Manifestations of God--a Question for Bahai's

[Booko]

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

FGS, I mention the necessity for Christ to have died as He did several times on RF already. I do so because there are other areas of Baha'i Writings that deal with that subject.

There is really a lot of material about Christ in Baha'i Writings. To get a idea, go search them for "Jesus" and "Christ" and "Son of God" and "Son of Man." I think you'll see what I mean...

www.bahai-library.org (I think that's right)

This is just a brief example:

"XXXVI. 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."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 85)


I intentionally have not address your comments on original sin, as it's already been addressed between Christians here on RF in some detail. JamesthePersian is one to query on this question. The Eastern Church never subscribed to the idea.

The idea that humans are born with a capacity to make mistakes is not unique to Christianity, but is common in religions, and in philosophy as well. Besides, just looking at life, well, it's kind of obvious, no?

 

[Booko]

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.

It doesn't require an Infinite God to become finite in order for Him to show His love for us be sacrificing His Son for us. He sent his Son to get into the dirt with us, and I don't see that as somehow less of a sacrifice.

Also, I don't see any negation of the idea that He died for us or rose from the grave to defeat death. It's obvious to me that He did exactly that.

If I *didn't* believe that, then why would I argue with some Muslims about what I believe to be a mistaken interpretation of a verse in the Qu'ran?

I'm not sure if you're acquainted with the idea, but it's that Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but some other being did in His place.

I think the better interpretation of that verse in the Qu'ran is that Jesus didn't actually "die" on the cross because His Spirit was not harmed -- only the body. And the body does, but the point of the Crucifixion and Ressurection (well, one of them anyway) is that even after physical death, we have eternal life.

Now really, FGS, if I didn't believe in Jesus sacrifice, why would I argue against that interpretation? I mean, what kind of sacrifice is it if you don't actually get Crucified, but let some other schmo take the heat for you?

Just between you and me and the lamppost, I think the idea that Christ wasn't "actually" crucified is....offensive.

 

[lunamoth]

It doesn't require an Infinite God to become finite in order for Him to show His love for us be sacrificing His Son for us. He sent his Son to get into the dirt with us, and I don't see that as somehow less of a sacrifice.

Also, I don't see any negation of the idea that He died for us or rose from the grave to defeat death. It's obvious to me that He did exactly that.

Hi Sharon, I've never heard before that it is a Baha'i view that part of the work of a Manifestation of God is to share in our suffering and manifest Love in our midst. To my understanding, the Baha'i writings emphasize the persecution of Messengers as a condemnation of us, rather than God's response being an act of love for us and forgiveness.

2 c,
Laurie

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FGS, I mention the necessity for Christ to have died as He did several times on RF already. I do so because there are other areas of Baha'i Writings that deal with that subject.

There is really a lot of material about Christ in Baha'i Writings. To get a idea, go search them for "Jesus" and "Christ" and "Son of God" and "Son of Man." I think you'll see what I mean...

There is also a lot of material on Christ in Muslim writings, and in all sorts of mediums...the fact that Baha'i believes certain things about Jesus doesn't mean they believe the same things that Christians do about Him. I'm certainly not an expert in Baha'i (which is one reason I start these sorts of threads), but I am simply making observations based on what I've seen and read from Baha'i people and sources thus far.

"XXXVI. 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.

How is Christ's death witnessed in all the people's of the earth? If anything, Christ death is to be testified to by His disciples, which is certainly not all of humanity.

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."

I'm not seeing anything in this statement which explains why Christ's death (and even more importantly, His subsequent rise from the grave) are essential for us to accept in order to have spiritual well-being. Maybe I'm missing something; you'll either have to give me more quotes or explain what is specifically meant by this passage.

I intentionally have not address your comments on original sin, as it's already been addressed between Christians here on RF in some detail. JamesthePersian is one to query on this question. The Eastern Church never subscribed to the idea.

James also stated in another thread, "You do not need to accept the Crucifixion as a sacrifice to God to remain Christian. In fact, it's rather easier, in my opinion, to be Christian whilst rejecting the idea completely." http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=517151#post517151

I think many of James' viewpoints, even for the EO church, are not mainstream, and from this last post where you explain your beliefs it seems like even you would disagree with his statement there.

