life.

But I think it is easier for sn alcoholic if there is no booze around to temp them.

That was my reference to "cheating" without television or speaking, or material temptations it makes focus on study and meditation a tad easier without the distractions.

 

[RJM]

no escape...exactly.

Now living in the world but not of it i see as different...that was my point.



I don't think they are running away. I do think it has value.

Nor do I think it an easy life.

But I think it is easier for sn alcoholic if there is no booze around to temp them.

That was my reference to "cheating" without television or speaking, or material temptations it makes focus on study and meditation a tad easier without the distractions.

Perhaps it's more about the contemplative space to connect with the divine? Monks, from all faiths, are not about changing the world or society, they are about finding personal connection with the divine, in silence and meditation?

They preserve the scriptures from adulteration, they protect the shell of the nut?

 

[Ahanu]

2: In saying 'conventionally said in speech and conversation' he's now talking in general and not Scriptural language, but then conflates the two.

I see nothing wrong with it.

Since a few days have passed since my last post, I will quote the English translation of what Abdu'l-Baha said to Laura Clifford Barney - who was not a learned theologian like you, Thomas. Abdu'l-Baha said:

"Moreover, in certain passages of the Sacred Scriptures where allusion is made to the Spirit, a specific person is intended, as it is conventionally said in speech and conversation that such-and-such a person is spirit personified, or is the embodiment of mercy and generosity. In this case the focus is not upon the lamp but upon the light."

I think we see similar concepts in the Gospels:

"King Herod heard of this, because Jesus’ name had become well known. Some said, 'John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that’s why supernatural powers are at work in him.' But others said, 'He’s Elijah.' Still others said, 'He’s a prophet—like one of the prophets'" (Mark 6.14-15).

Here we have this idea Jesus is Elijah according to "some" Jews. But in what sense? Now what did these "others" here think when they said Jesus is Elijah? The text doesn't go into detail. Like usual, the writer leaves it up to the reader or listener to decide. There seems to be an assumed cultural code us moderns are not privy to in this depicted scene. On a related topic Abdu'l-Baha explains his reading and understanding of John the Baptist being referred to as Elijah here:

We will explain this subject using the text of the Gospel. It is recorded therein that when John the son of Zacharias appeared and announced unto the people the advent of the Kingdom of God, they asked him, “Who art thou? Art thou the promised Messiah?” He replied, “I am not the Messiah.” They then asked him, “Art thou Elias?” He replied, “I am not.”104 These words clearly establish that John the son of Zacharias was not the promised Elias.

4 But on the day of the transfiguration on Mount Tabor, Christ explicitly said that John the son of Zacharias was the promised Elias. In Mark 9:11 it is said: “And they asked Him, saying, Why say the scribes that Elias must first come? And He answered and told them, Elias verily cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is written of the Son of man, that He must suffer many things, and be set at naught. But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed.” And in Matthew 17:13 it is said: “Then the disciples understood that He spake unto them of John the Baptist.”

5 Now, they asked John the Baptist, “Art thou Elias?” and he answered, “I am not”, whereas it is said in the Gospel that John was the promised Elias himself, and Christ clearly stated this as well. If John was Elias, why did he say he was not, and if he was not Elias, why did Christ say he was?

6 The reason is that we consider here not the individuality of the person but the reality of his perfections—that is to say, the very same perfections that Elias possessed were realized in John the Baptist as well. Thus John the Baptist was the promised Elias. What is being considered here is not the essence105 but the attributes.
(Some Answered Questions)
www.bahai.org/r/007000869

So when the spirit of Elijah manifested itself, it was made manifest through John's "perfections" and "attributes." Could the case be similar with others that said Jesus is Elijah? Now we're talking a language I can understand. Otherwise it is simply superstition in my opinion. What else could it sensibly mean? There is no other sensible interpretation.

According to Luke, others said "that one of the ancient prophets had risen" (9.7). Again, we come across this idea of a spirit returning. Maybe "some" thought it was the actual body of the deceased prophet that was made alive again or one that descended from the physical heavens above. Heck if I know . . .

