Again, what you and I mean by Holy Spirit are different orders of being.
The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics
- Thread starter Ahanu
- Start date
Or a better way to see it is Christ is the Logos of God, "before all things" (Colossians 1:17), in whom all exist without distinction or differentiation.
I would, politely and without meaning to offer offence, decline, for reasons clearly stated above.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
Early Christians, drawing on scripture, believed in a literal, solid firmament. That's not an assumption. That's a fact.
@Thomas, you can read the Ascension of Isaiah (most likely a first century text) and see that the ancients didn't have a purely spiritual understanding of the cosmos; the text explicitly describes a physical hierarchy of heavens, with different levels inhabited by various beings, with Christ taken on a form that is appropriate for each level.
"8. Go forth and descent through all the heavens, and thou wilt descent to the firmament and that world: to the angel in Sheol thou wilt descend, but to Haguel thou wilt not go.
9. And thou wilt become like unto the likeness of all who are in the five heavens.
10. And thou wilt be careful to become like the form of the angels of the firmament [and the angels also who are in Sheol].
11. And none of the angels of that world shall know that Thou art with Me of the seven heavens and of their angels.
12. And they shall not know that Thou art with Me, till with a loud voice I have called (to) the heavens, and their angels and their lights, (even) unto the sixth heaven, in order that you mayest judge and destroy the princes and angels and gods of that world, and the world that is dominated by them:
13. For they have denied Me and said: "We alone are and there is none beside us."
-Ascension of Isaiah 10.8-13
Paul's reference to being "caught up to the third heaven" (2 Corinthians 12.2) suggests an understanding of a multi-tiered cosmology that aligns closely with certain aspects of Platonic thought.
Philo and many ancient thinkers in the Jewish world wholeheartedly embraced astral immortality. In fact, when Pythagoras talked about the soul's journey to the stars, he was not merely talking symbolically . . .
I don't dispute that, the point I'm trying to get across is the literal does not define the totality of their perception – to say the Ancients did not read in the spiritual sense is, I would suggest, an erroneous assumption. They saw the world in a spiritual sense. They lived is a spiritual milieu, the Gods were closer to them – the common people – than the are to the common people today.
Genesis, for example, should not be read as a geocentric or heliocentric text, rather it's a theocentric text, which is how the ancients saw it, read it and interpreted it.
We didn't have the technology to prove a Newtonian cosmos until the mid-17th century – until then there was speculation around its nature,
It's not simply how they saw the cosmos, it's how they interpreted it. Early Christian, in fact Jewish, Christian and Moslem cosmogony, presents a mono-theist cosmogony.
What matters is whether one reads a Biblical cosmogony or 'Gnostic' cosmogony. That interpretation is what matters in regard to salvation. As God is all-in-all, and the world was essentially a created 'good', it made sense that the physical cosmos reflected the Divine, Abrahamic cosmogony being opposed to a more extreme 'Gnostic' reading of the cosmos of the created world as a misbegotten or necessary negative.
To understand the Ancients we must take on board the walls between the worlds were more more translucent, more permeable, than they are today. St Paul speaks of 'through a mirror, darkly' – that opacity is generally denser today.
The Fathers were not over-fussed about the precise nature of the firmament. God and our salvation is what it's all about.
(Today we favour an anthropocentric model, hence the increasing opacity.)
If ancient people read texts literally, it was through a very real and present spiritual sense.
When a 4th century theologian like St Gregory of Nyssa says the Bible must be interpreted literally, the term 'literally' did not have the same fundamentalist implication it carries today. He is not a post-modern Westerner. He's not a post-Enlightenment rationalist, and Anglo-American Analytical Philosopher, an Empiricist, not even a German Idealist ... he's of his time ... what he means is the spiritual things spoken of in Scripture are realities; the figurative language conveys a sense of that Real-in-relation, and not mere moral or ethical abstractions towards a better life.
+++
As above, so below ... it's a spiritual understanding that informs the hierarchy as the scribe proposes it.
Yes it does. Also his many mentions of the archons, the Principalities, such as in Ephesians 6:2 "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places" here and elsewhere that same multi-tiered cosmology aligns somewhat with what is termed 'Gnostic' thought.
Take Ephesians 2:2 "Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience" and cross-ref that with the Gospel of John:
"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out." (12:31),
"Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me." (14:30)
"Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged." (16:11)
And thus Ignatius of Antioch, speaking of the Three Things Hidden from the Adversary, is only saying what's in Scripture.
