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

[Thomas]

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

Again, this has to be understood against the background of Essene self-identification, so I'd have top read more of Cross' work to get a sense of his conclusion. The Essenes were strict sectarians, and their theology was quite different from Jesus' and Judaism generally.

Note they thought they walked with and in some instances were even superior to angels (cf St Paul 1 Corinthians 6:3).

In anyone else, intense dualism, the war between the Sons of Light (them) and the Sons of Darkness (everyone else) would have them dismissed as Hellenists etc, but because they're the Essenes, they get dispensation.

Wiki on Paraclete has:
"In the Jewish tradition the word was transcribed with Hebrew letters and used for angels, prophets, and the just as advocates before God's court. The word also acquired the meaning of 'one who consoles' (cf. Job 16:2, Theodotion's and Aquila's translations; the LXX has the correct word parakletores). It is probably wrong to explain the Johannine parakletos on the basis of only one religious background. The word is filled with a complex meaning: the Spirit replaces Jesus, is an advocate and a witness, but also consoles the disciples."
(Kieffer, René, "John" in John Barton and John Muddiman, eds., The Oxford Bible Commentary. Oxford University Press, 2007, 987.)

 

[Thomas]

And how does The Angelic Doctor view Elijah and John the Baptist? Afterall, one could assign angelic status to Elijah: "See, I am going to send My messenger, and he will clear the way before Me. Then the Lord you seek will suddenly come to His temple, the Messenger/angel of the covenant you desire—see, He is coming,” says the Lord of Hosts" (Mal. 3.1).

"The rite of baptism was not from men, but from God, who by an interior revelation of the Holy Ghost sent John to baptise."
Summa Theologica IIIP, Q38, a2.

The same general rule applies, God wills that Elijah, John, etc; the Holy Spirit, via interior revelation, reveals God's wil to the individual and sets him on his particular mission.

 

[Thomas]

As far as I can tell it only refutes your philosophical gloss on the idea.

No – Jewish-Christrian-Muslim traditions all speak of indwelling – you refute it, there's no gloss on that.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr's comments carefully ...

That's refuting the Incarnation – not Indwelling of the Holy Spirit – two different categories – which Abdu'l-Baha conflates. That's a categorical error.

Furthermore, does Nasr refute the idea that the Angel appeared to the Prophet (pbuh)? According to the Tradition, the Prophet saw Jibrīl twice “in the shape that he was created,” and on other occasions he took on human form.

Abraham was approached by three men at Mamre (Genesis 18) and he believed himself to be in the presence of the Lord.

 

[Thomas]

When Abdu'l-Baha speaks in conversational language that anybody can understand, @Thomas takes issue even though St. Thomas does not seem to be using scriptural language at all in his definition of an angel.

I have no issue with the language, just the concepts I find flawed.

But when you undertake to express these intelligible realities, you have no recourse but to cast them in the mould of the sensible, for outwardly there is nothing beyond the sensible. Thus, when you wish to express the reality of the spirit and its conditions and degrees, you are obliged to describe them in terms of sensible things, since outwardly there exists nothing but the sensible.

Yes. This goes all the way back to Aristotle – it's the Peripatetic Axiom: "Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses" (De Veritate, Q2 a3 arg19)

But here's the rub:
Intelligible realities are sensible realities, because they may well be external realities that are made comprehendible to the human mind.

If we speak of sensible realities (the physical world) and intelligible realities (the mental realm), then the discourse must also refer to spiritual realities, which transcend the intelligible – we do not see angels, for example, unless they present themselves to us, and they present themselves in forms that we are able to apprehend.

A unicorn is an intelligible reality, it's our sensible experience that informs us that while we can imagine them, the evidence suggest they do not exist.

Spiritual reality transcends the formal order, both sensible and mental/intelligible.

What the text does is ignore the spiritual, and conflates the terms 'spiritual' and 'intelligible', and then assumes that what can be said of the iltelligible also applies to the spiritual.

It's a categorical error from the get-go.

For example, grief and happiness are intelligible things, but when you wish to express these spiritual conditions you say ...

You're now talking about a narrative regarding the condition, not the cause.

... t is a spiritual or intelligible condition ...

Again, conflating.

Christ says, 'The Father is in the Son, and the Son is in the Father.' Now, was Christ within God or was God within Christ? No, by God! This is an intelligible condition which has been expressed in a sensible figure.

So close, but he miss out the proceeding text, and are therefore is wrong.
"... but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me ... " (John 14:10-11)
Here Christ is talking of a spiritual reality.

... This is the station of divine revelation. It is not a sensible, but an intelligible reality ...

