Baha'i What's Wrong with Baha'i?

[smaneck]

No, you miss my point. This is not about God needing something from man, you read too much into that 'to' of Man to God. This was just ambiguous grammar. I was referring to Peter of Abelard's Moral Influence theory throughout.

And why would that have to be done by Jesus alone? Why can't more than one Manifestation have that kind of influence?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

And why would that have to be done by Jesus alone? Why can't more than one Manifestation have that kind of influence?

Peter Abelard was a Trinitarian, writing books in defence of trinitarianism in fact. The Moral Influence theory is far older than Peter Abelard and has in fact been held from the Church Fathers, most notably Augustine. Most versions of it and Peter Abelard's specific version requires the Trinity intact.

The idea is that man as a sinful creature must be remade in order to reach God, undergo Moral Change as it were, to be made Holy. This is done via the example of Jesus as Teacher, Leader and Martyr in His Crucifixion. It is however not Auto-Soteriological as humans are too fallen or sinful to achieve this change on our own. It requires the Holy Spirit to alter our thought pattern, our psychology, our very selves, to become like Jesus. In fact to enter into sonship of God, a replica of Jesus; who although afflicted by the very nature of man could overcome this nature and remain sinless, as He was God, thus allowing a supreme Example to exist. As the Holy Spirit is also a part of the Trinity, He supports the Christian in following Christ's example for He already did it before as Christ. We merely retrace Christ's steps via the activity of the Holy Spirit. Man himself cannot achieve this without divine grace.

To remove the full divinity of Jesus, to make Him subsidiary, it destroys the essential philosophical reasoning of the Moral Influence. Firstly it needs the Holy Spirit to be of one essence with Jesus, so we already need a composite being, but for an imperfect being to interact with a Perfect God is itself a problem. Thus Jesus needs to be both fully Human and fully Divine for it to work, which leaves us with either Arianism or Trinitarianism. (Peter Abelard has further reasons why it must be Trinitarianism as Arianism becomes absurd if the Example is not itself the Most High, but this is more difficult to explain) Neither of these are compatible with Manifestations as you have described it, nor is Arianism with the avowed Monotheism of the Bahai Faith. If the Bahai Faith taught recurring full incarnations of God, with each Manifestation being the Second Person of the Trinity, that would be a different matter, but it does not.
(It would also be superfluous to have multiple incarnations)

The Moral Influence view is not that Jesus willingly died on the Cross to show His Love so that people will follow His example. It is much more than that, although the stress on his death is less than in certain other theories of Atonement.

 

[smaneck]

Peter Abelard was a Trinitarian, writing books in defence of trinitarianism in fact.

LOL. Actually those books were declared heretical.

The idea is that man as a sinful creature must be remade in order to reach God, undergo Moral Change as it were, to be made Holy. This is done via the example of Jesus as Teacher, Leader and Martyr in His Crucifixion. It is however not Auto-Soteriological as humans are too fallen or sinful to achieve this change on our own. It requires the Holy Spirit to alter our thought pattern, our psychology, our very selves, to become like Jesus. In fact to enter into sonship of God, a replica of Jesus; who although afflicted by the very nature of man could overcome this nature and remain sinless, as He was God, thus allowing a supreme Example to exist. As the Holy Spirit is also a part of the Trinity, He supports the Christian in following Christ's example for He already did it before as Christ. We merely retrace Christ's steps via the activity of the Holy Spirit. Man himself cannot achieve this without divine grace.

Baha'is don't have a concept of original sin, but the Manifestations serve the same example who is regarded as sinless.

To remove the full divinity of Jesus, to make Him subsidiary, it destroys the essential philosophical reasoning of the Moral Influence. Firstly it needs the Holy Spirit to be of one essence with Jesus, so we already need a composite being, but for an imperfect being to interact with a Perfect God is itself a problem.

What does the Holy Spirit have to do with whether or not Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. Baha'is, by the way, don't deny Christ's divinity, we deny He is a deity. Also, my understanding is that Christians should have the 'mind of Christ' not become one with his essence. As for the role played by the Holy Spirit, I don't think we have posit a Trinity to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit. As for an imperfect being interacting with a perfect God, that again sounds more Anselmian. But I'm not arguing that Abelard thought in terms of more than one Example. I'm sure the idea didn't occur to him.

(Peter Abelard has further reasons why it must be Trinitarianism as Arianism becomes absurd if the Example is not itself the Most High, but this is more difficult to explain)

Perhaps because it doesn't make sense?

Neither of these are compatible with Manifestations as you have described it, nor is Arianism with the avowed Monotheism of the Bahai Faith. If the Bahai Faith taught recurring full incarnations of God, with each Manifestation being the Second Person of the Trinity, that would be a different matter, but it does not.

