• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Christian and Baha'i view of Resurrection

lunamoth

Will to love
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

Hi Scott,

If God has the power to cause a woman to bear a child by the exercise of His will, why does He not have the power to resurrect Christ physically from the dead? And if He could resurrect Christ physically, and the Gospels say that He was resurrected physically, why are Christians wrong to believe that He was resurrected physically?
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Hi Scott,

If God has the power to cause a woman to bear a child by the exercise of His will, why does He not have the power to resurrect Christ physically from the dead? And if He could resurrect Christ physically, and the Gospels say that He was resurrected physically, why are Christians wrong to believe that He was resurrected physically?

Because Jesus said the flesh was dust and the spirit eternal.Regards,Scott
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Because Jesus said the flesh was dust and the spirit eternal.Regards,Scott

Scott, you said "If religion demands you give up physical proof then belief in that religion becomes mere superstition."

What is the physical proof of the virgin birth of Jesus?

luna
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Scott, you said "If religion demands you give up physical proof then belief in that religion becomes mere superstition."

What is the physical proof of the virgin birth of Jesus?

luna

It's mere superstition if I abandon reason. Reason does not depend upon physical proof."The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 240)"Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 247)"If you reflect upon the essential teachings of Jesus you will realize that they are the light of the world. Nobody can question their truth. They are the very source of life and the cause of happiness to the human race. The forms and superstitions which appeared and obscured the light did not affect the reality of Christ." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 250)"Therefore there is need of turning back to the original foundation. The fundamental principles of the prophets are correct and true. The imitations and superstitions which have crept in are at wide variance with the original precepts and commands. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh has revoiced and re-established the quintessence of the teachings of all the prophets, setting aside the accessories and purifying religion from human interpretation. He has written a book entitled Hidden Words. The preface announces that it contains the essences of the words of the prophets of the past clothed in the garment of brevity for the teaching and spiritual guidance of the people of the world. Read it that you may understand the true foundations of religion and reflect upon the inspiration of the messengers of God. It is light upon light." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 251)I'm sorry if I created a confusion. That wasn't my intent.Regards,Scott
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Hi Scott, I am confused.

The virgin birth is a miracle. It is contrary to the standards of science. It is upheld by the Baha'i Faith.

How is this explained?

If God can do anything He wills, even if it is against the standards of science, then how can we know which things are superstition and which things are acceptable exceptions because God willed it?

You say walking on water and the physical resurrection of Jesus are contrary to reason because they are miracles (in your post to laws), contrary to the standards of science.

So which is it? Does God perform miracles contrary to the standards of science, and if so why is the virgin birth reasonable but walking on water and the resurrection not?

luna




It's mere superstition if I abandon reason. Reason does not depend upon physical proof.

"The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 240)"Furthermore He proclaims that religion must be in harmony with science and reason. If it does not conform to science and reconcile with reason it is superstition." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 247)"If you reflect upon the essential teachings of Jesus you will realize that they are the light of the world. Nobody can question their truth. They are the very source of life and the cause of happiness to the human race. The forms and superstitions which appeared and obscured the light did not affect the reality of Christ." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 250)"Therefore there is need of turning back to the original foundation. The fundamental principles of the prophets are correct and true. The imitations and superstitions which have crept in are at wide variance with the original precepts and commands. His Holiness Bahá'u'lláh has revoiced and re-established the quintessence of the teachings of all the prophets, setting aside the accessories and purifying religion from human interpretation. He has written a book entitled Hidden Words. The preface announces that it contains the essences of the words of the prophets of the past clothed in the garment of brevity for the teaching and spiritual guidance of the people of the world. Read it that you may understand the true foundations of religion and reflect upon the inspiration of the messengers of God. It is light upon light." (Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 251)I'm sorry if I created a confusion. That wasn't my intent.Regards,Scott
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Nothing in the Baha`i Faith denies "miracles". We just do not emphasize them. Miracles, in the end, never prove anything. The Baha`i Faith does not really support the Gospel version of the virgin birth, but rather the Qur'an's version of the birth. I refer you to the Surah of Maryam.Regards,Scott
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Nothing in the Baha`i Faith denies "miracles". We just do not emphasize them. Miracles, in the end, never prove anything. The Baha`i Faith does not really support the Gospel version of the virgin birth, but rather the Qur'an's version of the birth. I refer you to the Surah of Maryam.Regards,Scott

This says they are in agreement with the Catholic Church:

1639. Bahá'í Teachings in Agreement with Doctrines of Catholic Church Concerning the Virgin Birth
"With regard to your question concerning the Virgin Birth of Jesus; on this point, as on several others, the Bahá'í Teachings are in full agreement with the doctrines of the Catholic Church. In the 'Kitáb-i-Íqán' (Book of Certitude) p. 56, and in a few other Tablets still unpublished, Bahá'u'lláh confirms, however, indirectly, the Catholic conception of the Virgin Birth. Also 'Abdu'l-Bahá in the 'Some 490 Answered Questions', Chap. XII, p.73, explicitly states that 'Christ found existence through the Spirit of God' which statement necessarily implies, when viewed in the light of the text, that Jesus was not the son of Joseph."

