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

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I don't think that argument is sufficient.

On the first point, I would argue that the text does not mean the Spirit was not there at the time of Christ – the text doesn't say that.

Rather, the first reference is in John 14:26, to "another Comforter" (Gk: Paraclete), which infers that Christ too is a 'Paraclete', in that He fulfils the functions of such, acting as advocate, intercessor, comforter, etc.

In reference to 'afterwards', this was Christ speaking with regard to the mission of the Holy Spirit with regard to Himself and salvation.

However, the Holy Spirit was there from the beginning (cf Genesis 1:2).

From my understanding of the Baha'i Writings I see both positions are correct.

Baha'ullah offers that All names, Attributes and Stations are applicable to all of God's chosen Manifestations, as they are all One in the Holy Spirit. I see they are All Christ (Annointed Ones) born of the One Holy Spirit. To me this is the only way we can embrace the fulfillment of this Biblical Passage.

Zechariah 14:9 "And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one."

Then there is their earthly distinction, the preordained Revelation, where the Holy Spirit is Annointed to God's Chosen Messengers, the 'Self of God' in each age, each bringing a distinct Revelation suited to the age.

This age has being designated in the Bible as the 'Day of God', where the Comforter, the Father has come as a representation of the Greatest Name. "Translated into Biblical Hebrew, Bahá'u'lláh would be Kabód YHWH"

That last quote is from a paper on the Word Baha, which to me helps me understand the Spiritual aspects of the Names of God's chosen Messengers.

The Word Baha: Quintessence of the Greatest Name

History of the concept of the Greatest Name and its place in Baha'i theology.

bahai-library.com

Regard's Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

It's a Johannine term. The Holy Spirit is known by many names in ScrIpture – but is the same Holy Spirit.

This is also what Baha'u'llah teaches.

We do not draw the same distinction. The Divine Names and Titles are many, but God is One.

Yes Baha'u'llah also teaches this, the challenge for Christianity is that it is applicable to other Messengers not of the Abrahamic line. Krishna, Zoroaster and Buddha were also Anointed of the Holy Spirit. The Names of God become One.

Quite. Prophecy is in the Gift of the Holy Spirit

It is also only fully understood by that same Spirit. That is why the meaning is sealed until God gives the Comforter, the One that would guide us to all Truth.

Our challenge is 1000's of years of input to the meaning of Prophecy, mostly be well meaning individuals, but individuals that have unknowingly added to the meanings of the Book.

Quite a Quandary Thomas as you would agree. None of this is about you or me, all of this is about the salvation of the entire human race, where we can be One People, under One God. The day when the Lords Prayer becomes manifested on this earth, as it is in heaven.

Regards Tony

 

[wil]

is God literally descending into their minds and speaking audibly in their heads?

My preacher used to say...if you think G!d is trying to tell you you have been given the truth and should enter the ministry...look around, She may not be talking to you.

The Spirit 'indwells' the soul – as is commonly understood in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

In is clear from Scriptures that some prophets – not every prophet – regarded themselves at times as being in the Presence of God.

In my understanding we have no choice, we always are.

But don't we all find it shocking that we have differing understandings of scripture and the presence?

 

[Thomas]

From my understanding of the Baha'i Writings I see both positions are correct.

Not sure what positions you're referring to?

Baha'ullah offers that All names, Attributes and Stations are applicable to all of God's chosen Manifestations, as they are all One in the Holy Spirit. I see they are All Christ (Annointed Ones) born of the One Holy Spirit. To me this is the only way we can embrace the fulfillment of this Biblical Passage.

OK – You're reversed your argument now, it seems Baha'ullah agrees with me rather than the comment you posted before!

As for Christ, I can agree, christos is a generic term, meaning annointed. When applied to Jesus, it's capitalised. Jesus is The Christ, in the same way one might say that Mohammed (pbuh) is The Prophet, or that Moses is The Lawgiver – there have been other annointed, other prophets, other lawgivers – Again, we're back to terms having diverse meanings that have to be understood in context.

 

[Thomas]

This is also what Baha'u'llah teaches.

Well, good ...