Arianism doesn't teach that Jesus is a full incarnation of God.

(It would also be superfluous to have multiple incarnations)

Not if the Manifestation is serving as an Example. One has to be aware of the Example in order to follow it, and not everyone was aware of Jesus.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

LOL. Actually those books were declared heretical.

Only the Summi Boni Theologia was declared heretical. While in a dispute with Bernard of Clairvaux, a few others were also so declared, this was stopped by Pope Innocent II and the excommunication lifted.

Baha'is don't have a concept of original sin, but the Manifestations serve the same example who is regarded as sinless.

What I had written has nothing to do with Original sin, which I never mentioned. It has more to do with the Fall and depravity, so this observation on your part is irrelevant.

What does the Holy Spirit have to do with whether or not Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. Baha'is, by the way, don't deny Christ's divinity, we deny He is a deity. Also, my understanding is that Christians should have the 'mind of Christ' not become one with his essence. As for the role played by the Holy Spirit, I don't think we have posit a Trinity to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit. As for an imperfect being interacting with a perfect God, that again sounds more Anselmian. But I'm not arguing that Abelard thought in terms of more than one Example. I'm sure the idea didn't occur to him.

Peter Abelard didn't think in terms of more than one Example for that would be superfluous in Moral Influence theory. The Holy Spirit is required to be the same being in every way, shape or form as Jesus for Moral Influence to work as it is about following the path trod by Christ, not only in our earthly life, but in our Metaphysical reality or spiritual life. For Jesus to achieve a position of sinlessness while being a sinful human, requires Him to be a God. Fully God and Fully Man, for only God would be able to not sin as a Man. As only Jesus as man and God could overcome our fallen state, the helper needs to be of the same Essence as Christ, not just the 'mind of Christ'. This sounds like more liberal theology and has no place in a discussion of Peter Abelard. You require a fully divine Jesus interacting with God the Father throughout the process of Atonement, who is the same Essence as the Holy Spirit and therefore a Trinity for Moral Influence is required as seen by the majority of Christians. If it was just about an example of Virtue, than Socrates would have been the Messiah as someone said in another thread.
(There are some Unitarians who ascribe to a much watered-down Moral Influence theory which makes Jesus more like a prophet, but this is not really philosophically sound by Christian doctrine and such Unitarians usually consider themselves post-Christian and are considered non-Christian by most Christians. I think this may be where you got your 'Mind of Christ' story).

There is nothing Anselmian about the imperfect vis-à-vis the perfect at all. This follows from dialectical reasoning and is actually based on Aristotle. We see the same idea for instance in Aristotlean-associated Sufi ideas like the Universal Man. It is just standard Scholasticism and is present in most Aristotle-derived philosophical schools.

Baha'is, by the way, don't deny Christ's divinity, we deny He is a deity.

To ascribe divinity to someone, makes them a god in standard western thought. The Oxford Dictionary definition of Divinity is the 'state of being divine' or 'god, deity' and divine means 'of god'. The Bahai cannot use terms in this manner to acquire western theological concepts to themselves when they have defined the terms in a different manner. They do not bear the same meaning anymore.

Arianism doesn't teach that Jesus is a full incarnation of God.

Yes, which is why Moral Influence doesn't work in Arianism either. I didn't explain why though, so I just short circuited it by showing that Arian conceptions are also incompatible with the Bahai Faith, but it seems you misunderstood what I had said.

Not if the Manifestation is serving as an Example. One has to be aware of the Example in order to follow it, and not everyone was aware of Jesus.

It would be superfluous as it is not an example in the normal sense. It is about following a path laid out for us. Because Jesus atoned for sin, the Holy Spirit can lead any to God. Its not about people knowing Christ in order to follow his example, although this has a role to play. Many Universalist Christians still hold to Moral Influence atonement as it is not just knowing the life or events of Christ, its following the metaphysical path he opened, whether you know of Him or not. Therefore they would say that Buddhist monks etc. are also saved by the Moral Influence path via the Holy Spirit working via their traditions(not that I ascribe to Universalism).
You are becoming confused as you are thinking in English. These theories were written in Latin, where Influentia meant 'flowing' or an 'influx', used for 'imperceptible action exerted to cause change' in Scholasticism from which English adopted the modern word. It has nothing to do with the modern idea of being influenced by someone, but more of being transformed indirectly.

You don't seem very knowledgeable on Scholasticism it seems, but I would assume this as you said in another thread that you have mostly been studying Indian religions.

