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

Ahanu said:
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:



www.thetorah.com

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 www.thetorah.com
Click to expand...
For instance, the air does not separate “water from water” as the verse states, nor would air or clouds exist prior to the creation of the sun and moon on day (time period) four in any cosmology that wanted to at least pretend to be scientific. Additionally, the word rakia simply does not mean air or clouds. Insofar as clouds, the Bible uses the term anan (ענן) or av (עב), not rakia. Moreover, the creation story in Genesis 1 clearly describes that whereas the sun, moon, and stars are placed in the rakia (בִּרְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמַיִם), birds—who fly through the air—are placed below the rakia (עַל פְּנֵי רְקִיעַ הַשָּׁמָיִם; literally “on the face of the heaven’s firmament”). Thus, rakia cannot refer to air. Moreover, as the Talmud already notes[18] and contemporary biblical lexica such as BDB and HALOT affirm, the etymology of the word rakia connects it with the activity of “hammering out” of a solid material, as would be done to turn tin or copper into a flattened dome. They are obviously not picturing air and clouds.[19]
 
Ahanu said:
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.
Click to expand...
OK. Do remember that Origen is not doctrine ...

Origen, it can be argued, saw the 'resurrected body' as purely a spiritual body, a body shaped by its eidos or form, the pattern of the soul. Therefore there is some identification between the person who died, and their resurrected body, but Origen does not – perhaps – therefore believe a resurrected flesh.

The Church however, generally believed in a bodily resurrection being a resurrection of the flesh, even though it was clear that the flesh of a particular person would have decomposed and 'vanished' into the earth.
 
Can I just interject here ... you're spending a great deal of time discussing historical understandings of the nature of the world ... what's your point?
 
Thomas said:
Can I just interject here ... you're spending a great deal of time discussing historical understandings of the nature of the world ... what's your point?
Click to expand...

Ahanu said:
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:
Click to expand...

Luke believed that the solid firmament opened to let the dove in and, uh, descend. Not just figuratively, but literally too.
 
Tony Bristow-Stagg said:
was but a messenger
Click to expand...
That is the crux of the biscuit eh?

Therein lies differences...

Jews are waiting for a messiah
Christians believe they go on and are awaiting a return visit.
Muslims say nah, he was just another Jewish Prophet like our guy.
And Baha'i say our guys say your guys are all saying the same thing.

Folks like me say that we think yall make some good points, some really good ones that I can use....some others not so much.

I wouldn't etch it all in stone or net my life on it, oh yall ready did...oh.
.
 
wil said:
That is the crux of the biscuit eh?

Therein lies differences...

Jews are waiting for a messiah
Christians believe they go on and are awaiting a return visit.
Muslims say nah, he was just another Jewish Prophet like our guy.
And Baha'i say our guys say your guys are all saying the same thing.

Folks like me say that we think yall make some good points, some really good ones that I can use....some others not so much.

I wouldn't etch it all in stone or net my life on it, oh yall ready did...oh.
.
Click to expand...
Setting ones foundation in faith om stone is the aim, as setting it on sand is warned against. The crux is no one has ever seen God, but we have seen the Messengers/Annointed Ones which have claimed they have given us a Message from God.

Therein lays all the complexities of Faith. The quandary of our choice between true and false prophets. The quandary of embracing the Spirit and not the flesh.

Baha'u'llah gave is more insights into how Gods interaction with humanity, these truths are in hidden meanings within tge ancient scriptures, and it was promissed that these meanings will be eventually given. Bible passages are available to support that reasoning.

All the best, Regards Tony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top