It is also only fully understood by that same Spirit. That is why the meaning is sealed until God gives the Comforter, the One that would guide us to all Truth.

We have the Comforter with us now – we have since Pentecost – the Comforter is always there.

Quite a Quandary Thomas as you would agree. None of this is about you or me ...

I do wish you'd actually embrace that latter sentence.

It is not about you or I, nor what you or I happen to believe.

It seems to me that Nature embraces diversity, and while I too believe we can be One People under God, I do not insist that all must believe in the same way, all marching in step, singing from the same song, as it were.

In my Father's house are many mansions, so diversity does not necessarily mean difference, or rather difference does not necessarily mean threat.

I believe that we can all be one people under God, each in his or her own way ... in principle the same, in expression diverse ... if all the world is one song, one colour, etc., it would be a very drab place.

One Love ... that's something else, that embraces everything.

 

[Ahanu]

The trouble here is that the use of nonliteral language, metaphor, etc., is often deployed to explain everything away.

My perspective differs: It is often employed to explain everything in a more creative manner. No need to narrow ourselves down to the Painter becoming the painting.

 

[Thomas]

OK.

My perspective follows sound Jewish-Christian methodology – the Four Senses of Scripture – the traditional guidelines for exegetics.

I can understand why you would do so, though.

 

[Ahanu]

I don't think that argument is sufficient.

On the first point, I would argue that the text does not mean the Spirit was not there at the time of Christ – the text doesn't say that.

The text does say that.

Rather, the first reference is in John 14:26, to "another Comforter" (Gk: Paraclete), which infers that Christ too is a 'Paraclete', in that He fulfils the functions of such, acting as advocate, intercessor, comforter, etc.

It could infer that Christ is a Paraclete. Whatever in the world Paraclete means is a mystery to me. So many mysteries when trying to understand whoever wrote this nearly two-thousand-year-old text.

Maybe the Greek word here is really the Aramaic word pârûqâ, which would refer to someone who is saving or "another Savior" or a succession of divine messengers akin to what we find in Shi'ite theology.

 

[Ahanu]

However, the Holy Spirit was there from the beginning (cf Genesis 1:2).

Yeah, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Hovering like a mother bird over her nestlings (Deut. 32.11). The first Christians used feminine imagery for the Holy Spirit. Syriac Christians in particular were enthralled by this imagery.

It's a Johannine term. The Holy Spirit is known by many names in ScrIpture – but is the same Holy Spirit.

It is not specific to the Johannine community, though. The author didn't invent it out of thin air. Here we hear echoes from the Qumran community that also referred to the spirit of truth as well. Some Dead Sea Scroll scholars have noticed that whether or not a particular spirit was rendered masculine or feminine syntactically can affect whether or not the spirit was envisioned as embodied in a human being or not - which is kinda interesting. I personally believe John the Baptist's group is an offshoot movement from the Essenes - and that the Jesus movement is an offshoot from John's group. Therefore, when looking at any "Johannine term," I am going to take a peek at what Qumran texts say. I am interested in this larger discourse amongst Jewish groups to better understand "Johannine terms" in the text.

And Holy Spirit in the New Testament, hagios pnemua, is neither masculine nor feminine.

The first Christians didn't express themselves in Greek, though.

"… and this relates to the Holy Spirit, who is mentioned with a female name (nomine feminino) among the Hebrews. For also in the Gospel which is of the Hebrews and is read by the Nazaraeans, the Saviour is introduced saying: ‘Just now, my Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me up …’"(Jerome)

Ooh, that's stretching a simile to its logical limit, I would have thought.

See above.

Quite. Prophecy is in the Gift of the Holy Spirit.

Okay. And the holy spirit's throne is the heart of the pure ones - the Manifestations of God.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Well, good ...


We have the Comforter with us now – we have since Pentecost – the Comforter is always there.


I do wish you'd actually embrace that latter sentence.

It is not about you or I, nor what you or I happen to believe.

It seems to me that Nature embraces diversity, and while I too believe we can be One People under God, I do not insist that all must believe in the same way, all marching in step, singing from the same song, as it were.

