My faith and hope are in God

[Trailblazer]

For about five months I have been attending GriefShare meetings at a country church. Yesterday was the meeting in the series and the group facilitators handed out mugs for all the members. The mugs were of three colors, tan, olive green, and dark brown, each with different Bible verses. They said we could exchange the mug we got for another color and I thought of doing that since I wanted a different color, but after looking at the verses on the other mugs I decided to keep the mug I got.

The mug I got really hit home because it says: My faith and hope are in God 1 Pet. 1:21

I wanted to know the context of that verse so when I got home I looked it up online and I came to find out that is not exactly what the verse says, which was kind of disappointing, since I do not agree with everything the verse says:

1 Pet. 1:21 Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

More precisely, I do not believe that God raised Jesus up from the dead, so I also do not believe this verse:

1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

However, I believe everything else in that chapter is true.

My faith and hope are in God but I have no need to believe in the resurrection in order to have hope.

Because of what I believe God has done, including sending Jesus, but also Baha’u’llah, I have hope for the future of mankind on earth and I have hope for eternal life in heaven. I also have hope in my own life because I have faith in God and I believe I am protected and guided by God. If I had to rely solely upon myself, I would have no hope for the future, especially given my present life situation.

 

[Truthseeker]

Looking up the American Standard version:

Peter 1:3 Blessed be [a]the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

To me this is not inconsistent with the Baha'i view. Peter and the others were raised to new life, "begat us again" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This resurrection is not literal, it is symbolic of how their faith was resurrected and gave them new spiritual life.

Peter 1: 21 who through him are believers in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God.

This does look a little off on this one. Christ was not raised from the dead, He was already living spiritually. It was the disciples that were raised from the dead. I prefer not to pretend that I believe that these writers of the letters in the New Testament were infallible. Why would they be? I do believe the Holy Spirit can cause one to see the truth, but not at all times. Jesus Christ never said that whatever Peter said was infallible.

My interpretation of these is also fallible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Looking up the American Standard version:

Peter 1:3 Blessed be [a]the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

To me this is not inconsistent with the Baha'i view. Peter and the others were raised to new life, "begat us again" by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This resurrection is not literal, it is symbolic of how their faith was resurrected and gave them new spiritual life.

That the resurrection is not literal but rather is symbolic of how their faith was resurrected and gave them new spiritual life is according to Baha'i beliefs but the verse says "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." It does not say "by the resurrection of the faith of Jesus Christ from the dead." Abdu'l-Baha took liberties when he interpreted the resurrection stories that way. Imo, he should have just said the stories were fictitious, rather than assigning meaning to them. I agree with @CG Didymus regarding that.

Peter 1: 21 who through him are believers in God, that raised him from the dead, and gave him glory; so that your faith and hope might be in God.

This does look a little off on this one. Christ was not raised from the dead, He was already living spiritually. It was the disciples that were raised from the dead. I prefer not to pretend that I believe that these writers of the letters in the New Testament were infallible. Why would they be? I do believe the Holy Spirit can cause one to see the truth, but not at all times. Jesus Christ never said that whatever Peter said was infallible.

My interpretation of these is also fallible.

Again, that Christ was not raised from the dead because He was already living spiritually is only a Baha'i interpretation. The verse says "God, that raised him from the dead." Of course I do not believe that verse is true, as I said, because I don't believe that Christ was raised from the dead, and I certainly do not believe it was necessary for Christ to be raised from the dead in order for our faith and hope to be in God.

Even if Christ rose from the dead, a body is just a body, and all bodies die eventually, so the resurrection serves no purpose except to mislead millions of people into believing that they too will rise from their graves and have a physical body. Imo, this is the biggest hoax ever to be perpetrated on an unsuspecting humanity.

 

[Truthseeker]

That the resurrection is not literal but rather is symbolic of how their faith was resurrected and gave them new spiritual life is according to Baha'i beliefs but the verse says "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." It does not say "by the resurrection of the faith of Jesus Christ from the dead." Abdu'l-Baha took liberties when he interpreted the resurrection stories that way. Imo, he should have just said the stories were fictitious, rather than assigning meaning to them. I agree with @CG Didymus regarding that.

