A New Creation

[Thomas]

I thought the OP was about 'New Creation'...

Yes, it is.

... to which I see Abdul'baha is a perfect example of what that actually means and I saw reflected in a comment you posted.

No, that's not I mean at all, it's not what Scripture's saying, either.

What you offer is still very much in and of this world – nothing has changed, nothing is 'new' in any substantial sense.

Think about this: Luke 24:
"As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him"(v15-16) ... Then later ... "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognised him, and he disappeared from their sight." (v31-32)

This is about the Mystery of the Eucharist –
But how it is that Christ can walk and talk with His disciples and not be seen, but then is seen, and then is not?

This is also a foreshadow of the New Heaven and the New Earth – and that is what I was talking about.

 

[talib-al-kalim]

You quote the Christian Bible repeatedly as if what is written is fact that we should act on?

I can understand that for Christians that believe such...but just because someone wrote something we like or appreciate does not make it true,

I agree, it's not sufficient that you like it, it must prove to be a relevant guidance. It needn't even be literally true to have such value.

nor worthy of us getting excited about or anticipatory of imo.

When it proves to be a valuable guidance, there is a high value of it, and it merits to be followed.

There is much written in science fiction about future existence I think I would personally get excited about hoping to be true...but I don't have faith any of that is real ejther.

There's a lot written. Not all merits attention, and as far as I see, science fiction is more often a warning than a positive utopia. You may of cause also draw good conclusions out of reading literature.

There is an individual and a collective filter after all we hear or read.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Yes, it is.


No, that's not I mean at all, it's not what Scripture's saying, either.

What you offer is still very much in and of this world – nothing has changed, nothing is 'new' in any substantial sense.

Think about this: Luke 24:
"As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; but they were kept from recognizing him"(v15-16) ... Then later ... "When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognised him, and he disappeared from their sight." (v31-32)

This is about the Mystery of the Eucharist –
But how it is that Christ can walk and talk with His disciples and not be seen, but then is seen, and then is not?

This is also a foreshadow of the New Heaven and the New Earth – and that is what I was talking about.

I would offer that same supper was partaken of with the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

The passage quoted I see it as a metephor of the transition of the Holy Spirit in the 'Self of God' from the appearance in the flesh. In reality, the Spirit never leaves the Kingdom of God. So it comes back to the mirror analogy.

Notice the disciples had not been able to recognise that Christ was with them as they partook of their daily lives, it was when that they shared and partook of the Bread and Wine (the Knowledge and Love of Christ), that they realised that Christ is always present in that remembrance, devotion and servitude.

In the end Thomas, it matters not how we see God and the Holy Spirit interact with the world, and to argue about it would be wrong. I am happy to discuss without argument.

That to me is the New Heaven and the New Earth that cones with every God sent Messenger, Christ renewed, the first and the Last. We are given a chance in each age to bring about the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

Yet prophecy tells us that it was for a future age that humanity would eventually find the capacity to do this as a united whole. First the Gospel had to be preached throughout the entire earth, the Jews were to be brought back to the Holy Land, their promised inheritance, etc etc.

In the context of the OP, this is another great metephor about the contending Nations eventually bowing down to the Child of God, the Messenger.

ISAIAH 11:6 “The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them".

As Abdulbaha offered, ".. Strong and weak, rich and poor, contending kindreds and hostile nations—which are like the wolf and the lamb, the leopard and kid, the lion and the calf—will treat one another with the utmost love, unity, justice, and equity…"

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

I would offer that same supper was partaken of with the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

I have no idea what you mean.

The passage quoted I see it as a metaphor ...

Ah, there you have it. It's more than that.

In the end Thomas, it matters not how we see God ...

Well clearly it does to us, as this is what we're about.

Let's be clear. You have your belief in your Baha'i authorities, your sacred texts, your traditions, and OK, that's your belief, and I'm OK with that.

But then you start to tell me that mine are mistaken, even corrupted, and when I ask for the reasoning, I find it deficient, and furthermore I find your intuition into the 'Mysteries' of Scripture as short-sighted.

I say "this event will occur" and you say "No it won't really, it's just a way of saying ... "

And the Holy Spirit interact with the world, and to argue about it would be wrong.

I 'argue' from the proper definition of the word: "to give reasons or cite evidence in support of an idea, action, or theory, typically with the aim of persuading others to share one's view."

I think you mean 'get heated about', which I don't and which I agree is wrong.

But with regard the the Holy Spirit, as we've discussed al length elsewhere, your understanding of the Christian Scriptures on this point is deeply flawed.

+++

We are given a chance in each age to bring about the kingdom of God on earth as it is in heaven.

