Try the Trinity.

[Thomas]

There is the Holy Spirit.
There are the Messengers, who told us that
There is only One God.

We, as Trinitarians, don't dispute that.

That is not prophecy, that is the God we can know, it is inclusive of all God given Faiths.

I mean the image analogy, the light shining through windows. That is what I mean by prophecy, and indeed each and every one of us is a widow to that light, albeit the window might by obscured ... that image stands for everyone, not just messengers.

But I do not content with you, I quite like some of your statements, as profound and to the point.

But I fear you have been misled, if what I read of the Baha'i is the case.

With regard to Baha'i commentary on the Trinity, I offer this, from the https://bahaiteachings.org/the-trinity-wars-logic-reason-and-faith/ website:

... Most of the Christian theologians who have tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity have failed.
Clearly an opinionated statement. It's simply not true.

The prominent Christian philosopher Augustine, when he tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, ultimately concluded that an explanation is beyond human language, saying that “one must believe before one understands.”
This is simply disingenuous, and on a site claiming to be a teaching site, is shameful.

The correct quote is: “unless you believe, you will not understand” and Augustine is paraphrasing Isaiah 7:9.

This was said not in reference to the Trinity, but in a commentary on John 7:14-18 in Tractate 29:
"Do you wish to understand? Believe. For God has said by the prophet: Unless you believe, you shall not understand. Isaiah 7:9 To the same purpose what the Lord here also added as He went on — "If any man is willing to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak from myself." (John 7:17).

Augustine is arguing that if you refuse to believe something, you will never be open-minded enough to understand it. You must at least admit the possibility of something before you can begin to understand it. It also refers to Mark 4:12: "That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand".

This appeal to faith rather than reason worked for some time during the medieval age, but as humanity progressed and education became more widespread, a pure appeal to accept a doctrine on faith alone began to lose its appeal.
And yet a Baha'i belief is exactly that – an act of faith.

After Augustine’s failure to describe the Trinity in logical or understandable terms ...
Flat wrong, a gross deception.

Augustine's De Trinitate is regarded by many as a theological masterpiece.

and he (St Tomas Aquinas) said, in his landmark work Summa Theologica, that the three-person theory of the Trinity could not be defended in any rational or understandable way:
"It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is the individual substance of a rational nature. If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical."
This is underhand, shameful deception. It's appalling that the Baha'i should give it credence. The author clearly assumes the ignorance of the reader, provides no citation to the text, and mis-contextualises it to imply the opposite of what St Thomas is saying.

In any reputable teaching post, the author would be thrown out. On any reputable site it would be removed.

So let me correct this shameful misrepresentation of the Angelic Doctor.

Summa Theologica (Q30, a1) in its undistorted context (text in red, my comments black):
Q30: The Plurality of Persons in God
Article 1: Are there several persons in God
Objection 1: It would seem that there are not several persons in God. For person is "the individual substance of a rational nature." If then there are several persons in God, there must be several substances; which appears to be heretical.

Note: Aquinas uses what is known as the 'scholastic method' of thesis (statement) antithesis (objection) and synthesis (answer). The author has cited the objection and says it's St Thomas' own view – whereas St Thomas actually counters the objection:
Reply to Objection 1. The definition of "person" includes "substance," not as meaning the essence, but the "suppositum" which is made clear by the addition of the term "individual." To signify the substance thus understood, the Greeks use the name "hypostasis." So, as we say, "Three persons," they say "Three hypostases." We are not, however, accustomed to say Three substances, lest we be understood to mean three essences or natures, by reason of the equivocal signification of the term.

The Baha’i view of the Trinity has a similar emphasis on the oneness of God, and it also defends rationality, asking that no one be required to accept a tenet of faith that can’t be rationally and logically understood:
And yet it can be rationally and logically explained and understood. And has been.

The question of the Trinity, since the time of His Holiness Christ until now, is the belief of the Christians, and to the present time all the learned among them are perplexed and confounded.