Sufficed to say, the Bahai Faith's theology is incompatible with Christian theories of Atonement.

 

[smaneck]

Only the Summi Boni Theologia was declared heretical. While in a dispute with Bernard of Clairvaux, a few others were also so declared, this was stopped by Pope Innocent II and the excommunication lifted.

His views on the Trinity were declared heretical. His dispute with St. Bernard was over his methodology in Sic et Non.

What I had written has nothing to do with Original sin, which I never mentioned. It has more to do with the Fall and depravity, so this observation on your part is irrelevant.

Isn't that what Original Sin is all about?

The Holy Spirit is required to be the same being in every way, shape or form as Jesus for Moral Influence to work as it is about following the path trod by Christ, not only in our earthly life, but in our Metaphysical reality or spiritual life.

So? Baha'is believe in the Holy Spirit. We just don't think it is God.

For Jesus to achieve a position of sinlessness while being a sinful human, requires Him to be a God.

That maybe the Christian position but Baha'is believe all of the Manifestations are sinless.

Fully God and Fully Man, for only God would be able to not sin as a Man.

Baha'is believe the Manifestations are fully divine while being fully human and therefore do not sin. We just don't think being divine equates with being God.

As only Jesus as man and God could overcome our fallen state

Then it does rest upon the notion of Original Sin.

,

the helper needs to be of the same Essence as Christ, not just the 'mind of Christ'.

I think I misunderstood your earlier statement as a reference to believers needing the Holy Spirit to become one with God's essence, which sounded quite heretical to me. That's why I mentioned they could only be one with the Mind of Christ. I didn't realize you were referring to the Holy Spirit being one with God's Essence. Still, your logic makes no sense to me. Where exactly does Peter Aberlard say this? Quotation please.

This sounds like more liberal theology and has no place in a discussion of Peter Abelard.

Liberal theology owes a lot to Abelard.

You require a fully divine Jesus interacting with God the Father throughout the process of Atonement, who is the same Essence as the Holy Spirit and therefore a Trinity for

Sorry, I see no need for this at all for Moral Influence to operate.

Moral Influence is required as seen by the majority of Christians. If it was just about an example of Virtue, than Socrates would have been the Messiah as someone said in another thread.

Not saying it is a simple matter of virtue or example. The act has to be connected to a demonstration of God's love for us. But I see no reason it can't be demonstrated by God manifesting himself in this way rather than incarnating.

(There are some Unitarians who ascribe to a much watered-down Moral Influence theory which makes Jesus more like a prophet, but this is not really philosophically sound by Christian doctrine and such Unitarians usually consider themselves post-Christian and are considered non-Christian by most Christians. I think this may be where you got your 'Mind of Christ' story).

The concept of the Mind of Christ is Pauline. And as I indicated, I brought it up only because I misunderstood what you were saying.

To ascribe divinity to someone, makes them a god in standard western thought. The Oxford Dictionary definition of Divinity is the 'state of being divine' or 'god, deity' and divine means 'of god'. The Bahai cannot use terms in this manner to acquire western theological concepts to themselves when they have defined the terms in a different manner. They do not bear the same meaning anymore.

The word 'divine' has lots of meaning in English and that is the language I speak. Deal with it.

You are becoming confused as you are thinking in English. These theories were written in Latin, where Influentia meant 'flowing' or an 'influx', used for 'imperceptible action exerted to cause change' in Scholasticism from which English adopted the modern word. It has nothing to do with the modern idea of being influenced by someone, but more of being transformed indirectly.

You've not persuaded me that this is what Abelard had in mind.

You don't seem very knowledgeable on Scholasticism it seems, but I would assume this as you said in another thread that you have mostly been studying Indian religions.

I have a field in Church History as well having studied Late Medieval and Reformation thought with Heiko Oberman.
https://dlmrs.web.arizona.edu/node/541

I studied with him for three years.

 

[Hoghead1]

LOL. Actually those books were declared heretical.



Baha'is don't have a concept of original sin, but the Manifestations serve the same example who is regarded as sinless.



What does the Holy Spirit have to do with whether or not Jesus is of the same essence as God the Father. Baha'is, by the way, don't deny Christ's divinity, we deny He is a deity. Also, my understanding is that Christians should have the 'mind of Christ' not become one with his essence. As for the role played by the Holy Spirit, I don't think we have posit a Trinity to talk about the role of the Holy Spirit. As for an imperfect being interacting with a perfect God, that again sounds more Anselmian. But I'm not arguing that Abelard thought in terms of more than one Example. I'm sure the idea didn't occur to him.



Perhaps because it doesn't make sense?



Arianism doesn't teach that Jesus is a full incarnation of God.



