The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

Ah, the Holy Spirit is merely a concept?

The Baha'i Faith does not say the Holy Spirit is merely a concept. Instead, it asserts that the human understanding of the Holy Spirit is limited by the constraints of language and thought. The concept of the Holy Spirit is a human construct used to describe and understand a divine reality that transcends human comprehension. We can only comprehend the effects.
 
Last edited:
The Holy Spirit is not a physical body.

You are aware you just placed constraints/limitations on the Holy Spirit here, right? This limitation restricts the potential attributes and actions of the Holy Spirit to those that can be conceived within a non-physical framework. This is why I am struggling to understand why the assertion that "it is in no wise possible for the Holy Spirit to ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere" is so problematic.

Terms like "descent" and "entrance" may be inadequate for capturing the nature of divine influence, and so we say they shouldn't be taken literally.
 
..I am struggling to understand why the assertion that "it is in no wise possible for the Holy Spirit to ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere" is so problematic.

Terms like "descent" and "entrance" may be inadequate for capturing the nature of divine influence, and so we say they shouldn't be taken literally.
Mmm .. I don't believe in these televangelists, with their ideas of the Holy Spirit entering people,
and people speaking in 'tongues'.
..but then I live in the UK, and embraced Islam.

..and then we might explore the possibility of demonic possession .. that's another
controversial issue .. or maybe I should say often misunderstood.
 
Mmm .. I don't believe in these televangelists, with their ideas of the Holy Spirit entering people,
and people speaking in 'tongues'.
..but then I live in the UK, and embraced Islam.

..and then we might explore the possibility of demonic possession .. that's another
controversial issue .. or maybe I should say often misunderstood.
@Ahanu has efficiently and comprehensively adressed Thomas's questions, so I need not repeat.

I think the knowledge given in the Baha'i Writings that we are created on the edge of darkness and the beginning of light may help the discussion. The light is the potential.

My understanding is that the darkness is this material life, and embracing the potential of the light is what removes this darkness from us. The actions required to impart the light are through the sensible realities, will require a conscious choice of reflecting the intelligible realities, such as trustworthiness, truthfulness, mercy, compassion, love.

Nature and nurture add a high degree of complexity to our choices and the light reflected.

I would thus see, that any possession that is not a reflection of the potential light, is but a product of the darkness, a product of this world of illusions, a product of our own mind and not a mind that has made a faith filled choice to be born again and to reflect the attributes given of God, via the Messengers.

Regards Tony
 
Baha'i women .. love and tolerance.
One never knows what is supposed to have been said by Bahaollah is said by him or by Abbas or Shoghi or the House of Justice.
It is their domain and they can change it at will. Furthermore, 17,000 of tablets (notes, to be precise) have not yet been translated, so anything can come up as and when required.
 
Then explain to us the nature of descent, entrance, and exit if not in a physical sense, and what the Holy Spirit loses if it does not "ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere" in whatever sense you have in mind.
What descent, what entrance, what exit, what comingling, what inhere, what holy spirit? Is there any evidence of any of these things?
 
What descent, what entrance, what exit, what comingling, what inhere, what holy spirit? Is there any evidence of any of these things?

We can only know the effects of the Holy Spirit. It must produce a real-world effect, yeah? That's what should be focused on, not abstract descriptions of theologians that adhere to literal descriptions of it:

"And the People of Bahá, who by the grace of the Creator of heavens and earth have been liberated from blind imitation and have attained the summit of investigation, distinguish the Words of God from the sayings of man by a few criteria. It suffices us to mention only two criteria in this book so that this discussion does not become prolonged.

The first criterion is the creativity of the verses of God. By this is meant the foundation of laws and the establishment of traditions and rites that exert influence in the world. These ordinances then become the cause of the elevation of civilization and eradication of the spiritual ailments of the people...