No it hasn't.

All have confessed that the question is beyond the grasp of reason, for three cannot become one, nor one three. To unite these is impossible; it is either one or three. – Abdu’l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu’l-Baha v3, p. 512.

Sorry, but this comes across as rather self-serving.

The Neoplatonists understood the 'Intelligible Triad' of Being-Life-Intellect, the Vedanta has Being-Consciousness-Bliss ... such metaphysical systems explain a unity of Three in One and One in Three that gives rise to multiplicity, and some argue that without which how multiplicity proceeds from the One cannot be adequately explained.

Sorry if that offends, @Tone Bristow-Stagg, but the truth will out.

 

[Thomas]

..except that Arius was one man ..

So was Athanasius

It cannot be denied that Trinitarian Emperors declared war against their brothers in faith.

Declared war, LOL, methinks thou dost protest too much! Arius was exonerated and welcomed back to the Court.
Persecuted, yes, but you come across like a 'rivers of blood' spectacle, whereas there was nothing of the kind. Emperors on both sides of the debate acted as emperors are wont to do. It's called politics.

It makes no sense that ...

OK. Each entitled to his own opinion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Persecuted, yes, but you come across like a 'rivers of blood' spectacle, whereas there was nothing of the kind. Emperors on both sides of the debate acted as emperors are wont to do. It's called politics..

I beg to differ.

Justinian the Great, was the Eastern Roman emperor from 527 to 565.
...
His reign is marked by the ambitious but only partly realized renovatio imperii, or "restoration of the Empire". This ambition was expressed by the partial recovery of the territories of the defunct Western Roman Empire. His general, Belisarius, swiftly conquered the Vandal Kingdom in North Africa. Subsequently, Belisarius, Narses, and other generals conquered the Ostrogothic kingdom, restoring Dalmatia, Sicily, Italy, and Rome to the empire after more than half a century of rule by the Ostrogoths.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justinian_I

..not a lot different than Putin, in that they wanted "unification" in belief, and authority.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I mean the image analogy, the light shining through windows. That is what I mean by prophecy, and indeed each and every one of us is a widow to that light, albeit the window might by obscured ... that image stands for everyone, not just messengers.

They are not windows, they are mirrors. So you are not looking at the analogy correctly. Those mirrors reflect the Holy Spirit.

The Manifestations are born with a 3 fold station. They are born a Human, they have a rational human soul and they are the the Embodiment of the Holy Spirit, the Mirror of God. All we can see in them is what our own heart can reflect. If we only look at the human body, that is all we will see, but if we are looking for Love and virtues, that is what we will find in them, as they are the embodiment of those virtues and reflecting them to humanity.

The only God humanity can know is what these Messengers have Shown us.

The Mirror analogy of Christ is the most logical explanation of how God has interacted with humanity via the Messengers. It also explains how Jesus can say He was the First and the Last, as it is the Holy Spirit that is Annointed on to all Messengers.

How else will we become one people under One God, if we do not embrace all the God given Faiths on this planet in the same Light we embrace Jesus the Christ?

The Bible is clear that in the last days that man will have strayed far from Biblical intent, yet a Christian seems to think they have an exemption, the Jews still think they have, the Muslims are on that gravy train as well, older and Eastern Faiths content with the status quo, no one thinks it all of us that need to rethink who Jesus was, who are the Christs!

Abdul'baha has given many good talks on this topic, Abdul'baha was the first to beleive in Baha'u'llah, the first Disciple one may say.

This is a link to Talks by Abdul'baha

Part 3: On the Powers and Conditions of the Manifestations of God

I can only recommend the read, I am currently reading this section myself.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Bible is clear that in the last days that man will have strayed far from Biblical intent, yet a Christian seems to think they have an exemption, the Jews still think they have, the Muslims are on that gravy train as well..

