The Christian and Baha'i view of Resurrection

[Popeyesays]

The problem with the Baha'i view is that it waters the event of Christ's resurrection down to the point where it has little to no meaning, while the evidence is that this event was the crowning point of the early Christian faith. To say, well, it was a spiritual resurrection, and after three days the disciples (perhaps after a vision of Jesus) had some kind of experience that motivated them to go on and continue in their mission to spread the news of Christ. Well, what exactly was the news that they would be spreading? That there was a rabbi who taught to keep the commandments, to love God and love each other, and he was killed for claiming to speak with the authority of God. Why then did Paul "preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles," and "3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance [a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, [b] and then to the Twelve."?

The Baha'i view is easy to swallow, it makes no demands upon us. The twelve were inspired to preach Christ's Gospel, there was no 'real' resurrection of Christ.

Compare that to a Love so powerful it conquers death.

It depends upon how you define "Real". There is no doubt that the "experience" of the Twelve, plus the Magdalene, was real. The only sticking point appears to be the corpse from the cross. To Baha`i's that dead body is immaterial, it's fate is known. Jesus Himself maintained that the earthly vessel was of no importance.

The idea that the earthly vessel has spiritual significance after death is foreign to how Baha`i's understand the earthly physical life and the spiritual life after the death of the body.

God's love has always conquered death. God's law that we love one another has always conquered death. Death has no spiritual meaning at all. It never has.

Death is an experience for those who survive the deceased, it's we who mourn the passing, not he/she who has passed.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

It depends upon how you define "Real". There is no doubt that the "experience" of the Twelve, plus the Magdalene, was real. The only sticking point appears to be the corpse from the cross. To Baha`i's that dead body is immaterial, it's fate is known. Jesus Himself maintained that the earthly vessel was of no importance.

The idea that the earthly vessel has spiritual significance after death is foreign to how Baha`i's understand the earthly physical life and the spiritual life after the death of the body.

God's love has always conquered death. God's law that we love one another has always conquered death. Death has no spiritual meaning at all. It never has.

Death is an experience for those who survive the deceased, it's we who mourn the passing, not he/she who has passed.

Regards,
Scott

Hi Scott,

You know I respect you and the Baha'i Faith, and I don't have any argument with any of what you have written above. But, you did not address my question about why Paul preached the Gospel of Christ risen the way he did, nor has anyone explained why the Gospel passion stories so emphatically describe a physical resurrection. As sojourner said in another thread just today: a physical resurrection is how Jews of Jesus' time would understand the term resurrection. A physical resurrection would have been the understanding of Jesus while he was teaching. A bodily resurrection is the continuing belief of Christians today, although there is a wide range in understanding of what exactly this means.

It is pointless to try to debate the 'truth' of the Resurrection of Christ between the Baha'i view and the Christian view. I popped into this thread to explain the meaning I find in the idea the resurrection. And you are absolutely right when you ask 'what is real?'. What is an immortal body, and imperishible body, a spiritual body? To divide ourselves and argue over this is beyond ridiculous, unless of course it's important to somehow disprove Christian faith. Is that what this is all about?

 

[Muffled]

Hi, Katz!

Except, of course, that in the Baha'i view everything after the Crucifixion is spiritual metaphor, not literal.

And you are clearly ignoring Jesus' earlier statements (echoed later in the New Testament) about spirit being important and the flesh inheriting nothing! I refer you to the details in post #1 above.

Peace,

Bruce

Is this based on baha'i scripture so that it is either misinterpreted or compromised by the truth that is in the Bible? It is not rational to view the reports of the physical resurrection of Jesus as metaphor because there is no announcement that a parable or prophecy is being given. The text reads as a matter of fact report of what happened.

I am not ignoring it just not finding it relevant. All actions by God depend on the purpose God has for them. God has performed many acts in the physical world that could not be construed as spiritual. If your unasked question is "Why would Jesus return to the body," then there are a number of possibilities. One is for encouragement of the disciples that their walk with Jesus was not finished. The most important is to prove beyond a doubt that the Sadducees were incorrect in saying that there was no resurrection.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Muffled, hi!