The second criterion is the sovereignty of the verses of God. By this is meant that the Word of God is sovereign and dominant and will not ebb and undergo extinction when faced with the resistance and hostility of governments and people. Rather, it becomes the cause of the disappearance and eradication of the forces that oppose it. For example, the Law of the Torah was not destroyed by the opposition of the Egyptian, Syrian and Assyrian Kings; rather, the word of God conquered the opposing nations. The Faith of Jesus was not destroyed by the resistance of their Jewish and Roman foes. The potency of the New Testament subjugated them. Likewise the resistance of Arab and non-Arab disbelievers did not cause the ebbing of the religion of His Holiness "the Seal." The sovereignty of the Quran dispersed them all. This is the meaning of the blessed Quranic verse, "God desired to confirm the truth by His Words and destroy the unbelievers to the last."

Through the use of these two criteria, the words of God can readily be distinguished from the sayings of men equally by everyone, regardless of whether they are learned or not, and whether they personally witnessed the revelation of verses or not."
-Abu'l-Fadl
 
I think you evaded the question.
I don't think so.

The focus is on the nature of "descent" and "entrance," not a broader discussion of physicality.
Quite – you're the one who introduced physicality. I have been speaking spiritually throughout.

You have not explained how the concepts of "descent" and "entrance" apply to a non-physical entity. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by these terms in this context? If the Holy Spirit is not a physical entity, capable of physical movement, how can it be said to "descend" or "enter" in any meaningful way?
It's the language of symbol, which is common to all spiritual traditions, and which shares a commonality of image, it's a kind of shorthand which communicates a range of meaning, and in this instance, because we are discussing non-physical entities, is should not be interpreted in physical terms.

I have to say that for a tradition which rests on writings so dense in metaphor and analogy that really the question should not arise, and were it not you asking I would assume it disingenuous.

An example from the Baha'i texts:
"Each kingdom of nature is incapable of understanding the level of existence higher than itself... “All superior kingdoms are incomprehensible to the inferior; how therefore could it be possible that the creature, man, should understand the almighty Creator of all?”

While the true nature of God will always elude us, the purpose of our lives is to recognise, love, and grow closer to Him. “I have breathed within thee a breath of My own Spirit, that thou mayest be My lover.”


The heavens are always seen as 'above' the earth, the 'infernal' regions below. The above speaks in terms of superior and inferior, which can be said to be higher or lower, inner or outer, according to context.

Thus when the author says "I I have breathed the breath of my own Spirit" we are not talking about physical breath.

Thus St Paul says: "... you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba" (Romans 8:15) and more to the point: "And because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba," Galatians 4:6.

As we see it, it is by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit that we are uplifted and can enter a dialogue and even a union with the Divine.

As the Fathers have it, the (indwelling presence) Spirit reveals the (indwelling presence) Son (in the heart), and the Son reveals the Father.
 
As we see it, it is by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit that we are uplifted and can enter a dialogue and even a union with the Divine.

As the Fathers have it, the (indwelling presence) Spirit reveals the (indwelling presence) Son (in the heart), and the Son reveals the Father.
As we agree this is spiritual and not material symbolism, then we could also consider for us to reveal the Spirit, we must be able to remove the dross of earthly defilement and static fancies from our hearts.

Otherwise it is not possible for us to reveal the Son, who reveals the Father.

This response was inspired from this quote.

"There can be no doubt whatever that, in consequence of the efforts which every man may consciously exert and as a result of the exertion of his own spiritual faculties, this mirror can be so cleansed from the dross of earthly defilements and purged from satanic fancies as to be able to draw nigh unto the meads of eternal holiness and attain the courts of everlasting fellowship." Bahá’u’lláh, Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 262

Regards Tony
 
We can only know the effects of the Holy Spirit. It must produce a real-world effect, yeah? That's what should be focused on, not abstract descriptions of theologians that adhere to literal descriptions of it:

"And the People of Bahá, who by the grace of the Creator of heavens and earth have been liberated from blind imitation and have attained the summit of investigation, distinguish the Words of God from the sayings of man by a few criteria. It suffices us to mention only two criteria in this book so that this discussion does not become prolonged.

The first criterion is the creativity of the verses of God. By this is meant the foundation of laws and the establishment of traditions and rites that exert influence in the world. These ordinances then become the cause of the elevation of civilization and eradication of the spiritual ailments of the people...