I'm not exactly sure what "gravy train" you refer to, but we are all seduced to some extent
by worldly matters.

We need to free ourselves from these associations, in order to get closer to God.
..and I might add, that any so-called prophet that abrogates "the law", more or less in its entirety,
cannot be a true prophet.
If it don't smell right, it ain't right.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

But I fear you have been misled, if what I read of the Baha'i is the case.

With regard to Baha'i commentary on the Trinity, I offer this, from the https://bahaiteachings.org/the-trinity-wars-logic-reason-and-faith/ website:

... Most of the Christian theologians who have tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity have failed.
Clearly an opinionated statement. It's simply not true.

The prominent Christian philosopher Augustine, when he tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity, ultimately concluded that an explanation is beyond human language, saying that “one must believe before one understands.”
This is simply disingenuous, and on a site claiming to be a teaching site, is shameful.

Thomas, the site you quote is not an official Baha'i Site, it will tell you that in the About Us section of that site.

As such you are reading personal reflections on religious scriptures. They are not necessarily correct in their interpretations.

It appears the author of the article your read, could have benefited from your input. I agree with what Christian philosopher Augustine quoted, one does have to embrace the Messenger before more clarity can be found. That goes back to the Mirror Analogy, the more we embrace the reflection of Christ, the more we can understand.

I am more than positive the Mirror Analogy will reflect what the Bible offers, as you know, the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, yet what was the foundation of that doctrine are mentioned.

I am sure if we look at those founding verses, they will also be explained by the Mirror Analogy.

Shoghi Effendi offered that the Catholic Foundation was the correct path from Jesus the Christ, so Baha'i also embrace the wisdom given in the Catholic Line, the difference being is that Baha'u'llah has further explained where some error has was made into the doctrine.

I have always wondered why the warning of adding to scriptures was not embraced, why so many had to die because they had a different understanding of the same verses.

I would hope you also see that cry from my heart for all the souls past so wrongly done by, which people are still facing all around the world today.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I'm not exactly sure what "gravy train" you refer to, but we are all seduced to some extent
by worldly matters.

We need to free ourselves from these associations, in order to get closer to God.
..and I might add, that any so-called prophet that abrogates "the law", more or less in its entirety,
cannot be a true prophet.
If it don't smell right, it ain't right.

The Seal of the Prophets has become a great veil for a Muslim. Islam is well represented in the Bible and the importance of the year AH1260 (9) is found through Daniel and Revelation, which interestingly is also AD1844 (9)

The Bab and Baha'u'llah brought a New Heaven and a New Earth. The Word of God and the Laws for this age, so the Old Laws are Abrogated and replaced by the New.

God has done this since time began, it did not stop with Muhammad. IMHO

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Word of God and the Laws for this age, so the Old Laws are Abrogated and replaced by the New.

God has done this since time began, it did not stop with Muhammad. IMHO

Yes, "the law", aka guidance, has had relatively minor changes as time goes by..

However, to claim that Moses taught not to eat pork, and then Jesus taught you can, and then Muhammad taught you cannot, and then "your man" says you can is more than far-fetched.

I believe that most of "the law" has been the same from Adam until Muhammad.
I consider the prohibition of pork and usury to be static .. they cannot change.

"It is an abomination" [Qur'an], means just that !
No prophet eats pork .. no prophet charges usury on loans.

The above are just two examples of what I refer to.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Yes, "the law", aka guidance, has had relatively minor changes as time goes by..

However, to claim that Moses taught not to eat pork, and then Jesus taught you can, and then Muhammad taught you cannot, and then "your man" says you can is more than far-fetched.

I believe that most of "the law" has been the same from Adam until Muhammad.
I consider the prohibition of pork and usury to be static .. they cannot change.

"It is an abomination" [Qur'an], means just that !
No prophet eats pork .. no prophet charges usury on loans.

The above are just two examples of what I refer to.