Here is the Baha'i explanation, from our scriptures:

Chapter 23: 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. “

--Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Popeyesays]

Hi Scott,

<Cut for focus>

It is pointless to try to debate the 'truth' of the Resurrection of Christ between the Baha'i view and the Christian view. I popped into this thread to explain the meaning I find in the idea the resurrection. And you are absolutely right when you ask 'what is real?'. What is an immortal body, and imperishible body, a spiritual body? To divide ourselves and argue over this is beyond ridiculous, unless of course it's important to somehow disprove Christian faith. Is that what this is all about?

It would be contrary to the Baha`i Faith to attempt to 'disprove' anything about any faith at all. It's the object of the faith to unite the religions, one does not do that by disproving things.

As to the experience of the Apostles after the crucifixion, I have no doubt whatsoever that they walked and talked with Christ. That seems well within the confines of the will of God enacted.

This does not mean that the body that walked and talked with the Apostles was the same body that was laid in the tomb? I don't think so. Nor do I think the mechanics of the miracle of the experience of those Apostles has any importance whatsoever.

As to Paul, Paul did not experience the same reality that the Apostles and the Magdalene did. He wasn't there.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Katzpur]

Hi, Katz!

Except, of course, that in the Baha'i view everything after the Crucifixion is spiritual metaphor, not literal.

Thanks for explaining that, Bruce. I'm afraid, though, that it appears to me as if we are not only not on the same page; we're not even reading the same book!

And you are clearly ignoring Jesus' earlier statements (echoed later in the New Testament) about spirit being important and the flesh inheriting nothing! I refer you to the details in post #1 above.

I apologize. It wasn't so much that I was ignoring them. It just seemed unnecessary to me to even address them since the one example I provided so clearly stated the opposite. I would be happy to address your earlier scriptural citations, though. Here you go:

I refer you to First Corinthians 15:42-44 & 50:

"So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a physical body; it is raised a spiritual body.... I tell you this, brethren: Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable."

I think you’re using the word “spiritual” differently than I am. I believe the resurrected body to be “immortal” (imperishable) as opposed to “mortal” (perishable). There is no contradiction between the words “physical” and “imperishable.” A body could very well be both physical and imperishable; it just couldn’t be both mortal and imperishable. Secondly, saying that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God is not the same thing as saying that flesh and bones cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. After His resurrection, Jesus clearly was a being of flesh and bones, unless, of course, you are willing to ignore His own words or completely re-interpret them to suit yourself. To me, that’s a perfect example of trying to make the scriptures conform to your beliefs instead of making your beliefs conform to the scriptures.

And Christ Himself also affirms this!:

John 3:6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Sprit is spirit."

It sounds to me as if you’re saying that we are not born of the Spirit until we die and are resurrected. If I have misunderstood you, please tell me. What exactly do you believe it means to be born of the Spirit? To be born of the flesh is to be physically be born to a woman; to be born of water is to be baptized by immersion in water; to be born of the Spirit is to receive the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands (as described in Acts 8).

John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing."

I can’t argue with that. It is indeed the spirit that gives life. Without the indwelling of the spirit, the physical body has no life. That’s what the resurrection is all about – both Christ’s and ours. When we die, our spirit leaves our body but does not cease to exist as a cognizant entity. When we are resurrected, our spirit re-enters our newly perfected body, giving it eternal life or immortality. The same was the case with Christ’s death and His resurrection. That’s why is it of such great significance to Christians.

John 3:13 "... the Son of Man is in Heaven."

(Please note that Christ spoke this while on earth, making clear that this is a spiritual--not a physical--state!)

Excuse me? Are you saying that Christ was physically on Earth but spiritually in Heaven? I don’t want to comment until I understand if that is really what you are saying.

So if we believe the Bible, we've established that the flesh will die and only the spirit survives and prevails! Hence, Resurrection is a spiritual--not a physical--event.

Sorry, but I believe the Bible and, in my opinion, that’s not even close to what it’s saying!

 

[Popeyesays]

Kats says:

"It sounds to me as if you&#8217;re saying that we are not born of the Spirit until we die and are resurrected. If I have misunderstood you, please tell me. What exactly do you believe it means to be born of the Spirit? To be born of the flesh is to be physically be born to a woman; to be born of water is to be baptized by immersion in water; to be born of the Spirit is to receive the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands (as described in Acts 8)."