The second criterion is the sovereignty of the verses of God. By this is meant that the Word of God is sovereign and dominant and will not ebb and undergo extinction when faced with the resistance and hostility of governments and people. Rather, it becomes the cause of the disappearance and eradication of the forces that oppose it. For example, the Law of the Torah was not destroyed by the opposition of the Egyptian, Syrian and Assyrian Kings; rather, the word of God conquered the opposing nations. The Faith of Jesus was not destroyed by the resistance of their Jewish and Roman foes. The potency of the New Testament subjugated them. Likewise the resistance of Arab and non-Arab disbelievers did not cause the ebbing of the religion of His Holiness "the Seal." The sovereignty of the Quran dispersed them all. This is the meaning of the blessed Quranic verse, "God desired to confirm the truth by His Words and destroy the unbelievers to the last."

Through the use of these two criteria, the words of God can readily be distinguished from the sayings of men equally by everyone, regardless of whether they are learned or not, and whether they personally witnessed the revelation of verses or not."
-Abu'l-Fadl
Again what Holy Spirit, what creator of heavens and earth, what word of God? If a poem is good then it is true? Well, Sanskrit poetry is beautiful. Laws are created by societies or governments and not any God. Jews now form a small percentage of world's population, a large number of Christians do not believe in Bible and Jesus. In Islam, the indoctrination is deep, but there are people who rebel. Abu'l-Fadl (now, who is this guy and why are you quoting him? Is he too a messenger of Allah?) in no way establishes God, soul or Bahaollah. Many people spout inane things, some for their personal benefit.
 
It's the language of symbol, which is common to all spiritual traditions and which shares a commonality of image, it's a kind of shorthand which communicates a range of meaning, and in this instance, because we are discussing non-physical entities, is should not be interpreted in physical terms.

The "language of symbol" that "is common to all spiritual traditions" is not clear at all, as early Christian texts about spirituality prove to us. As Origen - a prominent early Christian theologian - shows us, there was a strong emphasis on literal interpretation, such as the descent of the Holy Spirit as a real, actual dove. Early Christian writers, such Justin Martyr, provide clear examples of a more literal approach to sacred texts than what you describe about words like "descend," "ascend," and "enter."

Therefore, considering that they are closer to the recorded events, we have to take Luke at his word when he wrote that "the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit came down in a bodily appearance, as if a dove, upon him." The imagery suggests physical descent and a physical dove. One would even think the dove to be a symbol. Abdu'l-Baha said: "Thus it is evident that the dove which descended upon Christ was not a physical dove but a spiritual condition expressed, for the sake of comprehension, by a sensible figure." He provides an additional example drive home the point: "For example, in the Old Testament it is said that God appeared as a pillar of fire. Now, that which is intended is not a sensible form but an intelligible reality that has been expressed in such a form." Not so with early Christians. Tertullian said:

"When the said Spirit was in this condition, He was as truly a dove as He was also a spirit; nor did He destroy His own proper substance by the assumption of an extraneous substance. But you ask what becomes of the dove's body, after the return of the Spirit back to heaven, and similarly in the case of the angels. Their withdrawal was effected in the same manner as their appearance had been. If you had seen how their production out of nothing had been effected, you would have known also the process of their return to nothing. If the initial step was out of sight, so was also the final one. Still there was solidity in their bodily substance, whatever may have been the force by which the body became visible. What is written cannot but have been."

You would think it is a blip - just some rogue ancient Christian that has lost his marbles. But he is far from alone. Consider Origen, who also defends the same position:

"Let us therefore notice what he [Celsus] has to say by way of impugning the bodily appearance of the Holy Spirit to our Saviour in the form of a dove. And it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: "When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?

Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour to show, with regard to almost any history, however true, that it actually occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an impossibility. For suppose that some one were to assert that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or AEneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans? And suppose, also, that some one disbelieved the story of OEdipus and Jocasta, and of their two sons Eteocles and Polynices, because the sphinx, a kind of half-virgin, was introduced into the narrative, how should we demonstrate the reality of such a thing? And in like manner also with the history of the Epigoni, although there is no such marvellous event interwoven with it, or with the return of the Heracleidae, or countless other historical events. But he who deals candidly with histories, and would wish to keep himself also from being imposed upon by them, will exercise his judgment as to what statements he will give his assent to, and what he will accept figuratively, seeking to discover the meaning of the authors of such inventions, and from what statements he will withhold his belief, as having been written for the gratification of certain individuals. And we have said this by way of anticipation respecting the whole history related in the Gospels concerning Jesus, not as inviting men of acuteness to a simple and unreasoning faith, but wishing to show that there is need of candour in those who are to read, and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the meaning of the writers, that the object with which each event has been recorded may be discovered.

We shall therefore say, in the first place, that if he who disbelieves the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove had been described as an Epicurean, or a follower of Democritus, or a Peripatetic, the statement would have been in keeping with the character of such an objector. But now even this Celsus, wisest of all men, did not perceive that it is to a Jew, who believes more incredible things contained in the writings of the prophets than the narrative of the appearance of the dove, that he attributes such an objection! For one might say to the Jew, when expressing his disbelief of the appearance, and thinking to assail it as a fiction, "How are you able to prove, sir, that the Lord spake to Adam, or to Eve, or to Cain, or to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob, those words which He is recorded to have spoken to these men?" And, to compare history with history, I would say to the Jew, "Even your own Ezekiel writes, saying,' The heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of God." After relating which, he adds, ' This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD; and He said to me,'" etc. Now, if what is related of Jesus be false, since we cannot, as you suppose, clearly prove it to be true, it being seen or heard by Himself alone, and, as you appear to have observed, also by one of those who were punished, why should we not rather say that Ezekiel also was dealing in the marvellous when he said, "The heavens were opened," etc.? Nay, even Isaiah asserts, "I saw the Lord of hosts sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and the seraphim stood round about it: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings." How can we tell whether he really saw them or not? Now, O Jew, you have believed these visions to be true, and to have been not only shown to the prophet by a diviner Spirit, but also to have been both spoken and recorded by the same. And who is the more worthy of belief, when declaring that the heavens were opened before him, and that he heard a voice, or beheld the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up,--whether Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jesus? Of the former, indeed, no work has been found equal to those of the latter; whereas the good deeds of Jesus have not been confined solely to the period of His tabernacling in the flesh, but up to the present time His power still produces conversion and amelioration of life in those who believe in God through Him. And a manifest proof that these things are done by His power, is the fact that, although, as He Himself said, and as is admitted, there are not labourers enough to gather in the harvest of souls, there really is nevertheless such a great harvest of those who are gathered together and conveyed into the everywhere existing threshing-floors and Churches of God.

And with these arguments I answer the Jew, not disbelieving, I who am a Christian, Ezekiel and Isaiah, but being very desirous to show, on the footing of our common belief, that this man is far more worthy of credit than they are when He says that He beheld such a sight, and, as is probable, related to His disciples the vision which He saw, and told them of the voice which He heard. But another party might object, that not all those who have narrated the appearance of the dove and the voice from heaven heard the accounts of these things from Jesus, but that that Spirit which taught Moses the history of events before his own time, beginning with the creation, and descending down to Abraham his father, taught also the writers of the Gospel the miraculous occurrence which took place at the time of Jesus' baptism. And he who is adorned with the spiritual gift, called the "word of wisdom," will explain also the reason of the heavens opening, and the dove appearing, and why the Holy Spirit appeared to Jesus in the form of no other living thing than that of a dove. But our present subject does not require us to explain this, our purpose being to show that Celsus displayed no sound judgment in representing a Jew as disbelieving, on such grounds, a fact which has greater probability in its favour than many events in which he firmly reposes confidence.