Not if the Manifestation is serving as an Example. One has to be aware of the Example in order to follow it, and not everyone was aware of Jesus.

Arianism centered on the notion that Christ maybe divine being, but definitely not God. Christ could not be God, because Christ changed and suffered, and God cannot change or suffer.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

His views on the Trinity were declared heretical.

This is factually inaccurate. Only Summi Boni Theologia was condemned. Some of his other works were condemned in 1121 and 1141, but withdrawn both times from condemnation. Hence we still have them today. If they were declared heretical, they would have been expunged completely like Cathar or Bogomil tracts and would not have been extent. Peter Abelard died in communion with the Church and his works continued to be taught and discussed.

Isn't that what Original Sin is all about?

Then it does rest upon the notion of Original Sin.

No. This is a red herring you keep throwing out. The Pelagians admitted the Fall and human depravity without original sin for instance. Also Orthodoxy never accepted the western idea of Original sin as proposed by Augustine.

So? Baha'is believe in the Holy Spirit. We just don't think it is God.

Baha'is believe the Manifestations are fully divine while being fully human and therefore do not sin. We just don't think being divine equates with being God.

As I said, redefining a concept does not mean you can then adopt Christian theology predicated on a radically different conception of it. Your proving my point here in these two quotes.

That maybe the Christian position but Baha'is believe all of the Manifestations are sinless.

Irrelevant. For the Christian Theology would not accept this. "They are sinless because we say they are" instead of explaining how this can be possible.

I think I misunderstood your earlier statement as a reference to believers needing the Holy Spirit to become one with God's essence, which sounded quite heretical to me. That's why I mentioned they could only be one with the Mind of Christ. I didn't realize you were referring to the Holy Spirit being one with God's Essence. Still, your logic makes no sense to me. Where exactly does Peter Aberlard say this? Quotation please

I do not have a quotation easily to hand, but shall look for one when I have time and post it in this forum. Unfortunately, I need to go through some of my books to get a nice concise one, so I'll have to get back to you.

Liberal theology owes a lot to Abelard.

Abelard was Liberal for the Middle-Ages, but is in no way Liberal by Modern standards. You cannot retroactively transpose modern conceptions on to the Scholastics.

Sorry, I see no need for this at all for Moral Influence to operate.

Of course not, because you changed the definitions of the terms, moving the goalposts as it were. For a Christian however this applies and makes the position of a Bahai Moral Influence theory untenable.

Not saying it is a simple matter of virtue or example. The act has to be connected to a demonstration of God's love for us. But I see no reason it can't be demonstrated by God manifesting himself in this way rather than incarnating.

Same commentary as the quote immediately preceding this one.

The word 'divine' has lots of meaning in English and that is the language I speak. Deal with it.

Yes, but Bahai Theology was framed in Farsi and Arabic and much is lost in translation, especially in this case it seems where English is being abused and meanings wrung from words or ignored in disregard of their meanings. To be fair, I assume that proper theologians would probably explain what they mean with a word at the start of a text which this discussion is obviously lacking.

You've not persuaded me that this is what Abelard had in mind.

I do not need to persuade you for it to be true. This is the meaning of Influentia in mediaeval Scholastic Latin in which his works were written. If you have preconceived modern notions of what it means, I cannot change that.

I have a field in Church History as well having studied Late Medieval and Reformation thought with Heiko Oberman.
https://dlmrs.web.arizona.edu/node/541

I studied with him for three years.

You have demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of Scholasticism, the dominant intellectual paradigm of the Middle-Ages, equated Original sin and other Christian concepts which were major points of discussion in the Reformation and made incorrect statements on Christian views of Atonement. I know that this might have been a few years ago for you, but I would not think someone with a three year background would have such a basic idea thereof.
Also, you previously said in another thread how advanced you were in Indian studies, but I find it pointless when backed in a corner, to suddenly claim unassailable academic credentials to try and shore up your case.
I don't think it is ever relevant to quote your own Academic background in a debate such as this as being an anonymous internet poster there is no way for me to verify it. Let the facts speak for themselves, people can look them up.

Edit: I have changed my wording somewhat in my last point as it seems to have implied a bit more than I meant.

 

[Arthra]

Hoghead, Thanks for the post...

I'd rather not dwell that much on the history of Christian theology but my impression is that Arianism was defined as follows:

Arianism is a nontrinitarian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, created by God the Father, distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to the Father

Baha'is believe Jesus had a pre-existence as a Manifestation of God. In His Tablet to the Pope Baha'u'llah wrote the following:

"Ye call upon Me, and are heedless of My Revelation, notwithstanding that I came unto you from the heaven of pre-existence with surpassing glory."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 65

Also:

"In truth, God created that School ere He
created heaven and earth, and We entered it before the
letters B and E were joined and knit together."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 8


Abdul-Baha also had a definition of the "Trinity" as follows:

"The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

"The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.