Yes we are, that's what we mean by Beatitude... and Scripoture talks about this.

But when we're discussing what is meant by the texts of the St Paul and St John – that is something else altogether. It is most definitely not 'more of the same'.

 

[Thomas]

I was hoping someone might come in with the idea of a New Heaven and New Earth from another Tradition, a Nondual view, rather than the carryu-over from the Hellenic model, but it appears not.

I apologise to others that, in my responses, this should necessarily be so Christ-focussed.

 

[Thomas]

I would offer that same supper was partaken of with the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

You mean they were the two disciples? And were they of the House of David?

As Abdulbaha offered, ".. Strong and weak, rich and poor, contending kindreds and hostile nations—which are like the wolf and the lamb, the leopard and kid, the lion and the calf—will treat one another with the utmost love, unity, justice, and equity…"

Why should a Muslim, Christian or Jew be impressed with what Abdulbaha offered, when the text is there in the Bible for all to read? D'you think no Muslim, Christian or Jewish exegete has ever offered a commentary on the text?

Especially when, in offering commentary on the Christian Tradition, he falls into error:
"This “rod out of the stem of Jesse” might seem to apply to Christ, for Joseph was a descendant of Jesse, the father of David. However, since Christ had come into being through the Divine Spirit, He called Himself the Son of God. Had this not been the case, this passage could have indeed applied to Him."
Abdulbaha seems to draw the conclusion that since Joseph was, in effect, the adoptive father of Jesus, Jesus cannot legitimately claim to be of the Davidic line.
So he fails to realise that in law, adoption was sufficient to make a hereditary claim, but more importantly
Mary, the Mother of Jesus, from whom He received His physical body, was herself of the House of David, and therefore Jesus is of that line by birth.

So he's made an erroneous statement, either out of ignorance – which I'll allow – or in the hope that his audience is not as well-informed as they might be – as is so often the case.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

But then you start to tell me that mine are mistaken, even corrupted, and when I ask for the reasoning, I find it deficient, and furthermore I find your intuition into the 'Mysteries' of Scripture as short-sighted.

The key here Thomas is that it is not me that gave the Message from God, that corrected some understandings of scriptures.

It was the Bab and Baha'u'llah that gave these Messages. So as Jesus Christ offered, we must first determine if they are true or false prophets. A good tree does not produce bad fruit.

What is short sighted about the oneness of humanity, the oneness of God? What is short sighted about the Love of all creation and the desire to look after that creation and serve all our brothers and sisters, of all races and gender?

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Yes we are, that's what we mean by Beatitude... and Scripoture talks about this.

But when we're discussing what is meant by the texts of the St Paul and St John – that is something else altogether. It is most definitely not 'more of the same'.

Thank you Thomas, I know of the beatitudes given in the Bible. You may not be aware that Baha'u'llah has also given scripture in tune with those beatitudes, I share in a spoiler

Spoiler: Beatitues of Baha'u'llah

Blessed the slumberer who is awakened by My Breeze.

Blessed the lifeless one who is quickened through My reviving breaths.

Blessed the eye that is solaced by gazing at My beauty.

Blessed the wayfarer who directeth his steps towards the Tabernacle of My glory and majesty.

Blessed the distressed one who seeketh refuge beneath the shadow of My canopy.

Blessed the sore athirst who hasteneth to the soft-flowing waters of My loving-kindness.

Blessed the insatiate soul who casteth away his selfish desires for love of Me and taketh his place at the banquet table which I have sent down from the heaven of divine bounty for My chosen ones.

Blessed the abased one who layeth fast hold on the cord of My glory; and the needy one who entereth beneath the shadow of the Tabernacle of My wealth.

Blessed the ignorant one who seeketh the fountain of My knowledge; and the heedless one who cleaveth to the cord of My remembrance.

Blessed the soul that hath been raised to life through My quickening breath and hath gained admittance into My heavenly Kingdom.

Blessed the man whom the sweet savors of reunion with Me have stirred and caused to draw nigh unto the Dayspring of My Revelation.

Blessed the ear that hath heard and the tongue that hath borne witness and the eye that hath seen and recognized the Lord Himself, in His great glory and majesty, invested with grandeur and dominion.

Blessed are they that have attained His presence.

Blessed the man who hath sought enlightenment from the Daystar of My Word.

Blessed he who hath attired his head with the diadem of My love.

Blessed is he who hath heard of My grief and hath arisen to aid Me among My people.

Blessed is he who hath laid down his life in My path and hath borne manifold hardships for the sake of My name.

Blessed the man who, assured of My Word, hath arisen from among the dead to celebrate My praise.