And you would think "ascend" and "descend" belong to the language of symbol too, but that is not what early Christians like Justin Martyr said:

"Why did He rise in the flesh in which He suffered, unless to show the resurrection of the flesh? And wishing to confirm this, when His disciples did not know whether to believe He had truly risen in the body, and were looking upon Him and doubting, He said to them, “Ye have not yet faith, see that it is I,” and He let them handle Him, and showed them the prints of the nails in His hands. And when they were by every kind of proof persuaded that it was Himself, and in the body, they asked Him to eat with them, that they might thus still more accurately ascertain that He had in verity risen bodily; and He did eat honey-comb and fish. And when He had thus shown them that there is truly a resurrection of the flesh, wishing to show them this also, that it is not impossible for flesh to ascend into heaven (as He had said that our dwelling-place is in heaven), “He was taken up into heaven while they beheld,” as He was in the flesh. If, therefore, after all that has been said, any one demand demonstration of the resurrection, he is in no respect different from the Sadducees."

Given the historical context of early Christianity, with its emphasis on literal interpretations and the supernatural, it's entirely reasonable to question the precise meaning of terms like "descend" and "enter." It's not disingenuous at all.
 
Last edited:
An example from the Baha'i texts:
"Each kingdom of nature is incapable of understanding the level of existence higher than itself... “All superior kingdoms are incomprehensible to the inferior; how therefore could it be possible that the creature, man, should understand the almighty Creator of all?”

While the true nature of God will always elude us, the purpose of our lives is to recognise, love, and grow closer to Him. “I have breathed within thee a breath of My own Spirit, that thou mayest be My lover.”


The heavens are always seen as 'above' the earth, the 'infernal' regions below. The above speaks in terms of superior and inferior, which can be said to be higher or lower, inner or outer, according to context.

Thus when the author says "I I have breathed the breath of my own Spirit" we are not talking about physical breath.

I don't know of any early Baha'is that interpret "breath" in a literal fashion here. However, I do know plenty of early Christian writers that interpret "descend" and "ascend" in a literal fashion. Do you see my point?
 
Again what Holy Spirit, what creator of heavens and earth, what word of God?

To use Christianity as an example . . .

"Abandoning the speculative, ontological 'substance Christology' of the classical period, Baha’u’llah describes the 'quickening power' unleashed by Christ’s sacrifice and its impact on civilization . . . the pervasive power of Christ’s influence lent a cultural vigor to the West, contributing to its masterpieces of art, its discoveries of science, its human values and even its temporal power . . ."
-Christopher Buck

"Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. … The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit. We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified. … He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him."
-Baha'u'llah

"We speak today very easily, if not always sincerely, of the intrinsic dignity of every human person. For us, this is merely a received piety, and one of immemorial authority. And yet, if we take the time to wonder just how old a moral intuition it is, there is a good chance that our historical imagination will carry us only as far back as the 'Age of Enlightenment' and the epoch of the 'Rights of Man.' But our modern notion that there is such a thing as innate human worth, residing in every individual of every class and culture, is at best the very late consequence of a cultural, conceptual, and moral revolution that erupted many centuries earlier, and in the middle of a world that was anything but hospitable to its principles."
-David Bentley Hart

Abu'l-Fadl (now, who is this guy and why are you quoting him? Is he too a messenger of Allah?) in no way establishes God, soul or Bahaollah. Many people spout inane things, some for their personal benefit.

No, but Baha'u'llah instructed him to teach the Cause around Iran in the 1880s. At a later period in time, he was sent by Abdu'l-Baha to America to teach the Cause before his arrival.
 
To use Christianity as an example . . .

"Abandoning the speculative, .. hospitable to its principles."

No, but Baha'u'llah instructed him to teach the Cause around Iran in the 1880s. At a later period in time, he was sent by Abdu'l-Baha to America to teach the Cause before his arrival.
Whatever is written here is word salad. It provides no proof of existence of God or soul, and none that Bahaollah was dispatched by any God with message.

Ah, right. Sort of an influencer before the launch of a new snake-oil brand.
 
As we see it, it is by the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit that we are uplifted and can enter a dialogue and even a union with the Divine.

According to my understanding of the Baha'i Writings, union with the Divine means union with the Will of the Manifestation of God. This is the entire goal of the spiritual journey.
 