Do you really want CG Didymus to enter the fray? You just called him here.

It doesn't matter whether I'm right about this interpretation, but no one interpreted the stories, that's part of the problem. You understand that I mean? I mean that no one went through the stories and interpreted each part of the stories. The stories could still not be symbolic, but not be the truth at all, for whatever the reason. There are definitely some pretty big discrepancies between each of the Gospels. There's just this by Shoghi Effendi:

"...We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realize He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and has been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing."
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 491)

How do we understand these stories symbolically is the question. There's no answer in the Writings. We would have to work it out ourselves. I wrote this about 12 years ago:

The nonbelievers in the bodily resurrection of Christ see it as a low-probability event (after all who among us has seen the bodily resurrection of anybody?)and they feel they need better evidence than is provided in the Gospels to establish this. They are not even consistent with each other sometimes. They are stories told by non-eyewitnesses after 40 years. I have to admit the evidence is not that good. But I don't need to establish the bodily resurrection of Christ. The resurrection for Baha'is is the believers coming to spiritual life because they realized that Christ's spirit lives on. Abdu'l-Baha says: "The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body." Shoghi Effendi says: "We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realize He was eternal in being." So I'm actually sympathetic to those who don't believe.

 

[King Phenomenon]

That the resurrection is not literal but rather is symbolic of how their faith was resurrected and gave them new spiritual life is according to Baha'i beliefs but the verse says "by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." It does not say "by the resurrection of the faith of Jesus Christ from the dead." Abdu'l-Baha took liberties when he interpreted the resurrection stories that way. Imo, he should have just said the stories were fictitious, rather than assigning meaning to them. I agree with @CG Didymus regarding that.

Again, that Christ was not raised from the dead because He was already living spiritually is only a Baha'i interpretation. The verse says "God, that raised him from the dead." Of course I do not believe that verse is true, as I said, because I don't believe that Christ was raised from the dead, and I certainly do not believe it was necessary for Christ to be raised from the dead in order for our faith and hope to be in God.

Even if Christ rose from the dead, a body is just a body, and all bodies die eventually, so the resurrection serves no purpose except to mislead millions of people into believing that they too will rise from their graves and have a physical body. Imo, this is the biggest hoax ever to be perpetrated on an unsuspecting humanity.

I believe you’re missing the biggest part of the whole resurrection story. I can’t tell you what it means. you’ll have to find that out for yourself

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe you’re missing the biggest part of the whole resurrection story. I can’t tell you what it means. you’ll have to find that out for yourself

The resurrection 'story' means different things to different people.
I already know what it means to me.

 

[King Phenomenon]

The resurrection 'story' means different things to different people.
I already know what it means to me.

Cool

 

[Trailblazer]

Do you really want CG Didymus to enter the fray? You just called him here.

If he wants to come.

It doesn't matter whether I'm right about this interpretation, but no one interpreted the stories, that's part of the problem. You understand that I mean? I mean that no one went through the stories and interpreted each part of the stories. The stories could still not be symbolic, but not be the truth at all, for whatever the reason. There are definitely some pretty big discrepancies between each of the Gospels.

Yes, I understand what you mean. Those resurrection stories, in fact the whole Bible, is open to interpretation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

My faith and hope are in God ...

What did you wish to debate?

 

[Trailblazer]

What did you wish to debate?

Anything anyone wants to debate.

 

[CG Didymus]

Do you really want CG Didymus to enter the fray? You just called him here.

I'm pretty sure she knows what I think. But since I'm here. I think the gospels and in Acts it is clear that the writers believed Jesus came back to life. One gospel says that they touched and saw that he was flesh and bone and not a ghost. I'm fine with anyone that questions that and does not believe it. But I also don't believe the resurrection story was meant to be taken symbolically.

So then what is the official Baha'i position on this? Did Jesus die and stayed dead and his body rot away? But then did his disciples take the body and hide it, and then claim that Jesus had risen from the grave? Either one of those or both of them, to me, makes Christianity a made-up, false religion.

But, for sure, because of the way the gospel stories were written, I don't see how they were ever meant to be taken symbolically. But I can see how people 2000 years ago, if told Jesus rose from the dead, that dead people came out of their graves, that Lazarus was brought back to life and that Jesus floated off into the sky, people would have believed it. And, as we know, some people even believe that today.

