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

Thomas said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wish that were the case, but it can be said that, yes, actually it does. While the Greek word often implies a comparison or simile, it doesn't definitively exclude a literal interpretation. Several commentaries emphasize the physical visibility of the dove, suggesting a literal manifestation based on other elements of the text.

To give a little more context, I looked at other commentaries too before posting post #251.

One commentary (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges) does indeed agree with you, choosing a purely symbolic interpretation: "The expression ὡς or ὡσεὶ used by each of the Evangelists, and St John’s 'and it abode upon Him' (John 1:32), sufficiently prove that no actual dove is intended." But all commentaries do not agree.

Another commentary (Ellicot's Commentary for English Readers) doesn't exclude an actual dove, offering a more balanced view of a possible symbolic and literal interpretation: "In a bodily shape.—The words are peculiar to St. Luke, and tend to confirm the traditional symbolism which finds in the dove the emblem of the Holy Spirit. They, at least, fall in naturally with this view; but the other construction, that the Holy Spirit descended, after the manner of a dove, first hovering and then resting, in a bodily form (undefined) of some sort, is, at least, not excluded."

Barnes' Notes on the Bible leans towards a literal interpretation, saying: "In a bodily shape - This was a real visible appearance, and was doubtless seen by the people. The dove is an emblem of purity and harmlessness, and the form of the dove was assumed on this occasion to signify, probably, that the spirit with which Jesus would be endowed would be one of purity and innocence. The "Holy Spirit," when he assumes a visible form, assumes that which will be emblematic of the thing to be represented."

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible clearly supports a literal interpretation: "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape,.... In a corporeal form, in a visible manner, and was seen with bodily eyes, at least by John the administrator; to whom this was a signal of his being the Messiah, and a fresh confirmation of it: like a dove upon him; either in the form of a dove, or this corporeal form, whatever it was, descended and hovered on him as a dove does:

and a voice came from heaven; at the same time the Holy Ghost came down upon him; which said,

thou art my beloved Son, in thee I am well pleased: and was the voice of the Father; and the whole of this was an answer of Christ's prayer; See Gill on Matthew 3:16, Matthew 3:17, Mark 1:11."

@Thomas said: "He says 'the form of a dove' ... please read the text closely, for what it says, not for what you want it to say."

See above.
 
Last edited:
Thomas 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.
Click to expand...
That's not what Tertullian says. His argument is based on the principle that the divine can assume a corporeal form without compromising its spiritual nature. Read it again. First, he said the Spirit was "truly a dove." Tertullian asserts that the Holy Spirit existed simultaneously as both spirit and dove, without one negating the other. "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."

He even addresses the question of what happened to the dove's body after the Spirit ascended.
 
Thomas said:
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.
Click to expand...
Let's be blunt. Origen believed scripture speaks of an actual dove. Could it point to other symbolical meanings? Sure. But, again, there was an actual dove descending and ascending. In the quote I provided above, Origen is specifically addressing the literal interpretation of the dove, and defending it against those who would deny its physical reality.
 
Is it a physical dove? According to one writer named Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem, even as late as St. Thomas and St. Augustine you find Christians agreeing there was an actual dove.

In his Summa of theology, third book, question 39, articles 6 and 7, St. Thomas Aquinas asks how it was appropriate for the Holy Spirit to have descended on Christ in the form of a dove and whether the dove in which the Holy Spirit appeared was an actual animal. What was the meaning of his appearing thus? According to the Fathers, especially St. Augustine following St. Cyprian, the dove was a symbol of the unity of Christ’s members in one church; this is from the Song of Songs: one is my dove, my beloved. The Bridegroom of the Canticle mystically signifies Christ, who calls his beloved bride, the Church, with the pet name of “dove.” Thus, the grace of charity bestowed in baptism makes us all members of the one Christ in one body, the Church, and is appropriately signified by the descending dove.

The dove is also peace-loving, faithful to its spouse, prolific in offspring, and given to mourning. All of these pertain to the life of the Church on Earth as she awaits her final union with Christ the Bridegroom at the marriage banquet of heaven. Here we see how our God “projects” his qualities onto us by making the symbol of us, his members, a symbol of himself, a symbol of true unity in love.

But was this a real animal or only a kind of vision? St. Thomas, after some change of his opinion in the matter, came across a text of St. Augustine in which he teaches that the dove was indeed a real animal and not just a figment. He teaches that since the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, it would not be appropriate for him to reveal himself in his personal mission to us by a mere figment or imaginary vision, somewhat deceptively, as if a dream. Thus, he concludes that the dove was a real animal produced the by the power of God without any other doves, just as the body of the Savior was formed without human seed in the womb of his Holy Mother. Yet this dove did not become the Holy Spirit but rather was the place where the Spirit showed his presence.
 
