Iconodule

I'm sorry you don't care aobut this, but I think this is an important issue, the meaning of Scripture is very crucial, is it as how the church for 2000 years has understood it? THe Glorification of Christ showing us the promise for the general ressurection? Or is it a metaphorical event which explains the Apostles faith? This is important and I think the Bahai should care just as much about this as the Christians should.

LordOfGoblins

I do care of course. But merry-go-arounds are only fun for so long arnt they.

Iconodule

This wasn't some sort of attempt of rhetoic by me to establish something, it was a thought out attempt to ask why are we to arrive at the conclusions of the Bahai when the text seems to indicate otherwise and gives no credence to the Bahai view that it can suddenly become literal and metaphorical at a moments notice? Are we to simply assume naturalism on part of the gospels? Well no we can't do that because the Virgin Birth is not a natural phenomena. Is there some sort of convention which marks the distinction between literal and metaphorical in the text? well no, It just doesn't seem to exist, we follow a chronolgy of Christ in his ministry and theres no hint of such a bahai idea. I simply don't see it in the gospels, rather I see it as an attempt by the Bahai founders to explain the ressurection in the popular thought of their own day.

tonyfish58

Study of this document is very rewarding

I am enjoying it immensely

Tablet of the Universe

Regards Tony

armin

Regarding the literal/metaphorical issue to me it's like saying that we can only use one form in our daily lives. Either everything we say has to be literal or everything has to be metaphorical. At this point in time I think it is clear enough that we can not interpret everything in our holy books literally. If that is not how some people see it then I'd say there's a bigger issue here than just discussing how scriptures should be interpreted.

Great answers have been given about the eternalness of creation, here's my go at it. Like LOG mentioned time does not apply to God. If we try to define the timeline of time itself for God we have to choose a single digit, like 1 for example. In that timeline there does not exist any other digits before or after it; it's a point. Asserting that there has to be a certain point in time in which the universe was created means there has to be two different sets of time separated by the event of creation. That itself means that there has to be a timeline in which God Himself is defined which is a fallacy.

It is somewhat difficult to wrap our heads around it but claiming a beginning for creation is defining God in human terms. To explain it crudely it's as though saying that there was a time in which God existed without any creation and at a certain moment God goes like huh! it's not such a bad idea to have creatures that would know me and love me! Claiming a beginning for creation means God made a decision at a certain point in a timeline that does not exist to create something. The God I have come to know does not make decision in such a manner, similar to us. The God I know has made all the decisions already all at once, all of them in that one digit eternal time.

A related subject is that our entire lives and the entire creation has already played out all of it's cards even though it exists in an infinite timeline. In other words we have already died and God knows all the events of our lives. Our will and decision making has been engineered and factored in beforehand. This is all of course saying the same thing as time does not exist for God. These are just different derivatives of that fact (this last part may be going too far for some, I'm not sure. These are solely my personal ideas though.)

Fadl

Iconodule,

This seems like a very sincere and fair question to ask, and I would like to answer it for you but feel it is impossible because of some premises that you hold very dearly. If what I believe the answers are are to be taken seriously by you and given real consideration, these premises that you hold up as unquestionable need to be questioned by you. Nobody should care about whether they are right or wrong to the detriment of truth. If I am wrong, it is no so much a problem as long as I can recognize this and move toward truth, and truth must be my aim.

It seems to me that you believe the word of God, specifically the Bible in your case, to be an accurate historical record of factual historical events. But if the Holy Bible is something different than a historical record then your belief in it as a historical record could become an obstacle to discovering its true message. I am not in the least suggesting that the Bible has no historical facts in it or that none of it really happened. I think that would be an extreme view. However, I do not think that the Bible is concerned with historical accuracy of physical human events, but rather with telling the greater spiritual drama that is interwoven with and between the lines of that which is historical.

If you could consider that point of view, at least to yourself, you might find that the Bible contains in its pages truth that is much deeper and more meaningful than historical truth.

Iconodule

I believe the genre of the Gospels to be specifically historical works. I am not and this is the last time I will repeat this, a biblical literalist in all things, I recognise that not all of the bible contains the same way of writing, style and genre, this is obvious to any one with a brain. The Gospels are written as if historical narratives, they while being mystical works which are for the salvation of the people of God (the church), are also historical in their narrative with few exceptions. Which is why it seems to not make much sense for sudden wholescale narrative changes without any indication. No one writes this way unless they are some sort of Post modernist wannabe.