"This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113

A brief note to Quid above...

There are no schools of theology among Baha'is hence no "Baha'i Theology" as such... but if you have questions about the Faith feel free to ask them here and I'll humbly do my best to respond to you.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

A brief note to Quid above...

There are no schools of theology among Baha'is hence no "Baha'i Theology" as such... but if you have questions about the Faith feel free to ask them here and I'll humbly do my best to respond to you.

I meant theology as in your understanding or study of God. Even if there are no schools, there is at least one unified school, being the Bahai Faith view.
Thank you, if I have any queries I shall ask you and I appreciate it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hoghead, Thanks for the post...

I'd rather not dwell that much on the history of Christian theology but my impression is that Arianism was defined as follows:

Arianism is a nontrinitarian belief that asserts that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, created by God the Father, distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to the Father

Baha'is believe Jesus had a pre-existence as a Manifestation of God. In His Tablet to the Pope Baha'u'llah wrote the following:

"Ye call upon Me, and are heedless of My Revelation, notwithstanding that I came unto you from the heaven of pre-existence with surpassing glory."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 65

Also:

"In truth, God created that School ere He
created heaven and earth, and We entered it before the
letters B and E were joined and knit together."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 8


Abdul-Baha also had a definition of the "Trinity" as follows:

"The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality -- that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes -- became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied -- for the Sun is one -- but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, "The Father is in the Son," meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

"The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.

"This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113

A brief note to Quid above...

There are no schools of theology among Baha'is hence no "Baha'i Theology" as such... but if you have questions about the Faith feel free to ask them here and I'll humbly do my best to respond to you.

 

[Hoghead1]

Yes, that is correct abut Arianism. I find many today go on a kind of cowboy theology. You don't need to study church history, you don't need to study the fathers, god forbid you should study theology, etc., just sit back and take a nice, leisurely anti-intellectual approach. Hence, I am very critical of many churches for being mediocre. The sermons are jellied-donut sermons, the Sunday-school classes are for a couple of prayers, donuts, and coffee. The result is that the churches are not at all providing a stimulating intellectual atmosphere and their faith seems quite shallow.

 

[smaneck]

I am sorry, but I don't believe you.

If you're calling me a liar there is absolutely no sense in discussing this further.

 

[smaneck]

There are no schools of theology among Baha'is hence no "Baha'i Theology" as such... but if you have questions about the Faith feel free to ask them here and I'll humbly do my best to respond to you.

I wouldn't say there is no Baha'i theology, but when a dispute arose among the friends over Baha'u'llah's own station His response was basically, if you're arguing about it, you are both wrong.

"There are those who have attained to the highest levels of spiritual comprehension (a`la marátib-i `irfán) while others are different therefrom. For example, one person envisages the Unseen the Transcendent, the Inaccessible One (God; ghayb-i maní` la yudrak) in the Person (haykal)[4] of the Manifestation (of God; zuhúr) without making any distinction (fasl; or division) or connection (between them; wasl; or union).[5] Others there are who recognise the Person (haykal) of the Manifestation (of God, zuhúr) as the Appearance of God ([Himself] or theophany, zuhúr'u'lláh) and consider the commands and prohibitions of the Manifestation (of God, zuhúr) to be identical with such as originate with the one True God. These two positions (maqám) are both acceptable before the throne of God. If however, the supporters of these two positions should contend and quarrel with one another in their exposition of the two perspectives, both groups are, and hath ever been, rejected. This inasmuch as the purpose of the spiritual understanding (`irfán) and the exposition (dhikr) of the highest levels of the elucidation of the teachings (bayán) is to attract the hearts, cause fellowship between souls, and further the propagation of the Cause of God. As a result of contention and disputation amongst those who hold to these two positions, there hath been and will ever result the dissipation (tadyí`) of the Cause of God and both groups shall return to the hellfire despite the fact that they, in their own estimation, soar in the highest horizon of spiritual understanding (bi-a`lá ufuq-i `irfán)."

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If you're calling me a liar there is absolutely no sense in discussing this further.

Thats a bit strong. I meant to say that you have not demonstrated to me much familiarity with the concepts we were discussing. But yes, I would say we are done.

I edited the previous post and apologise if I had offended.

 

[Dale]

The Transfiguration provides further evidence that Moses is only one of the prophets in the OT.