Ahanu said:
Is it a physical dove? According to one writer named Fr. Hugh Barbour, O. Praem, even as late as St. Thomas and St. Augustine you find Christians agreeing there was an actual dove.

In his Summa of theology, third book, question 39, articles 6 and 7, St. Thomas Aquinas asks how it was appropriate for the Holy Spirit to have descended on Christ in the form of a dove and whether the dove in which the Holy Spirit appeared was an actual animal. What was the meaning of his appearing thus? According to the Fathers, especially St. Augustine following St. Cyprian, the dove was a symbol of the unity of Christ’s members in one church; this is from the Song of Songs: one is my dove, my beloved. The Bridegroom of the Canticle mystically signifies Christ, who calls his beloved bride, the Church, with the pet name of “dove.” Thus, the grace of charity bestowed in baptism makes us all members of the one Christ in one body, the Church, and is appropriately signified by the descending dove.

The dove is also peace-loving, faithful to its spouse, prolific in offspring, and given to mourning. All of these pertain to the life of the Church on Earth as she awaits her final union with Christ the Bridegroom at the marriage banquet of heaven. Here we see how our God “projects” his qualities onto us by making the symbol of us, his members, a symbol of himself, a symbol of true unity in love.

But was this a real animal or only a kind of vision? St. Thomas, after some change of his opinion in the matter, came across a text of St. Augustine in which he teaches that the dove was indeed a real animal and not just a figment. He teaches that since the Holy Spirit is the spirit of truth, it would not be appropriate for him to reveal himself in his personal mission to us by a mere figment or imaginary vision, somewhat deceptively, as if a dream. Thus, he concludes that the dove was a real animal produced the by the power of God without any other doves, just as the body of the Savior was formed without human seed in the womb of his Holy Mother. Yet this dove did not become the Holy Spirit but rather was the place where the Spirit showed his presence.
Click to expand...

@Thomas, Thomas Aquinas wrote:

Whether the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was real?​

Objection 1: It would seem that the dove in which the Holy Ghost appeared was not real. For that seems to be a mere apparition which appears in its semblance. But it is stated (Lk. 3:22) that the "Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape as a dove upon Him." Therefore it was not a real dove, but a semblance of a dove.

Objection 2: Further, just as "Nature does nothing useless, so neither does God" (De Coelo i). Now since this dove came merely "in order to signify something and pass away," as Augustine says (De Trin. ii), a real dove would have been useless: because the semblance
of a dove was sufficient for that purpose. Therefore it was not a real dove.

Objection 3: Further, the properties of a thing lead us to a knowledge of that thing. If, therefore, this were a real dove, its properties would have signified the nature of the real animal, and not the effect of the Holy Ghost. Therefore it seems that it was not a real dove.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Agone Christ. xxii): "Nor do we say this as though we asserted that our Lord Jesus Christ alone had a real body, and that the Holy Ghost appeared to men's eyes in a fallacious manner: but we say that both those bodies were real."

I answer that, As stated above (Q[5], A[1]), it was unbecoming that the Son of God, who is the Truth of the Father, should make use of anything unreal; wherefore He took, not an imaginary, but a real body. And since the Holy Ghost is called the Spirit of Truth, as appears from Jn. 16:13, therefore He too made a real dove in which to appear, though He did not assume it into unity of person. Wherefore, after the words quoted above, Augustine adds: "Just as it behooved the Son of God not to deceive men, so it behooved the Holy Ghost not to deceive. But it was easy for Almighty God, who created all creatures out of nothing, to frame the body of a real dove without the help of other doves, just as it was easy for Him to form a true body in Mary's womb without the seed of a man: since the corporeal creature obeys its Lord's command and will, both in the mother's womb in forming a man, and in the world itself in forming a dove."

Reply to Objection 1: The Holy Ghost is said to have descended in the shape or semblance of a dove, not in the sense that the dove was not real, but in order to show that He did not appear in the form of His substance.

Reply to Objection 2: It was not superfluous to form a real dove, in which the Holy Ghost might appear, because by the very reality of the dove the reality of the Holy Ghost and of His effects is signified.

Reply to Objection 3: The properties of the dove lead us to understand the dove's nature and the effects of the Holy Ghost in the same way. Because from the very fact that the dove has such properties, it results that it signifies the Holy Ghost.
 
