Manifestations of God--a Question for Bahai's

[FerventGodSeeker]

This is a question about the Baha'i teaching on Manifestations of God. From a Christian perspective, I think of a manifestation of God as roughly equivalent to the Incarnation of Christ; i.e. God being made manifest in human form on Earth. However, as Christians, we also believe that because Christ was God incarnate, He was sinless. However, many of the manifestations of God in Baha'i clearly did sin. For example, Adam, considered one manifestation in Bahai, is probably the best known sinner in the world, having been the first one. How, then, does Baha'i reconcile the idea that the manifestation of a perfect God can and does/did sin?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi; thanks for asking!

Basically, in the Baha'i view ALL Divine Messengers (aka Manifestations of God) are perfect, and cannot and do not sin! Any appearance to the contrary is either a misconseption, or an instance where a condemnation really intended for humanity at large is, through God's Mercy, addressed to the Messenger instead. (The Bahai' scriptures explain this in detail, specifically in 'Abdu'l-Baha's Some Answered Questions <in the chapter about rebukes addressed to Manifestations>. Moses was one such Messenger so "rebuked.")

Further in the Baha'i view God does not incarnate Himself (and indeed, if He did, He would immediately cease to be God!).

The Divine Messengers all share a dual status:

On the one hand, each is a human who was born, lived, and died. (A good example is Jesus' referring to himself as the Son of Man and saying "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but the Father in Heaven."

But in Their other station, each Messenger in fact manifests the Holy Spirit, and as such is the Face of God on earth. In regard to this station, it is appropriate to refer to each as God even though They are not in fact God Himself. (And this status, embodied in Christianity as the Christ, is seen in His statement "Before Abraham was, I AM.")

I hope this helps explain our views. Please note that any further questions are most welcome!

And you can find more information about the Baha'i Faith at www.bahai.org and www.bahai.us

Good hunting!

Bruce

 

[Booko]

I would add to what Bruce wrote above that Manifestations are not just human mouthpieces for God. Unlike us, they are preexistent.

They inhabit a plane of creation all on their own, somewhere above us. While there are definitely things we can understand about these Figures, no matter how we try we will always come up short.

It would be sorta like my cat really understanding what it is to be human.

If you the passage from Baha'i Writings I put out in another thread, it's important to note that it refers to the "Divinity of Christ." This doesn't mean that Christ = God, but it definitly means he isn't just an everyday human. He's much much more than that.

 

[arthra]

This is a question about the Baha'i teaching on Manifestations of God. From a Christian perspective, I think of a manifestation of God as roughly equivalent to the Incarnation of Christ; i.e. God being made manifest in human form on Earth. However, as Christians, we also believe that because Christ was God incarnate, He was sinless. However, many of the manifestations of God in Baha'i clearly did sin. For example, Adam, considered one manifestation in Bahai, is probably the best known sinner in the world, having been the first one. How, then, does Baha'i reconcile the idea that the manifestation of a perfect God can and does/did sin?

FerventGodSeeker

Thanks for your post "Fervent God seeker"!

Seeking God fervently is indeed commendable.

I think Bruce and "Booko" have already responded well and I was just interested in maybe giving a little bit more about how we Baha'is see things because your question also has some underlying assumptions.

You're correct I think that a "Manifestation of God" is "roughly equivalent" to the Christian view of the Incarnation of Christ. We believe Christ had innate knowledge and was sinless. We also accept that Jesus was born of a virgin His mother in a miraculous way. But we don't believe that God "incarnated" Himself but rather that God was perfectly reflected in Jesus as in a perfect Mirror with out flaws or imperfections and we feel this about all the Manifestations of God that They perfectly reflect the God. The rest of us have to work very hard to scrub our mirrors so they can just begin to even relfect some of the attributes of God.

Your reference to Adam as having sinned is of course the traditional view of many Christians especially those who hold to the concept of original sin. Baha'is believe that the Garden of Eden story is an allegory and explains the creation and nature of man and has many meanings. We do not accept the traditional meaning however of the story nor do we believe it literally occurred. Those who did not accept Jesus accused Him of the sin of blasphemy...working on the sabbath ... allowing His disciples to glean on the sabbath and associating with sinners and publicans, nonetheless we Baha'is like most Christians believe Jesus was also without sin.

- Art

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Further in the Baha'i view God does not incarnate Himself (and indeed, if He did, He would immediately cease to be God!).

Why do you say that?

The Divine Messengers all share a dual status:

On the one hand, each is a human who was born, lived, and died. (A good example is Jesus' referring to himself as the Son of Man and saying "Why callest thou Me good? There is none good but the Father in Heaven."