 

[Workman]

Hello all, it’s nice to see some old faces are stil here. just wanted to pop in and say hi and hope all are doing very well.

 

[Truthseeker]

But, for sure, because of the way the gospel stories were written, I don't see how they were ever meant to be taken symbolically. But I can see how people 2000 years ago, if told Jesus rose from the dead, that dead people came out of their graves, that Lazarus was brought back to life and that Jesus floated off into the sky, people would have believed it. And, as we know, some people even believe that today.

I'm not sure myself what they are all about. Yes, I think it's true that at least 2000 years ago they believed this stuff literally. They should know better today with the advances of knowledge.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hello all, it’s nice to see some old faces are stil here. just wanted to pop in and say hi and hope all are doing very well.

It's nice to see you again.

 

[Patrick66]

Christ was not raised from the dead...

Yet 11 of his 12 apostles and then hundreds or thousands of Jesus's followers testified to his resurrection and willingly allowed themselves to be executed rather than renounce their statements.

 

[Truthseeker]

Yet 11 of his 12 apostles and then hundreds or thousands of Jesus's followers testified to his resurrection and willingly allowed themselves to be executed rather than renounce their statements.

The resurrection account, as far as I know, was not written by any witnesses. We don't really know one way or another about that.

Here is a documented instance of the Bab' attempted execution in Wikipedia:

Execution of the Báb - Wikipedia

On the morning of July 9, 1850, the Báb was taken to the Tabriz courtyard filled with nearly ten thousand people wishing to watch his execution. The Báb and Anís were suspended on a wall and the firing squad of 750 rifles prepared to shoot.[7]

Bábi/Baháʼí account[edit]​

Here is an account which is in line with the common Baháʼí Faith view by historian H.M. Balyuzi, a Hand of the Cause of God, who published several carefully researched histories about the Baháʼí Faith and its central figures:

Sam Khan approached the Bab: 'I profess the Christian Faith and entertain no ill will against you. If your Cause be the Cause of truth, enable me to free myself from the obligation to shed your blood.' To this the Báb replied: 'Follow your instructions, and if your intention be sincere, the Almighty is surely able to relieve you from your perplexity.'
The Báb and His disciple were suspended by ropes from a nail in the wall, the head of Mirza Muhammad-'Ali resting on the breast of the Báb. Seven hundred and fifty soldiers were positioned in three files. Roofs of the buildings around teemed with spectators.
Each row of soldiers fired in turn. The smoke from so many rifles clouded the scene. When it lifted the Báb was not there. Only His disciple could be seen, standing under the nail in the wall, smiling and unconcerned. Bullets had only severed the ropes with which they were suspended. Cries rang out from the onlookers: 'The Siyyid-i-Báb has gone from our sight!'
A frantic search followed. The Báb was found, sitting in the same room where He had been lodged the night before, in conversation with His amanuensis. That conversation had been interrupted earlier in the day. Now it was finished and He told the farrash-bashi to carry out his duty. But the farrash-bashi was terror-stricken and ran away, nor did he ever return to his post. Sam Khan, for his part, told his superiors that he had carried out the task given to him; he would not attempt it a second time. So Aqa Jan Khan-i-Khamsih and his Nasiri regiment replaced the Armenians, and the Báb and His disciple were suspended once again at the same spot. The Nasiri regiment fired. The bodies of the Báb and His disciple were shattered, and their flesh was united.
— H.M. Balyuzi, [3]

Western accounts[edit]​

These events were witnessed by western journalists. Provided below is one source that is attributed to Sir Justin Sheil, Queen Victoria's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Tehran and written to Lord Palmerston, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, July 22, 1850.[8][9]

The founder of the sect has been executed at Tabreez. He was killed by a volley of musketry, and his death was on the point of giving his religion a lustre which would have largely increased his proselytes. When the smoke and dust cleared away after the volley, Báb was not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the skies. The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he was dragged from the recess where after some search he was discovered and shot. His death, according to the belief of his disciples, will make no difference as Báb must always exist.
— Sir Justin Sheil, [8][10]

