ahanu

You have a book from one of Jesus' first disciples? St. Peter?! Or do you mean the Book of Peter? Could you quote, please?

ahanu

How do you know that Church Father was taught by the apostle John?

ahanu

Perhaps you would like to provide textual evidence that indicates these claimed parallels. If you don't, I'm afraid I can't take you seriously.

Iconodule

Church history indicates this from St Iraneaus and the like. And I see no good reason so as to think this is completely wrong. It certaintly a more valid source of early Christian understanding than that of Origen, whom was sincere but misguided. Now if you are not aware of the quote from Saint Peter's epislte (which we are told Bahai supposebly believe unless you reject this part also about what your perfect manifestation of a prophet tuaght) then we find in St Peter's epistle this.

He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
2 Peter 3:16

No doubt you will question the authorship of this following the liberal scholars whom would deny the very teahcing of your own prophet, but I do think from church tradition and history there is good reason to accept the authorship of this text and no comparatively good reasons to utterly deny it.

As for the regards of St Paul's understanding, I can only reccomend once more NT Wright and his work the "ressurection of the son of God" Which I am currently reading, perhaps i'll give you a responce when i've learnt the man who actually knows the time period of 2nd temple judaism and even before that.

ahanu

That is nice, but I would like to see the source. A quote, please.

ahanu

Seems guided to me. Paul talks about two gospels: one for the simpletons and one for the adults (1 Cor. 3.1; 1 Cor. 2.6-7). The simpletons don't know the mysteries. According to Origen, the Book of Tobit says: "'It is good to keep the king's mystery a secret', but respectable and fitting 'to honorably reveal the works of God' to the multitude with what is 'conveniently' true." The Book of Tobit was written before the Gospels. Psalms 50 relates a similar concept: "The unseen and secret things of Your wisdom You have made visible to me." In the Gopsels, Jesus reveals the inner meaning of his parables to his disciples, and he does not reveal them to the crowd, so we should take Origen's concept seriously. I would like to hear arguments against Origen's idea. Just brushing him aside as a later commentator who was "misguided" does not do this intelligent Church Father justice.

That is irrelevant to the discussion.

What does 2 Peter 3.16 have to do with Paul?!

Just make sure you don't make NT Wright's erroneous mistakes.

ahanu

Yes, but you implied Baha'is believe the body is evil in a previous post. Why else would you mention that Christians did not believe the body to be evil in that context?

Sorta. I still showed Baha'is do not believe the body is evil.

ahanu

Be careful. You may find NT Wright does not uphold your beliefs either. For example, do you literally believe in Matthew's raising of many saints in Matthew 28? And what do you believe about Jesus' second coming?

arthra

Ahanu,

Thanks for sharing the "Source Code"! I loved it!

LordOfGoblins

THe problem with this topic is people can go around in circles. Especially when talking with thsoe who like debating and oneupmanship.
Anyway the idea iconodule presented about God not being able to enter non-existance I agree with. I am not sure about calling whatever is logically impossible but I would agree that things cannot depart from their nature. If Gods nature is power and absolute existance then it makes sense to say that he cannot enter the realm of weekness and non-exstance. THat is also confirmed in the Bahai writings. I am not sure if you would call that tradational "logic" or not, but you can be comfortable in the knowledge that that idea is confirmed in teh writings...

ahanu

As I said before, maybe. I'm unsure at the moment. I'm still waiting for you answer to my previous question:

So how do you view the law of noncontradiction in the light of Einstein's theory of relativity?

Doesn't "at the same time" presuppose a clockwork universe, which is an outdated worldview?

LordOfGoblins

When you go outside of the reference of God though things become more relative. That is why you can say an object is both powerful and week. POsseses power and weekness. Because those are relative definitions right?
Weekness is the absense of power but even power is a relative measure. Therfore if a man is powerful he is still week relative to God.
So by that definition can we say he is both powerful and not powerful? I would say yes since all things are measured relative and the only absolute is God himself.
I hope therefore you begin to see how religious truth is brought relative to mans capacity and will never have the tools to describe absolute truth as it is held by God.