The idea that humans are born with a capacity to make mistakes is not unique to Christianity, but is common in religions, and in philosophy as well. Besides, just looking at life, well, it's kind of obvious, no?

YES! Which is why I find it rather odd when people question the teaching.

FGS

 

[Booko]

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.

Shoghi Effendi writes, "...the Sonship and Divinity of Christ are fearlessly asserted."

No, we do not believe precisely what you believe, that deity and Divinity are identical. But then, you've had a schism in your own church on that score centuries ago anyway.

The real question is whether our view of "Divinity" is or is not consistent with what the Bible has to say on the subject.

If it's not, then it would be heretical. If it is, then it's nor more than a different understanding of what the texts mean. As you have differences within your own faith, you can hardly criticize us for having a difference as well. If you can show something isn't even possibly Biblical, that's another story.

The truth is we humans, unlike God, are all finite. It wouldn't matter what He said, our human limitations will always make it possible to misunderstand some things. We can never truly grasp what it is to be God, and only God truly knows what He's doing and why. The rest of us get to see through a glass, darkly, and to work out our salvation in fear and trembling. (i.e. with great care).

So if we have some differences here and there on interpretations of scripture, it does not mean that some people are somehow unenlighted or insincere, or God forbid, dangerous or evil.

It just means we are humans trying to struggle to the best of our abilities to know and love God, and be obedient to Him.

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."

There is nothing in Baha'i Writings that would deny that "God with Us" applies to Christ. That is precisely what a Manifestation of God *is* : God with Us.

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.

Neither do we. Previous posts have dealt with the "dual nature" subject.

Manifestations are so much more than mere "mouthpieces of God." Only one of the aspects that I've mentioned on RF is that we are prexistent, but we aren't.

No matter how good and pure a human is, even if they were sinless, it would not raise them to the level a Manifestation of God is at.

Manifestations of God are such exalted beings, we would have as much luck at understanding their true nature as my cat would have of understanding me.

We believe that Christ truly was God, and when He speaks as such it is because He actually means it.

Here's the real difference, and we don't go there. We do go so close to it sometimes though that the Muslims and Jews think we're heretics.

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.

:yes: "...the Sonship and Divinity of Christ are fearlessly asserted."

Hope this clears a few things up for you.

I hope these answers have helped also. The exchange has been very interesting so far.

I was raised a Christian (Reformed) in a very active and religious home, so I'm pretty well versed in theology for a member of the laity. My family was rather strange. On Thanksgiving in many families the kids go play, the Moms clean up and then have coffee and talk about family matters, and the guys go watch the game.

All the men in my family (both sides) went into the living room and talked about theology. I got to hear everything while cleaning up, and later some of us would join them.

Football was a holy rite for some of the men, but only on Monday nights where it would not interfere with family occasions. The tv didn't go on on Sunday, because it was...Sunday.

 

[Booko]

Hi Sharon, I've never heard before that it is a Baha'i view that part of the work of a Manifestation of God is to share in our suffering and manifest Love in our midst.

Yeah, but I needn't tell you how voluminous the material is that you'd have to look through.

Still, the quote I put out in post #21 might apply to the subject, which is rather why I chose that one. It's from Gleanings, which is one of the most common books of Baha'i Writings that Baha'is usually have.

To my understanding, the Baha'i writings emphasize the persecution of Messengers as a condemnation of us, rather than God's response being an act of love for us and forgiveness.

Let me address the "forgiveness" part first. Here are 3 passages that I think might be related to the subject generally and specifically as regards Jesus:

"It is also recorded in the Gospel of Luke that another day His Holiness [i.e. Christ] passed by one of the Jews who was afflicted with palsy and laid upon a couch. When he saw His Holiness, he recognized Him by His appearance and began to entreat. His Holiness said, "Arise from thy bed; verily thy sins are forgiven." Several Jews who were present at that place began to murmur, saying, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Then Christ perceived their thoughts and said: "Whether it is easier to say, arise, take up thy bed, or to say thy sins be forgiven thee? But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power upon earth to forgive sin," etc. This is the real sovereignty and power of the Holy Ones of God. By all these statements repeatedly cited from different places and instances it is intended that ye may be informed of the interpretations of the words of the Chosen Ones of God that perchance the foot may not slip and the heart may not be troubled by certain statements.

