Jesus and the Bahai Faith

[Thomas]

Hi Arthra —

Again, let's not get into it, but from a Christian perspective, Stockman's understanding of Christianity is uncertain in some places, and erroneous in others ...

"The third person of the Trinity was added because of the experience of the Spirit in Christian worship and in order to explain many doxologies and expressions used in worship that included the Holy Spirit"

is actually a misrepresentation and misses the point ... why were the doxologies and expressions there in the first place?

His notion of Christian usage of 'The Son of Man' is also erroneous.

In its most literal form – that God consists of three separate parts or 'persons, a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – the Trinity contradicts the Bahái view that God consists of a single, transcendent, unknowable essence."

This is a basic fundamental error, Christian doctrine is sure that the Three are One, in essence and substance. The difference is one of relation, not of essence, nor of substance. Stockwell is just flat wrong here — selectively presenting material to suit his own agenda, and seriously distorting a basic of Christian doctrine.

"there are necessarily three things, the Giver of the Grace, and the Grace, and the Recipient of the Grace;"

Again, if one is speaking of the Christian Trinity, this is totally wrong. All three are the source of grace, being of one essence, one substance (read the Creed — Stockwell apparently hasn't) ... but none of them are recipients — all three are the source — man is the recipient of Grace.

This and other points suggest that Stockwell might be good on Baha'i Faith, but if you follow his idea of Christianity, you'll be wrong.

In Trinitarian metaphysics, Jesus Christ is not a manifestation of God, He is the Principle (Gk arche] by which all being manifests ... without Christ, God would be unknown and ineffible, unimaginable, inconceivable, incomprehensible, (Gk arche anarchos - the Principle without Principle) there would be no means nor way by which to conceive of God other than a philosophical speculation.

"He is before all things, and by him all things consist" Colossians — so Jesus is not a manifestation of, in this or any age, He is that which causes things to be, in this age, and every age.

The request I would make is that the Baha'i cease the practice of 'redefining' Christianity to fit into its own schemata. It may be what suits you, but it is not what our Scriptures say, nor is it what has been faithfully handed on, what has been believed and taught ... to accept the Baha'i idea is to deny the fundamental tenets of the Christian teaching.

Thomas

[Ahanu]

I hope this helps.

The Father is the Son and is the Holy Spirit;
The Son is the Father and is the Holy Spirit;
The Holy Spirit is the Father and is the Son.

The three are one, co-equal and co-eternal, the Son and the Spirit are distinct by the mode of procession:
"And God (Father) said (Son), let there be light (Spirit)"

Until then, Word and Light was God, in God and with God, without distinction.
Son and Spirit are distinct, but the same, as the Father ... the difference is by order of relation.

The best explanation I have is Abdul-Baha's explanation from divine philosophy. Yeah, nothing new but it just makes sense to me.

ABDUL-BAHA: Our belief in regard to Christ is exactly what is recorded in the New Testament; however, we elucidate this matter and do not speak literally or in a manner based merely on blind belief. For instance, it is recorded in the Gospel of St. John, "In the beginning was the word, the word was with God and the word was God." The majority of Christians accept this matter literally, but we give a logical explanation that no one need find occasion to reject.
The Christians have made this statement about "the word," the foundation of the trinity; but philosophers state that the trinity as regards the identity of divinity is impossible.
We explain this subject as follows: By the "word" we mean that creation with its infinite forms is like unto letters and the individual members of humanity are likewise like unto letters. A letter individually has no meaning, no independent significance, but the station of Christ is the station of the word. That is why we say Christ is the "word" — a complete significance. The universal bestowal of divinity is manifest in Christ. It is obvious that the evolution of other souls is approximate, or only a part of the whole, but the perfections of the Christ are universal, or the whole. The reality of Christ is the collective center of all the independent virtues and infinite significances.
For example, this lamp sheds light and the moon illumines the night with its silvery beams, but neither light is self created. His Holiness the Christ is like unto the sun; his light issued forth from his own identity. He received it not from another person — therefore we give him the comprehensive title of the "word." By this we mean the all-comprehending reality and the depository of the infinite divine characteristics. This "word" has an honorary beginning and not a beginning of time. For instance, we say this person has precedence over all. This precedence comes to him through the station and honor which he now holds in life, but it is not a precedence of time. In reality the "word" has neither beginning nor ending. The letters of the "word" are those qualities which appeared in Christ and not his physical body. These attributes were from God — like unto the rays of the sun reflected in a clear mirror. The rays, the light and the heat of the sun are its qualities which have become manifest in the mirror. It is evident that these qualities were ever with God, even at this time they are with him, they are inseparable from him because divinity is not subject to division. Division is a sign of imperfection and God is the perfect one.
It is clear that the attributes of divinity are co-equal and co-existent with the essence. In that station there is absolute unity. This in brief is the exposition of the station of the Christ.

[arthra]

Thomas wrote:

The request I would make is that the Baha'i cease the practice of 'redefining' Christianity to fit into its own schemata. It may be what suits you, but it is not what our Scriptures say, nor is it what has been faithfully handed on, what has been believed and taught ... to accept the Baha'i idea is to deny the fundamental tenets of the Christian teaching.

My reply:

Maybe Thomas "redefining" is what occurs in each new dispensation.. It's what makes people uncomfortable and I would agree with you we shouldn't launch here into a useless argument...it maybe better to discuss in a comparative religion area

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...e-studies.html

than here on the Baha'i Forum where Baha'i views are supposed to be...eh?

- Art