Quite, and modernists – who tell ourselves we see so much more – simply poo-poo all that stuff as silly, ignorant and superstitious ...
... and so it goes.
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
As it is the same Holy Spirit, which is the order of being, it would be our own frames of references that would yet to be reconciled, applicable to our own minds.
Regards Tony
Tony Bristow-Stagg
One Planet One People Please
I can see Christ in that light, knowing God Annoints the Messiahs and no one has seen God as per John 1:18
"...No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.."
Regards Tony
W-e-l-l ... the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, it's our frames of reference that introduce distinction. In the case of Baha'i | Christian dialogue, it's the limitations you place upon the Holy Spirit that stand as an impediment on that particular issue.
But really, as the Baha'i frames Christ within a different and alien paradigm as far as orthodox Christianity is concerned, the problems are insurmountable.
Last edited:
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
And the point I am trying to get across is that they didn't only understand it in the spiritual sense. For example, I understand that Origen believed the solid firmament also had spiritual significance for him, but, still, his physical cosmology impacted his theology, and all the figurative meanings he gathered doesn't change the fact he accepted a solid firmament as his reality. The same is the case with all the ancients during that time period, and, looking at their cosmology, their concept of "descent" was not just viewed in a spiritual sense either.
I would still point out the geocentric or heliocentric nature of the text could still have implications for its theological interpretation.
Also, we should clarify something: we're talking about the ancients living around the time of Christ, not all ancients.
I can picture the Thomas during the time of the societal shift from hunter-gatherer societies to agricultural ones with their theocentric texts. He would lament the loss of his parliament of beings, and then be horrified by the theistic religions turning everything into a relationship between man and God while effectively silencing animals and plants. The Thomas of that time would reflect: "Why talk to the gods for rain and food when you can talk to the animals, plants, and clouds yourself? The animal spirits, plant spirits, and cloud spirits in the rest of nature were so much closer to us."
Given the claim that Jesus ascended in the flesh into heaven - a realm of celestial bodies and cosmic order - and given the claim that Jesus is truly God, it’s reasonable to assume that he could have communicated a more accurate understanding of the universe to his followers.
I don't see the physical cosmos as a necessary negative or misbegotten.
You're working mighty hard to bring erroneous worldviews like demonic possession back.
Taken out of context, but okay.
They weren't over-fussed because almost everyone around them accepted it as a given.
Okay. I don't think this would apply to everything. What's the spiritual sense of a young earth?
"Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man."
-Augustine
Literally is quite a simple term to understand.
For example, it is reported by others that Origen castrated himself based on his reading of Matthew 19.12. If so, this means he interpreted the text literally. How does St. Gregory of Nyssa's understanding of literally change our view of Origen's supposed literal reading of Matthew 19.2? I'm not getting it. Not that I'm trying not to do so. I just don't see the significance when applied to various texts, especially in relation to texts like the Ascension of Isaiah and the author's view of the cosmos with a descending Christ through the heavenly realms.
We do see so much more. I regard demonic possession and the like as skubalon (to borrow a strong and vulgar Greek word from Philippians 3.8).
Indeed, it does, doesn't it?
Last edited:
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
Ah, OK. I thought you were emphatic on the literal. OK.
Well you'd have to demonstrate if and how that 'impact' shapes his theology. As Origen has a lot of scholarly support as a theologian, I think you'll find a tough case to make.
I'd say the spiritual sense was primary, the physical followed the spiritual – else the physical phenomena is meaningless.
OK. I'm not sure what theology and what you think the implications are. I see a primary theocentric nature. I don't see the early Church arguing helio- or geo-centric.
Are we ...? Origen was some time after ...
Theologians offered an understanding according to their reading of Scripture, not other scientific texts. Origen, perhaps following Philo of Alexandria, who proposed a distinction between the material and eternal creations, as the heaven and earth were day one, as was 'the waters', and the firmament day two. With Origen, the waters above became associated with the spiritual plane of Christian contemplation. The firmament is the boundary between the physical and spiritual worlds.
But, I would suggest, this spiritual plane of contemplation was 'more real' for Origen than the physical composition of the firmament. He didn't really bother about its materiality, just accepted it as a reality.
I mean, what other opinion was there?
There is a broad range of opinion on the materiality of the firmament in Patristic writings, that it is the ether, the air, the four elements, or a unknown fifth element. The mechanics of how it all worked was not a primary question under discussion – it has no impact on faith or salvation.