Two examples as to how mere men, that are not Messengers, speak for God?

Quran verse 26:28

"Thy Lord does create and choose as He pleases: no choice have they (in the matter): Glory to Allah! and far is He above the partners they ascribe (to Him)!"

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

Two examples as to how mere men, that are not Messengers, speak for God?

I prefer to err on the side of caution..
There are just too many people claiming they are "special" as in "a son of God".

 

[Thomas]

I beg to differ.
Justinian the Great, was the Eastern Roman emperor from 527 to 565.

Actually you prove my point.

His legacy was the reunification of the Empire, winning back lost territories (politics). He rewrote Roman law, the Corpus Juris Civilis still the basis of civil law in many modern states. His reign also marked a blossoming of Byzantine culture.

..not a lot different than Putin, in that they wanted "unification" in belief, and authority.

Quite, but if you read a little further into that wiki post, you'll see that he, like others, fails when he tries to dictate to the Church.

Constantine failed to settle the Arian question, as subsequent emperors, either pro- or anti-Arius, similarly failed. As the historical record shows, later attempts to silence Christological disputes also failed.

Politics, yes. and the Roman Emperors in Constantinople had some success in browbeating the Patriarchs of Constantinople, but notablky Rome, as the seat of the Church, withstood the desires of emperors to dictate the faith.

Happy Christmas

 

[Thomas]

They are not windows, they are mirrors. So you are not looking at the analogy correctly. Those mirrors reflect the Holy Spirit.

Not really. Soul as window is a better analogy, I think. The light of God's love shines through the souls of those who love.

But either way, the same applies: All are called to be windows/mirrors.

There's a saying of the Fathers: Love thy God, and Love thy Neighbour,
because where thy neighbour is, there God is.

The Manifestations are born with a 3 fold station. They are born a Human, they have a rational human soul and they are the the Embodiment of the Holy Spirit, the Mirror of God.

Patently not, if one pays a little more attention to the Hebrew scriptures, for a start. The Prophets never claim to be an embodiment of God. The Prophet (pbuh) does not claim that. Only your man claims that, for his own reasons ...

The only God humanity can know is what these Messengers have Shown us.

In your book perhaps. Not mine. Mine is not so restrictive.

The Mirror analogy of Christ is the most logical explanation ...

Hardly. All analogies are more of less adequate. I'd say the Neoplatonic triad of 'Being-Intelligence–Life' is far, far more logical and instructive. I'd say the Hindu 'Being-Consciousness-Bliss' is for more effective ...

How else will we become one people under One God, if we do not embrace all the God given Faiths on this planet in the same Light we embrace Jesus the Christ?

You embrace your faith, brother, and I'll embrace mine, and we'll get along fine, until you start to tell me yours is right and mine is wrong ...

The Bible is clear that in the last days that man will have strayed far from Biblical intent, yet a Christian seems to think they have an exemption, the Jews still think they have, the Muslims are on that gravy train as well, older and Eastern Faiths content with the status quo ...

That's just ignorant and offensive to all the good people who strive in their own traditions. Shame.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, the site you quote is not an official Baha'i Site, it will tell you that in the About Us section of that site.

OK.

I am more than positive the Mirror Analogy will reflect what the Bible offers, as you know, the Trinity is not mentioned in the Bible, yet what was the foundation of that doctrine are mentioned.

Oh, that's the silly argument of the literalist, Tone! You mean we're not to seek out the hidden depths of Scripture?

The doctrine is implicit. A word is just a word. Change the word, if you like, the doctrine remains. This is a 'finger and the moon' error, old chum!

The Tradition embraced the triune formula from the get-go. We are not Biblical literalists. We, like our Hebrew forebears, follow the Four Senses of Scripture: What the text says, and what that says ...
"Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you" (Matthew 7:7).

"Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all. [And after they have reigned they will rest.]" (Gospel of Thomas, logion 2)

The literalist is the one who hides the light under a bushel.