No, we are born of the spirit when the soul becomes associated with the quickened egg, which happens by Baha`i measure at pretty much that instant. The spirit and the flesh are thereafter associated with one another until the flesh passes away. At that point the spirit is set free to progress to the next world that was never more than a heartbeat away in the first place.

The spirit is therefore imperishable and immortal, but the flesh never was.

This physical life is, in essence, the womb for the spiritual life.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, hi!

Here is the Baha'i explanation, from our scriptures:

Chapter 23: 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. “

--Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-105

Peace,

Bruce

I take it that this is Baha'u'llah speaking? (I hope I spelled that right) He can talk about the spiritual significance of the conception of Jesus ie that the spirit of God came from Heaven and entered the conception, however that does not negate the presence of the body nor does he say that it does.

So basically he is saying that he is ignoring the body in the resurrection and ascension for the same reason he ignores it in the conception because it has no spiritual significance. That is not the same thing as denying that the body has been raised or that it ascended.

I consider this passage of scripture a viewpoint that God is apt to take, that even though the physical things are manifest they are not significant. Only the spiritual things are significant.

 

[Popeyesays]

I take it that this is Baha'u'llah speaking? (I hope I spelled that right) He can talk about the spiritual significance of the conception of Jesus ie that the spirit of God came from Heaven and entered the conception, however that does not negate the presence of the body nor does he say that it does.

So basically he is saying that he is ignoring the body in the resurrection and ascension for the same reason he ignores it in the conception because it has no spiritual significance. That is not the same thing as denying that the body has been raised or that it ascended.

I consider this passage of scripture a viewpoint that God is apt to take, that even though the physical things are manifest they are not significant. Only the spiritual things are significant.

That's pretty much it. The source of the quote was actually Abdu'l Baha, the appointed interpreter and Center of the Covenant, and eldest son of Baha`u'llah.

He wrote in answer to dinner questions over the course of a few month back in 1905, and the quote was one of the topics of those discussions.

We are told that the Essence of God is ultimately unknowable to us, and to make Himself known to His creation God sends these Holy Messengers from time to time to teach us.

"XIX. To every discerning and illuminated heart it is evident that God, the unknowable Essence, the Divine Being, is immensely exalted beyond every human attribute, such as corporeal existence, ascent and descent, egress and regress. Far be it from His glory that human tongue should adequately recount 47 His praise, or that human heart comprehend His fathomless mystery. He is, and hath ever been, veiled in the ancient eternity of His Essence, and will remain in His Reality everlastingly hidden from the sight of men. "No vision taketh in Him, but He taketh in all vision; He is the Subtile, the All-Perceiving."...
The door of the knowledge of the Ancient of Days being thus closed in the face of all beings, the Source of infinite grace, according to His saying, "His grace hath transcended all things; My grace hath encompassed them all," hath caused those luminous Gems of Holiness to appear out of the realm of the spirit, in the noble form of the human temple, and be made manifest unto all men, that they may impart unto the world the mysteries of the unchangeable Being, and tell of the subtleties of His imperishable Essence.
These sanctified Mirrors, these Day Springs of ancient glory, are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory. They are the Treasuries of Divine knowledge, and the Repositories of celestial wisdom. Through them is transmitted a grace that is infinite, and by them is revealed the Light that can never fade.... These Tabernacles of Holiness, these Primal Mirrors which reflect the light of unfading glory, are but expressions of Him Who is the Invisible of the Invisibles. By the revelation of these Gems of Divine virtue all the names and attributes of God, such as knowledge and power, sovereignty and dominion, mercy and wisdom, glory, bounty, and grace, are made manifest."
(Baha'u'llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha'u'llah, p. 47)

Tomorrow is a Holy Day for Baha'i's around the world--the First day of Ridvan (Paradise). So let me be among those early holiday wishers to all the members of the forum.


Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

As far as i have seen so far, the son has as much spiritual wisdom as the father. That has to be a rare occurance in history except that I could understand why an elucidated soul might ask God to make him the son of Baha'u'llah.

 

[UnityNow101]

Don't bring problems that you have regarding the Bahai view on resurrection and the Second Coming to Bahai's while you are a Bahai, or you may find yourself shunned from the community. I simply wrote an e-mail to one of the Bahai's in my community with my concerns and a few questions...I have heard nothing back from them and am not sure if they even want me involved in their community anymore. If you cannot bring up concerns or express your freedom of thought then that is just wrong to me.