Ah ... again, too general, too much supposition.

Divine Revelation gives form (intelligibility) to the formless (that transcends the intelligible) Real – it's a disclosure of the Spiritual domain that transcends the human order.

Angels are in themselves not Divine Revelations – we can posit the existence of beings of pure intellect, as we can posit unicorns – but the messages the angels communicate are, invariably, revelatory.

 

[RJM]

we do not see angels, for example, unless they present themselves to us, and they present themselves in forms that we are able to apprehend.

Yes

 

[Ahanu]

That's refuting the Incarnation – not Indwelling of the Holy Spirit – two different categories – which Abdu'l-Baha conflates. That's a categorical error.

The relationship is undeniably similar since the human heart - including Christ's - is likened to a mirror that reflects heavenly things, so your meticulous nitpicking remains irrelevant in my opinion.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr's wrote:

"The heart is also a mirror, which must be polished by invocation, according to the well-known hadith: 'For everything there is a polish. The polish for the heart is invocation.' Once this act of polishing has been carried out, the heart becomes the locus for the direct manifestations of God's Names and Qualities. The heart is in fact the locus par excellence for the theophanies which descend one after another upon it. This constant change in reflection of ever-new Divine manifestations is related to the root meaning of qalb, to which allusion has already been made.

It might of course be asked, if the nature of the qalb is to be in constant transformation, what is permanent in the heart and how can the heart be in peace and at rest? The answer lies in the quality of itself being a mirror. What is permanent is our nothingness before God; one is to become a perfect mirror which, in being nothing in itself, is able to reflect forms emanating from above. The peace of the heart is precisely our total surrender to God, not only on the level of the will, but also on the level of existence. To become 'nothing' before God is to be at once 'nothing' and 'everything' - nothing as the surface of the mirror and everything in reflecting the never-ending theophanies issuing from the Hidden Treasure of God, which according to the Qur'an is inexhaustible."

He also states:

"The heart of the idea of the 'Insan al-Kamil' (meaning the perfect man which is often translated as the universal man) is that when God created Adam, he created within his being what Sufis call mirrors to reflect all the Divine qualities and attributes and only man (by man of course I mean insane, which means male and female), only the human being is potentially not actually capable of possessing all the levels of reality within himself or herself. Now 'Al-Insan al-Kamil' is the person who has actualised all his realities. He or she is the perfect mirror in which God can contemplate all of His qualities and all of His attributes. Now only the great prophets and the greatest of saints have attained the level of 'Al-Insan al-Kamil', but that is the ideal we are all potentially 'Al Insan al-Kamil.' The importance of the text of Abdul Karim al- Jili (ra) is to show what we are in reality when God created us and how we have fallen from that. The 'ahsani taqwim,' from which we have fallen to 'thumma radadna asfallahu safilin.' The ahsane taqwim, the most perfect of norms, that is so deep within us and to advance it spiritually is to actualise those potentialities within us with God’s help and the help of revelation of the Prophet (pbuh) of the Quran, of the saints, of the Shaykhs and to become 'Al Insan al-Kamil.' That is the ideal that Sufism sets before us. It means acquiring our virtues; it means to have our roots in God and not the world. It means to be humble and not proud, to be charitable and to open oneself, noble towards others, to seek the truth, to be satisfied with what God has given us, to have complete reliance upon God and on the highest level, it means to realise our own nothingness before God which is called fana’ in Sufism. The 'Insan al-Kamil' has the quality of fana’. The Sufis say that the only worthy thing that man has which can be offered to God is nothingness, is being a mirror. Everything else God has. What can be offered to God? Our wealth? God does not need our wealth. He wants us to help others of his creatures. But what can be offered to God himself is our being, and what he wants from us is the realisation that we are nothing and he is everything, that we are a mirror. On the highest level 'Al Insan al-Kamil' is the perfect mirror before God but at the same time, he or she contains all of the virtues, all of the perfections which we should strive for in this life. This doctrine is therefore very important and central to Islamic anthropology in the deepest sense, and especially Sufi anthropology."

Currently busy. Talk later.

 

[Ahanu]

It's false equivalence to assume that because Baha'u'llah claimed to be a messenger after Muhammad -- that makes him the same as Muhammad. Or that because Baha'u'llah's life may share one or two obscure parallels with the life of Jesus, that makes him equal to the Christ?

Who made those assumptions in such a way? Where were they made?

Ascension means physical ascension, rather than death. Elijah ascended. That is the clear accepted meaning of the term. A person who died and is buried cannot be said to have ascended.