-------------------------

On the subject of Jesus and interceding for forgiveness of sins:

Intercourse with spirits of the departed ought not to be
sought for its own sake, nor in order to gratify idle curiosity. It
is both a privilege and duty, however, for those on one side of
the veil to love and help and pray for those on the other.
Prayers for the dead are enjoined on Bahá'ís. 'Abdu'l-Bahá
said to Miss E. J. Rosenberg in 1904: "The grace of effective
intercession is one of the perfections belonging to advanced
souls, as well as to the Manifestation of God. Jesus Christ had
the power of interceding for the forgiveness of His enemies
when on earth, and He certainly has this power now."

(Dr. J.E. Esslemont, Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 193)


On the subject of sin and redemption:

"The Jews taught that every man who commits sin must redeem himself by the sacrifice of an animal. When Christ taught that He was the living bread that gave life to the world, His followers understood "life" to mean, the forgiveness of sins.

But the real redemption is, when a man wishing to give the knowledge of their God to the people, sacrifices himself -- that
is to say, he strips himself from all the cares of the body, from his rest, comforts, and pleasures, and thinks only of the service of God and giving the truth to the people.

(Compilations, Baha'i Prayers 9, p. 53)

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

It doesn't require an Infinite God to become finite in order for Him to show His love for us be sacrificing His Son for us. He sent his Son to get into the dirt with us, and I don't see that as somehow less of a sacrifice.

It isn't less of sacrifice, and from the perspective of God the Father, that's exactly what we believe happened. However, I believe it simply adds another awesome dimension to the scenario that God Himself would do such a thing and get "down in the dirt" with us.

Also, I don't see any negation of the idea that He died for us or rose from the grave to defeat death. It's obvious to me that He did exactly that.

It doesn't seem so obvious to all Baha'i followers, apparently. Allow me to quote a portion of an interview between Walter Martin, a Protestant Christian apologist, and a Baha'i woman. He does not reveal her identity for privacy's sake, but states that she was a "well-prepared and candid Baha'i teacher." :

"Question: The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the true foundation of Christian experience. Does Baha'ism accept His bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven, and do you believe that He is indeed a high priest after Melchizedic's order as intercessor before the throne of God for all men?

Answer: The alledged resurrection of Jesus and His ascension into heaven may or may not be true depending on your point of view. As I said before, we are concerned with Bah'u'llah and the new era or age, and while we reverence Jesus as we do the great prophets of other religions, we do not believe that it is necessarily important that the Baha'i Faith recognize every tenet of a specific religion. We believe that Jesus conquered death, that He triumphed over the grave, but these are things that are in the realm of the spirit and must receive spiritual interpretation.

Question: Then you do not actually believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ?

Answer: Personally, no. But we do believe that resurrection is the destiny of all flesh."

While it's nice that you may believe in the sacrifice of Christ, it doesn't seem like something that is pushed as a central belief in Baha'i. Or perhaps, as this woman stated, you simply believe that the death and resurrection were only spiritual, and didn't actually physically occur. Then again, maybe this woman was just some random Jane Doe from off the street who doesn't know what the heck she's talking about. If you could clear up this apparent contradiction it would be greatly appreciated.

FGS

 

[Booko]

Hi Sharon, I've never heard before that it is a Baha'i view that part of the work of a Manifestation of God is to share in our suffering and manifest Love in our midst. To my understanding, the Baha'i writings emphasize the persecution of Messengers as a condemnation of us, rather than God's response being an act of love for us and forgiveness.

Really? I know the Writings deal with the topic on how Manifestations are typically rejected by most when they appear, but that's not unique to Baha'i Writings. Even Jesus says as much when He remarked that prophets are not accepted in their own town.

Ok, now I'll give a try at the subject of sacrifice of the Manifestations. All emphasis mine, natch.