Whatever is written here is word salad. It provides no proof of existence of God or soul, and none that Bahaollah was dispatched by any God with message.

Ah, right. Sort of an influencer before the launch of a new snake-oil brand.
Just a heads-up that this is the Baha'i board, so it is intended to be a place where people can have respectful discussions about issues relating to the Baha'i faith. That of course includes asking difficult questions, but if all someone wants to do is combat another faith with their own (or lack of) and throw abusive statements about at others, then they should perhaps reconsider making such posts.

Consider having a read of the Code of Conduct here: Code of Conduct

I appreciate that things have gotten out of hand here lately, and some people are venting their passions without any consideration for others. But I'm back in charge again, and that means we start treating others here, regardless or their beliefs, and regardless of how much we disagree with them, some respect.
 
The "language of symbol" that "is common to all spiritual traditions" is not clear at all, as early Christian texts about spirituality prove to us.
Curious, as they are lucent to me, and to many, many others ... so I take that as an opinion piece.

I agree in as much as the world is becoming increasingly myopic with regard to the spiritual senses, and the spiritual is thereby becoming increasingly opaque. Thus the language of symbol is not as understood today as it once was – but to those who make the effort, the rewards are there.

As Origen - a prominent early Christian theologian - shows us, there was a strong emphasis on literal interpretation, such as the descent of the Holy Spirit as a real, actual dove.
Well there's two things here:
One is the events recorded in Scripture itself, and who are we to gainsay it? These were not common happenings ...

As for Origen himself, he taught that Scripture has three distinct senses: somatic, psychic and pneumatic—the first literal and the other two symbolic —corresponding to the human body, soul, and spirit. His notion of multiple senses dominated biblical interpretation until the Reformation. The psychic sense purifies the soul, the spiritual sense opens to the deeper mysteries.

Early Christian writers, such Justin Martyr, provide clear examples of a more literal approach to sacred texts than what you describe about words like "descend," "ascend," and "enter."
That nevertheless does not invalidate the principle of symbolic language – even the Baha'i writings rest on it – you'd have to take each instance on its own terms.

Therefore, considering that they are closer to the recorded events, we have to take Luke at his word when he wrote that "the heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit came down in a bodily appearance, as if a dove, upon him." The imagery suggests physical descent and a physical dove.
No, actually it doesn't. Even in the English version uou quote, it says 'as if a dove' (my emphasis). In the four gospel accounts, in every one the same adverb is used, in Greek hosie 'as it were, (had been), as though, as, like as, like' ...

So the descent of the Holy Spirit was seen 'like a dove' and clearly this was a manifestation for the benefit of the audience.

The dove as a symbol for peace still has currency today.

One would even think the dove to be a symbol. Abdu'l-Baha said: "Thus it is evident that the dove which descended upon Christ was not a physical dove but a spiritual condition expressed, for the sake of comprehension, by a sensible figure."
Er, yes ... that's what the text says ... ?

Not so with early Christians. Tertullian said:
The same thing – the Spirit descended with the appearance of a dove, not as a physical dove. You're really trying to assert an interpretation which is clearly not the case.

You would think it is a blip - just some rogue ancient Christian that has lost his marbles. But he is far from alone. Consider Origen, who also defends the same position:
He says 'the form of a dove' ... please read the text closely, for what it says, not for what you want it to say.

And you would think "ascend" and "descend" belong to the language of symbol too, but that is not what early Christians like Justin Martyr said:
This is a specific instance of the Resurrection, so should be understood in that context. Here one could say the language is 'symbolic' in describing a physical event ... Christ was there one moment, then He was gone .

Given the historical context of early Christianity, with its emphasis on literal interpretations and the supernatural, it's entirely reasonable to question the precise meaning of terms like "descend" and "enter." It's not disingenuous at all.
Well I think I've given sufficient clarification now.
 
I don't know of any early Baha'is that interpret "breath" in a literal fashion here. However, I do know plenty of early Christian writers that interpret "descend" and "ascend" in a literal fashion. Do you see my point?
Yes, and do you see that my response is – one has to read it in context. Is that not reasonable?
 
Back
Top