Anyway, onwards to the Holy Spirit soon . . .

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 ...

"Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." I still don't imagine a disembodied voice - in English, Hebrew, or whatever - filling the void and saying that aloud. Anyway, someone's heart is always translating what God "says" into human language whenever we read "God said" anything, and that someone always has a tongue to speak and ears to hear, so we are back where we started at the beginning of our journey in this thread, my friend. I am not saying God has a body - just saying God speaks through people.

Again, consider the following verse in Mark 12.36 for a simple example:

"David himself says by/in/with the Holy Spirit:

The Lord declared to my Lord,
‘Sit at My right hand
until I put Your enemies under Your feet.'"

Why does David himself say anything by/in/with the Holy Spirit if he himself is an unnecessary conduit?

What's an angel?

The idea Christians faithfully keep scriptural language to a tee is nonsense. No professional Christian in the field of medical science speaks of disembodied spirits possessing someone. All scriptural language has been discarded in such a setting. Despite demonic possession in the Gospels, I do not hear you talking about demonic possession today when referring to psychological trauma and the like (as they would have been spoken of 2,000 years ago). My point is that Christians transform scriptural language into conversational language all the time whether they realize it or not. Our understanding of our own consciousness has evolved tremendously since the Gospels were first written. No need to exchange inner realities for external ones like the ancient Greeks did with their gods.

 

[Ahanu]

It's a fair point, but a poor article, unfortunately (and yes, it would no doubt be staggering to hear 1st century voices).

So critical was Papias to the church’s historical memory that it is amazing that he is not recalled as a pivotal Church Father,
He is counted among the Fathers, but not pivotal because basically his contribution is historical and not doctrinal – the pivotal fathers, or Doctors of the Church, left significant theological and doctrinal works and that marks them apart.

Okay.

However, he had the misfortune to hold chiliastic ideas ... He may well have been reflecting views widely held in the mainstream church of his time.
He may, or may not. He was not alone in that.

Okay.

As the years progressed, though, he was retroactively labeled a heretic, and by the fourth century Eusebius dismisses him as a bumbler of small intelligence.
I can't find any reference to Papias being accused of heresy? Eusebius clearly had a very low opinion of him, it seems.

You are correct. I couldn't find any reference to Papias being labeled a heretic either. I guess the writer is probably referring to chiliastic ideas themselves being labeled a heresy in later Church councils . . . and thus implicitly labeled Papias a heretic as well.

 

[Thomas]

You are correct. I couldn't find any reference to Papias being labeled a heretic either. I guess the writer is probably referring to chiliastic ideas themselves being labeled a heresy in later Church councils . . . and thus implicitly labeled Papias a heretic as well.

The heresy was as a result of later errors, and chillastic ideas, largely dependent on Revelations, were refuted as errors of interpretation. They went away, resurfaced in the Reformation, where some denominations hold chillastic ideas, and then went into ecstatic overdrive in the various millenarian ideas sweeping America in the 19th century ... on to 'the Rapture' and so forth.

Papias was not alone in that, and the Church is wary about retro-accusations of heresy, so I'm not sure, in Catholic and Orthodox circles, that Papias is regarded as a heretic? Irenaeus shared some of the same opinions, as did Justin Martyr ...

 

[Thomas]

Thanks, Ahanu, for the considered reply.

Your comments in blue, mine black, quotes are texts you cite.

"Moreover, in certain passages of the Sacred Scriptures where allusion is made to the Spirit, a specific person is intended, as it is conventionally said in speech and conversation that such-and-such a person is spirit personified, or is the embodiment of mercy and generosity. In this case the focus is not upon the lamp but upon the light."

In principle I agree with that. The Holy Spirit acts in, with and through persons and, of a Celtic inclination, perhaps through nature as well.

At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Pope Leo sought to heal the rift in the church in a letter to Bishop Flavian of Constantinople, stating what he saw as the orthodox position on the question of the two natures in Christ. When the letter was read to the bishops, they are recorded as having responded: "This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! Thus the Orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!”