As the Bahais seem to understand it, Moses is “the prophet” in the Old Testament. Other prophets in the OT are minor or dependent. As I pointed out in post #128 , Isaiah also saw God face to face and heard God's voice, so Moses isn't unique in this sense.



The Transfiguation in the Gospels gives us more reason to believe that the Bible doesn't present Moses as the only, or the main, OT prophet. In the Transfiguration, Jesus talks to Moses and Elijah. Both appear in “glorious splendor,” as Luke puts it. The Gospels clearly treat Elijah as the equal of Moses.



Matthew, Mark and Luke, the synoptic Gospels, all have Peter, James and John hearing a “voice from the cloud,” which is clearly God the Father.



Quote:

17 After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. 2 There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. 3 Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.

4 Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is good for us to be here. If you wish, I will put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.”

5 While he was still speaking, a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!”

6 When the disciples heard this, they fell facedown to the ground, terrified. 7 But Jesus came and touched them. “Get up,” he said. “Don’t be afraid.” 8 When they looked up, they saw no one except Jesus.

9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus instructed them, “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.”

10 The disciples asked him, “Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

11 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. 12 But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands.” 13 Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.

Matthew 17: 1-13 NIV



2 After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. 3 His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. 4 And there appeared before them Elijah and Moses, who were talking with Jesus.

5 Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 6 (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.)

7 Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!”

8 Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.

9 As they were coming down the mountain, Jesus gave them orders not to tell anyone what they had seen until the Son of Man had risen from the dead. 10 They kept the matter to themselves, discussing what “rising from the dead” meant.

11 And they asked him, “Why do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?”

12 Jesus replied, “To be sure, Elijah does come first, and restores all things. Why then is it written that the Son of Man must suffer much and be rejected? 13 But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

Mark 9:2-13 NIV









28 About eight days after Jesus said this, he took Peter, John and James with him and went up onto a mountain to pray. 29 As he was praying, the appearance of his face changed, and his clothes became as bright as a flash of lightning. 30 Two men, Moses and Elijah, appeared in glorious splendor, talking with Jesus. 31 They spoke about his departure, which he was about to bring to fulfillment at Jerusalem. 32 Peter and his companions were very sleepy, but when they became fully awake, they saw his glory and the two men standing with him. 33 As the men were leaving Jesus, Peter said to him, “Master, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what he was saying.)

34 While he was speaking, a cloud appeared and covered them, and they were afraid as they entered the cloud. 35 A voice came from the cloud, saying, “This is my Son, whom I have chosen; listen to him.” 36 When the voice had spoken, they found that Jesus was alone. The disciples kept this to themselves and did not tell anyone at that time what they had seen.

Luke 9: 28-36 NIV

 

[smaneck]

The Transfiguration provides further evidence that Moses is only one of the prophets in the OT.
As the Bahais seem to understand it, Moses is “the prophet” in the Old Testament. Other prophets in the OT are minor or dependent. As I pointed out in post #128 , Isaiah also saw God face to face and heard God's voice, so Moses isn't unique in this sense.

I don't see the Transfiguration as saying anything about the station of those prophets. But as far as other prophets seeing God face to face, my statement was merely a paraphrase of what the Bible itself says, not Baha'i doctrine:

Deut. 34:10

10 ¶And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,

I might point out that Acts 3:22 states that Jesus was such a prophet:

"For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you."

Again, this isn't Baha'i doctrine it is simply what the Bible says.

 

[smaneck]

This is factually inaccurate. Only Summi Boni Theologia was condemned.

There is no point in discussing this any further. I said his views on the trinity were considered heretical and you respond by insisting that only Summi Boni Theologia was condemned. Well, that is his treatise on the Trinity. And I'm the one who is supposed to be ignorant.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

There is no point in discussing this any further. I said his views on the trinity were considered heretical and you respond by insisting that only Summi Boni Theologia was condemned. Well, that is his treatise on the Trinity. And I'm the one who is supposed to be ignorant.

His Trinitarian stance wasn't condemned in this work. His opponents tried to pin Sabellianism on him, but this couldn't be made to stick at the Soissons provincial synod.
So it was condemned based on Rationalist statements therein, basically on the procedures he employed, not on his doctrine. So no, his stance on the Trinity was not condemned, In fact his Trinitarian points are actually widely applied in later Scholastic tracts on the topic. Obviously if his stance on the Trinity was wrong, then all his works would have been condemned as this is a central doctine in any discussion of Christian theology. Try again.

Besides, even this work's condemnation was withdrawn eventually and this abtuse discussion on mediaeval history is not really on topic for this thread. For what I said is applicable to Moral Influence atonement in general, which neither began nor ended with Peter Abelard. It cannot be applied to Bahai thought without significant changes to its basic theology, leaving something which no longer can be considered the same concept. You seem to be clutching at straws.