Likewise the Holy Manifestations, especially the reality of the Greatest Name, the Beauty of ABHA, when unveiled amid the assemblage of the world, like unto Joseph of Canaan, in the divine Egypt, will appear with such Beauty and Sweetness as to make the lovers of the world His captives. As to the souls who are born into this world radiant entities and who through excessive difficulty are deprived of great benefits and thus leave the world -- they are worthy of all sympathy, for in reality this is worthy of regret. It is for this purpose (that is, it is with regard to this wisdom) that the great Manifestations (of God) unveil themselves in this world, bear every difficulty and ordeal -- to make these ready souls dawnings of light and confer upon them eternal life. This is the real atonement that His holiness Christ made-He sacrificed Himself for the life of the world.

As to the question that the holy and spiritual souls influence, help and guide the creatures after they have cast off this elemental mould -- this is an established truth of the Bahais. Nay even the Holy Manifestations of God extend a great Bounty and an evident Light after their ascent from this world. For His Holiness Christ there was more and greater promotion of the Word, manifestation of divine power, conversion of holy souls, and the giving of eternal life, after [His] martyrdom.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v3, p. 542)

Also, I cannot possibly overemphasize the passage I quoted in post #21 of this thread.

What possible better way could there for God to show His love than to send us His Manifestations, who are always are asked to make the greatest sacrifices, in order to show us how to progress as humans and how to return that love?

We always reject these Holy Souls, even though their appearance is all to our benefit. This is how we return God's love, but still He doesn't give up on us, ever.

That's real unconditional love.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

No, we do not believe precisely what you believe, that deity and Divinity are identical. But then, you've had a schism in your own church on that score centuries ago anyway.

And yet we settled it centuries ago, as well....so why do you keep bringing it up?

The real question is whether our view of "Divinity" is or is not consistent with what the Bible has to say on the subject.

The Bible can be interpreted any number of ways, which is why Biblical debates often come to such a stand-still. I could cite a number of verses where Jesus is actually called God, and given attributes that only God alone has, but undoubtedly you would interpret them allegorically, spiritually, etc, so that only goes so far.

If it's not, then it would be heretical. If it is, then it's nor more than a different understanding of what the texts mean. As you have differences within your own faith, you can hardly criticize us for having a difference as well.

And yet we have the terrible habit of clearing up such differences with these things called Councils , which are available for all the public to read and get the "real skinny" on what the orthodox teaching on an issue is.

So if we have some differences here and there on interpretations of scripture, it does not mean that some people are somehow unenlighted or insincere, or God forbid, dangerous or evil.

I have never claimed (I don't think) that anyone on these forums is insincere in their belief (least of all you, Booko...you're obviously intelligent and sincere; just because we disagree doesn't mean I doubt your motive).

There is nothing in Baha'i Writings that would deny that "God with Us" applies to Christ. That is precisely what a Manifestation of God *is* : God with Us.

And yet do you agree with the other equally improtant part of my statement there; that people worshipped Him, as they did frequently in the Gospels? As far as I know, you don't worship Christ, do you? Yet He demanded, "that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." (John 5:23) In the same way you honor and worship God the Father, you are to worship Christ. Again, I don't see this sentiment reiterated in Baha'i teachings.

Manifestations are so much more than mere "mouthpieces of God."

Yet it seems as though Baha'i teaches that Manifestations are mere "mirrors" (as one poster put it), simply reflecting God's teaching with no authority of their own. This is not true of Christ in His divine nature.

Here's the real difference, and we don't go there. We do go so close to it sometimes though that the Muslims and Jews think we're heretics.

And yet while we don't go, there it lays. That is the true difference. Christians believe that when Christ speaks as God it is because He is God. Baha'is believes that when Christ speaks as God it is simply because He is reflecting God's authoritative teachings, but is not truly God Himself.

:yes: "...the Sonship and Divinity of Christ are fearlessly asserted."

While the words used make it appear that you agree with Christian thought, upon closer inspection it seems clear that you don't. You don't actually believe that Christ is God.

FGS

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Sharon, Thank you for the reply .

