The Baha'i Source some call God(s) and why I believe in God.

[tabibito]

Almost all of the references in the Old Testament could read either way. But only almost all. When the Spirit of the Lord speaks to a person - it is necessary to interpret that statement as casting the power of God in the role of anthropomorphic personification ... and in some cases, I don't see that spiritualising the texts does more than wrest them.

Now how could simple power be caused to grieve?

[shunyadragon]

Very amusing. Please do me a favor. Don't try to cite Hebrew. Or if you do, at least cite a source that understands Hebrew. There's nothing wrong or controversial with the English, by the way.

Not very amusing, your view does not agree with the actual Jewish sources. Regardless of your claims to know Hebrew. I will go with the Jewish sources and it is their language.

Source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7833-holy-spirit

The Divine Spirit.

What the Bible calls "Spirit of Yhwh" and "Spirit of Elohim" is called in the Talmud and Midrash "Holy Spirit" ("Ruaḥ ha-Ḳodesh." never "Ruaḥ Ḳedoshah," as Hilgenfeld says, in "Ketzergesch." p. 237). Although the expression "Holy Spirit" occurs in Ps. li. 11 (LXX. πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) and in Isa. lxiii. 10, 11, it had not yet the definite meaning which was attached to it in rabbinical literature: in the latter it is equivalent to the expression "Spirit of the Lord," which was avoided on account of the disinclination to the use of the Tetragrammaton (see, for example, Targ. to Isa. xl. 13). It is probably owing to this fact that the Shekinah is often referred to instead of the Holy Spirit. It is said of the former, as of the Holy Spirit, that it rests upon a person. The difference between the two in such cases has not yet been determined. It is certain that the New Testament has πνεῦμα ἅγιον in those passages, also, where the Hebrew and Aramaic had "Shekinah"; for in Greek there is no equivalent to the latter, unless it be δόξα (="gleam of light"), by which "ziw ha-shekinah" may be rendered. Because of the identification of the Holy Spirit with the Shekinah, πνεῦμα ἅγιον is much more frequently mentioned in the New Testament than is "Ruaḥ ha-Ḳodesh" in rabbinical literature.

© Copyright Original Source

The Baha'i view agrees with the Jewish view of the 'Holy Spirit,' in all Jewish sources that full well understand the Hebrew.

[shunyadragon]

Almost all of the references in the Old Testament could read either way. But only almost all. When the Spirit of the Lord speaks to a person - it is necessary to interpret that statement as casting the power of God in the role of anthropomorphic personification ... and in some cases, I don't see that spiritualising the texts does more than wrest them.

Now how could simple power be caused to grieve?

I prefer the Jewish understanding in their own scripture in their own language.

[robrecht]

Not very amusing, your view does not agree with the actual Jewish sources. Regardless of your claims to know Hebrew. I will go with the Jewish sources and it is their language.

Source: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7833-holy-spirit

The Divine Spirit.

What the Bible calls "Spirit of Yhwh" and "Spirit of Elohim" is called in the Talmud and Midrash "Holy Spirit" ("Ruaḥ ha-Ḳodesh." never "Ruaḥ Ḳedoshah," as Hilgenfeld says, in "Ketzergesch." p. 237). Although the expression "Holy Spirit" occurs in Ps. li. 11 (LXX. πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον) and in Isa. lxiii. 10, 11, it had not yet the definite meaning which was attached to it in rabbinical literature: in the latter it is equivalent to the expression "Spirit of the Lord," which was avoided on account of the disinclination to the use of the Tetragrammaton (see, for example, Targ. to Isa. xl. 13). It is probably owing to this fact that the Shekinah is often referred to instead of the Holy Spirit. It is said of the former, as of the Holy Spirit, that it rests upon a person. The difference between the two in such cases has not yet been determined. It is certain that the New Testament has πνεῦμα ἅγιον in those passages, also, where the Hebrew and Aramaic had "Shekinah"; for in Greek there is no equivalent to the latter, unless it be δόξα (="gleam of light"), by which "ziw ha-shekinah" may be rendered. Because of the identification of the Holy Spirit with the Shekinah, πνεῦμα ἅγιον is much more frequently mentioned in the New Testament than is "Ruaḥ ha-Ḳodesh" in rabbinical literature.

© Copyright Original Source

The Baha'i view agrees with the Jewish view of the 'Holy Spirit,' in all Jewish sources that full well understand the Hebrew.

Please explain your understanding of this sentence: "It is certain that the New Testament has πνεῦμα ἅγιον in those passages, also, where the Hebrew and Aramaic had "Shekinah";"

Is the author speaking of Targumim or putative Aramaic or Hebrew originals of Greek New Testament texts?

[tabibito]

I prefer the Jewish understanding in their own scripture in their own language.

Do the Messianic Jews have an understanding their own scripture in their own language that agrees with the traditional Jews? Do the Traditional Jews even agree with the Rabbinical expositions of times prior to Christ?