Baha'u'llah died and was buried, like any other man. He did not ascend, in the clear sense of the word, so we need to find ways to fudge, imo

Paul ascended to the third heaven (2 Cor. 12.1-12), @RJM. He never physically died?

 

[RJM]

Who made that assumption? Where was it made

Glad to know Baha'u'llah did not draw upon comparisons with Muhammad or Jesus for credibility

Paul ascended to the third heaven, @RJM (2 Cor. 12.1-12). He never physically died?

In spirit, in some sort of visionary experience. He is not the only person to have seen a vision of the throne of God or whatever -- but Paul died.

According to the gospels Jesus ascended physically. Nobody is required to believe that. But Baha'u'llah died in body. People visit his grave. They pray towards his grave. He did not ascend physically?

 

[Thomas]

The relationship is undeniably similar since the human heart - including Christ's - is likened to a mirror that reflects heavenly things, so your meticulous nitpicking remains irrelevant in my opinion.

No, it really doesn't, but OK, if you want to dismiss it rather than deal with it, OK.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr's wrote:
"The heart is also a mirror, which must be polished by invocation, according to the well-known hadith: 'For everything there is a polish. The polish for the heart is invocation.' Once this act of polishing has been carried out, the heart becomes the locus for the direct manifestations of God's Names and Qualities.

That is what I am saying – the pure heart first reflects and then fills with the Indwelling Shekinah – God manifests in the heart.

Your Dr Nasr quote is from "The Heart of the Faithful is the Throne of the All-Merciful”, in James S. Cutsinger's, Paths to the Heart: Sufism and the Christian East (Bloomington, Indiana: 2002). He was talking in reference to Ibn 'Arabi, who said (in al-Futūhāt al-Makkiyya):
"The heart is His Throne and not delimited by any specific attribute, but it possesses all the divine attributes and names. Just as the All-Merciful possesses all the Most Beautiful Names (Q: 17:110), the Throne possesses all the Most Supreme Attributes." (5: 248–49)
and
"When God created the earth of your body, He created within it the Ka’ba that is your heart. He made the heart house the noblest house in the faithful man." (45: 477-78)
and
"God took the heart of His servant as a house, because He made it the locus of knowledge of Him – the gnostic (irfānī) knowledge, not the theoretical (nazarī) (ie intelligible) knowledge. He defended the house and protected it jealously, lest it be a locus for others." (7:12)

The commentary goes on:
"The heart of the gnostic fluctuates at every moment in accordance with the form of God’s self-disclosure to it. The heart of the gnostic colors at every moment in the color of the form of God’s self-disclosure to it. The fluctuation of the heart (taqallub al-qalb), in the metaphysical sense, is identical with God’s self-disclosure (tajallī al-haqq). In principle, the heart in such state is no longer human awareness to be distinguished from God’s self-disclosure. The heart itself in its constant inner fluctuation is not other than the various forms of God’s self-disclosure. Conversely, the incessant transformation of God (tajallī al-haqq) is the constant fluctuation of the heart (tajallī al-qalb). In this level, the self of the gnostic is identical with “He-ness” (huwiyyah) of the Real (al-haqq).

"From his own self he knows himself, and his own self is not other than the He-ness of the Real. Similarly, everything in the world of being, now and later, is not other than the He-ness of the Real; certainly, it is He-ness itself." (Ibn ‘Arabi, Fusūs al-Hikam, edited by Abū al-‘Alā ‘Afīfī, 2 parts (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-‘Arabī, 1980), 1:119.)

This idea fits a hadīth of the Prophet, may God bless him and grant him peace, frequently presented by Ibn ‘Arabi as “Whoever knows himself knows his Lord.”

Or, as another says:
"I saw the Lord with the eye of my heart
I asked, 'Who are you?' He replied, 'You'
(Hazrat Mansur Al-Hallaj.)

Galatians 4:6 "Because you are his sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”"

It's everywhere, in Scripture and commentary on the Three Great Abrahamic Traditions.

God nows Himself in the soul of the believer – the believer makes sense of that – renders that formless contemplation intelligible – as best s/he can.

That's what Faith is.

(underlining mine)

I think you adhere to too strict a literal idea of mirror. When the mystics speak of this, they speak of the self becoming nothing before God – then there is no mirror, there is no interior operation that is designated 'self' – rather there is a mystical union, from which the Divine Light emanates, because that light is now God contemplating Himself in the soul of the other (hence the Galatians quote, it is the Son who cries in us, and we are mysteriously party to this knowledge).