I was going to make a longer reply now, but it's really not possible as my little one is needing attention. I hope to return to this thread later today or tonight.

Laurie

 

[Booko]

It isn't less of sacrifice, and from the perspective of God the Father, that's exactly what we believe happened. However, I believe it simply adds another awesome dimension to the scenario that God Himself would do such a thing and get "down in the dirt" with us.

I can understand that, FGS. I've had a tough time trying to figure out how something so Infinite can be in a Finite package. Well, that's not exaxtly right, but you get the picture.

Now, if I really believed that was the *only* way to resolve the paradoxical statements of Christ on His nature, then I'd have to believe it, and that would be fine.

The difference we seem to have is that you do believe it's the only way to resolve the paradox (yes?) but I see some alternatives that work with text a bit better.

It doesn't seem so obvious to all Baha'i followers, apparently. Allow me to quote a portion of an interview between Walter Martin, a Protestant Christian apologist, and a Baha'i woman. He does not reveal her identity for privacy's sake, but states that she was a "well-prepared and candid Baha'i teacher." :

"Question: The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead is the true foundation of Christian experience. Does Baha'ism accept His bodily resurrection and ascension into heaven, and do you believe that He is indeed a high priest after Melchizedic's order as intercessor before the throne of God for all men?

Answer: The alledged resurrection of Jesus and His ascension into heaven may or may not be true depending on your point of view. As I said before, we are concerned with Bah'u'llah and the new era or age, and while we reverence Jesus as we do the great prophets of other religions, we do not believe that it is necessarily important that the Baha'i Faith recognize every tenet of a specific religion. We believe that Jesus conquered death, that He triumphed over the grave, but these are things that are in the realm of the spirit and must receive spiritual interpretation.

Question: Then you do not actually believe in the bodily resurrection of Christ?

Answer: Personally, no. But we do believe that resurrection is the destiny of all flesh."

While it's nice that you may believe in the sacrifice of Christ, it doesn't seem like something that is pushed as a central belief in Baha'i. Or perhaps, as this woman stated, you simply believe that the death and resurrection were only spiritual, and didn't actually physically occur. Then again, maybe this woman was just some random Jane Doe from off the street who doesn't know what the heck she's talking about. If you could clear up this apparent contradiction it would be greatly appreciated.

The definition of what is a central belief in the Baha'i Faith is defined as what is covered in the Writings of the Bab, Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha. Whether someone's understanding of them is correct or not is often up for grabs, rather like it is with Christians and their understandings of the Bible. I'm sure you've seen more than a few things that Christians say that would strike you as rather...unbiblical. I know I have.

It's for this reason it's common among Baha'is to have entire "discussions" that are more like an exchange of passages that might be relevant. The individual is left to figure out what it all means.

It's considered a curious thing by many who are not Baha'is, and I try to avoid overquoting online, because it can come off badly, rather like people who respond to every question by tossing out masses of Biblical quotes, and seem to mean to use the quotes as some sort of spiritual hammer. :cover:

I wouldn't have put my ideas about the Resurrection quite the way this person does, which doesn't make me right and her wrong.

When dealing with that topic, I usually point out that I wasn't there, so I don't really know for certain. Coming from a background in science as I do, this should not be unexpected. . But it should not be seen as a denial of the physical resurrection of Christ either.

Rather, I assert that there's a much deeper metaphorical meaning behind the Resurrection. That's where my focus is.

Let me dig around and see what passages I can come up with on the subject of the Resurrection, and we'll see what they have to say.

Anything else is just our personal opinions.

 

[Booko]

Let's start with this.

(Hey, should I start a different thread just on the Resurrection? I don't mean to derail the OP....)


As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signifies the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.

By the "three days" of His death is meant that after the great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and the spread of the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat troubled by the violence of divine tests. But when they became firm, that divine spirit resurrected and that body -- which signifies the divine word -- arose.

Likewise the address of the angels to the people of Galilee, "That this Christ will return in the same way and that He will descend from heaven," is a spiritual address. For when Christ appeared, He came from heaven, although He was outwardly born from the womb of Mary. For He said: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."