Iconodule

Now I did not imply the bahai believe the body is evil, while I think such an idea does naturally flow from Dualism and into thoughts such as Gnosticism and Doceticism I clarified and suggested that at its base it means the Spiritual is superior to the body. Now you can ignore my clarification I don't care but I won't be charged of falsely saying something.
Now very clearly you have not read the epistle of St Peter because if you had you would know he is fully speaking of Saint Peter in the previous verse (Which it seems you didn't even bother to look up and read)
"And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, has written to you:"
That is the very verse before hand explaining the context of the latter, so please dont say this has nothing to do with Saint Paul as it very clearly and firmly does. Thus we have to ask ourselves whom were the ones more likely to misunderstand what the apostles had to say? Especially saint Paul? Those whom were raised within First century Judaism and understood the ressurection as Physical and that there were other terms which could have been used should they so desire to make it clear? Or Gentiles whom were influenced by Platonism and Greek pagansim which held that death was a place of no return and full of sorrow, a half existence although apparently there were also court cases in Hades (amusingly enough) or in the case of Platonism which held that to die was essentially a good thing and that the existence in the spiritual realm was of much great signifficance than any life which could be found on earth? I suggest it was the gentile whom would have misunderstood Christianity moreso, because even amongst the Jewish heretics who claimed to follow Jesus Christ they never sought to deny the ressurection of the dead, and those whom were directly taught by the apostles never denied this either.
Now I think my opinion on mathew 28 needs more research into it, I don't think it is in the realm of impossibility that it should happen or that ti shouldn't I simply don't know enough, but regardless of that we have to understand the distinction and why Saint Paul says Christ is the first fruits of the ressurection clearly knowing of case (we can assume) of when Christ brought those out from the dead into the world of the living, because he was the first one to be generally raised into a glorified state as per the Old testament prophecy I believe in Daniel or messiah speaking on this that all people shall be raised some to glory and some to damnation.
Now at the same time implies only that it is during the same period in which something can occur. For instance can God (recognising of course God is outside of the boundries of time and space and matter) become non existent and existent at the same time? The answer seems obvious that no he cannot for non existence means by its very word non being thus a non being cannot be existent and non existent at the same time. But if we are to accept the view that the Logically possible is true I think we lead ourselves to all sorts of logical problems and we render this reality and what we know virtually subjective in all things which may actually benefit the Bahai. For Instance God could have made it so that Jesus was physically raised from the dead and that this was true, but when Muhammad came along he changed his mind and said Jesus did not actually die thus rendering it, if God is capable of doing anything including the logically impossible then God can do this, but it causes a problem as to the validity of such a model. I think Logic is an attribute of God, flowing from God's wisdom or word from all eternity so that it is binding and authoritative not subjective and arbitrary which follows from a God who can make the logically contradictory. Say a Square circle or a married Bachalor.
Now this whole thing of relativity needs to be settled. Relative to whom doesn't seem to be important the truth of the actual matter at hand is whats important. Who was right the early Christian or the early muslim who contradicted each other on the nature of God? If we are to accept such a view that relativity makes someone right then both were right, according to their own view but in actuality (according to the Bahai) both were right, to a certain extent despite the contradiction.
Now please explain how General relativity as a scientific Theory fits into this, does the theory in of it self propose that we can have Object A possess property B and not possess property B at the same time?

LordOfGoblins

Certainly it is foolish I think to assert that a statement is always either 100% accurate or 0% accurate especially when talking about religious understandings.
A relative truth is still a truth. My point is that it is a truth according to the condition of the people it is given.
A fuller truth always comes when the mind becomes more advanced. The analogy in Bahai is given of a child advancing though school. The teacher brings to educate the children with truth. Now are those teachers lying or being deceptive or not doing their job because the children are not given year 12 maths when they are in year one? That is the same as how it works for the advancement of humanity.

Iconodule

So the statements of Jesus and Baha'u'llah are not absolutely correct, I am begining to deny this idea we can't know anything 100% but only be reasonably certain of things as it seems to me if we do believe in the divine and an objective reality there is no reason to have this rather materialistic idea of things.

But it seems to me a relative truth is only a truth in so much as it describes the person that believes it. For we can certaintly know it is not moral to murder and the person who believes in this is profoundly sick, in need of some real help and why is that? Because we recognise such a person is wrong thus why society would condemn such a person.

ahanu

It could have been read to imply you believe the body is evil. You wrote:

On a fundmantal level the early CHristians contradict the Bahai, consider the high view of the body within Christinaity, the body is not something that is evil in Christianity, Christianity has never been dualistic Like the bahai has (Bahai seem to me to clearly affirm the spiritual is greater than the physical)

Anyway, since you have clarified your position, I will drop this issue. Sometimes I write sloppy too, but please try to be more careful in the future with your writing and how others may interpret what you are saying.