I am sure if we look at those founding verses, they will also be explained by the Mirror Analogy.

Possibly. Whether it's the right analogy is another question.

... so Baha'i also embrace the wisdom given in the Catholic Line, the difference being is that Baha'u'llah has further explained where some error has was made into the doctrine...

Being the two fundamental tenets: The Incarnation and the Trinity – so no, don't kid yourself, you don't follow it at all, really. you just bend it to your own ends.

I have always wondered why the warning of adding to scriptures was not embraced, why so many had to die because they had a different understanding of the

I dunno ... ask yourself that question, we've never added to Scripture, there's no reason to.

I would hope you also see that cry from my heart for all the souls past so wrongly done by, which people are still facing all around the world today.

Then seek Christ, my friend, not a surrogate!

happy Christmas.

 

[muhammad_isa]

His legacy was the reunification of the Empire, winning back lost territories (politics).

..that just happened to believe in God through Jesus, but not "Christian" [trinitarian] .. politics, I agree.

Happy Christmas

Thankyou ..and you have a good Christmas also

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Oh, that's the silly argument of the literalist, Tone! You mean we're not to seek out the hidden depths of Scripture?

Asking that of a Baha'i was an interesting tatic Thomas.

I see I will move on from RF. All the best to you all.

May you have a good Christ Mass.

Regards Tony

 

[muhammad_isa]

I see I will move on from RF. All the best to you all..

Why should you move on?
Nobody wants you to do that..

Calm down .. Almighty God suffices .. we should not be vexed by others..
..easier said than done sometimes, I know.

 

[OupaPiet]

Interesting, but how do you reconcile Gen 3:22 with your understanding?

Disclaimer: I'm not Christian, and am not trying to poke holes into what you are saying, not having any stakes in this discussion. Asking to understand what you are saying.

You are welcome to ask questions, and to test any statement.
I learned many times from people who had a little more insight than me, and some of those thoughts changed my mind drastically.

back to the Tree of Life. I have the idea that not only Adam and Eve were very different in their composition from what we are now, but the earth and all living beings were different.
Adam and Eve did not have a body of flesh, but one of light with no blood. One that was composed from pure energy.
This should then also be the same for all living beings.
Including plants.
Everything on the earth was shining light of energy, plants, animals and human.
They did not have to kill to devour meat, or to eat fruit and other crops to sustain them self.

I know that Adam and Eve could eat from every tree, so did the animals, but something detrimental happened when they ate from the tree of knowledge of Good and Evil.
As I concluded, they started to age (die), and their bodies were now not covered with light anymore, and for the first time, they saw they were naked.

My opinion, not to be taken as the commandments, but as merely 'my opinion', is that all the fruit on the Earth, and in Eden, was a source of energy (in the sense of electro magnetism inclusive of light), not as what we have today fiber, sucrose, etc.
The Tree of Life was exceptionally powerful. so powerful that if Adam and Eve ate from it in their sinful state, as we are now, they would have lived much longer than the almost 1 000 years they did in this decaying fleshly bodies.

I would not like to grow 1 000 years old with rotten teeth, broken bones, poor eyesight and so on. Just think, with the living carcass we have today, after about 200 years, you will be a heap of rotting flesh not capable to move, yet you will still be alive! But in the state that Adam and Eve found themselves, before they sinned, they would have had a body that could , so to say, recharge with the sustenance of the Tree of Life.
I can understand that God had to prevent humans to eat from the tree of living, in their current corrupt state.

Thats why He took the Tree of Life away from the Earth.

 

[OupaPiet]

That's like asking you what you think the Invisible Pink Unicorn's eyelashes look like. (Presuming you don't believe in her)

Perhaps you misunderstood me.
I simply asked you :
What is your opinion of the Trinity?
Not if you believe in it.