In my Father's house are many mansions, so diversity does not necessarily mean difference, or rather difference does not necessarily mean threat.

I believe that we can all be one people under God, each in his or her own way ... in principle the same, in expression diverse ... if all the world is one song, one colour, etc., it would be a very drab place.

One Love ... that's something else, that embraces everything.

Thank you Thomas I see the intent is one of peace and a unity in our diversity.

My struggle is with this passage.

"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded." (“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286)

How will that unfold if we do not embrace a Oneness of Humanity under a Oneness of God ?

How can our unity in our diversity compel us all to embrace the "counsels which the Pen of the Most High" have given us?

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

when it comes to theology, I feel like Christianity often reaches for the former (literal language) instead of the latter (nonliteral language).

Although the four senses of scripture allow deeper meanings to be drawn from a passage, they never permit a reading at odds with the literal sense, imo?

The four senses of Scripture is a four-level method of interpreting the Bible. This method originated in Judaism and was taken up in Christianity by the Church Fathers.

In Kaballah the four meanings of the biblical texts are literal, allusive. allegorical and mystical

In Christianity, the four senses are literal, allegorical, tropological (moral) and anagogical (prophetic)

 

[Thomas]

The text does say that.

I'm sorry, but I think if you examine the text closely ...

I'm guessing you're referring to John 16:7: "for if I go not, the Paraclete will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." This is a contextual statement, explained as the particular mission of the Paraclete, in verses 13-15.

As an aside, the question of who sends the 'other paraclete' has vexed theologians down through the ages. Has the Father sent Him (John 14:16), has Jesus sent Him (John 15:26), or has the Father sent Him in Jesus name (John 14:26)?

Whatever the answer to that, what is also implied is a fundamental aspect of the Trinitarian doctrine – Jesus speaks of God as a 'person', the Father, and of himself as the Son – as one in relation to the other, but as one who is the same in essence as the Father (hence the accusations of blasphemy).

Jesus here speaks of yet 'another' (John 14:16) – neither the Father, nor Himself – and clearly this other, the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit (14:26), the Spirit of Truth (15:26) oroceeds from the Father, but is other than the Father and other than the Son (else Jesus would have later said 'I will come to you' and 'I will bear witness to me'.

If Jesus had not meant to reveal something about the nature of Trinity, He would have used simpler and more conventional language which would have been readily understood by his audience.

It could infer that Christ is a Paraclete. Whatever in the world Paraclete means is a mystery to me.

It's quite simple, it means 'advocate' or 'comforter' – it was an understood in Hebrew as well as Latin and Greek – it means one who speaks to or on behalf of another.

Some NT theologians regard the Paraclete as representing a particular function of the Holy Spirit – prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit. In John the Paraclete will act as both comforter of the believer and advocate of Jesus.

Maybe the Greek word here is really the Aramaic word pârûqâ, which would refer to someone who is saving or "another Savior" or a succession of divine messengers akin to what we find in Shi'ite theology.

Even so, we would have to interpret it in terms of Johannine theology.

 

[Thomas]

My struggle is with this passage.
"The well-being of mankind, its peace and security, are unattainable unless and until its unity is firmly established. This unity can never be achieved so long as the counsels which the Pen of the Most High hath revealed are suffered to pass unheeded." (“Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh”, p. 286)

The Counsel of Jesus is love one another as I have loved you – and He drew no distinction between Jew, Greek, Samaritan, Roman; between men and women, between free men and slaves, indeed between sinners and the righteous, rich and poor – His love encompasses all – regardless of external, contingent and extraneous feature and circumstance.

If we truly loved one another, it's within out wit to heal all the world's ills.

How will that unfold if we do not embrace a Oneness of Humanity under a Oneness of God ?

Because the one-ness of humanity transcends all local distinctions, including modes or worship.

I once had a discussion with a Sikh. We spoke about 'it'. Eventually the conversation came round to, "Yes, but have you felt it?" to which our replies were smiles, a bit nebulous and intangible, and then a silence settled on us both, and we sat together for a while, just like that, and then we parted.