Sigh. I wish you would not talk down to me. You do know 2 Peter was not written by St. Peter, right? Just because it claims to be Simon Peter does not mean it is Simon Peter writing that epistle.

It doesn't, because it is not Paul's writing. First, you're trying to harmonize the Bible, saying the epistle of Peter reflects Paul's views. This is pure speculation. Second, you would have to show how 2 Peter 3.16 explicitly expresses how a spiritual view of the resurrection "twists" scripture. I could very well say Christians twist scripture when taking Old Testament scriptures out of context, and then quote 2 Peter 3.16, which would prove nothing.

LordOfGoblins

I try not to think in terms of correct and incorrect. Rather deeper and more illumined understandings which describe reality more "fully". As that is all truth is right? The deeper you go the more you can describe truth. But since you are not God you can never grasp or describe it completely.

THe problem with saying you can possess absolute truth is that it leeds to arrogance and wars and fighting. If you consider the value in peoples statements and measure the amount of truth in them you begin to see all people merely in a process towards advancing themselves by gaining a more full understanding of things. I think this is a much better way to live life than bickering with people with dont subscribe 100% to your "absolute truth" ideas.

Someone can be completely incorrect and think their ideas are true. That is not what I mean by relative truth though. I mean truth that is still true but relatively not the complete truth.

ahanu

Not all Jews in the first century believed life after death consisted of a resurrected flesh. Check hellenized Jews during the first century. Also, check out the Essenes, a group John the Baptist was probably very, very closely associated with. It seems to me that, considering their close connection with John the Baptist, the Essenes would better understand what life after death meant in a Christian context. Essenes, if some accounts such as Josephus' are correct, believed in spiritual survival after death.

I think pagans would most likely misunderstand what Paul was saying.

As for the terms Paul use, he definitely does not sound like an "orthodox" Christian and Rabbinical Jews. Instead of emphasizing the continuity of the body like they do, Paul emphasizes how different the two bodies will be. Paul never says anything like Justin Martyr, who said "the resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh that died." All Paul had to do was insert a single pronoun ("the same") into 1 Corinthians 15.44 to make it sound like that, but he doesn't. Paul never uses Daniel 12.2, Isaiah 26.19, or Ezekiel 37. 5-10, but orthodox Christians and Rabbinical Jews do. Paul does not use their analogies and metaphors (like claymolding).

Also, many uses of the word anastasis (resurrection) are ambiguous. Arguing the meaning of anastasis was restricted to mean a physical resurrection is an unsound argument, because the reference is too few in the first century, and again, to ambiguous.

Yeshua

Dear brother Ahanu,

I think that you are a consummate debater! I am enjoying your recent discussions with brother Iconodule.

I would like to interject and offer some thoughts. First on Paul's "Pharisaism", in my initial post.

Ahanu, you referred to the passage from Philippians in which Saint Paul used the word "rubbish". I do not see this as referring to his Pharisaic beliefs but rather more as an affirmation that compared with the light of the knowledge of Christ, all things in the world are accounted as "rubbish" by him, even everything that he formerly knew. Its surely a metaphorical, hyperbolic expression that one should not interpret "literally" as its an attempt to emphasise the incomparable greatness of Christ above all other things in the world. Paul was oft given to hyperbole and exaggeration ie he at one point in Galatians encourages those of the circumcision faction who teach that Gentiles must circumcise if they are to be true followers of Christ to "castrate themselves". This is of course humour, and cannot be taken literally.

By Paul's own admission he is a Pharisee (not "was").