If, say for instance, I would speak to a Muslim scholar, he would tell me it is 3 gods, and one should not have any god besides Allah.
I would then say, but I dont believe in 3 gods, I believe in One God. and so on...
Then one can discuss the differences.

I only wanted to know what your thoughts are about the Trinity.
I did not imply that you might believe in it at all.
You could just have said. Nope, I dont believe in it. There is no evidence for God anyhow!

But connecting your answer to a Pink Unicorn, is a poor attempt to try to insult my intelligence.
You know I dont believe in a Pink Unicorn, so why on earth would you answer like that, except to attempt to insult?

I can also say Atheists dont believe in God, because they never learned to Read. (the Bible by that)
Or that Evolutionists believe in fairy tales. (the frog that turned into a prince.)
Or How about this one.
Evolution is the religion where one believes your children to be more human, and your parents more ape, than oneself.

Even though I wont get upset by such antics, using them as an argument is a very poor debate.
I cant understand why an atheist would anyhow be on a forum of "Interfaith", if they dont belong to any faith at all!
Is is only to argue, hoping to find some facts that might sooth their conscience?
I mean, let the Atheists discuss their atheism on atheist websites, and leave the Jews, Christians, Muslims, Bahai, Sikh, Buddists and all the rest of us to discuss God!

Or perhaps the Atheists love religious discussions, hoping deep down in their hearts, that they might find the answer of their existence.
You know, that answer they long for that there is a God who created mankind because He wanted a friend.

 

[OupaPiet]

It explains the God we can know very well IMHO, which is naught but the Messengers.

Muhammad offered this in the Quran 5:73

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them."

Also Baha'u'llah has explained it in great detail.

The doctrine of the Trinity is not correct, it is wrong. Yet that is all I will now offer, there is no audience here that wishes to explore alternative explanations.

Regards Tony

Your Translation on the Quran is a very weak one.
5: 73. Certainly those who say, "Indeed, Allah is the third of three!" And there is no god except the One God. And if they do not desist from what they are saying, surely those who are infidels among them, will be afflicted with a painful torment.

My problem with the Quran's description that dates from 600 years after Christ:
1. Never did any Christian believe in the Trinity as 3 gods a THIRD each.
Neither does Christians believe in 3 gods as in 4: 171.

4: 171. O People of the Book! Do not commit excess in your religion and do not speak about Allah, except the truth. The Messiah Isa, son of Maryam, was only a Messenger of Allah, and His word which He cast to Maryam, and a spirit from Him. So, believe in Allah and His Messengers and do not say "Three". Cease, it is better for you. Allah is only one God. Glory be to Him that He should have a son for Him. To Him is whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as a guardian.

2. Funny enough, the Quran actually describes Isa, (note this is not Jesus) as a human... The Messenger...made from His Word (which is eternal)...and has His Spirit...
3. The Quran has Zero Authority over the Bible.
4. Muhammad has no authority over the Christian apostles who wrote the Didache dating from before 80 AD, and gives a full description of the Trinity, Baptism, Divinity of Christ, the Crucifixion etc.

Therefore, what I do find is that the Quran has a totally warped idea of the Trinity.
Allah thought the Trinity is the Father, Mary and Jesus!
Here we supposedly have Allah asking Isa (note at the end of time),

5:115 And when Allah saith: O Isa, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

This 600 years after Jesus, and I have to believe this statement, which comes from some guy calling himself a prophet, who gets the total incorrect description about the Trinity from his god, and telling me the evidence he has is some conversation his ignorant god will have with Isa?

Therefore, Islam does not know the Trinity, Muhammad and Allah were ill informed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..what I do find is that the Quran has a totally warped idea of the Trinity.
Allah thought the Trinity is the Father, Mary and Jesus!
Here we supposedly have Allah asking Isa (note at the end of time),

5:115 And when Allah saith: O Isa, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?

Errr .. that verse is discussing "two gods" .. how is that three?

'Good Lord', and 'Mother of God', you can't count !