I know Dr Nasr from the Perennialists ... in 2009 Dr Nasr attended a reception at the Islamic Republic of Iran's Interest Section in Washington DC. The Iranian press reported this comment:
"Before the revolution all the chairs in Islamic studies were taken by the Jews and that now all the Shi'a studies chairs are taken over by the Bahai's! Before the revolution I used my position to send professors from Iran to take over such chairs and I am pursuing the same goal today…"

I don't think Dr Nasr would be too happy with you utilising his commentary in defence of Baha'i doctrine.

 

[Ahanu]

No, it really doesn't, but OK, if you want to dismiss it rather than deal with it, OK.

After looking up Nasr's views of the Holy Spirit/Gabriel, I see you're right.

It makes no sense to me. The mirror analogy implies that an object is manifested or is reflected without undergoing any alteration/change or physical incarnation. The same analogy should be applicable to the human spirit, which resides outside of space and time as a transcendent or non-physical reality and explains why humans have unique attributes that distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Your Dr Nasr quote is from "The Heart of the Faithful is the Throne of the All-Merciful”, in James S. Cutsinger's, Paths to the Heart: Sufism and the Christian East (Bloomington, Indiana: 2002). He was talking in reference to Ibn 'Arabi, who said (in al-Futūhāt al-Makkiyya):

Yes, you are correct in noting that this is indeed the article in Cutsinger's collection of essays that I am quoting from. It is available here. You are wrong in stating he was specifically talking in context about Ibn 'Arabi there. In this article he does mention Ibn 'Arabi, but he also mentions Rumi, Attar, and others. The first quote in context is talking about Islam in general with a lot of attention tilted towards Sufism. It is not focused on Ibn 'Arabi's exclusively. I assume you are referring to the second quote I posted from a different source - an interview - and this one does focus exclusively on Ibn 'Arabi. I was wrong in posting this one. It was pulled out of context. This was my mistake. Ibn 'Arabi's views totally slipped my mind.

I know Dr Nasr from the Perennialists ... in 2009 Dr Nasr attended a reception at the Islamic Republic of Iran's Interest Section in Washington DC. The Iranian press reported this comment:
"Before the revolution all the chairs in Islamic studies were taken by the Jews and that now all the Shi'a studies chairs are taken over by the Bahai's! Before the revolution I used my position to send professors from Iran to take over such chairs and I am pursuing the same goal today…"

Oh, yes, I am sure he looks down on Baha'is.

I don't think Dr Nasr would be too happy with you utilising his commentary in defence of Baha'i doctrine.

Probably. He does seem like the teacher that would scowl hard at the unskilled student that makes a mistake in his classroom.

Anyway, I guess I will have to stick with Baha'i sources for now then regarding this point. I can only note that Dr. Ali Murad Davudi - an Iranian Baha'i philosopher kidnapped and presumably executed during the Iranian revolution - wrote what I consider to be the best contemporary Baha'i response that I am aware of regarding this issue of "indwelling" and its physical descriptions in ancient writings here with his chapters about the spirit/soul.

 

[Ahanu]

Glad to know Baha'u'llah did not draw upon comparisons with Muhammad or Jesus for credibility.

You stated: "It's false equivalence to assume that because Baha'u'llah claimed to be a messenger after Muhammad -- that makes him the same as Muhammad."

Who said that just because Baha'u'llah claimed to be a messenger after Muhammad, that this makes him the same as Muhammad? Where was it said?

 

[RJM]

You stated: "It's false equivalence to assume that because Baha'u'llah claimed to be a messenger after Muhammad -- that makes him the same as Muhammad."

Who said that just because Baha'u'llah claimed to be a messenger after Muhammad, that this makes him the same as Muhammad? Where was it said?

All messengers are equal, according to Baha'i?

“No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers”
The Messengers

 

[Ahanu]

In spirit, in some sort of visionary experience. He is not the only person to have seen a vision of the throne of God or whatever -- but Paul died.

Does Paul make that distinction? If so, where?

According to the gospels Jesus ascended physically.

Well, it is described that way, but that physical description doesn't mean much to me considering the way ancient people described various phenomena.

 

[RJM]

Does Paul make that distinction? If so, where?

I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.
Corinthians 12:1-5

Well, it is described that way, but that physical description doesn't mean much to me considering the way ancient people described various phenomena.

Ascension in the Biblical sense is clearly meant as physical ascension of the body instead of death of the body. Elijah ascended. Jesus ascended -- according to the Bible.

Baha'ullah died and is buried.