He admits proudly before the gathered Sanhedrin judging him - a Council composed of Pharisees and Sadducees - that he is a Pharisee and is "on trial" because of his belief in the Pharisaic resurrection of the dead which results in him gaining the support of the pharisee wing of the council:


"...Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead..." (Acts 23:6)


Now, it should be noted that one must use the Book of Acts positively as a source of information on the Apostle Paul's beliefs but also critically; his Letters must be given primacy as representative of his thinking since the author of Acts, despite being an accomplice of Paul, is considered by certain scholars as sometimes being at odds with the Epistles in terms of certain historical facts although not in theology eg Paul reports that King Aretas of the Nabateans was the one out to get him in 2 Corinthians; Luke says in Acts that it was the Jews. In recognition of these assumed inconsistencies, the Letters should be given primacy as indicatives of Paul's thought, with the Book of Acts used as a secondary source (since it is Luke's memories and reflections on Paul's life and teachings, as opposed to Paul's Letters which are the words of the Apostle himself). In terms of Pauline Letters I would include Colossians and Ephesians as "Pauline Letters" even though they are disputed (unlike the Pastorals which were definetly not written by Paul), I firmly believe that Colossians is Pauline and whilst I do not believe that Ephesians in its current state was authored by Paul I do support the scholarship of Cormac Murphy O'Conner in this regard when he says that underneath Ephesians is a re-working of an earlier Pauline Letter, that of the Epistle to the Laodiceans.

To say the least, the Book of Acts tells us what Paul's accomplices, disciples and associates believed about him which is powerful testimony given that Acts was written according to Norman Geisler in 60-62 AD; Donald Guthrie in 62-64 AD and by other scholars slightly later in the second half of the first century. Paul's traditional date of death is AD 67. Acts is thus a key, possibly contemporary source (Note that it does not provide us with Paul's death in Rome) and at the very least eyewitness testimony for a large part of Paul's life, even if written between 10-20 years after his death. One can surmise that in addition to his own memories, and his plethora of other available source material, Luke would have made full use of Paul's missing Letters and other writings (in addition to recorded speeches).

St Paul's statement in Acts, that he is a "Pharisee" is corroborated by his Letters In fact, in his letter to the Philippians during his imprisonment in Rome, the apostle speaks about his heritage as a source of pride:


Philippians 3:5
Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;


This is surely not the view of one who now considers his previous religious situation as "rubbish" now is it brother Ahanu?

The eminent European scholar Martin Hengel has wisely observed:


"...Let us plunge straight in and begin with Paul's origins. It must be stressed quite emphatically...that in his own testimonies, in the letters, the Pharisee connected with Jewish Palestine stands in the foreground, to whom Jerusalem seems to be more important than anywhere else. Only from Luke do we learn that he came from Tarsus, the capital of Cilicia, and that he was a citizen of both Tarsus and Rome. Paul the author of the letters no longer thinks this part of his past worth mentioning; it seems to him to be much more remote than his time as a Pharisee in Palestine..."


As Hengel observes, in writing his epistles Paul himself never feels that it is even "worth mentioning" that he is a Roman citizen who was born in Tarsus. But New Testament scholars have emphasized what Paul did consider worthy of mention. His cultural heritage as a Pharisee of the Pharisees, a Hebrew of the Hebrews is prominent in the apostle's self image. The reference to Hebrew must surely refer to language. Paul probably spoke Hebrew as his mother tongue. According to Acts 21:40, Paul spoke Hebrew to a Jerusalem crowd. Why did they suddenly want to listen? I believe that they wanted to hear what he had to say because he spoke to them in a beautiful Hebrew which sounded like the language of a native of Jerusalem. The Greek word in the text of Acts refers to the Hebrew language, in spite of the wrong translation in the New International Version where they have quite incorrectly rendered it Aramaic.

I am an adherent in some respects to what is known in scholarship as the "New Perspective on Paul" and in other respects, I am not. This "New Perspective" is the emerging scholarly consensus which demonstrates that Paul was a faithful Pharisaic Jew who believed in the validity both of the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. I am aware that you position yourself more along the lines of the "Old Perspective" (vis-a-vis Paul's relationship with Judaism) and with Carrier (vis-a-vis the issue of bodily resurrection). I am cool with that, so long as you accept one thing: Paul, needless to say, was not a "Christian" in any modern sense of the term. He was a Jew. You do not believe he was a Pharisaic Jew, but please never disengage him from Judaism. I am not saying you are, but its something I often find with people outside the New Perspective and I think that its quite ahistorical. Paul existed within the milieu of Second Temple Judaism. Let our focus remain there.

