First: Both intelligible realities and the Holy Spirit are described in Baha'i texts as immaterial, meaning they have no outward form or place and are not perceptible by the senses.
OK. To be fair, neither does God, but both our texts speak in terms of 'above' and 'below'...
Both intelligible realities and the Holy Spirit share the common trait of immateriality. This suggests that being immaterial is a characteristic, not a limitation.
I have not put any limitation on the Holy Spirit ... I was pointing out the Baha'i text in question engenders a false limitation to declare what the Holy Spirit can or cannot do. Speaking of the Holy Spirit ascending or descending, etc., is a figurative device, as the Holy Spirit of God is Infinite, and everywhere – 'For in him we live, and move, and are; as some also of your own poets said: For we are also his offspring' (St Paul, referencing Epimenides (17:28a) and Aratus (17:28b).)
Both intelligible realities and the Holy Spirit share the common trait of immateriality. This suggests that being immaterial is a characteristic, not a limitation.
They are common in their immateriality, but are unalike in other aspects of their natures.
Second point: Just because the Holy Spirit is divine doesn't mean it can't be classified as an intelligible reality while also being beyond human senses and divine.
Didn't say it can't – clearly it can, but it belongs to a different and unique class of intelligibility.
Third point: It is impossible for immaterial realities to "ascend, descend, enter, exit, commingle, or inhere," so they obviously don't move through time and space like a physical object.
May 29 is known as "The Ascension of Baha'u'llah" – so take it up with your people.
For us, such language is entirely suited to its purpose and pedagogy of the spiritual and mystical in the traditions, including yours – so you'd have to say that the Baha'i texts equally present impossible analogies.
I think you're flogging a dead horse, to use a common analogy.
Ancient Christian literalists had no problem with holy doves descending from, uh, an opening in heaven, and I think this strongly implies they also thought in terms of physical descent of immaterial realities too.
No, I'm afraid here you're trying to rationalise both Scripture and Tradition with an unsound understanding of what we mean by the mysteries, and how we understand the relationship between Creator and creation – so some Fathers argue for a physical dove, but they make the point that the dove in question was brought into being from God and thus 'descended' rather than simply appear on Jesus' shoulder – nor, they claim, was said dove born of an egg as is the normal course ...
... I'd say the best of them were meta-literalists, which I think you miss.
David Bentley Hart happens to argue, and I tend to agree, that the Ancients were far less 'literalist' in their outlook than we are today – this whole discussion is about an overtly literal and 'dead letter' reading of that which is clearly spiritual and thus speaks in figurative terms.
The Ancients fully understood figurative language – its there in their writings, to say otherwise is to fly in the face of the evidence – but they also saw that God can manifest what He wills and as He wills without the limitations of the rationalising human intellect. If He wants a dove, a dove it is – They rather tend to understand the Scriptures better than we do today – they're closer to it, after all.
Christ taught in parables, and the Ancient languages are full of analogy, metaphor, poetic allusion, narrative forms.
Hebrew makes use of chiasmus, a particular narrative form – they were way more subtle and sophisticated than you seem to allow.
The Ancient Hebrew Chiasm: A Window into Culturally Significant Themes
by Hannah Eckerman
"Rhetoric is culturally constructed. No universal rhetoric exists but is built on a culture’s ideas, beliefs, history, and art. We take on the cultural mindset of the rhetor when we read their texts, otherwise, we lose the depth and beauty hidden within their words. When we read Ancient Greek literature, we must learn some of their background and context. When we read Jane Austen, we need to understand the social structures at work in 19th England. Therefore, when we read the Hebrew Tanakh or any ancient Hebrew text, we need to approach it with cultural context. In this essay, I provide the historical background and cultural context necessary to understand a common, yet powerful, linguistic structure used by the ancient Hebrews in their sacred writings. Once terms are defined, I explore examples from their writing to give us insight into religiously significant ideas. Ultimately, I argue that the chiasm, an ancient Hebrew linguistic tool, conveys culturally significant themes in the middle X point of the chiastic structure."