(From a letter dated October 14, 1945 written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 489)

If God performs miracles contrary to the standards of science, why is the virgin birth reasonable but walking on water and the resurrection not?
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Yes, but it also upholds the validity of the Qur'an's version of the birth of Christ and Christ's mother:"And now ponder in thy heart the commotion which God stirreth up. Reflect upon the strange and manifold trials with which He doth test His servants. Consider how He hath suddenly chosen from among His servants, and entrusted with the exalted mission of divine guidance Him Who was known as guilty of homicide, Who, Himself, had acknowledged His cruelty, and Who for well-nigh thirty years had, in the eyes of the world, been reared in the home of Pharaoh and been nourished at his table. Was not God, the omnipotent King, able to withhold the hand of Moses from murder, *56* so that manslaughter should not be attributed unto Him, causing bewilderment and aversion among the people?Likewise, reflect upon the state and condition of Mary. So deep was the perplexity of that most beauteous countenance, so grievous her case, that she bitterly regretted she had ever been born. To this beareth witness the text of the sacred verse wherein it is mentioned that after Mary had given birth to Jesus, she bemoaned her plight and cried out: "O would that I had died ere this, and been a thing forgotten, forgotten quite!"[1] I swear by God! Such lamenting consumeth the heart and shaketh the being. Such consternation of soul, such despondency, could have been caused by no other than the censure of the enemy and the cavilings of the infidel and perverse. Reflect, what answer could Mary have given to the people around her? How could she claim that a Babe Whose father was unknown had been conceived of the Holy Ghost? Therefore did Mary, that veiled and immortal Countenance, take up her Child and return unto her home. No sooner had the eyes of the people fallen upon her than they raised their voice *57* saying: "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of wickedness, nor unchaste thy mother."[1][1 Qur'án 19:22.][2 Qur'án 19:28.]And now, meditate upon this most great convulsion, this grievous test. Notwithstanding all these things, God conferred upon that essence of the Spirit, Who was known amongst the people as fatherless, the glory of Prophethood, and made Him His testimony unto all that are in heaven and on earth.Behold how contrary are the ways of the Manifestations of God, as ordained by the King of creation, to the ways and desires of men! As thou comest to comprehend the essence of these divine mysteries, thou wilt grasp the purpose of God, the divine Charmer, the Best-Beloved. Thou wilt regard the words and the deeds of that almighty Sovereign as one and the same; in such wise that whatsoever thou dost behold in His deeds, the same wilt thou find in His sayings, and whatsoever thou dost read in His sayings, that wilt thou recognize in His deeds. Thus it is that outwardly such deeds and words are the fire of vengeance unto the wicked, and inwardly the waters of mercy unto the righteous. Were the eye of the heart to open, it *58* would surely perceive that the words revealed from the heaven of the will of God are at one with, and the same as, the deeds that have emanated from the Kingdom of divine power.And now, take heed, O brother! If such things be revealed in this Dispensation, and such incidents come to pass, at the present time, what would the people do? I swear by Him Who is the true Educator of mankind and the Revealer of the Word of God that the people would instantly and unquestionably pronounce Him an infidel and would sentence Him to death. How far are they from hearkening unto the voice that declareth: Lo! a Jesus hath appeared out of the breath of the Holy Ghost, and a Moses summoned to a divinely-appointed task! Were a myriad voices to be raised, no ear would listen if We said that upon a fatherless Child hath been conferred the mission of Prophethood, or that a murderer hath brought from the flame of the burning Bush the message of "Verily, verily, I am God!" (Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 55)Neither Baha`u'llah nor the Faith are going to uphold the Gospel version nor the Qur'an above the other. They are both true. They agree in essence.We began this because of the discussion about the Qur'an's versin of the death of Christ and the Gospel version. Bahait teachings say the teachings of both books must in the end agree. Even the Gospel and Qur'asn's version of the Nativity must in the end agree. If one does not find agreement, one has not looked deeply enough.Regards,Scott
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Yes, but it also upholds the validity of the Qur'an's version of the birth of Christ and Christ's mother:...<snipped out quote, for focus>...

Neither Baha`u'llah nor the Faith are going to uphold the Gospel version nor the Qur'an above the other. They are both true. They agree in essence.We began this because of the discussion about the Qur'an's versin of the death of Christ and the Gospel version. Bahait teachings say the teachings of both books must in the end agree. Even the Gospel and Qur'asn's version of the Nativity must in the end agree. If one does not find agreement, one has not looked deeply enough.Regards,Scott

OK. :)

If God performs miracles contrary to the standards of science, why is the virgin birth reasonable but walking on water and the resurrection not?

luna
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
OK. :)

If God performs miracles contrary to the standards of science, why is the virgin birth reasonable but walking on water and the resurrection not?

luna

Okay, walking on water and the resurrection are perfectly reasonable.

My only proviso is that when Jesus walked on the water it was with the resurrected spiritual body that the Apostles saw. That body was not corrupting flesh. It was something else. That is perfectly reasonable, it seems to me.