As Eisenbaum explains:

"...it is obvious that Paul played a critical role in the development of Christianity and that his letters are regarded as an essential part of the Christian canon [...] But [...] Paul is unambiguously Jewish – ethnically, culturally, religiously, morally, and theologically..."

Let us never make the mistake of later Christians when they tried to disengage St Paul from his Judaism.

I have a Jewish friend who has studied Paul's theology and is rather knowledgeable in this field, since he works at a Catholic University in America teaching theology, and I and him are fully agreed as to Paul's adherence to Pharisee belief.

NT Wright, Bishop of Durham, has written a large number of works aimed at popularising the new perspective outside of academia. Carrier has popularised the opposing view. However, I am not partial to their writings because of their overuse and I do not subscribe to "all" New Perspective views. I am influenced by a wide variety of scholars, most key of all those of a Jewish background/heritage some of which are generally identified as "New Perspective" scholars.

I think that you, Ahanu, would benefit from reading a very interesting book by a Jewish scholar: Paul Was Not a Christian: The Original Message of a Misunderstood Apostle by Pamela Eisenbaum.

It would be a very enlightening read, since it - like much of recent scholarship - puts to bed any myths people might have about Paul's alleged divorce/disengagement/ with or opposition to Judaism and the Pharisees.

As an example, you wrote above:

"...Paul says the Pharsaic teachings (such as the oral law) no longer apply to him and his fellow believers (1 Galatians 2.1-20). He clearly left the teachings of the Pharisees behind, so anything is up for grabs now..."

I completely disagree! I would love to put you in touch with my Jewish friend. Neither Jesus nor Paul deprecated in any way the Oral Torah.

In the following post, I am going to directly address the issue of Paul's pharisaic thought, proving to you how he is very clearly a devout Pharisee even after his supposed "conversion" to Christianity (there was no "Christianity" proper at least until after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70).

Can you provide me with a modern New Testament scholar who supports the idea that Paul was so completely disengaged from his Pharisee heritage that he believed in a purely "spiritual resurrection"? In my opinion, you will find it difficult - although not impossible (everybody can always fall back on Carrier - its almost like a sacred manthra, "if in doubt, get Carrier!" ). This is because:

a) The move in recent scholarship has been to stress the "Judaism" of Paul and his continuity with Pharisee theology

b) the idea of "spiritual resurrection" did not exist in first century Judaism, in my understanding (which may be fallible I admit, I am open to changing my view on this one if I see the necessary proof). The only views I know of where: resurrection of the body (Pharisees), no resurrection at all and no afterlife (Sadducees) and a spiritual afterlife for good souls in a home beyond the ocean (Essenes).

We thus have 3 "mainstream" options within Second Temple Judaism: An afterlife [immortal soul] which includes a general bodily resurrection at the end of time; no afterlife at all and certainly no bodily resurrection and a purely spiritual, bodiless afterlife [immortal soul] which is nevertheless still within the confines of corporeal space and temporal time (ie according to Josephus 'beyond the sea'). Philo's views of afterlife seem to "Greek" to me, although its arguable I suppose that they represent a fourth school. Needless to say Paul falls into the "resurrection" camp. You either believed in the resurrection or you didn't and both options were acceptable in Second Temple Judaism. The entire Greek speaking world did not believe in the "resurrection of the dead" but in an immortal soul and in a purely spiritual afterlife, so why did Paul feel the need to open himself up to ridicule by defending it before Jew and Greek? Paul would surely have attracted far more Gentiles if he had just denied the resurrection of the dead. Why include it at all if what's he is suggesting is simply the spiritual afterlife concept already believed by the Greeks? This is nonsensical to me.

Appearing in Greek thought is a sharp distinction between the body and the soul. The soul was regarded as “pure, holy, and immortal”; the body as “earthy, and corruptible. The sixth century B. C. Greek philosophers taught that the soul can be purified from its bodily defects in order to escape from the physical, earthly existence, then to return to the realm of pure spirit. In the Platonic tradition the body is regarded as the prison of the soul. Death emancipates the soul. A main doctrine of this way of thinking proposed a body-soul dualism that emphasized the highest worth of the soul; likewise, the entire non-physical dimension is divine and eternal.

The soul’s goal is to free itself from the body so that it can return to blissful contemplation. Greek thought is permeated with ideas of body-soul dualism and thus the immortality of the soul. So why not just preach "immortality of the soul", convert the already converted so to speak? Why preach resurrection and confuse people if what you really mean is immortality of the soul which your hearers already believe anyway?