I agree with this in regards to Christ...orthodox Christians hold that Christ had a fully human nature (now fully glorified in heaven).

But in Their other station, each Messenger in fact manifests the Holy Spirit, and as such is the Face of God on earth. In regard to this station, it is appropriate to refer to each as God even though They are not in fact God Himself.

To me it doesn't make much sense to call someone something they aren't...This is like calling a mirror a person just because it reflects the image of a human being. However, I do see somewhat where youre coming from, thanks for the explanation.

(And this status, embodied in Christianity as the Christ, is seen in His statement "Before Abraham was, I AM.")

For Christians, when Christ speaks in this way, it is clear evidence that Christ is God, since He couldn't say such things if He wasn't claiming deity for Himself. Thus, combining the observations from the first verse and this one, we come to the orthodox conclusion that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, having dual natures.

FGS

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Your reference to Adam as having sinned is of course the traditional view of many Christians especially those who hold to the concept of original sin. Baha'is believe that the Garden of Eden story is an allegory and explains the creation and nature of man and has many meanings. We do not accept the traditional meaning however of the story nor do we believe it literally occurred.

Well that's interesting, thanks for pointing that out. So then you don't believe that Adam was the first to sin? Then who was, and what did that person do?
If you believe that the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden is nothing but an allegory, then why do you still maintain that Adam was an actual person? Typically when a story is allegorical, both the plot and the characters represent something else and are not actual events or people, yet you still consider Adam to have been an actual Manifestation of God. Why is that, and what message did Adam give to the world which evidenced his being a Manifestation?

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Booko]

For Christians, when Christ speaks in this way, it is clear evidence that Christ is God, since He couldn't say such things if He wasn't claiming deity for Himself. Thus, combining the observations from the first verse and this one, we come to the orthodox conclusion that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, having dual natures.

I can't recall if it was this thread or a different one eek, but fwiw, we also see that verse as supporting the idea the Christ is preexistent.

 

[Booko]

Why do you say that?

re: God incarnating Himself ceasing to be God.

This passage may be of some use, though I would've prefered posting a shorter one:

There is also the divine unity or entity which is sanctified above all concept of humanity. It cannot be comprehended nor conceived because it is infinite reality and cannot become finite. Human minds are incapable of surrounding that reality because all thoughts and conceptions of it are finite, intellectual creations and not the reality of divine being which alone knows itself. For example, if we form a conception of divinity as a living, almighty, self-subsisting, eternal being, this is only a concept apprehended by a human intellectual reality. It would not be the outward, visible reality which is beyond the power of human mind to conceive or encompass. We ourselves have an external, visible entity but even our concept of it is the product of our own brain and limited comprehension. The reality of divinity is sanctified above this degree of knowing and realization. It has ever been hidden and secluded in its own holiness and sanctity above our comprehending. Although it transcends our realization, its lights, bestowals, traces and virtues have become manifest in the realities of the prophets, even as the sun becomes resplendent in various mirrors. These holy realities are as reflectors, and the reality of divinity is as the sun which although it is reflected from the mirrors, and its 260 virtues and perfections become resplendent therein, does not stoop from its own station of majesty and glory and seek abode in the mirrors; it remains in its heaven of sanctity. At most it is this, that its lights become manifest and evident in its mirrors or manifestations. Therefore its bounty proceeding from them is one bounty but the recipients of that bounty are many. This is the unity of God; this is oneness; -- unity of divinity, holy above ascent or descent, embodiment, comprehension or idealization; -- divine unity. The prophets are its mirrors; its lights are revealed through them; its virtues become resplendent in them, but the Sun of Reality never descends from its own highest point and station. This is unity, oneness, sanctity; this is glorification whereby we praise and adore God.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 259)

 

[Booko]

If you believe that the story of the fall in the Garden of Eden is nothing but an allegory, then why do you still maintain that Adam was an actual person? Typically when a story is allegorical, both the plot and the characters represent something else and are not actual events or people, yet you still consider Adam to have been an actual Manifestation of God. Why is that, and what message did Adam give to the world which evidenced his being a Manifestation?

Your questions have not piqued my interest in a couple of ways...

The message Adam brought to humanity has been lost to history it seems. Unless there's something preserved in the Oral Torah. I don't know about that, but it might be worth popping into the Judaism area and asking.