Blessed is he that hath been enraptured by My wondrous melodies and hath rent the veils asunder through the potency of My might.

Blessed is he who hath remained faithful to My Covenant, and whom the things of the world have not kept back from attaining My Court of holiness.

Blessed is the man who hath detached himself from all else but Me, hath soared in the atmosphere of My love, hath gained admittance into My Kingdom, gazed upon My realms of glory, quaffed the living waters of My bounty, hath drunk his fill from the heavenly river of My loving providence, acquainted himself with My Cause, apprehended that which I concealed within the treasury of My Words, and hath shone forth from the horizon of divine knowledge engaged in My praise and glorification. Verily, he is of Me. Upon him rest My mercy, My loving-kindness, My bounty and My glory.

All things made new, to me means just that. The possessions and attire we had in the precious age, are all made new. So they can be the same items, but a new version, or a new item altogether.

Can the fruit on an apple tree be the same apple from last year? Nature, in metephor, can teach us a lot about God's interaction with humanity. That is why subduing the native beliefs was a grave mistake, we needed to learn from those stories.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

You mean they were the two disciples? And were they of the House of David?

I was meaning in the light of the Metephor, as a Baha'i I partake of the Last Supper as well. A very different frame of reference Thomas as that supper for me.includes remembrance of all the Messengers, the First and to the Last.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

So he's made an erroneous statement, either out of ignorance – which I'll allow – or in the hope that his audience is not as well-informed as they might be – as is so often the case.

A good thing to remember Thomas is that if you needed clarification Abdul'baha could have given it. There is ample proof this was the case. Abdul'baha talked to the capacity of all His audience, a very unique ability.

We have to be careful to tag a person ignorant, it may be our own ignorance that is the issue.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

The key here Thomas is that it is not me that gave the Message from God, that corrected some understandings of scriptures.

The point here is Abdulbaha said that the prophecy of Isaiah could not have applied to Jesus, because Jesus was not of the House of David. If he got this from the Bab and Baha'u'llah, then they, too, are wrong.

Point 1: Joseph is of the House of David (Luke 1:27) and Joseph married Mary, so she, by marriage, and Jesus, her son, become members of the House of David according to Jewish law and custom.

Point 2: Luke seems to have been a confidant of Mary, he tells her story, and it's traditionally upheld that the lineage in Luke is her bloodline, whilst Matthew's is Joseph's, so again, Mary was of the House of David from her father Heli, and ergo so is her natural-born son.

Point 3: The angel declared: "He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever." (Luke 1:32)

Point 4: "And Zachary his father was filled with the Holy Ghost; and he prophesied, saying: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people: And hath raised up an horn of salvation to us, in the house of David his servant" (Luke 1:67-69).

Point 5: Both Matthew and Luke were aware that Jesus was a virgin birth and that Joseph was nominally, not biologically, his father:
"And Eliud begot Eleazar. And Eleazar begot Mathan. And Mathan begot Jacob. And Jacob begot Joseph (this 'begot' is the 39th in the list, but pointedly Joseph did not beget Jesus) the husband of Mary, of whom (Mary) was born Jesus, who is called Christ" (Matthew 1:15-16)
"And Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty years; being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph" (Luke 3:23)

So not a correction of scripture – just flat wrong, an error.

If you want to correct me, go ahead. but don't trying the 'scripture is corrupted' message, that's a self-serving statement, unless you have evidence to that effect.

It was the Bab and Baha'u'llah that gave these Messages. So as Jesus Christ offered, we must first determine if they are true or false prophets. A good tree does not produce bad fruit.

Then the evidence would suggest yours is a bad tree and they are false prophets, of whom Jesus gave ample warning.

What is short sighted about the oneness of humanity, the oneness of God? What is short sighted about the Love of all creation and the desire to look after that creation and serve all our brothers and sisters, of all races and gender?

Nothing, but that's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. You're just deflecting the discussion away from the point.

 

[Thomas]

Thank you Thomas, I know of the beatitudes given in the Bible. You may not be aware that Baha'u'llah has also given scripture in tune with those beatitudes, I share in a spoiler

My spoiler: "And Jesus answering, said to them: Take heed that no man seduce you: For many will come in my name saying, I am Christ: and they will seduce many" (Matthew 24:4-5).

All things made new, to me means just that. The possessions and attire we had in the precious age, are all made new. So they can be the same items, but a new version, or a new item altogether.

Oh, Lordy, Tony – 'possessions', 'attire'? You're talking about inconsequential things!
"For this corruptible must put on incorruption; and this mortal must put on immortality" (1 Corinthians 15:53).