Now I would translate that as 'where two are gathered in my name' and no doubt he would translate that entirely differently, but we were, for a brief while, both in the same place, a place transcending words ... I'm not saying necessarily God was there, but I am saying that he and I experienced a unity which was quite unlike anything I'd experienced before ...

How can our unity in our diversity compel us all to embrace the "counsels which the Pen of the Most High" have given us?

Because we all have those counsels, Tony.

I have Christ – what more do I need?

And the next person has their Tradition, and that suffices for them as yours does for you and mine does me.

None of us has anything the other does not have access to if they seek it.

 

[Ahanu]

Although the four senses of scripture allow deeper meanings to be drawn from a passage, they never permit a reading at odds with the literal sense, imo?

Then you should have no problem with Abdu'l-Baha's observation: "Now consider carefully that the words 'for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak' clearly imply that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a Man Who has a soul, Who has ears to hear and a tongue to speak."

 

[Ahanu]

Even so, we would have to interpret it in terms of Johannine theology.

Still, the DSS can illuminate things behind the Gospel of John that were difficult to comprehend before or features that would seem odd to us in the text.

For example, the Greek word ioudaios - usually translated as "Jew" - has puzzled scholars. Wikipedia says:

Ioudaios (Ancient Greek: Ἰουδαῖος; pl. Ἰουδαῖοι Ioudaioi)[n 1][2] is an Ancient Greek ethnonym used in classical and biblical literature which commonly translates to "Jew" or "Judean".[3][4]

The choice of translation is the subject of frequent scholarly debate, given its central importance to passages in the Bible (both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament) as well as works of other writers such as Josephus and Philo. Translating it as Jews is seen to imply connotations as to the religious beliefs of the people, whereas translating it as Judeans confines the identity within the geopolitical boundaries of Judea.[5]

In my opinion, the DSS sheds light on this debate. The writers of the DSS never refer to themselves as "Judeans." Instead, they called themselves "Israel" or some variation thereof (such as the "sons of Israel"). They sought to be the restoration of the twelve-tribe nation of Israel. Jesus' twelve disciples are the resurrection of the twelve patriarchs, fulfilling a Jewish prophecy: "Then shall we also rise, each one over our tribe, worshipping the king of heaven" (Testament of Benjamin, 10.7). "Judeans" almost always refer to people that oppose Jesus in the Gospel of John, but Israel and Israelite are always viewed in a positive light. "Behold! Here is truly an Israelite in whom there is no deceit!" Note Nathaniel doesn't refer to him as "King of the Jews," but as the "King of Israel" (John 1.47-49). There are definitely strong vibes going on with the DSS here, because it also emphasizes the "true Israel" and warns against deceit. It has been argued that in light of the DSS, we should update our translations in the Gospel of John to Judean.

 

[RJM]

Then you should have no problem with Abdu'l-Baha's observation: "Now consider carefully that the words 'for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak' clearly imply that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a Man Who has a soul, Who has ears to hear and a tongue to speak."

That's clever @Ahanu

But as Christ also speaks of the Father and of Satan in anthropomorphic terms as 'he', and considering the context of the passage where he is speaking directly to the living apostles, and considering the later gospel account of the coming to the same apostles of the Holy Spirit as tongues of fire at pentecost -- no I do not personally believe the passage can realistically be interpreted as referring to Baha'u'llah.

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

(edited)

 

[Thomas]

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

Thus, as it is evident and established that intelligible realities do not enter or inhere, it follows that it is in no wise possible for the Holy Spirit to ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere...

Not according to the Hebrew Scriptures nor the New Testament.

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.

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.

clearly imply that the Spirit of truth is embodied in a Man Who has a soul, Who has ears to hear and a tongue to speak.

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 ...

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Now I would translate that as 'where two are gathered in my name' and no doubt he would translate that entirely differently, but we were, for a brief while, both in the same place, a place transcending words ... I'm not saying necessarily God was there, but I am saying that he and I experienced a unity which was quite unlike anything I'd experienced before ...

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.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I have Christ – what more do I need?

I see only God can guide us on that question.

I see that the guidance God gives is also connected to our level of submission.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

I see only God can guide us on that question.

As long as it's through the 'offered' 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?

I see ...