We could toss in Noah as well. In Christianity, Noah is a guy who built a boat to withstand a flood. In Islam and in the Baha'i Faith, Noah is a Prophet who brought a message. I honestly don't know the view of Noah in Judaism either, except there is some belief that Noah had a subset of laws that Gentiles should adhere to in order to be righteous.

Are you game?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Hi, there!

Further in the Baha'i view God does not incarnate Himself (and indeed, if He did, He would immediately cease to be God!).

Why do you say that?

I say that because of this statement, which is an official statement of Baha'i doctrine written by Shoghi Effenci, head of the Baha'i Faith from 1921-1957 and its explicitly authorized interpreter as recorded in the Baha'i scriptures:

"Indeed, the God Who could so incarnate His own reality
would, in the light of the teachings of Baha'u'llah,
cease immediately to be God. So crude and fantastic a
theory of Divine incarnation is as removed from, and
incompatible with, the essentials of Baha'i belief as are
the no less inadmissible pantheistic and anthropomorphic
conceptions of God - both of which the utterances of
Baha'u'llah emphatically repudiate and the fallacy of
which they expose."
(The World Order of Baha'u'llah, pages 112-113)

As to the reason it is appropriate to refer to Divine Messengers as God when They are in fact not God hImself, the reason is that, very simply, They are all we humans can directly know of God here on earth! This is because, as implied in the quote above and explicitly stated elsewhere, God is totally unknowable through any human initiative! All we can learn of Him is what He chooses to reveal to us via the Divine Messengers He sends to teach us.

My regards, and do keep the questions coming!

Best,

Bruce

 

[arthra]

I was thinking it might be helpful to post some excerpts from the Baha'i Writings in this case what Abdul-Baha had to say about Adam so that the Baha'i perspective on this can be shared:

Adam is the cause of man&#8217;s physical life; but the Reality of Christ&#8212;that is to say, the Word of God&#8212;is the cause of 120 spiritual life. It is &#8220;a quickening spirit,&#8221; meaning that all the imperfections which come from the requirements of the physical life of man are transformed into human perfections by the teachings and education of that spirit. Therefore, Christ was a quickening spirit, and the cause of life in all mankind.
Adam was the cause of physical life, and as the physical world of man is the world of imperfections, and imperfections are the equivalent of death, Paul compared the physical imperfections to death.
But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment. This is far from the justice of God. If Adam was a sinner, what is the sin of Abraham? What is the fault of Isaac, or of Joseph? Of what is Moses guilty?
But Christ, Who is the Word of God, sacrificed Himself. This has two meanings, an apparent and an esoteric meaning. The outward meaning is this: Christ&#8217;s intention was to represent and promote a Cause which was to educate the human world, to quicken the children of Adam, and to enlighten all mankind; and since to represent such a great Cause&#8212;a Cause which was antagonistic to all the people of the world and all the nations and kingdoms


~ Abdul-Baha

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

As to the reason it is appropriate to refer to Divine Messengers as God when They are in fact not God hImself, the reason is that, very simply, They are all we humans can directly know of God here on earth! This is because, as implied in the quote above and explicitly stated elsewhere, God is totally unknowable through any human initiative! All we can learn of Him is what He chooses to reveal to us via the Divine Messengers He sends to teach us.

One of the things that I think sets Christianity apart from most if not all other religions is that God, the Creator of the universe, is NOT unknowable. He is highly personal, and longs for an intimate relationship with His people, not just corporately, but individually. God has revealed Himself to us in a number of ways, most prominently in clothing Himself in humility and appearing to us as a servant, Jesus Christ, but also speaks to Christians personally as He resides in each of them.

FGS

 

[Booko]

One of the things that I think sets Christianity apart from most if not all other religions is that God, the Creator of the universe, is NOT unknowable. He is highly personal, and longs for an intimate relationship with His people, not just corporately, but individually. God has revealed Himself to us in a number of ways, most prominently in clothing Himself in humility and appearing to us as a servant, Jesus Christ, but also speaks to Christians personally as He resides in each of them.

Please reread what Bruce said. It's that God is unknowable "by any human initiative." That's no different than what I was taught in Church.

It doesn't mean God is unknowable. It just means we cannot reach Him on our own.

He reaches out to us, though, through his Messengers.

As for the rest of your post, FGH, I don't see the big difference between us. I don't even see the little difference, for that matter.

Perhaps Christianity is not as "set apart" as you think.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But the mass of the Christians believe that, as Adam ate of the forbidden tree, He sinned in that He disobeyed, and that the disastrous consequences of this disobedience have been transmitted as a heritage and have remained among His descendants. Hence Adam became the cause of the death of humanity. This explanation is unreasonable and evidently wrong, for it means that all men, even the Prophets and the Messengers of God, without committing any sin or fault, but simply because they are the posterity of Adam, have become without reason guilty sinners, and until the day of the sacrifice of Christ were held captive in hell in painful torment. This is far from the justice of God.