St Augustine viewed the waters below the firmament as the physical and the waters above the spiritual. This involved the spiritual interpretation of the upper waters. Augustine wrote: "only God knows how and why [the waters] are there, but we cannot deny the authority of Holy Scripture which is greater than our understanding".
St Ambrose struggled with the question. His solution was a simple faith in Scripture; that God upheld the firmament in the same way that God held the earth. He wrote: "Wise men of the world say that water cannot be over the heavens".
Whether the firmament was hard/firm or soft/fluid was also up for debate.
Quranic cosmology follows much the same pattern with the same speculations – whether it be flat or domed is unclear, but there seem to be seven heavens or firmaments, according to the days of creation, echoing St Basil.
The development of astronomy in the 16th century saw the end of the firmament theory as central to cosmology.
I think He had more important issues to deal with. (And he ascended higher than the cosmos.)
I doubt if anyone asked.
Nor do the Abrahamics. Other speculations ran along other lines ...
Just some balance ...
Exactly.
I have no idea, you'd have to ask them – 'young earth' is a modern American phenomena, like 'flat earth' ...
OK ... again, his science might be a crock, his spiritual insights are, nevertheless, luminous at times ...
Did he though? Generally scholars reckon he didn't ...
OK. Well that's your view ... OK ... simply that it's not inarguable or definitive.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
No, there isn't a broad range of opinion on the materiality of the firmament. Nearly all - if not all - early Christians accepted a solid firmament. St. Ambrose tells us so in his commentary on Genesis 1.7 the firmament is solid, stating "that here the specific solidity of this exterior firmament is meant." St. Augustine also accepts the firmament is solid. Where's the range of opinion? It is in what is above the solid firmament. Is it water? Air? Something else? But there is no debating that the firmament is solid.
OK, so just about everyone accepted the solid firmament idea.
Basil of Caesarea (329-379) in his Hexaemeron had some interesting ideas, but he's just one person.
There's some relevant views and comments here:
Firmaments, cosmic oceans and Church Fathers #1 | The Hump of the Camel
Firmaments, cosmic oceans and Church Fathers #2 | The Hump of the Camel
From a broader perspective.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
Just one person. Hardly anybody followed the Basilian model until the 12th century. So there really wasn't a broad range of opinion on this point.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
Origen believed that the spiritual realm existed above the physical firmament. This understanding was rooted in his Platonic-influenced cosmology.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
A good example is where Origen says the resurrected body will reside. He believed that the spiritual body could not exist in the same physical space as the earthly body, so your new body will be "suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven," which are located above the physical firmament.
"Moreover, if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews, but also by many others among the Greeks and Barbarians, that the human soul lives and subsists after its separation from the body; and if reason supports the idea that pure souls which are not weighed down with sin as with a weight of lead ascend on high to the region of purer and more ethereal bodies, leaving here below their grosser bodies along with their impurities; whereas souls that are polluted and dragged down to the earth by their sins, so that they are unable even to breathe upwards, wander hither and there, at some times about sepulchres, where they appear as the apparitions of shadowy spirits, at others among other objects on the ground — if this is so, what are we to think of those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may say, to particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical force or by their own natural wickedness?"
Just one hugely influential person ... yes.
Most Christian speculation on the nature of the firmament was rooted in Hellenic cosmology – Scripture gave precious little to go on.
Ahanu
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,191
- Reaction score
- 528
- Points
- 108
So before the mid fourth century everyone believed in a solid firmament in Christian circles.
Scripture tells us it is solid.
The idea of the sky above us as a solid structure is shared by almost all pre-modern human cultures. It is best understood as a product of the pre-scientific mind, attempting to make sense of what it sees and offering an intuitive, though factually incorrect, account.
The sky is blue because it is full of water, like the sea.[1] Water doesn’t fall on us because something is holding it up, and that something is transparent, since we can see the blue hue of the liquid behind it.[2] This barrier is dome shaped, since we see the heavens above curving into the horizon and meeting the flat earth.
This understanding is so ubiquitous that some anthropologists consider it a “general human belief.”[3] As Paul Seely, a Bible scholar who works on the intersection of ANE literature and science, writes:
My Encounter with the Firmament - TheTorah.com
The Torah describes God’s fashioning the firmament (רקיע) on the second day of creation. This piece of the universe, however, doesn’t actually exist—a problem obfuscated in my yeshiva ed-ucation. | Oren Fass M.D.
www.thetorah.com