Consider Acts 17 and Paul's Areopagus speech before the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers:

Acts 17:

"...Then certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers encountered him. And some said, "What does this babbler want to say?" Others said, "He seems to be a proclaimer of foreign gods," because he preached to them Jesus and the resurrection...And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead some mocked..."

As you can see it was the belief in "resurrection of the dead" which the Greeks found most ridiculous. If Paul had not preached this, he would have surely gained more followers from among the intelligentsia of Athens. Now, you are suggesting that Paul completely divorced himself from his Pharisee heritage and preached a purely "spiritual resurrection". In other words, you are suggesting that he actually believed the very same thing as his Greek audience - in an immortal soul and a purely spiritual afterlife. Why then not just say he agreed with them and gain new converts? Why use Pharisee "resurrection" terminology at all?

There was no term "spiritual resurrection" in Second Temple Judaism, that I now of (as ever I am fully open to correction). One either believed in the resurrection, which entailed resurrection of the body, or one didn't. If you are saying that Paul has proposed a new "spiritual resurrection", then you are saying that he preached something which had no basis in Second Temple Judaism thus further disengaging him from his Jewish faith, for he would surely not invent a new unknown concept but rather utilize an already existing one as a faithful Jew.

As you can see, there was no such term as "spiritual resurrection" in Second Temple Judaism. You either believed in resurrection, which was bodily, or you didn't. Since the Judaism of Paul's time accepted both resurrection and no resurrection, Paul had no need to embaress himself before intelligent Greeks by defending the "resurrection from the dead". He could simply have gone with the Essenes or Philo (if you think Philo represents a fourth stream of thought) in rejecting the bodily resurrection and believing in a purely spiritual afterlife. Why do you think he felt the need to open himself up to ridicule by Greeks who thought the idea of "resurrection" was ridiculous? If he really believed in a purely spiritual afterlife, then why not just say that too his Gentile audience? Why use Pharisee terminology (resurrection) needlessly?

You could use Philo, as does Carrier, however as one who had been thoroughly Hellenized, the relevance of Philo to this debate is highly questionable in my opinion (he called Plato, "holy Plato" which is hardly very in keeping with mainstream Judaism of the time, diverse as it was). I am not disparaging Philo in any way. I actually have deep respect for him and I think that he anticipated Christianity in many respects, particularly in his willingness to find common ground between Semitic cosmology and Greek philosophy, for example in his embracing of the Hellenistic concept of the "Logos" as a counterpart to the Hebrew Memra (Word of God) which was to have key significance in the subsequent Christian movement. We thus see in Philo the seeds of the Jewish Universalism which became Christianity.

However he should be used cautiously as a source, in my opinion. Sometimes he finds merely common ground between Judaism and Greek thought; at other times he uses the language of Hellenist philosophy to edify his understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures. Both of these are perfectly fine and acceptable to Jews - since the authors of the Sacred books such as the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiastes made similar use of Greek terminology and philosophy. However he sometimes adopts the Greek view to the complete detriment of the Hebrew view, and goes the "full hog" so to speak with Hellenist syncretism. When he does so, he grants too many concessions to the Greeks and moves completely outwith the scope of mainstream Second Temple Judaism.

I would be willing nonetheless to accept arguements based on Philo, since he is still an important first century authority, so long as it can be proved that Philo's views on whatever subjects are not simply his own, fringe, eccentric ideas but rather are representative of a genuine "school" of thought within Second Temple Judaism alongside the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes. But please do not just quote "Philo" without establishing some kind of broader consensus for his opinons in the first century Jewish world.

Also, could I please ask - and I say this politely - that we move away from the Carrier vs NT Wright debate. I would rather not rely on these two. These two 'dudes' are staple diet for two opposing views on the resurrection. This debate has been churned out before my eyes on forum after forum; Evangelical apologetic website after website; atheist website after website - with Christians inevitably using NT Wright to back up their case for resurrection and others using Carrier to back up the case against bodily resurrection.