Shoghi Effendi also prints a large selection of western quotes in his book God Passes By (p. 55), however most are unsourced.[11]

Mírzá Mihdí Khán Zaímu'd-Dawlih[edit]​

Mírzá Mihdí Khán Zaímu'd-Dawlih was the son of a Shiʻite cleric who was present at the execution of the Báb and who took his son to the barracks square to review the events he witnessed. Zaímu'd-Dawlih recounted his father's version in a book, Miftáh-i-Bábu'l-Abváb ya Taríkh-i-Báb va Bahá (Key to the Gate of Gates, or the History of the Báb and Bahá), published about A.H. 1310 (about 1896). The work is a polemically anti-Baháʼí book. But the account of the execution (which is lengthy) includes the following details:[12]

1. The Báb and Anís were suspended about three meters (10') above the ground on a rope and fired on by a Christian regiment.2. The bullets cut the rope and one bullet wounded Anís.3. The Báb ran into one of the rooms in the barracks.4. The Báb was brought back out and he and Anís were shot again, this time fatally.

 

[Patrick66]

The resurrection account, as far as I know, was not written by any witnesses.

I think it's extremely likely that they DID create written accounts of their many experiences with Jesus. They certainly and willingly went to their deaths. The naysayers claim that these followers willingly suffered and died over something that didn't happen. Jesus used miracles to prove that he is the Christ. His greatest miracle was resurrecting himself and showing himself to the apostles and hundreds of others.

 

[Truthseeker]

I think it's extremely likely that they DID create written accounts of their many experiences with Jesus. They certainly and willingly went to their deaths. The naysayers claim that these followers willingly suffered and died over something that didn't happen. Jesus used miracles to prove that he is the Christ. His greatest miracle was resurrecting himself and showing himself to the apostles and hundreds of others.

I'm not going to minimize the deeds of the early Christian believers. His greatest miracle for me was Himself, the purity and perfection of who He was. The early Babis also in great numbers sacrificed their lives. The Bab's and Baha'u'llah's greatest miracles were likewise the perfection of their lives. What the early Christians did or did not write down is secondary, I wish I hadn't argued that now.

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm not going to minimize the deeds of the early Christian believers. His greatest miracle for me was Himself, the purity and perfection of who He was. The early Babis also in great numbers sacrificed their lives. The Bab's and Baha'u'llah's greatest miracles were likewise the perfection of their lives. What the early Christians did or did not write down is secondary, I wish I hadn't argued that now.

Yes, Christ was able to perform miracles, since He was a Manifestation of God, but there is no way to know exactly which miracles, that were recorded in the New Testament, were literal and which were allegorical.

Question.—It is recorded that miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles really to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning? It has been proved by exact science that the essence of things does not change, and that all beings are under one universal law and organization from which they cannot deviate; and, therefore, that which is contrary to universal law is impossible.​

​

Answer.—The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.​

​

Some Answered Questions, p. 100​

​

22: MIRACLES​

But as you said, the greatest miracle was Christ Himself, and what He was able to do, by the power of God.

“But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.​

​

The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life—that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: “Let the dead bury their dead;” for “That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.” 1”​

​

Some Answered Questions, p. 101​

​

If Christians try to argue that Christ was superior to all other Manifestations of God because of the miracles He performed, that won't work, because the Bab and Baha'u'llah, and even Abdu'l-Baha, performed miracles.

Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

 

[CG Didymus]

I think it's extremely likely that they DID create written accounts of their many experiences with Jesus. They certainly and willingly went to their deaths. The naysayers claim that these followers willingly suffered and died over something that didn't happen. Jesus used miracles to prove that he is the Christ. His greatest miracle was resurrecting himself and showing himself to the apostles and hundreds of others.

As I've said before, it is a hard thing to believe that things like walking on water, the virgin birth, the resurrection and then ascending into the clouds really happened. But I do believe that is exactly what the NT claims.

Acts 1:1 In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3 After his suffering, he presented himself to them and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. 4 On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: “Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, which you have heard me speak about. 5 For John baptized with[a] water, but in a few days you will be baptized with[b] the Holy Spirit.”​