 

[Popeyesays]

Don't bring problems that you have regarding the Bahai view on resurrection and the Second Coming to Bahai's while you are a Bahai, or you may find yourself shunned from the community. I simply wrote an e-mail to one of the Bahai's in my community with my concerns and a few questions...I have heard nothing back from them and am not sure if they even want me involved in their community anymore. If you cannot bring up concerns or express your freedom of thought then that is just wrong to me.

My original post got eaten.

In short, you have not addressed anyone other than a Baha`i friend. They are of no authority by themselves.

Take the matter up with your local assembly. Conslult with them openly. They will not ignore you. Write to the National Spiritual Assembly with your questions. They will not ignore you.

These are institutions of the faith, not individuals.

If you decide to withdraw from the faith, that is entirely your option. It was voluntary to join. It is voluntary to leave. No one will shun or ostracize you for withdrawal.

If you withdrw from the faith and later resolve the issue and wish to return--you can do that as well.

If you would rather be a Christian be the best Christian you can manage to be.

Regards,
Scott

 

[UnityNow101]

Thanks Popeyesays...I didn't know that they were that reasonable. I did pose the questions to a man that I had been close to in the Faith and haven't really heard back from him or any of the Bahai's and I thought that I was in affect shunned from the community. There are just a lot of things regarding their take on the resurrection that I disagree with. I love their teachings on racial unity and the oneness of the human race. Those are teachings that are close to my heart. I would never criticize the people that practice the Bahai Faith..They are a loving people and have always welcomed me and many others with open arms. It just seems like when I pose a question, that they back away from it. But I haven't written the National Spiritual Assembly. Maybe I aught to do that. I just want the truth in all things. Thanks again Scott..God Bless.

 

[arthra]

Hmmm... I've been busy lately on some other forums and hadn't noticed this thread till recently...

I have never heard of any Baha'i that would "shun" someone because of a different view of the resurrection.

Basically my understanding of the Baha'i view of the Resurrection of Jesus is that it was spiritual and the experiences of the apostles which are reported as post crucifixion appearances of Jesus are taken by us a symbolic and spiritual experiences...

You could also I think say the same about the appearances of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration that they were spiritual appearances and not physical ones as you could say about the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion.

Now for sure there is a belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus and this is reported by people who point to the empty tomb and Thomas being invited to touch the wounds of Jesus and Jesus reportedly eating fish or having food with the disciples after the crucifixion.

What I would suggest is that the empty tomb may have been a real experience but maybe not understood and recall that the first reaction was where did they move Him ..

Jesus you'll recall in His ministry says of Lazarus "Our friend Lazarus spleepeth" and in Mark 5:39 The damsel is not dead but sleepeth". Jesus said "Fear nopt them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" Matthew 10:28. So this would be a closer view of Jesus I think than one of the resurrection of the body as such. Also in the Qur'an it says we should not say of the martyrs they are dead. See Surih 2:154 and 3:169.

George Lamsa in his book "Gospel Light" p. 157 makes reference to the Aramaic word for death as "Mota" as meaning "Not present, but somewhere."

So to me it is suggested that the Aramaic idiom was lost in translation to the Greek and this could have led to a later theological doctrinal misunderstanding of the early church..this is my view.

Visionary experiences were also a very important part of the spiirtual life of the disciples and to me should not be taken as literal physical events but as visionary and symbolic.

I hope this will suggest some of the perspectives of Baha'is...

Here is a reference to the resurrection:

http://bahai-library.com/uhj/resurrection.html

- Art

 

[BruceDLimber]

UnityNow, hi!

I have to agree with others here that it is clearly not expected that a Baha'i would "shun" (your term) someone else merely for asking questions! That certainly isn't how we're encouraged to respond!

And in hopes that it may help, in addition to t his forum, another one where you might want to ask your questions is Planet Baha'i, which you can find at www.planetbahai.org

It has a discussion area where you'll find a lot of great folks, both Baha'i and not, and IME it's one of the best places to discuss things and get your questions answered!