Can we please move the discussion into the thinking of other scholars, and thus traverse beyond the very narrow constraints of the brain-numbingly familiar Carrier-Wright debate? I am quite disappointed to see that the both of you seem to rely very heavily on Carrier and Wright. Its kind of a cliché for the two opposing worldviews, and is hardly an attempt at finding a more moderate middleground in both camps. (Its too black-and-white for me).

There are a great number of scholars within the "New Perspective on Paul" branch of scholarship. Try for example James D.G. Dunn, E.P. Sanders’, Krister Stendahl, Lloyd Gaston, John Gager, Stanley Stowers, Neil Elliott, Mark Nanos, and Pamela Eisenbaum.

Both Carrier and Wright make very good points, and I am not aiming to deprecate the scholarly opinions of either, rather I am tired of watching them being overused by people on both sides of the Pauline debate.

Let everybody involved in this debate remember, that our aim is not to "defend" or "back up" the Christian or the Baha'i belief on resurrection but rather to faithfully represent the beliefs of the Apostle Paul on bodily resurrection and on his relationship with Pharisee Judaism (and Judaism in general). Paul's opinions may or may not agree or disagree with the Baha'i or Christian view. We must adopt an almost "secular" viewpoint when we are engaged in such study of ancient texts, if we want our research to be free from bias. To this end I rely often on Pamela Eisenbaum, who rejects the idea that Paul believed Jesus to be "God incarnate". Eisenbaum argues that Paul's thought is theocentric, that Paul never calls Jesus "God," and that Pauline prayer language is addressed to God though Christ, with Jesus filling the role of mediator. Thus Eisenbaum claims that Pauline veneration of Jesus in no way infringed on Jewish monotheism. Now as a Catholic, I obviously - theologically speaking - cannot agree with her that Paul did not believe in the divinity of Christ (although I agree that he never transgressed Jewish monotheism). But I use her research when I have my "scholarly" cap on, because I recognize her as an expert scholar of the New Perspective and I completely agree with her on Paul's relationship with Pharisaism and Judaism. Using her evidence does not "back up" my Catholic theology in other areas, it actually weakens my stance, but I do not care - because that is scholarship, it is about the free investigation of facts independent of denominational bias. That is why Agnostics often make the best scholars, whereas Christians and Atheists can at times express too much "bias" for their own 'camps'.

Often when religious believers or ideological believers (ie atheists) approach New Testament studies, they come in with clear "bias" namely an expectation that the source texts will invariably match up with their beliefs. This is "ideological thinking" where beliefs/ideas come before facts. In scholarly thinking, facts come before beliefs - which means that with this mindset we enter research free from our ideological bias, without expectations and honestly look at the evidence. And then we evaluate the facts to see whether they fit with our ideology - that is if we have any and if this is even necessary to do so.

To this end, I have researched this topic to the best of my "scholarly" side and have honestly come to the conclusion that rightly or wrongly, Paul was a product of his Pharisee background in his belief in the bodily resurrection (as where the majority of the other early Christians). This does not mean that Paul is "right"; thats a matter for your own personal worldview - rather its merely a statement of fact as I perceive it. Paul was also a product of his age and culture in Corinthians, when he suggested that women should cover their hair when praying because of his own (I would say faulty) exegesis of Genesis (that woman reflects man's glory while man reflects God's glory) and his belief that women should be "submissive" to their husbands (if we can accept this part of Ephesians as coming from Paul). Now the modern male feminist in me balks at this but the scholar recognizes that Paul cannot be judged since he was in this regard - rightly or wrongly - a product of his cultural milieu and time. Obviously Paul did not realize that Eve was not literally created from the rib of Adam (he says that "man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man").

Rightly or wrongly thats what he believed, and in my opinion (and I accept my fallibility) it is the same with the bodily resurrection: rightly or wrongly, its what he believed. I will demonstrate my thoughts on this later when I have more time!

Fadl

Can God create a rock he himself cannot lift?

God can create such a rock, but it's better for us that he doesn't. A rock so big that God cannot lift it would be an ultimate singularity: as massive as the entire universe, composed of the sum of all existent energy and matter. But the reason why God cannot lift such a rock, is not because it is too heavy, but because it is too only. In order to lift something, there needs to be something else with a center of mass to move it or 'lift it' away from. There could be no movement (or nonmovement) if nothing existed other than God's infinitely dense rock of all mass, at least not according to any humanly accepted definition of the word 'lift.' In fact, such an object could equally be said to be in a state of perpetual 'liftedness' or perpetual stillness. Both would be equally true and valid though a lexical contradiction.