Its like saying that the above paragraph I just wrote became metaphorical the moment I mentioned "The gospels are written as." it simply doesn't fit in.

arthra

Iconodule wrote:

The Gospels are written as if historical narratives, they while being mystical works which are for the salvation of the people of God (the church), are also historical in their narrative with few exceptions. Which is why it seems to not make much sense for sudden wholescale narrative changes without any indication. No one writes this way unless they are some sort of Post modernist wannabe.

Its like saying that the above paragraph I just wrote became metaphorical the moment I mentioned "The gospels are written as." it simply doesn't fit in.

My reply:

Iconodule wrote:

"The Gospels are written as if historical narratives..."

"as if" is not very historical.

Some uses of the term "creation" in the Baha'i Writings:

All originated from God and returneth unto Him: verily He is the Source of creation and the Goal of the worlds.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, A Traveller's Narrative, p. 83

Many people think that creation is a manifestation of God, that the divine reality like unto the embryo in a seed, has come forth out of the seed and become a trunk, branches, leaves, flowers.

The prophets teach differently. Creation is an emanation from the creator. It is impossible that the eternal should become limited. A tree never becomes a creature: it never acquires sight nor smell; yet both are creations of God - creations in emanation.

Creation is like the sunlight; God is the sun. This light comes forth from the sun; that does not mean that the sun has become the light. The light emanates from the sun.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 107

The world of creation has had no beginning and will have no end, because it is the arena upon which the attributes and qualities of the spirit are manifested. Can we limit God and his power? In the same manner we cannot limit his creations and attributes. Just as the reality of divinity is limitless, likewise his grace and bounties are limitless.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Divine Philosophy, p. 169

Iconodule

They are written as if they were Historical narratives. you have not proven contrary by quoting the writings of your religious founder. Whereas I can give demonstrations from the text showing the gospels were meant to be taken historically. They mention real names, places, times and events which is definite of historical literature of the time compared to say mystical or literature not intended to be historical.

Fadl

Actually, they are not. I invite you to go find any history book of any century of your choosing, to see how a historical narrative reads. By the way, there may be a lot of evidence of real names, places, and times in the Bible, but the evidence of events is scant. Do you think a true historical narrative is based primarily on names, places, times or is it primarily based on events?

Well, let's see.

1. In the 20th Century there was a city named Houston, and it was located in a the southern State of Texas. During the rule of President Bush, Houston was ruled by a Mayor named Bill White. Now Bill White was a wanton man who did not walk in the ways of the Lord. And the Lord caused the seas to churn as he was not pleased with his wanton wicked ways, and then a hot wind moved with the fury of the Lord and flooded the city, and when the inhabitants of Houston saw that the wickedness of Mayor White had brought them displeasure with the Lord, they turned their anger towards him and cast him out of the Town Hall.

2. In 2005 the gulf area experienced a major hurricane. Many major metropolitan areas experienced severe flooding. In the aftermath, many elected officials lost their elected positions as a consequence of their unsatisfactory flood relief efforts.


Be fair. Which one of the above reads more historical? I would suggest that even though narrative two is shorter and lacks specifics on names and places, that it is more historical than narrative one, which seems more concerned about the consequences of immorality in the view of the narrator.

tonyfish58

Did you read the document posted above re the original question?

It shows me how great was the knowledge of Abdul'baha, even though He attended no school.

I have to look up a lot of meanings of words used in this document just to have a minute understanding of what is being explained. His knowledge of historical philosophical topics is just "wow"

Regards Tony

Fadl

By the way, my account about the former mayor of Houston in no way reflects my actual views about him. I should have mentioned that.

Iconodule

Compare the works of the gospels to say the works of ancient greece in which there is a lack of detail of times names and places. Say compare the Illiad to the Gospel of Luke which has been admitted by scholars to be the most historical work within the New testament and that seems to have been the goal of the Author to describe the life and deeds of Christ to Theophilus, and makes no indication by on a grand scheme of not being a Historical work. In fact as noted by William Lane craig the very opening of the Gospel of Luke is composed in the style of how History was written of at the time, and then it shifts into a more general way of speaking and writing but is nontheless historical.

For Fadl, what difference is there that marks the difference between say the Death of Christ and his subsequent ressurection within the Gospels? is there a clear trend the Author intended to let us to say "This is not historical!" In fact the empty tomb, Christ eating hte fish, appearing to the apostles would utterly seem to contradict this idea and seem to make no sense in interpreting it in a gnostic or bahai context.