 

[smaneck]

His Trinitarian stance wasn't condemned in this work.

It was his nominalistic understanding of the Trinity that was condemned. But I'm not going to argue this point with you any further.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It was his nominalistic understanding of the Trinity that was condemned. But I'm not going to argue this point with you any further.

In Peter Abelard's own words: "He agreed to condemn my book without any further inquiry, to burn it forthwith in the sight of all, and to confine me for a year in another monastery. They could find no heresy within it. The argument they used was that it sufficed for the condemnation of my book that I had presumed to read it in public without approval either of the Roman Pontiff or of the Church, and that furthermore, I had given it to be transcribed."

The following from the Catholic Encyclopaedia

"Through their influence, his orthodoxy, especially on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, was impeached, and he was summoned to appear before a council at Soissons, in 1121, presided over by the papal legate, Kuno, Bishop of Praneste. While it is not easy to determine exactly what took place at the Council, it is clear that there was no formal condemnation of Abelard's doctrines, but that he was nevertheless condemned to recite the Athanasian Creed, and to burn his book on the Trinity"

Therefore no specific view of the trinity was condemned, Nominalist or otherwise.

"Accordingly, a council was held at Sens (the metropolitan see to which Paris was then suffragan) in 1141. On the eve of the council a meeting of bishops was held, at which Bernard was present, but not Abelard, and in that meeting a number of propositions were selected from Abelard's writings, and condemned. When, on the following morning, these propositions were read in solemn council, Abelard, informed, so it seems, of the proceedings of the evening before, refused to defend himself, declaring that he appealed to Rome. Accordingly, the propositions were condemned, but Abelard was allowed his freedom. St. Bernard now wrote to the members of the Roman Curia, with the result that Abelard had proceeded only as far as Cluny on his way to Rome when the decree of Innocent II confirming the sentence of the Council of Sens reached him.
The Venerable Peter of Cluny now took up his case, obtained from Rome a mitigation of the sentence, reconciled him with St. Bernard, and gave him honourable and friendly hospitality at Cluny. There Abelard spent the last years of his life, and there at last he found the peace which he had elsewhere sought in vain. He donned the habit of the monks of Cluny and became a teacher in the school of the monastery."

The second condemnation was only of certain propositions culled from his works. No complete work was condemned nor any specific view of the trinity.
The fact that Nominalism went on to become a backbone of Scholasticism in the 13th century should show you that it was never condemned as such by the Church as a philosophical view.
But as I said, this whole discussion is way of topic and I assume you are just continuing it to obfuscate the fact that your initial assertion of Moral Influence atonement in the Bahai Faith is untenable.

I think I misunderstood your earlier statement as a reference to believers needing the Holy Spirit to become one with God's essence, which sounded quite heretical to me. That's why I mentioned they could only be one with the Mind of Christ. I didn't realize you were referring to the Holy Spirit being one with God's Essence. Still, your logic makes no sense to me. Where exactly does Peter Aberlard say this? Quotation please.

Not exactly what you asked for as it is not Peter Abelard's own words, but it is a quick explanation of his view on the trinity which explains my point above. From the Cambridge companion to the works of Peter Abelard:

"Abelard charges them with holding that (a) everything can be explained by human reason; (b) we should only accept what reason persuades us of; (c) appeals to authority have no rational persuasive force. Real dialecticians, he maintains, reject (a)–(c), recognizing that human reason has limits, and that some important truths may lie outside those limits but not beyond belief; which claims about matters of faith we should accept depends on both the epistemic reliability of their sources (the authorities) and their consonance with reason to the extent they can be investigated.

Abelard’s arguments for rejecting (a)–(c) are sophisticated and subtle. For the claim that reason may be fruitfully applied to a particular article of faith, Abelard offers a particular case study in his own writings. The bulk of Abelard’s work on theology is devoted to his dialectical investigation of the Trinity. He elaborates an original theory of identity to address issues surrounding the Trinity, one that has wider applicability in metaphysics. The upshot of his enquiries is that belief in the Trinity is rationally justifiable since as far as reason can take us we find that the doctrine makes sense—at least, once the tools of dialectic have been properly employed.