He said: "I came down from heaven and likewise will go to heaven." By "heaven" is not meant this infinite phenomenal space, but "heaven" signifies the word of the divine kingdom which is the supreme station and seat of the Sun of Truth.

To be brief: The mysteries of the Holy Books are many and require explanation and elucidation. I hope thine insight will be so opened that the divine mysteries may become manifest and clear.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v1, p. 191)

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

I can understand that, FGS. I've had a tough time trying to figure out how something so Infinite can be in a Finite package. Well, that's not exaxtly right, but you get the picture.

Yes, I do, and I totally understand what you mean. The concept of an infinite God appearing directly to us in finite form is virtually impossible to comprehend...but then, so are so many things about God, right?

The difference we seem to have is that you do believe it's the only way to resolve the paradox (yes?) but I see some alternatives that work with text a bit better.

Aside from the fact that the disciples of Christ and the Church have never taught this, the biggest problem with your interpretation is that it seems to make Christ out to be playing words games with us. "Well, yes, Christ does speak as though He's God, but He doesn't actually mean that." When Christ Himself and His closest Apostles directly attribute actions and attributes to Him, we believe it. Christ doesn't just speak AS THOUGH He is God; He truly is God and the divine claims that He makes about Himself are actually true. This to me seems the most logical and obvious solution to the apparent "dual nature" paradox, although I realize you may disagree.

I wouldn't have put my ideas about the Resurrection quite the way this person does, which doesn't make me right and her wrong.

Is that the polite way of saying, "I believe in it, she doesn't?"

When dealing with that topic, I usually point out that I wasn't there, so I don't really know for certain. Coming from a background in science as I do, this should not be unexpected. . But it should not be seen as a denial of the physical resurrection of Christ either.

She clearly does deny it...so either you're right or she's right...Baha'i doesn't really seem to care, to be honest; it seems more interested in a "spiritual only" view of Christ's sacrifice, which in the Christian mind truly does demean the sacrifice and the literal work that Jesus did on the cross.

FGS

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Let's start with this.

(Hey, should I start a different thread just on the Resurrection? I don't mean to derail the OP....)

I started the thread, and I don't mind continuing here.

As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signifies the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.

See what I mean about the spiritualizing thing?

By the "three days" of His death is meant that after the great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and the spread of the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat troubled by the violence of divine tests. But when they became firm, that divine spirit resurrected and that body -- which signifies the divine word -- arose.

I'm not sure whether this is saying that His physical body rose or not....are you?

Likewise the address of the angels to the people of Galilee, "That this Christ will return in the same way and that He will descend from heaven," is a spiritual address. For when Christ appeared, He came from heaven, although He was outwardly born from the womb of Mary. For He said: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven."

He said: "I came down from heaven and likewise will go to heaven." By "heaven" is not meant this infinite phenomenal space, but "heaven" signifies the word of the divine kingdom which is the supreme station and seat of the Sun of Truth

Without even addressing what I see as problems with these interpretations, it seems clear that my point is made: Baha'i spiritualizes the Scriptures in order to explain them in light of their teachings, and the resurrection of Christ appears simply to "signify" something spiritual; whether it actually happened appears somewhat irrelevant.

FGS

 

[lunamoth]

For the discussion of the resurrection: (apologies if this has already been posted in this thread)

THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
Question. -- What is the meaning of Christ's resurrection after three days?
Answer. -- The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ's coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: "For I came down from heaven"; and also in verse 42 we find: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from 104 the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.
Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.
Therefore, we say that 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.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended 105 the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it. 106
(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 102)

 

[lunamoth]

Hi Sharon, You have replied to me now with a lot of quotes, any one of which takes time to digest. So lets' start with the first one and go from there:

"XXXVI. 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."

What does this mean to you?

Laurie

 

[lunamoth]

OK, I've had some time to read your replies over and think about them. And, the kids are in bed. Apologies for the font weirdnesses. Not sure why it did that.

My original comment in this thread:

Hi Sharon, I've never heard before that it is a Baha'i view that part of the work of a Manifestation of God is to share in our suffering and manifest Love in our midst. To my understanding, the Baha'i writings emphasize the persecution of Messengers as a condemnation of us, rather than God's response being an act of love for us and forgiveness.[/quote]

You referred me to this quote from Gleanings:

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."

