Manifestations of God--a Question for Bahai's

[Booko]

I was thinking of the "The Baha'i Proofs" by Mirza Abul-Fadl on pp. 126 - 129 where he mentions three Days of God referring to Prophet Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

I figured it was that book, but was wondering which of the Baha'i Writings he based it on. But I have the page numbers now, so I'll just go look it up...thanks!

He also shows in Miracles and Metaphors p. 69 how Christ referring to the spirit of Elijah in John the Baptist even though when we know Elijah lived centuries before is similar to the Return of "Christ" in future Manifestations like Prophet Muhammad and so on..

Yes, of course. That's always seemed to me to be a good explanation for the possibility of a "return" that isn't someone returning in the same body calling himself by the same name.

Christ Himself affirmed it was a possibility to have a return that isn't strictly literal, and who's gonna argue with Him?

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Fervent,

I think I understand what you are trying to say...It is a traditional view of the resurrection which we as Baha'is do not share with you. Visions can be very real to people and you can hear a lot of things in visions...no one I think will dispute that. Also there are meanings and significances in spiritual experiences that are symbolic that is how we see it. If you disagree that's your choice.

- Art

It's not that I disagree with YOU, it's simply that I agree with what Christ and the text quite plainly says. Christ Himself, if you believe Him, said that He had flesh and bones in appearing to them after the Resurrection. If you need even more reassurance, then you should know that after Christ made that statement the disciples still didn't believe Him (verse 41). So then they gave Him food and He actually ate it to completely prove that He was physically real and truly resurrected. (verses 42-43). If you choose to disagree with Christ and the words of His closest disciples, that's your call; I'm just pointing out what the text says, and what the Church teaches and has taught for 2,000 years.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Booko]

Nor were you there for His death, yet you believe in it That's seems like an extremely poor excuse. All His disciples who were there at His death attested to the fact that He also rose again and directly, literally appeared to them.

From a Biblical, Christian perspective, this claim is nothing short of absurd. God broke His own laws all the time: causing the sun to sit still in the sky, causing the sea to split in half, turning water into wine, turning water into blood, raising the dead (including Himself). A miracle by definition is something unexplainable by science, chiefly because it is outside science. You may claim we simply don't know enough science to understand how these things fit into it, but then you can't agree with the claim that a literal resurrection is impossible for scientific reasons.

FGS, this has gone from discuss to debate. If you want to take it up in a debate area, that's fine, I can meet you there.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FGS, this has gone from discuss to debate. If you want to take it up in a debate area, that's fine, I can meet you there.

We can recommend it for a move if you want; I don't think I'm going to post any more tonight, but I'll take it up again the next time I come on. Look forward to hearing from you!

FGS

 

[Booko]

We can recommend it for a move if you want; I don't think I'm going to post any more tonight, but I'll take it up again the next time I come on. Look forward to hearing from you!

FGS

Yeah, it's 2AM here and I'm about to turn into a pumpkin myself.

Have a good evening!