You can play with Bible words forever, and take them out of context to try to justify what they don't say -- it's your game and I'm not playing

 

[RJM]

@Ahanu

Sorry, I know you are sincere. To me it's not a game -- new Christ of the month. The New Testament just does not support them, and warns against them, imo

I really prefer to drop out and follow the detailed discussion between you and @Thomas

God be with you, brother

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

After looking up Nasr's views of the Holy Spirit/Gabriel, I see you're right.

It makes no sense to me. The mirror analogy implies that an object is manifested or is reflected without undergoing any alteration/change or physical incarnation. The same analogy should be applicable to the human spirit, which resides outside of space and time as a transcendent or non-physical reality and explains why humans have unique attributes that distinguish us from the rest of the animal kingdom.


Yes, you are correct in noting that this is indeed the article in Cutsinger's collection of essays that I am quoting from. It is available here. You are wrong in stating he was specifically talking in context about Ibn 'Arabi there. In this article he does mention Ibn 'Arabi, but he also mentions Rumi, Attar, and others. The first quote in context is talking about Islam in general with a lot of attention tilted towards Sufism. It is not focused on Ibn 'Arabi's exclusively. I assume you are referring to the second quote I posted from a different source - an interview - and this one does focus exclusively on Ibn 'Arabi. I was wrong in posting this one. It was pulled out of context. This was my mistake. Ibn 'Arabi's views totally slipped my mind.



Oh, yes, I am sure he looks down on Baha'is.



Probably. He does seem like the teacher that would scowl hard at the unskilled student that makes a mistake in his classroom.

Anyway, I guess I will have to stick with Baha'i sources for now then regarding this point. I can only note that Dr. Ali Murad Davudi - an Iranian Baha'i philosopher kidnapped and presumably executed during the Iranian revolution - wrote what I consider to be the best contemporary Baha'i response that I am aware of regarding this issue of "indwelling" and its physical descriptions in ancient writings here with his chapters about the spirit/soul.

I look forward to reading that.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

All messengers are equal, according to Baha'i?

“No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers”
The Messengers

This passage was quoted by Bahaullah when talking of the twofold station of the Messengers. This is a link to 10 paragraphs, a full explanation.

Twofold Station

"....These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: "No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers."....."

It is a quote from the Quran.

Chapter (2:285) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow)

Sahih International: The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination

Baha'u'llah also acknowledges the distinction of the Messages.

"..... Viewed in the light of their second station, the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution, and complete self-effacement. Even as He saith: "I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you."..."

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

This passage was quoted by Bahaullah when talking of the twofold station of the Messengers. This is a link to 10 paragraphs, a full explanation.

Twofold Station

"....These Manifestations of God have each a twofold station. One is the station of pure abstraction and essential unity. In this respect, if thou callest them all by one name, and dost ascribe to them the same attributes, thou hast not erred from the truth. Even as He hath revealed: "No distinction do We make between any of His Messengers."....."

It is a quote from the Quran.

Chapter (2:285) sūrat l-baqarah (The Cow)

Sahih International: The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination

Baha'u'llah also acknowledges the distinction of the Messages.

"..... Viewed in the light of their second station, the station of distinction, differentiation, temporal limitations, characteristics and standards they manifest absolute servitude, utter destitution, and complete self-effacement. Even as He saith: "I am the servant of God. I am but a man like you."..."

Regards Tony

That's what I said:

It's false equivalence to assume that because Baha'u'llah claimed to be a messenger after Muhammad -- that makes him the same as Muhammad. Or that because Baha'u'llah's life may share one or two obscure parallels with the life of Jesus, that makes him equal to the Christ?

It's not an argument to accept Baha'u'llah, is the point?

Glad to know Baha'u'llah did not draw upon comparisons with Muhammad or Jesus for credibility

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

That's what I said:
It's not an argument to accept Baha'u'llah, is the point?

You offered but I do not agree that the acceptance of Baha'u'llah is built upon a false equivalence. I see one is comparing apples with apples, oranges with oranges. We give the Messenger fair and just consideration.

We are comparing each of the fruits the Messengers portrayed, we compare the apples of all Messengers, the oranges of all the Messengers, we are not comparing the apple against an orange.

Regards Tony

 

[RJM]

You offered but I do not agree that the acceptance of Baha'u'llah is built upon a false equivalence. I see one is comparing apples with apples, oranges with oranges. We give the Messenger fair and just consideration.

We are comparing each of the fruits the Messengers portrayed, we compare the apples of all Messengers, the oranges of all the Messengers, we are not comparing the apple against an orange.

Regards Tony

I know that's what you think. So do the adherents of every self-declared new Christ and messenger. It remains false equivalence, imo

Anyway Tony, I have asked to be excused from this thread ...