That last sentence, 'Peter has spoken through Leo' is read to infer the Holy Spirit speaks through the Office of Peter in the person of Leo, the current Pope. (Papal infallibility is only ever endorsed when the pope speaks ex cathedra, as we say, in the Office of Peter, or from the Seat of Peter,but it is the Holy Spirit who speaks.)

I think we see similar concepts in the Gospels:
"King Herod heard of this ... (Mark 6.14-15).
Well I'll leave @RabbiO to speak regarding Jewish beliefs in reincarnation, but the way I see it is John the Baptist fulfilled a vocation, as did Elijah, as did the prophets generally, and the assumption is Jesus follows in that line, all inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Here we have this idea Jesus is Elijah according to "some" Jews. But in what sense? Now what did these "others" here think when they said Jesus is Elijah? The text doesn't go into detail. Like usual, the writer leaves it up to the reader or listener to decide. There seems to be an assumed cultural code us moderns are not privy to in this depicted scene.
Again, I'm sure @RabbiO could offer more on this topic from the Jewish perspective.

For my own part, I think Luke 1:13-21 has the answer. An angel appears to the priest Zachariah while serving in the Temple. The angel says:
"Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John ... he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb ... And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient ‖‖ Or, by. to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Here then is a ready explanation. The Holy Spirit was with Elijah, and will be with John, and their mission will be the same, to turn people away from sin (Elijah to destroy the altar erected to the pagan god Baal, John to lead people toward Jesus).

Again, I see in principle no problem with what Abdu'l-Baha said – we're speaking of the Holy Spirit working through individuals.

So when the spirit of Elijah manifested itself, it was made manifest through John's "perfections" and "attributes." Could the case be similar with others that said Jesus is Elijah?
Similar, but not the same.

+++

"Then God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light." I still don't imagine a disembodied voice - in English, Hebrew, or whatever - filling the void and saying that aloud.
Nor do I.

I am not saying God has a body - just saying God speaks through people.
Yes.

Again, consider the following verse in Mark 12.36 for a simple example:
"David himself says by/in/with the Holy Spirit: The Lord declared to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand until I put Your enemies under Your feet.'"
Why does David himself say anything by/in/with the Holy Spirit if he himself is an unnecessary conduit?
This is a reference to Psalm 110. Mark is making the point that the Psalms are believed to have been penned under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and David the human scribe.

What's an angel?
Ha! Well that's a big question. St Thomas considers them pure intellectual creatures.

Interestingly, in Luke 1:19 we read "And the angel answering, said to him: I am Gabriel, who stand before God: and am sent to speak to thee, and to bring thee these good tidings." This suggests self-identification 'Gabriel' which ticks the Boethian definition of a 'person': "an intellectual substance of a rational nature."

Scripture says a lot about angels – St Thomas wrote loads, he is called 'The Angelic Doctor', and not just for his good looks!

The idea Christians faithfully keep scriptural language to a tee is nonsense.
Depends which. Catholics and Orthodox are not Biblical literalists, nor believers in Biblical inerrancy.

No professional Christian in the field of medical science speaks of disembodied spirits possessing someone.
Probably not, when speaking in a professional capacity. Privately they might hold another opinion?

Despite demonic possession in the Gospels, I do not hear you talking about demonic possession today when referring to psychological trauma and the like (as they would have been spoken of 2,000 years ago).
Nevertheless, I don't exclude it, not can I logically discount it. I just don't have any experience in that field. Thank God.

My point is that Christians transform scriptural language into conversational language all the time whether they realize it or not.
Well that's somewhat a generalisation, so you will understand if I say I cannot comment.

Our understanding of our own consciousness has evolved tremendously since the Gospels were first written. No need to exchange inner realities for external ones like the ancient Greeks did with their gods.
No, but in analogous terms they are still very useful. And those external realities might very well be ... realities.

 

[Ahanu]

Our understanding of our own consciousness has evolved tremendously since the Gospels were first written. No need to exchange inner realities for external ones like the ancient Greeks did with their gods.
No, but in analogous terms they are still very useful. And those external realities might very well be ... realities.

