Hm.
This is debatable really. Because, the passages of Bible may be interpreted literally or symbolically.
It can, but we're speaking from a Christian point of view rather than Bahai.
Most Christians agree that some parts of the Bible is not literal. For example, the story of seeing Moses and Elijah, according to most Christians is symbolic. They believe the disciples had a vision, and the Moses and Elijah were not physically on the Mountain.
Without jesus
actual resurrection, Christianity would be symbolic.
This tells us that even according to Christians, not everything written in Bible are physical events.
Yes. Physical resurrection is not symbolic as other parts may be.
Sure you can ask them about that.
I'm smothered with Christians, both old school and new school. A lot of the non-denomination christians make it more symbolic. It's a protest against the Church's "literalism" of the Eucharist. Old school seem to put more emphasis on Christ resurrection than his death. If you said the resurrection is symbolic, it's saying their salvation is symbolic. It's literally tearing the heart of a Christian's salvation when you say that
their scripture says one thing when either denomination or by christian, it says and means something totally different.
It's not about Bahai views.
Thus, as for resurrection, it can be considered that the Authors of Bible did not mean to describe a physical event. It is debatable...
Did not mean?
To me, either I agree with it or I don't. I can't make something different all because I personally don't agree it. Jesus rose in scripture. I disagree that he literally did.
It's not about me though. It's about scripture in how christian's interpret it. It's their religion not mine.
Anything is debatable. I don't take sides so either side have their views. Though, Christians don't have a view of other religions in a positive light nor do they change other religions other than how they see Judaism and in some cases Islam.
We cannot say Jesus was not physically resurrected and at the same time saying He physically rose.
Resurrected means rose from the ground. He was
brought up from the ground of his tomb. That's why people saw his body and spirit rise and no one is in the tomb. (Christian view not mine)
The Bahai belief states that the Authors of Bible were not describing a physical resurrection, in the same way they did not describe a physical event of appearance of Moses and Elijah on the Mountain.
I understand why Bahai believe what they do. It's not christianity any more so than The Buddha being part of your faith and calling it Buddhism and likewise Hinduism. It's not what you believe-that is on you-it's interpreting other people's faiths in the light of your own. It's not just religious. Many people do it especially in conversations thinking one party knows what other is saying and means even without asking for clarification and accepting facts over one's own opinions. (aka Pet Peeve)
Many of Christians interpretation of Bible is literal with regards to Resurrection and therefor they believe the Authors of Bible meant to describe a physical Resurrection. In this case we cannot say both Bahai and literal Christian interpretations are correct. Only one of them can be true.
You'd literally have to experience the resurrection from a literal point of view not just spiritual. I mean, I wouldn't be having this conversation if I haven't experienced it. This would be a foreign language to me as a whole. If I hadn't read the Bible, this would make no sense at all.
As I said before, the Baha'is do not believe Resurrection of Jesus was physical, thus, a physical resurrection in my view is not real. I am sure you also do not believe Jesus physically rose, do you? You do not even believe in a god, right?
We're talking about christians not Bahai.
It is not about me.
That's my point.