You say the evidence for the historical events in the gospels are scant, but that doesn't tell us they weren't written as if history, and quite simply this is wrong, there is coaboration as to know the details of the Gospels. For instance the name of the High priest of Jeruselum who spoke and interrogated Jesus, the Pontacrator of the time Pilate is also attested by archeology and other historians such as Josephus and Tacitus. William Ramsey who famously sought to disprove the gospel of Luke and Acts actually came to say that Luke was a Historian of the finest caliber. I see little justification for hte Bahai reading, and I think the Bahai must confess the Apostles didn't know how to write what they did because if they were truely as the bahai were (gnostics) they could have easily put it in gnostic terms, as the Later gnostics indeed did. So No I have to fundamentally dissagree the gospels were written as history, to chronicle the ministry of Jesus Christ to the believers, to know of his life, deeds, teachings and ressurection. It seems completely implausible the Apostles wrote from a Bahai perspective which as of then was none existant.

Iconodule

In my opinion school would have done alot for the aspiring prophet, particularly seminary and theology schools. It would have at least prepared him to write on topics in responce to the religions he criticised but also somehow affirmed.

Fadl

It would be easier for me to weigh the validity of your assertion if you supported it with some examples to support it.

Iconodule

I did give direct examples. I shall repeat them and give more.

Consider that there is outside coarboration for the Gospels from Tacitius and Josephus, whom mention Christ, And there is also Philo who also mentions Pontius Pilate. Josephus also tells of John the Baptist which is strongly in line with the Gospel narrative and this account and it's authenticity doesn't seem (to my knowledge) to be disregarded by anyone.

Jewish Antiquities (book 18, chapter 5, 2) by Flavius Josephus (37–100)

Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.

Now while they differ on the reasons as to why Herod had John the Baptist killed, that detail seems irrelevent as this seems to have been a truely historical event.

But As I am sure you are aware of the Josephus and Tacitus quote and the controversy surrounding them, I will not bother to quote them (they are easily found with a quick search) but offer a brief defense on why I think Josephus's (which is the one mostly to be attacked in accords with its authenticity) is accurate. It would seem there is no good reason for the Christians to invent this saying in Josephus's manuscripts, except maybe the positive portions which say "he was the Christ" Which I think anyone will have to accept as a forgery. But it seems less obvious as to why anyone would think to add the phrase "So called" Which indicates a level of authenticity we would expect in a jewish historian who did not accept Christ. But even then both still admit to the existance of Pilate and Christ within their historical works.

Now I think attestation outside of the bible is ultiamtely irrelevent here though important for uncovering the historical truths of the bible, it is not the subject. the Subject is, what genre were the gospels written in? And I suggest history. And I have given my examples as to why. Throughout the gospels we have constant mentions of names and places and events which would place Christ in a definite time in history, I don't believe documents existed that did this at this time by jews that put people into historical places but did not happen. you would need to provide an example of this. I will be the first to admit I am no expert on this matter, but where did this view that the gospels are not historical ultimately come from? Was it the view of those who read the gospels first? No it doesn't seem to be. Undoubtably the Gospels are first and formost a teaching book, used to educate the faithful on matters of Jesus's teachings, but we cannot ignore the parts which give context to these teachings, they are written in the context of his ministry so the context seems to be crucially important in understanding what Jesus had to say. I suppose it would be best to compare the gospels to the works of the gnostics, which are so fanciful and non historical they are really considered historical by no one, prime example is a particular Gospel attributed to that of Peter which has the Cross talk, and compare this to the rather humble scene of the ressurection, which has women be the first witnesses. And its difficult to see what metaphorical value that has, that women whom to the apostles probably might not have been considered the best witnesses were considered the first witnesses to the empty tomb. That is why historians accept the idea of the empty tomb, its historically undeniable given the culture surrounding women at the time (women were not considered valid witnesses by Jews, their opinion at best was worth little).

So ultimately I don't think it is up to me to establish the gospels as historical works, I think I have done this and many others have, I think its rather obvious when one reads the gospels with critical eyes and considers how it is written, they were written as history.