Best, ;-)

Bruce

 

[Muffled]

Hmmm... I've been busy lately on some other forums and hadn't noticed this thread till recently...

I have never heard of any Baha'i that would "shun" someone because of a different view of the resurrection.

Basically my understanding of the Baha'i view of the Resurrection of Jesus is that it was spiritual and the experiences of the apostles which are reported as post crucifixion appearances of Jesus are taken by us a symbolic and spiritual experiences...

You could also I think say the same about the appearances of Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration that they were spiritual appearances and not physical ones as you could say about the appearances of Jesus after the crucifixion.

Now for sure there is a belief in the physical resurrection of Jesus and this is reported by people who point to the empty tomb and Thomas being invited to touch the wounds of Jesus and Jesus reportedly eating fish or having food with the disciples after the crucifixion.

What I would suggest is that the empty tomb may have been a real experience but maybe not understood and recall that the first reaction was where did they move Him ..

Jesus you'll recall in His ministry says of Lazarus "Our friend Lazarus spleepeth" and in Mark 5:39 The damsel is not dead but sleepeth". Jesus said "Fear nopt them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul" Matthew 10:28. So this would be a closer view of Jesus I think than one of the resurrection of the body as such. Also in the Qur'an it says we should not say of the martyrs they are dead. See Surih 2:154 and 3:169.

George Lamsa in his book "Gospel Light" p. 157 makes reference to the Aramaic word for death as "Mota" as meaning "Not present, but somewhere."

So to me it is suggested that the Aramaic idiom was lost in translation to the Greek and this could have led to a later theological doctrinal misunderstanding of the early church..this is my view.

Visionary experiences were also a very important part of the spiirtual life of the disciples and to me should not be taken as literal physical events but as visionary and symbolic.

I hope this will suggest some of the perspectives of Baha'is...

Here is a reference to the resurrection:

http://bahai-library.com/uhj/resurrection.html

- Art

This is not the case. The Transfiguration account is mute on the physicality of Elijah and Moses but as you have stated there are statements supporting the physicality of Jesus.

What is there to misunderstand when the angels are right there saying "Why do you seek the living among the dead? He is risen just as He said."

Sleep used in this sense is referring to being dead yet still conscious. The body had been dead for four days and was rotting. It could hardly be thought of as just asleep. Resurrection of Lazaraus as the resurrection of Jesus requires a miraculous repairing of the body before returning the spirit to it.

A suggestion is not the same thing as proof.

I don't see this statement as supportable. The majority of the Apostles were fishermen and all too well grounded in the physical world.

 

[lew0049]

The scriptures DO NOT say that the resurrection is simply a spiritual event. Obviously, you have not read the gospels.

 

[Popeyesays]

The scriptures DO NOT say that the resurrection is simply a spiritual event. Obviously, you have not read the gospels.

The Christ Spirit is eternal, flesh is not.

As the traditional Christian burial service says: "ashes to ashes, dust to dust in sure and certain hope of the Resurrection to come."

Whatever the experience of the Apostles related in the Gospels (and yes, I've been reading them for fifty years, heck, I was ready to become an Anglican Deacon when I discovered the Baha`i Faith) might have been the description does not require the body to have been physically reanimated. Christ appeared to them in whatever form they most required to see--and don't forget, neither Mary nor the Apostles recognized Him at first--why is that?

A physical body does not walk upon the water as is described by the Apostles, but a spiritual visitation certainly can.

The physical body could not have survived resurrection long if the wounds had still been there--that lung puncture would have killed Him quickly yet, Thomas was able to put his hand into the wound, this had to have been a spiritual visitation.

Whatever Paul has to say on the subject later is irrelevant, he was not there.

If religion demands you give up physical proof then belief in that religion becomes mere superstition. We are characterized by our ability to reason. God made us that way.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

If religion demands you give up physical proof then belief in that religion becomes mere superstition. We are characterized by our ability to reason. God made us that way.

And the rational proof of the virgin birth of Jesus is...?

 

[Popeyesays]

And the rational proof of the virgin birth of Jesus is...?

Virgin birth is not impossible. From a strictly biological point of view, penetration is not required to impregnate.In my point of view if God had the power to create human life, He has the power to cause a woman to bear a child by the exercise of His will. It does not violate reason to propose that He did.Regards,Scott