Ahanu said:
Abdu'l-Baha's statement is a general principle about the nature of intelligible realities.
Click to expand...
OK.

Firstly I would say 'intelligible reality' refers primarily to that which can be conceived in and by the intellect, rather than in and by the senses.

I would then say that those intelligible realities – the objects of apprehension, if you will, cover different classes of things, as you have said; concepts, constructs, realities, and so forth.

My point being that 'intelligible realities' does not infer all are the same class of thing. 'Man', 'dog', 'table', 'stone' are intelligible realities, having material existence. 'Mermaids' and 'unicorns' are intelligible realities without any substantial existence. 'Love', 'justice' and 'beauty', as you say.

Therefore that a thing is an intelligible reality does not mean it has all the same qualities or belongs to the same category as every other intelligible reality – other than it is intelligible.

Ahanu said:
The application of this principle to the Holy Spirit is a logical extension of this metaphysical framework.
Click to expand...
I tend to see the framework as flawed – the Holy Spirit of God belongs in a class of its own, it is Divine, and thus is unlike any other thing.
 
Ahanu said:
You are aware you just placed constraints/limitations on the Holy Spirit here, right?
Click to expand...
Have I? That was not my intention.

Ahanu said:
This limitation restricts the potential attributes and actions of the Holy Spirit to those that can be conceived within a non-physical framework.
Click to expand...
LOL, oh, dear me, no, not at all!

I'm not arguing what the Holy Spirit can and can't do from a traditional Christian perspective, just refusing the logic of what the Baha'i writings say what God can or can't do.

Ahanu said:
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.
Click to expand...
It's not a question of adequacy, it's a simply statement that the Baha'i writings seem to deny the possibility of the Holy Spirit indwelling the soul – arguing that such terms speak of the sensible domain only – it seems to be an overtly literal reading of the text and thence a refutation of what is clear an Abrahamic sensibility.

As I understand it, the writings say:
For otherwise ingress and egress, descent and inherence are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits
Which I say is an error – the Abrahamic texts are replete with such imagery of spiritual 'ascent' and 'descent', ingress and 'egress' – so to imply such terms refer to 'sensible realities' is nonsense – I would go so far as to say the writings present supra-sensible realities in an intelligible way through sensible imagery.
 
Ahanu said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK ... according to my understanding of traditional Christianity, union with the Divine means union with God. This is the entire goal of the spiritual journey, each according to their own capacities.
 
Ahanu said:
I wish that were the case, but it can be said that, yes, actually it does. While the Greek word often implies a comparison or simile, it doesn't definitively exclude a literal interpretation.
Click to expand...
OK ... just to recap, however:

The initial point was whether the Holy Spirit can be said to 'ascend' or 'descend', to 'indwell', to which my assertion is yes.

We then got into a dispute about analogical or figurative language.

Now it's about the specific event of the descent of the dove.

So what's my answer?

The witnesses saw a dove.

Scripture is not definitive ...
Mark 1:10: "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him."
Matthew 3:16: "And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him."
Luke 3:22: "And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him."
John 1:32: "And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him."

+++

Many of the Fathers regard it as a figurative term.

Augustine saw it as an actual dove, and St Thomas agrees, with the proviso this dove was itself a miraculous manifestation, being itself real, but in effect coming into existence at the time of the event ... on the basis that if God can will the world into being, He can will a dove...

Belief in a physical dove, in something perceived as a dove in the senses ... is not a dogma nor an article of faith. If I can believe in the Incarnation and the Resurrection of the flesh, I can believe in the dove.

(In my own mind, I believe that throughout Scripture the miracles are the actualisation in the material world of spiritual realities, so yes, a physical dove is, in the scheme of things, 'no big deal.)

+++

The point, however, is actual dove or spiritual dove; a physical entity or intelligible reality, this does not really effect the wider discussion of the language of symbol, or analogy, simile and metaphor, of poetry and the language of the soul, as it were.
 
Ahanu said:
Let's be blunt.
Click to expand...
OK.

You have pointed out my short-sightedness, and I think you for that. My mistake.

Yes, I now recognise it as an actual physical dove.

So that just further knocks the Baha'i argument into touch.
 
Thomas said:
My point being that 'intelligible realities' does not infer all are the same class of thing. 'Man', 'dog', 'table', 'stone' are intelligible realities, having material existence. 'Mermaids' and 'unicorns' are intelligible realities without any substantial existence. 'Love', 'justice' and 'beauty', as you say.
Click to expand...
I see that is mixing sensible realities (man, dog, stone), with fictional characters (mermaid and unicorns) with Intelligible realities (Love, justice, beauty). These Intelligible realities also have their opposite in this reality. (Hate, Injustice, ugliness)

Intelligible realities are explained using sensible realities.

