Why Do People Like To Talk About Their Spiritual Beliefs?

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Interesting ... Does Baha'i exegesis claim divinity for one or both?

For both. They are seen as the 2nd and 3rd Woe mentioned in Revelation. Muhammad was the first Woe.

Note that the 3rd Woe came quickly.

The Declaration of the Bab in AD1844, or AH1260 is seen to be the promised return of Christ.

The Message of the Bab mirrored that of Jesus and interestingly lasted twice as many years. Also the Bab is seen as Elijah, who must always come first.

Regards Tony

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Why Do People Like To Talk About Their Spiritual Beliefs?": Evangelists for their religion. Some are paid for their efforts in this world (lobbyists) and/or rewarded by their Allah in the here-after.

 

[RJM]

"Why Do People Like To Talk About Their Spiritual Beliefs?": Evangelists for their religion. Some are paid for their efforts in this world (lobbyists) and/or rewarded by their Allah in the here-after.

Would the same be true of a physics website? Perhaps it is people discussing and swapping ideas about something very important to them?

 

[Thomas]

For both.

OK... Must admit, a little confused ...

wiki (that well-known and 'ever-reliable' source) claims that The Bab saw himself as a prophet, like Elijah or John the Baptist, an oracle of God, rather than God as such. Similarly there seems to be some uncertainty regarding Baháʼu'lláh:
"Baháʼu'lláh wrote in many styles including cases where he speaks as if he was instructed by God to bring a message; in other cases he writes in the first-person as God speaking, garnering some criticism that he was claiming to be God incarnated. Denis MacEoin states "...it is difficult to avoid the suspicion that he [Baha'u'llah] himself made much more radical claims than this in parts of his later writings. The following statements are, I think, explicit enough to serve as examples: 'he who speaks in the most great prison (i.e. Acre) is the Creator of all things and the one who brought all names into being'." However, the understanding among Baháʼís is that writing in the voice of God is a literary style and represents a message coming through Baháʼu'lláh."

 

[stranger]

A reading of the Son of Man and the Ancient of Days could, from a retroactive, Catholic perspective, point to this text in Daniel as a prophecy of the Incarnation, of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but that would be to read too much into the Prophet.

I'm in somewhat of a quandary concerning this particular part of your post. I am a respecter of the catholic perspective, and of the church as well, but I myself am not catholic. I think I want to go ahead and read the incarnation into this text and not even mention the trinity.

Would that be okay to do that? Can I still be a Christian and not be under the authority of the catholic church? I mean, I have respect but I don't bow to them? Is that okay with God/the church?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No being, other than the Lord God, appears with clouds in the Scriptures, not even angels.

..just as well angels apparently don't appear in the UK then.
Most things here come "with clouds"

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can I still be a Christian and not be under the authority of the catholic church?

Do you even have to ask?

Many Christians interpret the text as Jesus returning before the apocalypse.
I would agree with that interpretation.

As @RabbiO I'm sure would agree, the Hebrews don't expect "a god man"
as a messiah, nor do they think the messiah has actually fulfilled his role, as yet.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..back to this Arian business..

Arian theology holds that the Son of God is not co-eternal with God the Father and is distinct from the Father (therefore subordinate to him). However, as in mainstream Trinitarianism, Arianism holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father.
Arianism - Wikipedia

..however..

Arianism simply teaches that Jesus was not God. For this reason, Arianism opposes the dogma of the Holy Trinity. In 325 AD, the Nicene Creed was made, which the early Christians used to defeat Arianism, with the statement: "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God...begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father."
Arianism - Simple English Wikipedia

The above is correct, in my view. This also means that they did not include the Gospel of John
in their worship. The Gospel of John was included in the Bible canon by Nicene authority.

 

[RJM]

The Gospel of John was included in the Bible canon by Nicene authority.