(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 85)

I'm not really sure what to think of this quote in the context of my quesiton, which is why I asked you what it meant to you. The closest I can get is the idea of the kernel of wheat that must be 'sacrificed' for the new plant to grow, the idea of dying and rising. Definitely appropriate for the resurrection discussion if you go forward with that. What do you think it means?

This is the next quote you gave me, about forgiveness:

"It is also recorded in the Gospel of Luke that another day His Holiness [i.e. Christ] passed by one of the Jews who was afflicted with palsy and laid upon a couch. When he saw His Holiness, he recognized Him by His appearance and began to entreat. His Holiness said, "Arise from thy bed; verily thy sins are forgiven." Several Jews who were present at that place began to murmur, saying, "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" Then Christ perceived their thoughts and said: "Whether it is easier to say, arise, take up thy bed, or to say thy sins be forgiven thee? But that ye may know that the Son of Man hath power upon earth to forgive sin," etc. This is the real sovereignty and power of the Holy Ones of God. By all these statements repeatedly cited from different places and instances it is intended that ye may be informed of the interpretations of the words of the Chosen Ones of God that perchance the foot may not slip and the heart may not be troubled by certain statements.

Christians generally understand this to show that Jesus was God because He could forgive sins. I think Abdu'l Baha's interpretation of it is much as I would see it, sins = illness, forgiveness = healing, and he states here that all the Manifestations of God can forgive sin, which is to heal. No problem with any of that. 'course, our Muslim friends might have an issue with it...

I think of forgiveness of sins as meaning bridging the percieved gap between us and God, or between our false self and our true (Christ) self, or between our created state and our fallen state. Pick your metaphor. And, the main message of the Gospel IMO is that Christ has taken care of that gap. Completely. (Actually, I think it already was taken care of even before Christ; He Revealed (Uncovered) this Truth).

And there is also the 'lesson' and the Spirit given: God forgives (us) and we forgive (each other).

But, I still have to say that this conflicts with the idea that in this life we need to develop virtues to be closer to God in the next life. In fact I think the whole thing works the other way around. As we remove the veils that we perceive to be between us and God, we express more virtues.

OK, next you quoted something about intercessory prayer for the dead. That did not really seem to address my question, but since you posted it I'll comment. I say prayers for the deceased, yet I do not think that these prayers are to help them advance in their spiritual journey, or to ask God to forgive them for sins in this life. As I said above, it's a done deal. But we pray because we love them; we pray for them in the bosom of the Lord, remembering our love, continuing our love.

OK, the next quote I thought got to the matter:

"The Jews taught that every man who commits sin must redeem himself by the sacrifice of an animal. When Christ taught that He was the living bread that gave life to the world, His followers understood "life" to mean, the forgiveness of sins.

But the real redemption is, when a man wishing to give the knowledge of their God to the people, sacrifices himself -- that
is to say, he strips himself from all the cares of the body, from his rest, comforts, and pleasures, and thinks only of the service of God and giving the truth to the people.

I would agree with the idea that the sacrifice of the Messenger is one of redemption, because it is an act of Love, as in John 3:16 (for God so loved the world). So I like this quote, although I'm not so crazy about the implication that the Christians have it wrong and the Jews have it wrong...but again that's another thread.

So, your next quote about atonement is similar:

Likewise the Holy Manifestations, especially the reality of the Greatest Name, the Beauty of ABHA, when unveiled amid the assemblage of the world, like unto Joseph of Canaan, in the divine Egypt, will appear with such Beauty and Sweetness as to make the lovers of the world His captives. As to the souls who are born into this world radiant entities and who through excessive difficulty are deprived of great benefits and thus leave the world -- they are worthy of all sympathy, for in reality this is worthy of regret. It is for this purpose (that is, it is with regard to this wisdom) that the great Manifestations (of God) unveil themselves in this world, bear every difficulty and ordeal -- to make these ready souls dawnings of light and confer upon them eternal life. This is the real atonement that His holiness Christ made-He sacrificed Himself for the life of the world.