The traditional account of identity, derived from Boethius, holds that things may be either generically, specifically, or numerically the same or different. Abelard accepts this account but finds it not sufficiently fine-grained to deal with the Trinity. The core of his theory of identity, as presented in his Theologia christiana, consists in four additional modes of identity: (1) essential sameness and difference; (2) numerical sameness and difference, which Abelard ties closely to essential sameness and difference, allowing a more fine-grained distinction than Boethius could allow; (3) sameness and difference in definition; (4) sameness and difference in property (in proprietate). Roughly, Abelard’s account of essential and numerical sameness is intended to improve upon the identity-conditions for things in the world given by the traditional account; his account of sameness in definition is meant to supply identity-conditions for the features of things; and his account of sameness in property opens up the possibility of there being different identity-conditions for a single thing having several distinct features.

Abelard holds that two things are the same in essence when they are numerically the same concrete thing (essentia), and essentially different otherwise. The Morning Star is essentially the same as the Evening Star, for instance, since each is the selfsame planet Venus. Again, the formal elements that constitute a concrete thing are essentially the same as one another and essentially the same as the concrete thing of which they are the formal constituents: Socrates is his essence (Socrates is what it is to be Socrates). The corresponding general thesis does not hold for parts, however. Abelard maintains that the part is essentially different from the integral whole of which it is a part, reasoning that a given part is completely contained, along with other parts, in the whole, and so is less than the quantity of the whole.

Numerical difference does not map precisely onto essential difference. The failure of numerical sameness may be due to one of two causes. First, objects are not numerically the same when one has a part that the other does not have, in which case the objects are essentially different as well. Second, objects are numerically different when neither has a part belonging to the other. Numerical difference thus entails the failure of numerical sameness, but not conversely: a part is not numerically the same as its whole, but it is not numerically different from its whole. Thus one thing is essentially different from another when either they have only a part in common, in which case they are not numerically the same; or they have no parts in common, in which case they are numerically different as well as not numerically the same. Since things may be neither numerically the same nor numerically different, the question “How many things are there?” is ill-formed as it stands and must be made more precise, a fact Abelard exploits in his discussion of the Trinity.

Essential and numerical sameness and difference apply directly to things in the world; they are extensional forms of identity. By contrast, sameness and difference in definition is roughly analogous to modern theories of the identity of properties. Abelard holds that things are the same in definition when what it is to be one requires that it be the other, and conversely; otherwise they differ in definition.

Finally, things are the same in property when they specify features that characterize one another. Abelard offers an example to clarify this notion. A cube of marble exemplifies both whiteness and hardness; what is white is essentially the same as what is hard, since they are numerically the same concrete thing, namely the marble cube; yet the whiteness and the hardness in the marble cube clearly differ in definition—but even so, what is white is characterized by hardness (the white thing is hard), and conversely what is hard is characterized by whiteness (the hard thing is white). The properties of whiteness and hardness are ‘mixed’ since, despite their being different in definition, each applies to the selfsame concrete thing (namely the marble cube) as such and also as it is characterized by the other.

The interesting case is where something has properties that “remain so completely unmixed” that the items they characterize are different in property. Consider a form-matter composite in relation to its matter. The matter out of which a form-matter composite is made is essentially the same as the composite, since each is the entire material composite itself. Yet despite their essential sameness, they are not identical; the matter is not the composite, nor conversely. The matter is not the composite, for the composite comes to be out of the matter, but the matter does not come to be out of itself. The composite is not the matter, since “nothing is in any way a constitutive part of or naturally prior to itself.” Instead, the matter is prior to the composite since it has the property priority with respect to the composite, whereas the composite is posterior to its matter since it has the property posteriority with respect to its matter. Now despite being essentially the same, the matter is not characterized by posteriority, unlike the composite, and the composite is not characterized by priority, unlike the matter. Hence the matter and composite are different in property; the properties priority and posteriority are unmixed—they differ in property.

Now for the payoff. Abelard deploys his theory of identity to shed light on the Trinity as follows. The three Persons are essentially the same as one another, since they are all the same concrete thing (namely God). They differ from one another in definition, since what it is to be the Father is not the same as what it is to be the Son or what it is to be the Holy Spirit. The three Persons are numerically different from one another, for otherwise they would not be three, but they are not numerically different from God: if they were there would be three gods, not one. Moreover, each Person has properties that uniquely apply to it—unbegotten to the Father, begotten to the Son, and proceeding to the Holy Spirit—as well as properties that are distinctive of it, such as power for the Father, wisdom for the Son, and goodness for the Holy Spirit. The unique properties are unmixed in Abelard’s technical sense, for the Persons differ from one another in their unique properties, and such properties do not apply to God; the distinctive properties are mixed, though, in that God is characterized by each (the powerful God is the wise God is the good God). Further than that, Abelard holds, human reason cannot go; but reason validates the analysis (strictly speaking only a “likeness” or analogy) as far as it can go."