For instance the bahai would have us believe the VIrgin birth narrative is literal. okay. But what distinguishes the Virgin Birth narrative from the ressurection narrative? Or Jesus raising Lazerus? Its a difficult case to make, which is why I don't envy the Bahai who choose to continue believing this idea. I can only submit that as Bahai I think you have to say that the meaning of the gospels were hidden for two thousand years until your prophet came and understood them for us. But then again that just raises more problems which aren't relevent here.

Another point to continue on regarding the narratives, we see people and places mentioned during the ressurection narrative which place Christ within a definite timeline. For instance the High priest Caiaphas who interrogated Jesus, then Pontius Pilate and then mentions of the empty tomb, Christ eating fish and appearing to the desciples as if he were physical. Where is the change in all of this? When does it suddenly become Ahistorical? When the Supernatural events occur? THen why say the Virgin Birth narrative is historical and actual? Ultimately the Bahai have to accept that this is just the interpretation of their founder and they have to realise that within the text itself there is no way to justify this understanding, unless we have the author or someone appointed by God and has God reveal the true message to him, as teh bahai can. You ultimately have to accept the words of Baha'u'llah as critical investigations won't help you demonstrate this.

LordOfGoblins

I think Fadls point was that it comes through the lense of a biased observer (the disciples) and thus cannot be counted as a true historical recount. Now if the resurrection was described as a literal thing and seen by the masses who supposedly were there to witness him going into the sky, then why was that not recorded by the scribes and historians of his time?
I am not against CHristianity of course, but as Bahai we do think parts of the gospels are symbolic.

Iconodule

Bahai constantly tell me they affirm the Gospels as true scripture of God, but it is statements like these that make me question this teaching or at least make me question that the Bahai are not clear on their position about this. My concern is not the historicity of the Gospels themselves (something which can be easily demonstrated mind you) but rather the intent of the Gospels authors. As you said Bahai consider it symbolic, yet you must accept the the virgin birth narrative as authentic and historic (since the quran and your founders affirm this). So we are left with the question what distinguishes in the gospels, the symbollic from the literal? How does the Gospel author ensure we understand certain aspects much be symbolic and other aspects Historic? Was the intent to write wisdom literature comparable to that of the gnostics with parts being historical? Or was it all historical as I say it was. I simply suggest that the bahai understanding begs an explanation if you do not accept the explanation I gave to you. That is the true meaning of the gospels was utterly unknown for two thousand years till one man came and corrected it.

LordOfGoblins

I am not sure that any Bahai here really knows a great answer to that question but I might be surprised. I can speculate but I have a feeling that you will reject my observations. So to just summaries what I feel as short as possible I will say that I dont think the authors were predjudice what I meant was it came through their filter to mankind. It was "engineered" (my own choice of word) by God through the inspired apostles in order to bring people to Jesus.
I dont know the history well enough to say what exactly happened here or when though. There are hints in some answered questions though that throw real doubt to the idea of interpreting all the events literally. I can give you links if you are still interested...

One small insight I can share though from my study of the Bahai writings that happened upon me recently would be this. Abdul'Baha says that the resurrection was a "true resurrection". It is an interesting choice of words dont you think? Considering that he describes the ressurection as not being literal. Why would he use that word? My thoughts is that it is because sometimes the symbolic is more true and real than the literal. For example. If someone gains inner sight, that is "true sight". If someone gains eternal life in the kingdom of God (raising the dead), that is "true life" and "true raising of dead". Wheras if someone gains physical sight that is not "true sight" because it is perishable and earthly sight.
So you see, from this perspective, if we have the authors teaching from a spiritual standpoint, they are describing true
events exactly as they transpire, but with spiritual meanings or in fact, in the spiritual world in a sense. In other words, it is a spiritual text interwoven with physical literally happenings. So you see, nothing is ultimately lost to the text by taking the events to be spiritual, in fact much is gained and the text is justified as being a spiritual one rather than being just a mythology.

Iconodule

I have to repeat my concern. I am not against taking the bible as a spiritual document, the ultimate concern of scripture is to demonstrate salvation to corrupt and lolwly sinners such as myself, but I am also equally concerned with the historicity and I think it does a diservice if it can be demonstrated that the Gospel authors intended things to be understood as history, and then to say its not history. Because somethings would ultimately be lost.

Consider the ressurection narrative, if they considered this a true event and you consider it only a spiritual event, it seems to me you have missed out on a crucial event which tells us the flesh is not something to be disposed of but will ultimately be glorified by God, refuting the Dualistic and Gnostic ideas of the body vs the soul. So things are missed out on a purely spiritual reading if the authors intended it to be historical as well as spiritual.