As to the question that the holy and spiritual souls influence, help and guide the creatures after they have cast off this elemental mould -- this is an established truth of the Bahais. Nay even the Holy Manifestations of God extend a great Bounty and an evident Light after their ascent from this world. For His Holiness Christ there was more and greater promotion of the Word, manifestation of divine power, conversion of holy souls, and the giving of eternal life, after [His] martyrdom.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v3, p. 542)

OK, I must admit that I do not understand very much of this quote. It apparently refers to those (holy souls) who can recognize the Truth of God when brought by a Messenger. The atonement above, to me, seems to be equated with bringing God's Word to the world at all personal cost. The sacrifice is the atonement. This again is like John 3:16.

I see the Love of God manifest in the personal suffering and sacrifice of the Son, and it seems more powerful when stated as in John 3:16 that God gave His only Son, but I'm not really hung up on that. I guess I see the atonement, the at-one-ment, as being something more than the sacrifice involved in bringing the Word of God to us. I literally see it as bringing At-one-ment: the removal of all percieved barriers between us and God. We are all 'forgiven;' (and always have been)even if we still need to learn to forgive each other. And you can substitute the word 'loved' for forgiven. This is the message I hear in Christianity.

Well, this is a long ramble. Hope some of it makes sense.

Laurie

 

[arthra]

The question I'd like to ask here is whether this thread should be focusing on Christian doctrines or whether it should be about Baha'i beliefs..

Walter Martin also was quoted earlier and that's fine but the the issue on the resurrection of Christ is pretty clear in the Baha'i perspective. We don't believe in a literal physical resurrection of Jesus as held by many Christians... You can argue about this but it's simply not a Baha'i belief...

Also Baha'is don't accept the doctrine of original sin also a belief held by many Christians...

So I think somewhere a choice here has to made because I would question whether this is an appropriate place to be hashing around Christian doctrines..that's probably more appropriate in the Christian forum.

Argumenation can occur in the debate sections too but here as I understand it we're supposed to be focused on Baha'i beliefs and ideas.

- Art

 

[lunamoth]

The question I'd like to ask here is whether this thread should be focusing on Christian doctrines or whether it should be about Baha'i beliefs..

Walter Martin also was quoted earlier and that's fine but the the issue on the resurrection of Christ is pretty clear in the Baha'i perspective. We don't believe in a literal physical resurrection of Jesus as held by many Christians... You can argue about this but it's simply not a Baha'i belief...

Also Baha'is don't accept the doctrine of original sin also a belief held by many Christians...

So I think somewhere a choice here has to made because I would question whether this is an appropriate place to be hashing around Christian doctrines..that's probably more appropriate in the Christian forum.

Argumenation can occur in the debate sections too but here as I understand it we're supposed to be focused on Baha'i beliefs and ideas.

- Art

Sorry Art, I had asked Booko about this by PM and she seemed interested in continuing this dialogue with me here. I did not mean to be disrespectful or argumentative in any way.

Laurie

 

[Booko]

The question I'd like to ask here is whether this thread should be focusing on Christian doctrines or whether it should be about Baha'i beliefs..

Walter Martin also was quoted earlier and that's fine but the the issue on the resurrection of Christ is pretty clear in the Baha'i perspective. We don't believe in a literal physical resurrection of Jesus as held by many Christians... You can argue about this but it's simply not a Baha'i belief...

Also Baha'is don't accept the doctrine of original sin also a belief held by many Christians...

So I think somewhere a choice here has to made because I would question whether this is an appropriate place to be hashing around Christian doctrines..that's probably more appropriate in the Christian forum.

Argumenation can occur in the debate sections too but here as I understand it we're supposed to be focused on Baha'i beliefs and ideas.

- Art

********* MOD POST *********

Art (or anyone else), if you have any questions along these lines, please feel free to PM any mod with them, and they'll look into the area and consult about it.

If they think something should be moved to Religious Debates, then they will do so.

I'll have them check out this thread and see if they think it's wandered too far off. I can't take part in that consultation myself, as I'm involved, but I'll bring it to their attention.