[robrecht]

Do Baha'i believe in other divine beings, eg, angels? It is thought by some that this is the earliest Jewish origins of belief in the divinity of Jesus, ie, that early on there developed an Jewish angelic christology, where Jesus' prehuman or post-resurrection existence was seen as a kind of angelic divine status, and indeed an angel above all others and even the instrument of creation along the lines of the logos of Philo of Alexandria.

Who is the Divine Herald that Bahá'u'lláh speaks of here? Is he speaking of himself?

The voice of the Divine Herald, proceeding out of the throne of God, declareth: O ye My loved ones! Suffer not the hem of My sacred vesture to be smirched and mired with the things of this world, and follow not the promptings of your evil and corrupt desires. The Day Star of Divine Revelation, that shineth in the plenitude of its glory in the heaven of this Prison, beareth Me witness. They whose hearts are turned towards Him Who is the Object of the adoration of the entire creation must needs, in this 201 Day, pass beyond and be sanctified from all created things, visible and invisible. If they arise to teach My Cause, they must let the breath of Him Who is the Unconstrained, stir them and must spread it abroad on the earth with high resolve, with minds that are wholly centered in Him, and with hearts that are completely detached from and independent of all things, and with souls that are sanctified from the world and its vanities. It behoveth them to choose as the best provision for their journey reliance upon God, and to clothe themselves with the love of their Lord, the Most Exalted, the All-Glorious. If they do so, their words shall influence their hearers.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GW...=highlight#gr1

Bahá'u'lláh, rather than speak of duality or multiplicity within God, seems to prefer to identify God’s Manifestation, ie, himself, and others, with God himself:

The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GW...=highlight#gr3

Athanasius, present at Nicea as an assistant to the bishop of Alexandria, and subsequently the energetic defender of the doctrine defined there, had a similar vision of the divinisation of humanity. It is a view that preceded him and continued to be voiced by other Christians (introductory link), sometimes with a more universalist interpretation than other Christians and perhaps also than Bahá'u'lláh. Why did God become human? In order that humanity might become God. See, eg, the views of the Jesuit priest, paleontologist, and theologian, Teilhard de Chardin, who saw the Incarnation as the first step in the continuing evolution of humanity toward this goal. I have not read Chardin since high school, but I suspect he too was inspired by Irenaeus. And while Christians have certainly not refrained from speaking of multiplicity of relations within an Interpersonal God, theologians such as Thomas Aquinas and others continue to insist nonetheless upon the ultimate simplicity of the undefinable God.

[shunyadragon]

Please explain your understanding of this sentence: "It is certain that the New Testament has πνεῦμα ἅγιον in those passages, also, where the Hebrew and Aramaic had "Shekinah";"

Is the author speaking of Targumim or putative Aramaic or Hebrew originals of Greek New Testament texts?

Your asking me about a particular translation issue of Hebrew, which I could not answer. This is an issue with the Jewish Encyclopedia, which I believe represents a more accurate understanding of the Hebrew, if you have an issue ask them.

The major point here is the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of the Baha'i Faith and I. This answers your question concerning whether my description of the Trinity was my own interpretation, no it is the Baha'i understanding, and the understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit is in harmony with the Jewish beliefs.

[Adrift]

No, unlike you, I admit to be a fallible human

No you don't. Admitting your mistakes is the last thing you do.

[robrecht]

Your asking me about a particular translation issue of Hebrew, which I could not answer. This is an issue with the Jewish Encyclopedia, which I believe represents a more accurate understanding of the Hebrew, if you have an issue ask them.

I just wanted to see if you understood the source you are using.

The major point here is the Jewish understanding of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of the Baha'i Faith and I. This answers your question concerning whether my description of the Trinity was my own interpretation, no it is the Baha'i understanding, and the understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit is in harmony with the Jewish beliefs.

I think you're conflating different issues here. I thought you admitted above that your understanding and expression of a "metaphysical trinity" of God, Messiah, and Revelation was indeed your own formulation, ie, your own term: "It is the description in my own words that describes the Baha'i view." Did I misunderstand, ie, do any Baha'i texts speak specifically of a "metaphysical trinity", using those terms?

Elsewhere, you have said that "the Unity Church of God, are Monotheists ... The[y] basically believe in a metaphysical Trinity." Does this church use the terms "metaphysical trinity" is that merely your characterization of their beliefs?

If "metaphysical trinity" is not your own nomenclature, but borrowed from a Baha'i or other source, I would appreciate a reference. Thank you.

[shunyadragon]

No you don't. Admitting your mistakes is the last thing you do.

No admission of a mistake here, just a difference of belief.

[robrecht]

Not very amusing, your view does not agree with the actual Jewish sources. Regardless of your claims to know Hebrew. I will go with the Jewish sources and it is their language. ...