LordOfGoblins

Perhaps the danger then in not seeing the spiritual aspect is you arrive at such doctrines as the above.
The flesh is not something to be disposed of?
We can go into that statement if you like but really it makes no sense when you consider how people are born and die and go into the next world without their bodies.
I do not believe our physical bodies are a spiritual thing.

tonyfish58

Then I will take that as a no

I will bid you farewell

Regards Tony

InvestigateTruth

In my understanding, Logic or Science is what distinguishes the symbolic parts from the literal parts.

For example, falling stars at the end of Age, as explained by AbdulBaha logically, is symbolic, because the logic / science cannot accept, those huge stars fall on the earth. You may want to read, Some Answered Questions, for details of this and many other verses of Bible, if you haven't done so yet.

In Baha'i View, the Author of Gospel, had left the True understanding of the Bible to be revealed at the second coming of Christ at the end of Age.



There are just many parts of the Bible that would suggest the above.
Quotations upon request.

InvestigateTruth

"The understanding of His words and the comprehension of the utterances of the Birds of Heaven are in no wise dependent upon human learning. They depend solely upon purity of heart, chastity of soul, and freedom of spirit."

-Baha'u'llah, Book Of Iqan

spirit

The bible is an esoteric book the reason it is not written directly for our understanding is because it is supposed to stir the spiritual reality within us. If it was written in black and white....man could easily distort it to mean whatever he wanted, and as it is, that is being done.
That is why is is written metaphorically....I personally don't believe any part of the bible is literal and if it is, what of it, how does that make me a better person? I want to understand the spiritual meaning so I know what I need to learn to grow spiritually.
As far as Bahai, I thought that Bahai's believed in metaphorical meaning of all scripture, but I could be wrong...And when I heard they believed the virgin birth I was very confused.....I'm not sure if Bahais have an answer as to why this is....

LordOfGoblins

Its a difficult topic. This is how I see it.
It is mostly metephorical when talking about certain symbols like clouds resurrection and others I cant think of atm cos I havent read the bible in ages...
So what we have is those spiritual things with the "very rare" miricle now and again. A little like how Baha'u'llah explains it that miracles are not to be emphasised or Gods religion would be a magicians show for children. It would be a joke basically. A carnival display for petty entertainment... That is something worth pondering on to consider why he says that.
That being said. I dont think the Bahai should vehemently claim things like the story of giving sight to the blind as being spiritual. It may be spiritual, we dont know unless it is said so in the writings. And because the manifestation of God has the power to do that we have no real way of knowing if it is spiritual or physical. Sometiems though you can get clues from the text that it was a metephorical verse. Like in the village when everyone gets up and starts walking (ie raises the dead of the village), it would seem like a much more meaningful verse if it is interpreted to be spiritual.
Otherwise why were those people of that village brought back to physical life? What real purpose does it serve?
What about other villages where Jesus doesnt visit?
But if it is spiritual then you can say. Well the message can spread to other villages and the dead become re-awakened just as well as Jesus did it in that village.
So you see, gotta think about these things...

arthra

Baha'is do believe the Bible should be interpreted spiritually and allegorically:

By the help of this effulgent Light all the spiritual interpretation of the Holy Writings has been made plain, the hidden things of God's Universe have become manifest, and we have been enabled to comprehend the Divine purposes for man.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Paris Talks, p. 70

Unless we perceive reality, we cannot understand the meanings of the Holy Books, for these meanings are symbolical and spiritual

~ Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 245

"Concerning the resurrection of Christ, he wishes to call your attention to the fact that in this as well as in practically all the so-called miraculous events recorded in the Gospel we should, as Bahá'ís, seek to find a spiritual meaning and to entirely discard the physical interpretation attached to them by many of the Christian sects. The resurrection of Christ was, indeed, not physical but essentially spiritual, and is symbolic of the truth that the reality of man is to be found not in his physical constitution, but in his soul. A careful perusal of the Íqán' and of the 'Some Answered Questions' makes this indubitably clear."

(From a letter written to an individual believer on behalf of the Guardian, August 14, 1934)

~ Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 492


As far as the virgin birth it is not viewed in the same way as say in a Christian context.