Let's read what one remote tribe has to say. Their god (Yasur) is a volcano, "the house of John Frum." The author wonders why John lives in a volcano.

As the jeep rattles up a steep slope, the narrow trail slicing through the jungle’s dense green weave of trees and bushes, Jessel tells me that he is the brother-in-law of one of the cult’s most important leaders, Prophet Fred—who, he adds proudly, “raised his wife from the dead two weeks ago.”

When we reach the crest of a hill, the land ahead falls away to reveal Yasur, Tanna’s sacred volcano, a few miles to the south, its ash-coated slopes nudging the shoreline at Sulphur Bay. Dark smoke belches from its cone. “‘Yasur’ means God in our language,” Jessel murmurs. “It’s the house of John Frum.”

“If he’s an American, why does he live in your volcano?” I wonder aloud.

Since the author couldn't get an answer from Jessel, he goes to the chief to find out more about the relationship between John and the volcano:

“John Frum came to help us get back our traditional customs, our kava drinking, our dancing, because the missionaries and colonial government were deliberately destroying our culture,” Chief Isaac says, his pidgin English translated by Daniel.

“But if John Frum, an American, is going to bring you modern goods, how does that sit with his wish that you lead a kastom life?” I ask.

“John is a spirit. He knows everything,” the chief says, slipping past the contradiction with the poise of a skilled politician. “He’s even more powerful than Jesus.”

“Have you ever seen him?

“Yes, John comes very often from Yasur to advise me, or I go there to speak with John.”

“What does he look like?”

“An American!”

“Then why does he live in Yasur?”

“John moves from America to Yasur and back, going down through the volcano and under the sea.”

Now does the chief believe John or the spirit of John actually moves "from America to Yasur and back, going down through the volcano and under the sea?" Are these descriptions useful?

The chief is clearly trying to interpret whatever happened through the centrality his volcano plays in his tribe's everyday life. For those of us living in the West, it is not useful to use such descriptions. They would also be described as wrong.

 

[Ahanu]

My point is that Christians transform scriptural language into conversational language all the time whether they realize it or not.
Well that's somewhat a generalisation, so you will understand if I say I cannot comment.

I understand why you cannot.

Despite demonic possession in the Gospels, I do not hear you talking about demonic possession today when referring to psychological trauma and the like (as they would have been spoken of 2,000 years ago).
Nevertheless, I don't exclude it, not can I logically discount it. I just don't have any experience in that field. Thank God.

Let's simply state the obvious: Our understanding of ourselves and the world around us has excluded demonic possession.

 

[Ahanu]

No professional Christian in the field of medical science speaks of disembodied spirits possessing someone.
Probably not, when speaking in a professional capacity. Privately they might hold another opinion?

Was spoken of openly in the medieval era.

 

[Thomas]

Let's read what one remote tribe has to say. Their god (Yasur) is a volcano, "the house of John Frum." The author wonders why John lives in a volcano.

Now does the chief believe John or the spirit of John actually moves "from America to Yasur and back, going down through the volcano and under the sea?" Are these descriptions useful?

If you see this as somehow relevant to the discussion of pneumatology, I'd say it's a false analogy.

I understand why you cannot.

Thank you ... you'd need to provide a suitable to make that argument.

Let's simply state the obvious: Our understanding of ourselves and the world around us has excluded demonic possession.

OK ... but then as I understand it, the Baha'i excludes the idea of shekinah, or of 'the indwelling spirit', so I can see that might be 'obvious' to you.

 

[Ahanu]

If you see this as somehow relevant to the discussion of pneumatology, I'd say it's a false analogy.

It is related to your comment: "No, but in analogous terms they are still very useful. And those external realities might very well be ... realities."