The author/editors of your Wikipedia source obviously did not understand Hebrew. That is what I found amusing. It is better that you have since switched to a Jewish source where the Hebrew terms are used correctly, but you admit to not understanding a key point from your source. You are incorrect above when you say that my view does not agree with the actual Jewish sources. As I said above with reference to the English text of your Wikipedia reference (and the point you are trying to draw from your citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia), it is correct, ie, I do not disagree with it, and it is not controversial among anyone who reads the Jewish scriptures in their original languages and early translations. There are a variety of different literary contexts being discussed and, as I've already stated, I do not believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is defined or explicitly present in the New Testament so I would hardly claim that the Trinitarian understanding of the Person of the Holy Spirit can be found in the Jewish scriptures! To assume that I would conflate these sources and insist upon the later Christian doctrine being found in the earlier Hebrew and Aramaic texts may merely be a projection on me of your own neglect of historico-critical methodology here. I have given you no reason to suspect this lack of methodological rigor in me.

[shunyadragon]

I think you're conflating different issues here. I thought you admitted above that your understanding and expression of a "metaphysical trinity" of God, Messiah, and Revelation was indeed your own formulation, ie, your own term: "It is the description in my own words that describes the Baha'i view." Did I misunderstand, ie, do any Baha'i texts speak specifically of a "metaphysical trinity", using those terms?

Elsewhere, you have said that "the Unity Church of God, are Monotheists ... The[y] basically believe in a metaphysical Trinity." Does this church use the terms "metaphysical trinity" is that merely your characterization of their beliefs?

If "metaphysical trinity" is not your own nomenclature, but borrowed from a Baha'i or other source, I would appreciate a reference. Thank you.

As I said before, these are 'my own words.' but the concepts are what the Baha'i Faith believes, and is comparable with other Christians who reject the Trinitarian belief.

[robrecht]

... One side note: One looking over posts and threads, and my notes your use of 'theological reflection as used in your sources is ok, but this use may be universal in some way or another in all religions. ...

Oh, by the way, can I take the above statement as an implicit concession that you were wrong to previously claim repeatedly that my use of the terms 'theological reflection' was a concoction of my own?

[shunyadragon]

The author/editors of your Wikipedia source obviously did not understand Hebrew. That is what I found amusing. It is better that you have since switched to a Jewish source where the Hebrew terms are used correctly, but you admit to not understanding a key point from your source. You are incorrect above when you say that my view does not agree with the actual Jewish sources. As I said above with reference to the English text of your Wikipedia reference (and the point you are trying to draw from your citation from the Jewish Encyclopedia), it is correct, ie, I do not disagree with it, and it is not controversial among anyone who reads the Jewish scriptures in their original languages and early translations. There are a variety of different literary contexts being discussed and, as I've already stated, I do not believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is defined or explicitly present in the New Testament so I would hardly claim that the Trinitarian understanding of the Person of the Holy Spirit can be found in the Jewish scriptures! To assume that I would conflate these sources and insist upon the later Christian doctrine being found in the earlier Hebrew and Aramaic texts may merely be a projection on me of your own neglect of historico-critical methodology here. I have given you no reason to suspect this lack of methodological rigor in me.

Nonetheless my point was that my belief in the Holy Spirit, and that of the Baha'i Faith are in harmony with the Jewish belief in the Holy Spirit. This in turn is in agreement with the view of the Trinity in the Baha'i Faith and my view. What are described as the three elements of the Trinity are expression of the spiritual nature of God, and not three distinct "persons."

I consider the Jewish description helpful, because it is grounded in OT scripture, and defines one of the three expressions of the Divine compatible with my belief and that of the Baha'i Faith. The concept of God is also in harmony with the Jewish view of God. The third expression the Messiah is the next to describe in terms of the Baha'i Faith and the relationship with God, and You gave one reference for that.

The essence of belief in Divine unity consisteth in regarding Him Who is the Manifestation of God and Him Who is the invisible, the inaccessible, the unknowable Essence as one and the same. By this is meant that whatever pertaineth to the former, all His acts and doings, whatever He ordaineth or forbiddeth, should be considered, in all their aspects, and under all circumstances, and without any reservation, as identical with the Will of God Himself. This is the loftiest station to which a true believer in the unity of God can ever hope to attain. Blessed is the man that reacheth this station, and is of them that are steadfast in their belief.http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/b/GW...=highlight#gr3

[robrecht]

Nonetheless my point was that my belief in the Holy Spirit, and that of the Baha'i Faith are in harmony with the Jewish belief in the Holy Spirit. This in turn is in agreement with the view of the Trinity in the Baha'i Faith and my view. What are described as the three elements of the Trinity are expression of the spiritual nature of God, and not three distinct "persons."

As I said, I understood your point, but can you now at least see why it is indeed humorous that your source did not even understand Hebrew?