 

[Thomas]

I was meaning in the light of the Metephor, as a Baha'i I partake of the Last Supper as well. A very different frame of reference Thomas as that supper for me.includes remembrance of all the Messengers, the First and to the Last.

Sadly, it doesn't call to mind in you what that supper was actually about. You've generalised it, rendering it anodyne and trivial.

 

[Thomas]

A good thing to remember Thomas is that if you needed clarification Abdul'baha could have given it.

I don't need clarification. He was clearly in error.

We've discussed this before: His interpretations are based on false or erroneous assertions, or failures to acknowledge those Scriptures that refute him.

Abdul'baha talked to the capacity of all His audience, a very unique ability.

No, honestly, it's not. Not everyone has it, but it's by no means unique.

We have to be careful to tag a person ignorant, it may be our own ignorance that is the issue.

Well if you want to correct me, do so, I'd welcome it ... but address the issue, don't just throw more spaghetti at the wall in the hope that something sticks.

 

[RJM]

Baha'u'llah was obviously a charismatic personality with psychic gifts -- but so were Rasputin and Charles Manson -- although I am NOT comparing them in other ways; but they're not Christ, imo

End days coming, world unity and universal peace -- it's nothing new. Christ was/is a healer. These new Christ figures don't cut it, imo

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Nothing, but that's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. You're just deflecting the discussion away from the point.

I thought that was diverting the discussion to the valid point, the true fruit of a Prophet.

That is because scriptural prophecy can be debated and disagreed upon by us mear mortals to tge cows come home, from the first Message God gave to the last, it is fruitless argument, the only people who have the key to that understanding is the Messengers, and if we reject them as Messengers we will never agree.

So the quotes posted above are for a day yet to come. If you are correct it will not arrive as predicted by Baha'u'llah.

No worries, it is our fruit that matters as we together work towards the oneness of humanity, as we practive morals and virtues and serve each other as brothers and sisters, part of one family. I am happy to work with you and all people for the unity and prosperity of every person.

One planet one people please is the new creation we can one and all bring about.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Sadly, it doesn't call to mind in you what that supper was actually about. You've generalised it, rendering it anodyne and trivial.

Or one can say the whole banquet was partaken from, in its full splendor, partaking of the supper in remembrance of Christ.

It is all relative Thomas.

All the best to you family and friends, and all on RF.

May God's Will be done. Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

I thought that was diverting the discussion to the valid point, the true fruit of a Prophet.

No, that's your ballgame, not mine. Read the OP.

That is because scriptural prophecy can be debated and disagreed upon by us mear mortals to tge cows come home ... it is fruitless argument,

Nope, it's a reasoned discussion. It's called theology: 'Faith seeking understanding' – that's how we tell the difference between the false and the true.

One planet one people please is the new creation we can one and all bring about.

I favour the divinely-ordained natural model: One planet, in all her magnificent diversity.

 

[Thomas]

Or one can say the whole banquet was partaken from, in its full splendor, partaking of the supper in remembrance of Christ.

You can, but as I said, you've missed the point.

It's all relative Thomas

Tell that to your Messengers ...

 

[Ahanu]

The incurable of yesterday is not curable today by miraculous means, so there is a distinction.

I do not accept this fictional distinction, @Thomas.

There never was a yesterday when 2000-year-old Jewish miracle workers delivered miraculous cures. The true distinction is in the consciousness of yesterday and the consciousness of today: "phenomenal consciousness overflows access consciousness."

Conscious awareness reflected in any ancient text is not really an accurate reflection of reality.

The ancient Jews lacked the subtleties in their language to talk about diseases on a molecular level, so causes were attributed to external spiritual forces like demons.

The interplay between God and the world – whether for good or for ill – was all part of their world view, in the same way many today might express the opinion that surviving illness, accident or catastrophe, etc., as God's will.

Many today don't express illness in terms of demonic possession, however. Contrast this with the description of the Israelite camp being plagued by "seraphs" (Deuteronomy 28.26) within some streams of Judaism, which implies the belief in demonic beings as agents of disease.

The authors of Scripture, for example, clearly saw a distinction between the mundane and the miraculous

There's the rub: They didn't understand the mundane very well. In a world where medical knowledge was limited, and many diseases were poorly understood, it was natural to attribute unexplained illnesses to supernatural causes. Hence exorcisms were often depicted during Jesus' ministry.

– so Im not sure that the idea of progress is sufficient in itself to explain miracles away.

I think it is. Strangely, as medical knowledge progressed, seeing demonic possession as the primary cause of diseases declined. Still, it has some relevance in certain Jewish communities.