Regards,
Scott
 

lunamoth

Will to love
Okay, walking on water and the resurrection are perfectly reasonable.

My only proviso is that when Jesus walked on the water it was with the resurrected spiritual body that the Apostles saw. That body was not corrupting flesh. It was something else. That is perfectly reasonable, it seems to me.

Regards,
Scott

I agree completely and that seems quite reasonable. Thank you.

luna
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member

Greetings!

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

On the contrary, I've read the entire Bible, and studied it repeatedly (little as yo know it).

And the Bible does, in fact, say that the flesh inherits nothing!

(IOW, only the spirit ultimately counts.)

And other verses like "Let the dead bury the dead" reinforce this truth since they obviously make no sense if taken literally.

It's just as the Baha'i scriptures also make clear!:

"They that have gone astray have said: ‘When were the heavens cleft asunder?’ Say: ‘While ye lay in the graves of waywardness and error.’"
--Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 133

Best, :)

Bruce
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
Hi.

aying 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.


I'm sorry, but meaning no offense, this strikes me as pure, irrelevant quibble. You're the only person I've ever heard claim a theological distinction between "flesh and blood" and "flesh and bones."

Katzpur said:
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.

No: I'm not saying this.

Christ said it. (Or more accurately, John says He did.)

So it appears your argument is with Him, not me.

Anyway, I'll simply stipulate we have different understandings of the same book (which we regard as scripture, too) and leave it at that.

Peace,

Bruce
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
My only proviso is that when Jesus walked on the water . . .

Hi, Scott!

In fact, Twentieth-Century science has already addressed this!

One definite possibility for this story is the fact that in hot areas, mirages may happen which can bend light.

So it's possible that while the disciples saw what they took to be Jesus walking on the water, in fact He was walking on land farther away while the light rays were bent (and the area under Him seeming to shimmer like water) so that from their viewpoint, He did indeed appear to walk on water.

I'm not saying it happened that way--just that the possibility exists, as was demonstrated a few years ago.

Best regards, :)

Bruce
 

James the Persian

Dreptcredincios Crestin
Hi, Scott!

In fact, Twentieth-Century science has already addressed this!

One definite possibility for this story is the fact that in hot areas, mirages may happen which can bend light.

So it's possible that while the disciples saw what they took to be Jesus walking on the water, in fact He was walking on land farther away while the light rays were bent (and the area under Him seeming to shimmer like water) so that from their viewpoint, He did indeed appear to walk on water.

I'm not saying it happened that way--just that the possibility exists, as was demonstrated a few years ago.

Best regards, :)

Bruce

So the disciples were rowing a boat and fishing on a mirage? I've heard of stretching, but this one's more far fetched than the recent one about walking on floating ice. I have more respect for the complete dismissal of the recorded miracles entirely than I do for this sort of 'take a few details that fit, ignore vast swathes that don't, and then try to construct a scientific explanation' approach.

I'd also have to say that the idea that people living in the middle east in the first century wouldn't have been familiar with mirages and that fishermen, of all people, would be unable to distinguish between one and the Sea of Galilee, is remarkably insulting to them.

James
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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

This isn't exactly true. The creation (flesh) exists as long as God wants it to.
You are probably talking about human life during the temporal period. It is true of this flesh that it will eventually die. However during the reign of Christ, the body does not die and this is exemplified by the body of Jesus which for 2000 years has been in the heavens and will return at the end of this temporal period.

The Bible doesn't say exactly but I could speculate. I believe that Jesus had no intention of being crucified again, so He changed the appearance of the body at resurrection. This would also explain why Jesus found it necessary to wear the marks of the cross as identification.

Certainly you must have heard that some people have been able to levitate their bodies. If man has the power to do this what makes you think that God has less power to do it?

The obvious answer is that the wounds were healed and only the scars were left.

Why do you think that a spiritual encounter would convince Thomas? If Jesus were just a spirit Thomas could not have been convinced that the resurrection was real.

You might as well say that you don't have to pay any attention to what Mohammed or the Baha'u'llah said either because they weren't there.

If you need this you will have it soon but wouldn't it be better if you believe what God says before receiving the physical proof. Jesus said "you believe because you see, blessed are those who believe without seeing."
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
Because Jesus said the flesh was dust and the spirit eternal.Regards,Scott

Adam was created from the dust but His body was not subject to death. It was only when he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that his body became subject to death and even then the lifespan was much longer than what is currently the case.
 

BruceDLimber

Well-Known Member
If you take the story literally, quite possibly!

But we Baha'is don't.

And in fact, our scriptures give a completely different approach to the whole story!

Peace,

Bruce
 

Popeyesays

Well-Known Member
Adam was created from the dust but His body was not subject to death. It was only when he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil that his body became subject to death and even then the lifespan was much longer than what is currently the case.

The Genesis stories of Creation and there are TWO, not just one, is an allegory.

An allegory (like parables) is a story where the symbolic is vastly more important than the literal story being told. If you take allegories and parables literally you are ignoring the truth behind them.

Regards,
Scott
 
Top