The Intelligible reality Love uses the sensible reality of the heart, giving the word Love sensible meaning, a foundation of our very existence, the lifeblood of existence.

Regards Tony
 
Thomas said:
The point, however, is actual dove or spiritual dove; a physical entity or intelligible reality, this does not really effect the wider discussion of the language of symbol, or analogy, simile and metaphor, of poetry and the language of the soul, as it were.
Click to expand...
In the case of Jesus it was the Dove, for Muhammad it was the Angel Gabriel, for the Bab it was the Severed head of Imam Ali, for Baha’u’llah it was a Maiden.

So from this known information, who witnessed these events, or are we just reading an explanation of what they experienced?

Matthew 3:16-17: "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.

That is story of the experience, as each other Messengers told their story of the decent of the Spirit.

P/S I had a most special and amazing dream where I touched a white dove while flying beside it in my dreams. It exploded into the most great light and song, giving and experience of immense love, happiness and joy. So much so that I broke into uncontrolled tears.

There is more to that dream, but when I awoke those tears were also real.

Regards Tony
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
I see that is mixing sensible realities (man, dog, stone), with fictional characters (mermaid and unicorns) with Intelligible realities (Love, justice, beauty). These Intelligible realities also have their opposite in this reality. (Hate, Injustice, ugliness)
Click to expand...
'Man', 'unicorn', 'love' are all intelligible realities, but they are different orders of things, that's my point.
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
In the case of Jesus it was the Dove, for Muhammad it was the Angel Gabriel, for the Bab it was the Severed head of Imam Ali, for Baha’u’llah it was a Maiden.
Click to expand...
OK, and each needs be understood in context. In the case of Jesus, it was the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove. With Muhammad (pbuh) it was the angel Gabriel, not the Holy Spirit, and so on.
 
OK ... reset ... I've read a little more: :

Some Answered Questions / 25: The Holy Spirit / pps107-109
Question.--What is the Holy Spirit?
Answer.--The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God ...
Here we differ on an important if perhaps technical point, in that the Holy Spirit first and foremost is God; the Holy Spirit is not other-than God, and as such one can predicate qualities of the Holy Spirit – Bounty, Beauty, Goodness, and so on, but the Holy Spirit Itself transcends all distinctions, and all intelligible (human perception) qualities.

The idea of the 'descent' of the Holy Spirit into the individual is no different from the idea of the Word of God onto the tongue of a prophet.
It's an entirely suitable figurative language. Like angels ascending and descending, Moses on the mountain, the idea of being 'carried up to the heavens' and so on ... it's a fitting and suitable description of an intelligible event in sensible terms.

The Twelve Step Programme talks of a Higher Power without necessarily inferring the God of the Bible.

Many talk of the 'higher self'.

+++

Moreover, entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of spirits--that is to say, sensible realities enter and come forth, but intellectual subtleties and mental realities, such as intelligence, love, knowledge, imagination and thought, do not enter, nor come forth, nor descend, but rather they have direct connection.
1: It is in fact not at all the case that we do not speak of 'entering' or 'leaving', 'ascending' or 'descending' in the language of the mind. In fact, it's common usage: one can say "the idea never entered my mind" or "it's gone out of my head', or, indeed, "it's on the top of my tongue" so it is a given that we speak of intelligible realities in suitable, sensible terms and the meaning is understood.
2: More important, however, is that the Holy Spirit belongs to a unique category and is not comparable to mere ideas.

Thus the assertion is simply logically wrong in the first instance and a categorical error is the second.

In the “Tablet of the Temple”, Baha’u’llah describes a vision:
While engulfed in tribulations I heard a most wondrous, a most sweet voice, calling above My head... "

"... She was imparting to both My inward and outer being ... “the power of His sovereignty within you, could ye but understand." (emphasis mine). Furthermore
The Tablet of the Holy Mariner speaks in the language of ascent and descent ... it's replete with symbolic terms.

So I'm afraid the comment in SQA 25 rather seems to me to be just sophistry in an attempt to undermine the Christian understanding.

... and it is absolutely impossible that the Holy Spirit should ascend and descend, enter, come out or penetrate, it can only be that the Holy Spirit appears in splendor, as the sun appears in the mirror.
Well the sun does shine down from above ...

+++

Again, I'm not disputing what Baha'i believe. Simply when an error is promulgated regarding Christian doctrine ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top