Abdul-Baha apparently misunderstands the Christian teaching on original sin, because this is a critique of quite a straw-man of the actual doctrine. While all men are born intrinsically with a "sin nature", that is, a propensity and tendency to sin, no person is "held captive in hell in painful torment" unless they actually sin themselves. It is standardly believed to my knowledge that alcoholism runs in families, the propensity for alcoholism being somehow congenital. However, even with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism, this does not mean that people with these dispositions have done anything wrong until they actually get drunk and/or addicted to alcohol. By the same token, all people have a natural propensity to sin, but this does not mean they are automatically condemned to Hell from birth as naive infants, nor does it mean that this tendency is an excuse to sin when they do.

If Adam was a sinner, what is the sin of Abraham?

Genesis 9 - He told his wife to lie to the Egyptian pharoah and say that she was his sister, because he thought the pharoah would kill him, even though the pharoah never did even after finding out they lied.

Of what is Moses guilty?

Numbers 20 - Moses got impatient with the whinings of the Jews, so he struck a rock in a fit of rage, and God caused water to gush from it. As a result of his disbelief, he was not allowed to enter the Promised Land.
One of the interesting things about the Bible is that it presents the story warts and all. It doesn't sugar-coat things as though God's people have been perfect. Rather, He uses people IN SPITE of their imperfections to accomplish His purposes:
"Bud God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence." 1 Corinthians 1:27-29

But Christ, Who is the Word of God, sacrificed Himself. This has two meanings, an apparent and an esoteric meaning. The outward meaning is this: Christ’s intention was to represent and promote a Cause which was to educate the human world, to quicken the children of Adam, and to enlighten all mankind; and since to represent such a great Cause—a Cause which was antagonistic to all the people of the world and all the nations and kingdoms

And yet he fails to mention the most significant meaning of Christ's sacrifice:
"Then He (Jesus) said to them, 'Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.' " Luke 24:46-47
"For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another--He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself." Hebrews 9:24-26

FerventGodSeeker

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Please reread what Bruce said. It's that God is unknowable "by any human initiative." That's no different than what I was taught in Church.

It doesn't mean God is unknowable. It just means we cannot reach Him on our own.

He reaches out to us, though, through his Messengers.

As for the rest of your post, FGH, I don't see the big difference between us. I don't even see the little difference, for that matter.

Perhaps Christianity is not as "set apart" as you think.

It is certainly set apart from Baha'i if you believe God ceases to God because He takes on human form. This is one of the most central tenets of Christianity; that God loves us so much that He Himself got down in the dirt with us, appeared in lowly form as a humble servant, and literally died for us, subsequently rising from the grave to defeat death. I don't hear that message coming from Baha'i.

FGS

 

[arthra]

Fervent seeker,

Thanks for your post.

And trust me I understand the doctrine of original sin and how it is widely held by many Christians...not be all, but by many. We Baha'is do not accept it. So Abdul-Baha does not misunderstand the Christian doctrine. He was aware of it. You can remain in your belief.

- Art

 

[BruceDLimber]

And trust me I understand the doctrine of original sin and how it is widely held by many Christians...not be all, but by many.

But what the many overlook is the clear statement in Ezekiel 18 that sin is NOT inherited!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9harmony]

It is certainly set apart from Baha'i if you believe God ceases to God because He takes on human form. This is one of the most central tenets of Christianity; that God loves us so much that He Himself got down in the dirt with us, appeared in lowly form as a humble servant, and literally died for us, subsequently rising from the grave to defeat death. I don't hear that message coming from Baha'i.

FGS

Hi FGS,

As Art said, this is not a tenant held by all denominations of Christianity. Why is that, if, as you say it's one of the most central? Perhaps it deserves a closer look.

How did that belief come to be a central tenant? imho it stems from Jesus saying "I and the Father are one", but that alone is neglecting to take into consideration that Jesus also said "the Father is greater than I". imho, it's neglected because the second seems to contradict the first. How can that be? God cannot contradict Himself. So there must be something more to it. Some deeper principle that people have glossed over because they can't wrap their minds around it's implications and understand it.

I believe that both of these statements are true.

Jesus and the Father are One in essence, as Jesus only taught what He was given by God to share with us. Jesus' voice is God's voice, given to us through the Holy Spirit.
That is how we can recognize God. through His voice. Not through a physical human body. "...today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart..." Psalms 95:7-8

"the Father is greater than I" ...so if Jesus and the Father are One. How can the Father be greater?

Baha'u'llah says something similar...

"When I contemplate, O my God, the relationship that bindeth
me to Thee, I am moved to proclaim to all created things "verily
I am God"; and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it
coarser than clay!" - (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 234)

As i understand it, the Messengers of God have a twofold station, that of a human being (albeit a completely selfless one), and that of the Voice of God. That is why it is so easy to misunderstand the seeming contradictions between some of their statements. They speak to us from both of their stations. Two distinctly different stations. When they speak of their sufferings, and the tests and challenges they face, they are speaking as a man. When they speak with power and authority, that is the Voice of God speaking via the Holy Spirit through them.

God is so far beyond anything we can conceive. God in His infinite mercy sends us guidance through a perfect human temple, in a way that we can grasp according to our capacity, not His. If God were to show us His full glory, humanity would be dumbfounded and cease to exist. Gradually God is educating mankind to understand our own true nature as spiritual beings. We are on the thresh-hold of maturity. All of religious history has been leading up to this point.

Of course, this is simply my own humble understanding of something i will never fully comprehend.

Have a great day!

-Amy

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Hi FGS,

As Art said, this is not a tenant held by all denominations of Christianity. Why is that, if, as you say it's one of the most central? Perhaps it deserves a closer look.

Actually Art was referring to the doctrine of original sin, not the doctrine of the deity of Christ. In regards to the deity of Christ, all three main, orthodox branches of Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) agree on the teaching of the deity of Christ. It is most certainly one of the most central themes to our faith. If one does not accept this teaching, then their whole view of the Faith is entirely altered. As to why some do not believe it, there has always been heresy in the Church that we have had to deal with and combat against...the teachings of outside groups, however, does not and will not alter what we teach and have taught for 2,000 years.

How did that belief come to be a central tenant?

It became a central tenet when Christ was born on the Earth, and immediately men came to worship Him, realizing that He is "God With Us."

imho it stems from Jesus saying "I and the Father are one", but that alone is neglecting to take into consideration that Jesus also said "the Father is greater than I". imho, it's neglected because the second seems to contradict the first. How can that be? God cannot contradict Himself. So there must be something more to it. Some deeper principle that people have glossed over because they can't wrap their minds around it's implications and understand it.

In the orthodox view, neither of these verses is ignored, nor are they seen as contradictory. Rather, they each demonstrate Christ acting in one of His two natures, either divine or human. You see, we do not merely believe that Christ was a mouthpiece of God, nothing more than a messenger who is powerless on His own. We believe that Christ truly was God, and when He speaks as such it is because He actually means it. While on Earth, we believe that Christ humbled Himself in taking on a human nature, and thus as a human submitted to the Father. However, He never lost His divine nature, and thus we see His numerous statements and actions indicating His divinity.

I believe that both of these statements are true.

Same here.

Jesus and the Father are One in essence, as Jesus only taught what He was given by God to share with us. Jesus' voice is God's voice, given to us through the Holy Spirit.
That is how we can recognize God. through His voice. Not through a physical human body. "...today if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart..." Psalms 95:7-8

"the Father is greater than I" ...so if Jesus and the Father are One. How can the Father be greater?

The Father is greater than Jesus while He was on Earth in humble human form, but in their divine natures they are equal and of the same One essence.


Hope this clears a few things up for you.


FGS

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

But what the many overlook is the clear statement in Ezekiel 18 that sin is NOT inherited!

Peace,

Bruce

Thanks for bringing this up. In Ezekiel 18, the author discusses the fact that sons are not punished for their fathers' sins. Catholics and other Christians who believe in original sin fully agree with this. Each person is reponsible for their own sin; the wrongdoing that their parents did is certianly not their fault. This concept does not contradict the doctrine of original sin at all. As I explained to Arthra:
"While all men are born intrinsically with a "sin nature", that is, a propensity and tendency to sin, no person is "held captive in hell in painful torment" unless they actually sin themselves...all people have a natural propensity to sin, but this does not mean they are automatically condemned to Hell from birth as naive infants, nor does it mean that this tendency is an excuse to sin when they do."

The doctrine of original sin is simply the belief that all men are intrinsically flawed and have an innate tendency to sin. This is the whole purpose of turning to God as our Savior, because we left to ourselves are incapable of "saving" ourselves. Thank goodness that there is a perfect, holy God who loves us and wants to restore us!

FGS