Can you justify it by evidence?
Please try to just address the question and not go off into a digression

 

[muhammad_isa]

From the second to the fifth centuries, the relation of the human and divine nature of Christ was a major focus of debates in the early church and at the first seven ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division"
- wiki -

It's pretty obvious isn't it?
How can all the early Christians have believed in an incarnated "logos" (that is taught by "a well-loved disciple"),
that IS God.

The Council of Rome was a meeting of Catholic Church officials and theologians which took place in 382 under the authority of Pope Damasus I, the then current bishop of Rome. It was one of the fourth century councils that "gave a complete list of the canonical books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament."
- wiki -

Incidentally, Pope Damascus was very close to Roman Emperor Theodosius I.

 

[RJM]

It's pretty obvious isn't it?
How can all the early Christians have believed in an incarnated "logos" that is taught by "a well-loved disciple",

The early origin is not really disputed. Are you arguing that, although of early origin, The Gospel of John was not commonly accepted amongst early Christians? Also, you seem to accept the Book of Revelation?

Gospel of John

John reached its final form around AD 90–110, although it contains signs of origins dating back to AD 70 and possibly even earlier. Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous, although it identifies an unnamed "disciple whom Jesus loved" as the source of its traditions. It most likely arose within a "Johannine community", and as it is closely related in style and content to the three Johannine epistles most scholars treat the four books, along with the Book of Revelation, as a single corpus of Johannine literature, albeit not from the same author.

(wiki)

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Are you arguing that, although of early origin, The Gospel of John was not commonly accepted amongst early Christians?

I don't know whether it was in its "final form" around AD 90–110 or not. I wasn't discussing that.
..but yes, I most certainly am arguing that many early Christians did not believe in an "incarnated logos".

 

[RJM]

I don't know whether it was in its "final form around AD 90–110" or not. I wasn't discussing that.
..but yes, I most certainly am arguing that many early Christians did not believe in an "incarnated logos".

But they accepted the other New Testament documents, including the Book of Revelation?
What is many? Is it most, or some, or 50%

 

[muhammad_isa]

What is many? Is it most, or some, or 50%

Many is a lot. Clearly there were a lot of "Arians" [ which I'm sure covers A LOT of early Christians ]
Many more Christians not accused of Arianism, but nevertheless deemed heretics could also be included.

 

[RJM]

Many is a lot. Clearly there were a lot of "Arians"

There were obviously some Arians. There is no evidence they were in a majority, or that the Gospel of John was just a fringe document amongst early Christians?

 

[muhammad_isa]

There were obviously some Arians. There is no evidence they were in a majority, or that the Gospel of John was just a fringe document amongst early Christians?

I don't agree. Why don't you go through all the various groups that were deemed heretical, and see if
an "incarnated logos" fits with their theology.
We all KNOW that it fits with Nicene Christianity

 

[RJM]

I don't agree.

What do you not agree with?
This:

There is no evidence they were in a majority

Or this:

the Gospel of John was just a fringe document amongst early Christians?

 

[RJM]

Why don't you go through all the various groups that were deemed heretical, and see if
an "incarnated logos" fits with their theology.

It's not on me to go looking for all that stuff. The onus is on you to post all that evidence, if you think it's important?

 

[muhammad_isa]

It's not on me to go looking for all that stuff. The onus is on you to post all that evidence, if you think it's important?

Is it important?
Not to you it seems. You are quite happy that the Nicene Chritians were and are in a majority,
and all the other early Christians were heretics.

It's important to me, yes, though I don't have to prove anything.
I started my posts by showing that Arians did NOT think that Jesus was God.

Arianism simply teaches that Jesus was not God. For this reason, Arianism opposes the dogma of the Holy Trinity. In 325 AD, the Nicene Creed was made, which the early Christians used to defeat Arianism, with the statement: "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God...begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father."
Arianism - Simple English Wikipedia

 

[RJM]

Which Johannine NT documents do you want to chuck out, that don't support your speculation? Just the Gospel of John? Why not the Book of Revelations too?