Consider what Abdul-Baha said about the subject:

A great man is a great man, whether born of a human father or not. If being without a father is a virtue, Adam is greater and more excellent than all the Prophets and Messengers, for He had neither father nor mother. That which causes honor and greatness is the splendor and bounty of the divine perfections.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 89

Nor is the virgin birth held up as a creed to be accepted as it is in Christian churches.

It is only from the dogmas and creeds of the churches that we dissociate ourselves; not from the spirit of Christianity.

~ Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 159

Orthodox

Who cares about that stuff? I suppose people who actually want to know what the text says. Do you want to know what the text says? Then I suggest you do really care about this. But do you really think my life is pointless because I try to understand the gospel which I am told Bahais hold in high esteem and veneration over and over again? Is that really a waste of time?

Edit (Oops I really havent been here in a long time)

But investigate truth you say something interesting that the Meaning of the New testament was hidden from Christians for 2000 years. Now why is this the case? Why give us a book? Which John says so that we might know Christ and be saved (perhaps thats not what he really meant) and have no one understand it? But what do you mean by the second coming of Christ? Wasn't Muhammad the Christ? Isn't Christ just an office? Don't all manifestations have the office of Christ? So shouldnt it be by the coming of the 9th Christ?

spirit

Log what? we don't know unless it says so in the writings? Baha'u'llah doesn't say in the writings this means this and that means that. Esoteric is hidden....therefore only certain people can "see" the truth, that is metaphorically inserted in the scripture. Independent investigation....means I know from myself, not because I read ten thousand books and found it too be true. But because the truth is within me, and I have recognized the truth in scripture.
"The kingdom of heaven is within"
How do we "see"? We are blind correct? Blind because we have a veil which is our ego that we are afraid to live without, and when we are blind we are dead/sleeping. When we wake up, become reborn, we have learned to live looking towards the light, not towards the veil that has blinded us. That is what the New testament is teaching us, it is a book that teaches us about our nature.
So I'm not sure what you feel clouds, resurrection and other symbols represent?
All scripture is about levels we can achieve, Bah'u'llah and all the prophets great and small have taught this from the beginning of time.

LordOfGoblins

Yah.

In other words. If a miricle happens in the bible which Bahais choose to say is not a miricle but is in fact a spiritual event, that is something the Bahais can say but cannot know for sure unless it is in the writings.
For example. Abdul'Baha says the resurrection is spiritual. Resurrection is a symbol that is always spiritual in significance (which is what he says himself). So whenever someone dies and comes back that is always a spiritual thing.

HOWEVER

Lets take for example the curing of a disease. Baha'u'llah also cured a man of disease as well in a physical way. So do we therfore say that Baha'u'llahs cure of that disease (which I can find the story if you want), was a literal thing wheras Jesus curing of disease was a spiritual thing??
It is a confusing way to teach Christians if you want to start saying you know for sure if it was or wasnt (without really knowing the full story there).

So you see. How can you say this one was spiritual and this one was not spiritual without really being there at the time for certain?
All you can really say is either what is in the writings (ie what Abdul'Baha says is this or that from the bible), or use your own insight and understanding which is fine too, as long as you dont impose it on other people, about ones which are not always covered in the writings. What we do know is the very vast majority of the events are spiritual. And we do have a confirmed non-spiritual literal one in the writings which is the virgin birth...

I hope I make sense...

"Baha'u'llah doesn't say in the writings this means this and that means that. Esoteric is hidden"
Actually... Have you read the kitabe-Iqan or Some answered questions. Plenty of explanations there about those symbols...

LordOfGoblins

Yes but What I am saying is. A manifestation of God has the power to literally cure physical blindness and disease. So how can you rule these miricles out of the question unless it is in the writings to rule them out of the question (like it is for the resurrection).

spirit

where do you get the idea that a manifestation can literally cure the blindness and disease? That is not physically possible first of all, the person can become enlightened, so to speak and be cured from the holy spirit within if that is what you mean...