You said "no" to the idea that our understanding of our own consciousness develops over long stretches of time. So you feel demonic possession and demonic spirits are descriptions of the world that must be forever hardened in amber, and so we must continue to use them because, well, they might very well be useful. That's why you make a distinction between scriptural language and conversational language. Recall you wrote the following: "In saying 'conventionally said in speech and conversation' he's now talking in general and not Scriptural language, but then conflates the two." I am letting you know how I understand your comments as a whole. To me, it made absolutely no sense why you would bring that up. Were not scriptural language and conversational language back in the day - back in the time of Christ - one and the same? Did the writers not write in the language of their audience? Being as immersed in scripture as they were, I am sure scriptural language was inseparable from their conversational language.

Since the ancients are not with us, we can provide examples of remote tribes that have had contact with the outside world. We can also look at ancient artifacts and writings too. We can look at how they describe the world around them to see that, yes, our understanding of our consciousness does develop over time.

 

[Ahanu]

Thank you ... you'd need to provide a suitable to make that argument.

I did. Demonic possession. You're the one brushing it off. When's the last time you have witnessed an exorcism? If so, how often? The answer will tell you whether or not I am making a generalization.

 

[Ahanu]

OK ... but then as I understand it, the Baha'i excludes the idea of shekinah, or of 'the indwelling spirit', so I can see that might be 'obvious' to you.

How so?

 

[Thomas]

It is related to your comment: "No, but in analogous terms they are still very useful. And those external realities might very well be ... realities."

Ah, my fault for not making myself clear. I meant yes, our understanding changes, but no, the analogies might well still hold ... there might well be angels.

So you feel demonic possession and demonic spirits are descriptions of the world that must be forever hardened in amber, and so we must continue to use them because, well, they might very well be useful.

I'd say that's a matter for the individual. Do you believe in God? In prophets and prophecy? It's that order of thing.

That's why you make a distinction between scriptural language and conversational language.

Yes, I think most scholarship does? Not everything written in Hebrew or Greek is scripture.

To me, it made absolutely no sense why you would bring that up.

Maybe you missed the point?

 

[Thomas]

I did. Demonic possession. You're the one brushing it off. When's the last time you have witnessed an exorcism? If so, how often? The answer will tell you whether or not I am making a generalization.

I did not brush it aside. The question of whether God or spirits exist is a personal one ... I believe in God ...

 

[Thomas]

How so?

The document in discussion seems to refute the idea.

 

[Ahanu]

What's an angel?
Ha! Well that's a big question. St Thomas considers them pure intellectual creatures.

Interestingly, in Luke 1:19 we read "And the angel answering, said to him: I am Gabriel, who stand before God: and am sent to speak to thee, and to bring thee these good tidings." This suggests self-identification 'Gabriel' which ticks the Boethian definition of a 'person': "an intellectual substance of a rational nature."

Scripture says a lot about angels – St Thomas wrote loads, he is called 'The Angelic Doctor', and not just for his good looks!

So how does St. Thomas square that with "the priest" being "the messenger of the Lord of Hosts?" (Mal. 2.7) Messengers from heaven are commonly called angels. No wonder Hecataeus, a Greek writing around 300 BCE, described the priest as an angel of God's command. When the priest spoke, says Hecataeus, the Jews immediately fell to the ground in worship.

Qumran priests were angels on earth, so one can say "the priest . . . is the angel of the Lord of Hosts." Was St. Thomas unaware of Qumran tradition - a tradition Jesus was clearly aware of?

 

[Ahanu]

But I do see where it may be possible with extensive liberty upon the isolated passage in question, 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.

In principle I agree with that. The Holy Spirit acts in, with and through persons and, of a Celtic inclination, perhaps through nature as well.

So does the Holy Spirit require human embodiment in order to speak or not? It seems like you both have different conclusions. As for speaking through nature, I would argue this simply means a person translates what they think nature is saying through the Holy Spirit. Nature doesn't speak in any human language.

 

[Ahanu]

I suspect the equivalent of the Paraclete is to be found in the DSS: "But the God of Israel and His Angel of Truth are a help to all sons of light" (1QS 3.24).

"The 'Prince of Light' or 'the Spirit of Truth' is appointed, according to the Essenes, as a helper to all children of light. The figure of the Paraclete or Advocate of John is derived from this complex of ideas."
-Frank Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran