Jesus Empty tomb narratives

[CG Didymus]

what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books.

Did the manifestation want the gospel writers to convey that he had come back to life and appeared to them and ate with them and spoke with them? Christians would probably say "yes". Baha'is? Probably "no". The Baha'i true meaning of Jesus coming back to life is... “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause..."

If you want to believe that Christianity is only about the bodily resurrection, yes, it would be a false religion, Imo.
But that is not all that Christianity is about. Although admittedly the resurrection has taken center stage, Christianity should be about the actual teachings of Jesus.

People wrote his "actual" teachings. The gospels were written long after. Possibly even by people who weren't even there. So is it based on oral traditions? Of what people remember his saying? Could be.

Baha'u'llah was sent was to correct all the false notions entertained by past generations which were recorded in their books. Not only has the Bible affected the beliefs of believers, it has affected the beliefs of agnostics and atheists

So there is "false" notions recorded in their books? So isn't that like saying that things in the Bible are false? And, on top of that, the followers misinterpreted those false notions into false doctrines? Yet, "Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books."?

WHAT Baha'i interpretations/explanations do you think I believe make sense?

Let's talk about the Baha'i explanations of the resurrection... especially the one by Abdul Baha in Some Answer Questions

...the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.​

So all four gospels are written as if telling of historical events, supposedly these events were witnessed and attested to by the disciples of Jesus, and Abdul Baha gives this symbolic explanation. After reading the gospel accounts, does Abdul Baha's explanation make sense to you?

But why does it MATTER to you what these stories were to be taken as metaphorically or literally? Clearly, you have decided that you do not believe any of these myths and legends ever literally happened,

No, I have always said if they are not true, that they were probably made up by the followers of Jesus. But, if it didn't happen, how did they pull it off? How did they not get caught stealing the body and hiding it? How did none of them ever squeal and spill the beans? Did Mary and Peter and John not know? And when they went to the tomb were honestly surprised not to see the body of Jesus? Then, if they never saw Jesus, who made up the rumors that the disciples and others had seen Jesus and even touched him? Yes, if the manifestations are supposedly to clear up false notions, Baha'u'llah, The Bab and Muhammad should have done a much better job.

And, if it didn't happen, the better job would have been to simply say it was all a "hoax". Oh, and wasn't there a quote from Shoghi Effendi or somebody about where they believe the body of Jesus is buried?

So the true gospel account of Jesus... He was killed and buried. In the night, some of his disciples came and stole the body and hid it. The next day they spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. The gullible and ignorant followers of Jesus fell for the con. Years later this fake resurrection was made the cornerstone of Christianity.

Now another fake story is... The resurrection never happened, but the gospel writers wrote a story that said that people had seen him and talked with him... and even touched him. But they were being metaphorical. What they meant was, that by teaching his word they had brought life back into the body of Christ. They metaphorically talked with him and ate with him. And, metaphorically, watched him ascend into the clouds to be with God.

Sorry, it don't make sense to me, if it didn't happen, then it was a fake story based on embellished myths and legends passed on by oral traditions until written down by the gospel writers. I don't expect you to agree. And, unfortunately, I believe you will have to find a "logical" way to convince yourself that the Baha'i explanation is true. But then, if you don't believe the Baha'i explanation makes sense, what do you do? I wouldn't think you could admit something like that here, and I wouldn't expect you to.

 

[Trailblazer]

Did the manifestation want the gospel writers to convey that he had come back to life and appeared to them and ate with them and spoke with them? Christians would probably say "yes". Baha'is? Probably "no". The Baha'i true meaning of Jesus coming back to life is... “Resurrection” is meant the rise of the Manifestation of God to proclaim His Cause..."

The Manifestation of God, Jesus, had nothing to do with the promotion of the resurrection stories.

People wrote his "actual" teachings. The gospels were written long after. Possibly even by people who weren't even there. So is it based on oral traditions? Of what people remember his saying? Could be.

Because I am a Baha’i, I believe that the essential teachings of Jesus have been preserved, but that does not mean that what is in the NT is word for word what Jesus said.

So there is "false" notions recorded in their books? So isn't that like saying that things in the Bible are false? And, on top of that, the followers misinterpreted those false notions into false doctrines? Yet, "Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books."?

Yes, the teachings of Jesus, but not the stories that were written about Him.

Let's talk about the Baha'i explanations of the resurrection... especially the one by Abdul Baha in Some Answer Questions

...the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.

So all four gospels are written as if telling of historical events, supposedly these events were witnessed and attested to by the disciples of Jesus, and Abdul Baha gives this symbolic explanation. After reading the gospel accounts, does Abdul Baha's explanation make sense to you?

As I have told you repeatedly, I do not CARE about Abdu’l-Baha’s explanation. It does make sense to me, but it is just another explanation and it was Abdu’l-Baha’s way of telling us what was really important about the resurrection story, what the resurrection would symbolize IF it had really happened.

No, I have always said if they are not true, that they were probably made up by the followers of Jesus. But, if it didn't happen, how did they pull it off? How did they not get caught stealing the body and hiding it? How did none of them ever squeal and spill the beans? Did Mary and Peter and John not know? And when they went to the tomb were honestly surprised not to see the body of Jesus? Then, if they never saw Jesus, who made up the rumors that the disciples and others had seen Jesus and even touched him?

You said: I have always said if they are not true, that they were probably made up by the followers of Jesus.

If they are not true? So do you believe that these stories might be true?

You said: But, if it didn't happen, how did they pull it off?

How did they pull off WHAT? If it did not happen, then it is just stories, so there was nothing to pull off. Do you understand what I mean?

Yes, if the manifestations are supposedly to clear up false notions, Baha'u'llah, The Bab and Muhammad should have done a much better job.

They did a fantastic job of clearing it up by explaining what resurrection really means. It has been made clear in the Baha’i Writings that Jesus never rose from the grave, so why should Baha’u’llah even address the NT resurrection stories? Clearly, if Jesus never rose from the dead, those are works of fiction. If you want to spend the rest of your life trying to figure out how these stories got in the NT, have at it, but I consider that a waste of time, because (1) it doesn’t matter unless you are a Christian, and (2) we can never know how why they were written.

And, if it didn't happen, the better job would have been to simply say it was all a "hoax". Oh, and wasn't there a quote from Shoghi Effendi or somebody about where they believe the body of Jesus is buried?

I do not recall anything Shoghi Effendi or anyone else said about where the body is buried, but I sure wish someone would find it.

It might have been better to say that if they knew it was a hoax, and maybe Baha’u’llah did know more than he let on, but He did not consider it worth the bother to say any more than He said because people either choose to believe in Baha’u’llah or not, and if they choose that then they believe what He and Abdu’l-Baha wrote so they know there was no bodily resurrection.

So the true gospel account of Jesus... He was killed and buried. In the night, some of his disciples came and stole the body and hid it. The next day they spread the rumor that Jesus had risen from the dead. The gullible and ignorant followers of Jesus fell for the con. Years later this fake resurrection was made the cornerstone of Christianity.

Now another fake story is... The resurrection never happened, but the gospel writers wrote a story that said that people had seen him and talked with him... and even touched him. But they were being metaphorical. What they meant was, that by teaching his word they had brought life back into the body of Christ. They metaphorically talked with him and ate with him. And, metaphorically, watched him ascend into the clouds to be with God.

Sorry, it don't make sense to me, if it didn't happen, then it was a fake story based on embellished myths and legends passed on by oral traditions until written down by the gospel writers. I don't expect you to agree. And, unfortunately, I believe you will have to find a "logical" way to convince yourself that the Baha'i explanation is true. But then, if you don't believe the Baha'i explanation makes sense, what do you do? I wouldn't think you could admit something like that here, and I wouldn't expect you to.

I am only going to explain this one more time, and if you still do not understand there is no point in my explaining it again. I believe that the resurrection stories are fake stories based on embellished myths and legends passed on by oral traditions until written down by the gospel writers. I believe that Abdu’l-Baha’s explanation was just a way to take what Christians believe happened and give it another spin, write another story about it. That does not mean that what Abdu’l-Baha wrote is what actually happened. Please note that he said “...the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows.” Yes, he meant that is the metaphorical meaning, but he never said it actually happened, nobody but God knows what actually happened.

According to Baha’i beliefs, Jesus died on the cross and His soul ascended to the spiritual world, so that means that the resurrection stories are just stories and never happened. That is all I will say because if I say what I really think about the resurrection I will get banned from this forum. Is that what you want, because if I get banned I do not know what other Baha’i you will have to talk to on a regular basis. If this is really that important to you, and you want to know what I really think, you will have to start a Conversation with me about it.

 

[CG Didymus]

You said: I have always said if they are not true, that they were probably made up by the followers of Jesus.

If they are not true? So do you believe that these stories might be true?

You said: But, if it didn't happen, how did they pull it off?

How did they pull off WHAT? If it did not happen, then it is just stories, so there was nothing to pull off. Do you understand what I mean?

I believe that the gospel stories were told as if true. Maybe they are maybe they aren't. However, if they aren't true, then I believe Christianity is based on false beliefs. Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha' say the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus did not happen. Therefore, what the gospel writers said about Jesus rising from the dead is a fake story. Why believe in Christianity at all? It would be like the Baha'is saying that the ancient Greek religion was true... just misinterpreted. No, it's just man made myths about the Gods. So why isn't Christianity put into that same category. If it isn't true. It is man made myths about a God/man that rose from the dead.

So then, how did they pull off stealing and hiding the body and never getting caught or none of them snitching and being able to keep a straight face when telling the others that Jesus came back to life. So, for me, that's not very likely either, that they could have gotten away with hiding the body and lying about him rising from the dead. So could it be true? And if it is true, then what Baha'u'llah says about them is false. To me, that's important. It's important for me to ask those that make claims about how their religion is true... and how they say the other religions are wrong in how they have interpreted their own Scriptures.

If this is really that important to you, and you want to know what I really think, you will have to start a Conversation with me about it.

No, it is important to know what this man that claims to be the return of Christ believes. What I wanted to know is why you think the Baha'i explanation of the resurrection makes sense. If you think you've answered that the best you can, then fine... that's all I can expect from you.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe that the gospel stories were told as if true. Maybe they are maybe they aren't. However, if they aren't true, then I believe Christianity is based on false beliefs. Baha'u'llah and Abdul Baha' say the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus did not happen. Therefore, what the gospel writers said about Jesus rising from the dead is a fake story. Why believe in Christianity at all? It would be like the Baha'is saying that the ancient Greek religion was true... just misinterpreted. No, it's just man made myths about the Gods. So why isn't Christianity put into that same category. If it isn't true. It is man made myths about a God/man that rose from the dead.

The difference between a Greek religion with mythical stories and Christianity which also has mythical stories is that Christianity is a religion revealed by Jesus, so it is a true religion, even though all the stories TOLD about Jesus are not true. Just because the resurrection stories are not literally true that does not de-legitimize all of Christianity and turn it into a false religion.

So then, how did they pull off stealing and hiding the body and never getting caught or none of them snitching and being able to keep a straight face when telling the others that Jesus came back to life. So, for me, that's not very likely either, that they could have gotten away with hiding the body and lying about him rising from the dead. So could it be true? And if it is true, then what Baha'u'llah says about them is false. To me, that's important. It's important for me to ask those that make claims about how their religion is true... and how they say the other religions are wrong in how they have interpreted their own Scriptures.

So I see, you are still sitting on the fence because you think it is possible that the resurrection stories might be true and Jesus really rose from the dead. Yes, that would make what the Baha’i Faith teaches false. The explanation below is not from the authoritative Baha’i Writings but it conveys what Baha’u’llah wrote in more easy to understand language.

“According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 222

No, it is important to know what this man that claims to be the return of Christ believes. What I wanted to know is why you think the Baha'i explanation of the resurrection makes sense. If you think you've answered that the best you can, then fine... that's all I can expect from you.

Okay, thanks. I have explained it as best I can, but I prefer the explanation I posted above to the metaphorical explanation given by Abdu’l-Baha.

 

[CG Didymus]

Why each author of Gospel had a different story to tell, about what was seen at the empty tomb of Jesus?

Because none of the authors was at the tomb and each got the story from a different person who may or may not have been at the tomb. One thing the few stories all have in common is that Jesus was not still in the tomb AND dead.

There are good reasons not to consider the accounts as literal history although there is almost certainly some historicity to some of the accounts. They were most likely embellished biographies similar to the Greco-Roman biographies at the time. Did the resurrection literally happen? Almost certainly not for obvious reasons. However, the resurrection narrative is central to the Gospel Message.

So, the writers were probably not eyewitnesses and each told a different version depending on where they got their information. Which would mean there were different versions of the story going around. Even if true, the Jesus came back to life, the writers and/or each oral tradition could have embellished the story.

The most extreme case of embellishing the story would be that Jesus never came back to life. It was all made up. Baha'is don't believe Jesus came back to life. So how do they explain the verses that tell the story of Jesus appearing to the disciples?
Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá'í Faith, wrote through his secretary:

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the crucifiction of Christ, but that there was a time after His ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually his true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with disciples after resurrection is the same thing. - High Endeavors: Messages to Alaska, pp.69-70
​

It was symbolic and misinterpreted? That's what I question. That's what I keep asking. No where do the writers change from writing their story from retelling the events that took place to, suddenly, writing about a metaphorical coming back to life? No one except Christians wants this story to be literal, but there is no indication of it not being written in a way that was meant to be taken as true, historical events.

The problems... Could they have embellished the story? Sure, and considering how all the other religions had their miracles, why not add a few for Jesus. Raising the dead, walking on water, and coming back to life himself. But, like I said, how could they have pulled off such a deception?

The difference between aGreek religion with mythical stories and Christianity which also has mythical stories is that Christianity is a religion revealed by Jesus, so it is a true religion, even though all the stories TOLD about Jesus are not true. Just because the resurrection stories are not literally true that does not de-legitimize all of Christianity and turn it into a false religion.

It's not revealed by Jesus. All we have is the writings from his followers what he allegedly revealed. And can we trust them? A virgin birth based on an out of context verse from Isaiah that includes a star that moves. To me, sounds embellished. Since the writers were not there, then this could be based on myth and legend meant to compete with the God/men of the other religions of the time. He walked on water, healed the sick, etc. Could easily be more embellished stories to make him more than just a man, but a God. Then the greatest miracle of all he rose from the dead. The NT tells us why he had to die. It was to pay the penalty for sin. But, then he conquers death. Jesus' body, they say, will not see corruption. After three days Jesus told them he would rise from the dead. Satan's power is conquered also.

For me, it's too complicated to think that it was all written to be taken symbolically. The easy answer for me is to say that the writers took embellished myths and legends from the oral traditions that were being told about Jesus and compiled their gospel stories. So what is "revealed"? If you take away the resurrection, there is nothing new. Do unto others as you'd want them to do unto you. And, obey God's rules. It continues with the threat that God will judge the wicked and those that don't believe. It makes Satan a major character in the whole scheme of things. He is to blame for all that is going wrong in the world. So was that something that Jesus revealed? No, most of us, including the Baha'is don't believe in a real Satan. To me, he's a mythical character. To Baha'is, again, they make him a symbolic metaphor for our animal nature.

So the Greek religion was not revealed? I don't know if they had a prophet reveal it or not, but if they wanted a "manifestation", they could have easily written one in. All they had to do is say, "Zeus sent one of his sons down to the people of the Earth to tell them how great and wonderful he is. The people killed him but Lo, he came back to life, flipped them off and ascended back to the heavens. And said, 'Just you wait, my Dad if really going to be pissed at you.' And Lo, not long after a great earthquake struck them down."

Christianity did write something like that, "My Dad, God, is really upset with all of you. He is going to send many trials and tribulations and kill almost all of you. Only the ones that believe in me will be spared." So what is the intended effect? I think it's just to get people to do good... but under the threat from hellfire and other bad things God would send their way.

“According to the Bahá’í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun and will last as long as the present world cycle continues. It will continue when all traces of the present civilization will have been wiped off the surface of the globe.”
Bahá’u’lláh and the New Era, p. 222

So could God have done brought Jesus back to life? Sure, God can do anything. Did he? Scientifically no. According to Baha'u'llah, no. My problem with the Baha'i interpretation is why not just say the writers made it up. Why redefine what the "true" meaning of "resurrection" is? No, they believed, falsely, that dead people would be brought back to life. Now, scientifically, we know the physical body is gone back to dust. It's gone.

But... Jesus did not physically die and get born into a new spiritual life from the grave of ignorance. That's what Christians call being "Born Again." Resurrection is something different. If Jesus died and rose in a spiritual body, then why is that special? Everybody is going to do that. That's why I think Christians meant to say that Jesus was physically alive again after being killed. That was the hope that they were preaching to the people. Here's a quote from Paul...

1 Corinthians 15:3-8 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.​

The pieces are not coming together. For as unlikely the Christian story is literal true, the Baha'i interpretation doesn't fit well with the stories in the NT. That's why I say I'd prefer for Baha'is to just call them false, but Baha'is can't. Jesus has to be true... just most of what Christians wrote and believe about him is false.

 

[Trailblazer]

For me, it's too complicated to think that it was all written to be taken symbolically. The easy answer for me is to say that the writers took embellished myths and legends from the oral traditions that were being told about Jesus and compiled their gospel stories.

So could God have done brought Jesus back to life? Sure, God can do anything. Did he? Scientifically no. According to Baha'u'llah, no. My problem with the Baha'i interpretation is why not just say the writers made it up. Why redefine what the "true" meaning of "resurrection" is? No, they believed, falsely, that dead people would be brought back to life. Now, scientifically, we know the physical body is gone back to dust. It's gone.

The pieces are not coming together. For as unlikely the Christian story is literal true, the Baha'i interpretation doesn't fit well with the stories in the NT. That's why I say I'd prefer for Baha'is to just call them false, but Baha'is can't. Jesus has to be true... just most of what Christians wrote and believe about him is false.

Jesus can be true while at the same time the stories written about Jesus (the Christian story) is false. Why do you have a problem with that? Why can't you separate the historical Jesus from the stories written about Jesus? Anyone can write stories but that does not mean they are true stories. The gospel writers did not even know Jesus, how could they write true stories about Jesus?

By saying that the stories in the NT are not true, the Baha'is are saying they are false. The fact that Abdu'l-Baha and Shoghi Effendi attributed another meaning to the stories is as much as saying "the bodily resurrection never happened."

 

[CG Didymus]

Why can't you separate the historical Jesus from the stories written about Jesus?

And who is this historical Jesus? And tell me where you got your information about the true, historical story of Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

And who is this historical Jesus? And tell me where you got your information about the true, historical story of Jesus.

I did not say I have that information, but I think that you could find that information by reading scholarly works about Jesus:
Top 10 Books on the Historical Jesus

 

[CG Didymus]

Jesus can be true while at the same time the stories written about Jesus (the Christian story) is false. Why do you have a problem with that? Why can't you separate the historical Jesus from the stories written about Jesus? Anyone can write stories but that does not mean they are true stories. The gospel writers did not even know Jesus, how could they write true stories about Jesus?

I did not say I have that information, but I think that you could find that information by reading scholarly works about Jesus:
Top 10 Books on the Historical Jesus

Why would these authors know the real truth about Jesus? I thought you had something from Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why would these authors know the real truth about Jesus? I thought you had something from Baha'u'llah.

You asked: And who is this historical Jesus? And tell me where you got your information about the true, historical story of Jesus.

The scholars would know the historical Jesus because they did scholarly research.

Now, if you are asking about the truth about Jesus, that is s different question. I believe that Baha'u'llah had that and I will post the quote that summarizes that if you want to see it..

 

[CG Didymus]

You asked: And who is this historical Jesus? And tell me where you got your information about the true, historical story of Jesus.

The scholars would know the historical Jesus because they did scholarly research.

Now, if you are asking about the truth about Jesus, that is s different question. I believe that Baha'u'llah had that and I will post the quote that summarizes that if you want to see it..

Yes, 'cause I don't put much faith in what "scholars" would say. Like... how in the hell would they know? But, Baha'u'llah... some one who says he got his information from the one and only God? Yeah, let's see what he said.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, 'cause I don't put much faith in what "scholars" would say. Like... how in the hell would they know? But, Baha'u'llah... some one who says he got his information from the one and only God? Yeah, let's see what he said.

Okay, here it is, signed, sealed and delivered....
Embedded in that passage is the fulfillment of some prophecies Jesus made.
I will tell you what they are if you want to know.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence 86 exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

 

[CG Didymus]

Okay, here it is, signed, sealed and delivered....
Embedded in that passage is the fulfillment of some prophecies Jesus made.
I will tell you what they are if you want to know.

“Know thou that when the Son of Man yielded up His breath to God, the whole creation wept with a great weeping. By sacrificing Himself, however, a fresh capacity was infused into all created things. Its evidences, as witnessed in all the peoples of the earth, are now manifest before thee. The deepest wisdom which the sages have uttered, the profoundest learning which any mind hath unfolded, the arts which the ablest hands have produced, the influence 86 exerted by the most potent of rulers, are but manifestations of the quickening power released by His transcendent, His all-pervasive, and resplendent Spirit.

We testify that when He came into the world, He shed the splendor of His glory upon all created things. Through Him the leper recovered from the leprosy of perversity and ignorance. Through Him, the unchaste and wayward were healed. Through His power, born of Almighty God, the eyes of the blind were opened, and the soul of the sinner sanctified.

Leprosy may be interpreted as any veil that interveneth between man and the recognition of the Lord, his God. Whoso alloweth himself to be shut out from Him is indeed a leper, who shall not be remembered in the Kingdom of God, the Mighty, the All-Praised. We bear witness that through the power of the Word of God every leper was cleansed, every sickness was healed, every human infirmity was banished. He it is Who purified the world. Blessed is the man who, with a face beaming with light, hath turned towards Him.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 85-86

That's the historical Jesus? That sounds kind of like the mystical, spiritual Jesus.

 

[Trailblazer]

That's the historical Jesus? That sounds kind of like the mystical, spiritual Jesus.

I never said that Baha'u'llah wrote about the historical Jesus. Baha'u'llah was not a historian.
Baha'u'llah wrote about the spiritual effects of Jesus, including the effect Jesus had upon the material world.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Does the story in the gospels sound like they were being metaphorical? I'd say "no". Did the story of the "virgin" birth sound metaphorical? No. Do Christians believe both to be literal? Many Christians do. Baha'is don't need either one to be literal. Not that these beliefs are true, but I do think that is what was believed by most... that the resurrection was physical.

From Judaism...

Resurrection of the dead — t’chiyat hameitim in Hebrew — is a core doctrine of traditional Jewish theology. Traditional Jews believe that during the Messianic Age, the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem, the Jewish people ingathered from the far corners of the earth and the bodies of the dead will be brought back to life and reunited with their souls.​

From a Christian site...

The resurrection of Jesus is important for several reasons. First, the resurrection witnesses to the immense power of God Himself. To believe in the resurrection is to believe in God. If God exists, and if He created the universe and has power over it, then He has power to raise the dead. If He does not have such power, He is not worthy of our faith and worship. Only He who created life can resurrect it after death, only He can reverse the hideousness that is death itself, and only He can remove the sting and gain the victory over the grave (1 Corinthians 15:54–55). In resurrecting Jesus from the grave, God reminds us of His absolute sovereignty over life and death.
​

Really? Always? Where in this story does it sound like they are speaking metaphorically?
Luke 24...

1On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen!

36... Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost.
38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds?
39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet.
41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?”
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures.
46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day,​

This is how the previous chapter ends...

Luke 23:55 The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it.
56 Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment.
​

Was this metaphorical also? Or, was chapter 23 the gospel writer telling the story of the crucifixion and burial of Jesus? And then the very next chapter the writer goes into a "metaphorical" fictional story of how Jesus was resurrected? Belief it is all literally true. Believe it was partially true and the dressed it up a bit. Believe the whole thing is a made up hoax. But why believe that suddenly the writers add in a metaphorical ending to their story?

​

No, many parts of the Bible which Bahai scriptures tell us they are metaphorical doesn't sound metaphorical to most people, but why do you think God cannot or would not write symbolic stories which are very difficult to realize they are symbolic, and centuries later He comes and tell us, they were symbolic and also provide evidence and logical reasoning why they are symbolic?

 

[Muffled]

I fully understand why. Nobody likes a new religion that supersedes their older religions.
This is not rocket science.

I believe I would know one if I saw one but I haven't seen one yet and doubt that I will.

 

[Muffled]

No, many parts of the Bible which Bahai scriptures tell us they are metaphorical doesn't sound metaphorical to most people, but why do you think God cannot or would not write symbolic stories which are very difficult to realize they are symbolic, and centuries later He comes and tell us, they were symbolic and also provide evidence and logical reasoning why they are symbolic?

I believe God is with me now saying that the metaphorical view is bunk.

 

[Muffled]

Go ahead and compare all the world's religions in a post?

I believe I can sum it up succinctly. Jesus saves people from their sins while in all other religions people have to save themselves.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I believe I can sum it up succinctly. Jesus saves people from their sins while in all other religions people have to save themselves.

You are making it sound like Christianity is for lazy people, who don't want to do the work and save themselves. They want someone else come and save them. I mean honestly, no offence though.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe I would know one if I saw one but I haven't seen one yet and doubt that I will.

Why do you think you would know one? If you think it would be really obvious, why did Jesus say the following?

Mark 13:32-37

32 But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

33 Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is.

34 For the Son of Man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch.

35 Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cock crowing, or in the morning:

36 Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping.

37 And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.