LordOfGoblins

THis is a good place to start why I think so. There is more evidence of course but maybe we can leave it to another thread cos its abit off topic...
http://reference.bahai.org/en/t/ab/SAQ/saq-22.html

InvestigateTruth

I think we spent a fair amount of time dicussing these...but, basically, Bible contains both literal and metaphors. It also contains many spiritual teachings, and even laws, which have been understood correctly by Christians.
So, I am not sure why you would say the whole Bible was not understood for 2000 years. Only certain parts of it, were not meant to be understood, as they have mostly to do with return of Christ, which God wanted that to be hidden untill the time comes.
But many part of Bible which was meant and ordained by God as a guidance for centuries, was understood by Christians for many centuries, and was a guidance for them.
The term "second coming" is probably not mentioned in Bible or Quran. But rather the term "return" is used (if i am not mistaking)...So, in this sense, every Manifestation, is the return of all Manifestations of the past. their first, is their last, and their last is their first. "I am the first and the last"

spirit

its even more confusing when you say this is spiritual and this is literal I believe that is interpreting the writings....
That is enough to confuse a Christian.
I understand to some extent what you are saying, but your not giving yourself any credit?! Your just saying look to the writings.
Well look to any scripture and then look to your self and the answers are right there.
I've heard Bahais say we will never reach a high of a station as the manifestations. Well why in the world would you say that? That is very discouraging....and it doesn't speak of spiritual growth. Our time here is to reach for the stars, to independtly investigate our own nature, to see that we do not live from what is true within us. We are divided not only as a nation but individually in our being. We are not two, we are one, but we are under the illusion that we have a separate entitiy that is separate from others and this is why we argue over what this and that means.
To teach metaphorically and then say but this and that doesn't make sense and Christians pick up on that....
And I have read some of Some answered questions but that isn't the point, the point is my understanding can only take me so far and I can only teach as much as I understand on my spiritual level, the mind tends to want to make spiritual things literal and then meaning gets twisted.

Orthodox

Spirit do you know what you are saying is in par with what the ancient Gnostics said about their texts? That salvation was found by proper gnosis (knowledge) of a text and then they were essentially saved? Those who preserved the New testament ( the church Christ established ) felt they were able to read and interpret the Bible as it was given to them with tradition. It seems so pointless to give us a book which cannot be read for 2000 years (no one understood the bible in the bahai understanding till Mirza and Abbas came) so what am I as a Christian supposed to feel about your statements? Perhaps I can say the bahai have not been able to understand the words OF Mirza and Abbas and in fact since this seems to be a recurring theme throughout bahai history (Immediate corruption of understanding after the prophets die) I suggest the bahai are in the same position the ancient evil Christians who thought they were doing their God given duty as well as the Muslims and anyone else.

And I say the bible must not have been understood for 2000 years because Christians throughout history have continuously never accepted the bahai ideas which are more

LordOfGoblins

Well this is what works for me.
But if everything in the bible was to be taken always metephorically then I wouldnt have suggested what I did. However the virgin birth was a literal miracle event...
I dont think you have understand my point about investigating the events. I was simply suggesting a methedolligy to help understand if the events could be spiritual or physical. This is so we can get better insights into the inner meanings of the bible, not so we can go around saying this was definately literal and this was definately not literal, as we have no way of knowing for sure because we were not there (which is what I implied).
cheers

LordOfGoblins

There are levels of understandings...
You are not totally wrong in saying a spiritual event is just physical. However it does denote a somewhat lack of insight on the part of all CHristians who fail to see how the gospels are a text that relate to spirituality rather than just a story like Norse Mythology, which mind you could also be taken as a religion too if you like...

Orthodox

See I'm not against understanding it spiritually. The Gospels are not primarily written for simply recording the life of Christ (which they do) they are also written for teaching people about the truth of existence, Christ's sacrifice and what it meant and many other spiritual truths. The resurrection is a spiritual thing but it is also physical and that's what the text says, like it or lump it. The gospels are not Mythological literature I have tried to explain this many times but Instead I just get the same responce and assertion.

LordOfGoblins

Those truths are not really what I am talking about. Yes you can say there is spiritual truth in the death and sacrifice of Jeuss and all those things are a part of CHritistian common understandings and passed down without a needing a great deal of thought or reflection.
But the Bahai faith suggests a far greater level is required. That those symbols in the gospels have a spiritual significance is something which cannot be applied if you simply take the event as a literal thing and choose not to consider it beyond that.
All you can really say in the Christian understanding is a man came who possessed great power to perform great miricles. That he came from God and could perform these wonders. Then there are the words of Christ himself, which if you also choose to just take at face-value, can never fully have the meaning that they might if you see that they are to be taken as more than face-value.
I dont think you understand the concept of spiritual at least not in the way we do...
And if you claim that you have no problem with taking a spiritual stance on the gospels then you shoudlnt really have any problems with the Bahai perspective at all I should imagine...