Can God exist and not exist at the same time?

Yes.

In his essence God never 'exists,' since existence is God's handiwork, and God is not created, and not a member or a dependent of the universe.

In human speech God 'exists' and we say this to express our belief in this unknowable essence which is God. In English we are required to use the copula (be) in this way, and so to speak of God, we must say things like 'is' (and 'he') but that is due to a limitation of language, and not the reality of God. When I say 'there is a God' this only means 'I believe in a God' it does not mean that God 'exists,' for how could God exist when the Universe, his creation, exists?

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule So the statements of Jesus and Baha'u'llah are not absolutely correct....

Quite so!

I quote the Baha'i scriptures:

"Such an existence is a contingent and not an absolute existence, inasmuch as the former is preceded by a cause, whilst the latter is independent thereof.

"Absolute existence is strictly confined to God, exalted be His glory. Well is it with them that apprehend this truth."

—(Gleanings, page 157)


PRECISELY why we say truth is relative!

Peace, :-)

Bruce

InvestigateTruth

Ok, I think this is a good example to explain this relative truth.
So, in the Bible, it is believed Jesus died. In the Quran it said, Jesus did not die.
We don't believe that God just changed His mind. We believe that when Jesus was killed, that was a physical reality, since His Spirit never die. Thus when Bible talks about Jesus was killed, in this case it is talking about His physical body.
When Muhammad came, the Quran says Jesus was not killed. We believe this is a Spiritual truth. What Quran means, is that the Spirit of Jeus was not killed.
Now, If Moslems thought what Quran is saying, is that His physical body of Jesus was not killed, this is related to how they understood, but not God tricked them or changed His mind.
Infact, within Islamic sects, there are some, and historically were some who understood this correctly to mean His spirit was not killed. On the other hand there are other verses in Quran that says, Jesus died.
Now this became clear at the time of Manifestation of Baha'u'llah.
But, let's say, why God left all to the state of misunderstanding for a thousand year? Well, in general, creation of God has a gradual and relative perfection.
When we were in the womb, we didn't have eye to see or ear to hear. Why God waited 9 months, to give us that? It's just because of gradual perfection, which can be seen in anything.
The religions also follow the same relativeness.

arthra

Yeshua wrote above:

Let everybody involved in this debate remember, that our aim is not to "defend" or "back up" the Christian or the Baha'i belief on resurrection but rather to faithfully represent the beliefs of the Apostle Paul on bodily resurrection and on his relationship with Pharisee Judaism (and Judaism in general). Paul's opinions may or may not agree or disagree with the Baha'i or Christian view.

You know i could be mistaken but I thought this thread was a question about what Baha'is believe.. and who sets the terms for a debate here? It would be very well to present your material on Paul to a Christian audience on a Christian forum on his Pharisaic background and whether you thought he was a Christian.

Fadl

Arthra??

This here forum ain't big 'nuf for the both of yas?

ahanu

We are starting to get off of the track, so, Yeshua, I will respond to your points in a private email in the future. I'm on break right now.

ahanu

To answer your last question, now that I think about it I'm unsure if general relativity has anything to do with the law of non-contradiction, because if we are talking about two different knowers (a Christian and a Muslim) discussing the thing (Christ's nature), then we can't say both knowers are true "at the same time" because people in different states of motion will have various notions of what and where "the same time" is. You understand what I'm saying? However, we are talking an individual knower believing believing two things at once at the same time, so I guess general relativity would not apply. Therefore, we could drop that.

In regards to the individual knower, the law of non-contradiction states:

“A thing cannot both be and not be the same thing in the same respect and at the same time.” "

How can the Baha'i accept both knowers (the Christian and Muslim) are correct, if we know the law of non-contradiction? The trick is this: Baha'is say both knowers are not equally correct. Relativism accepts all beliefs as equally true, but Baha'is are more closer to perspectivism. The Baha'i Faith does not say both views (such as Jesus is God and not God) are equally valid. If Baha'is said that, then the Baha'i Faith would accept relativism; however, Baha'is definitely say that, from a higher perspective, a lower perspective may be objectively wrong. When you compare what a Muslim believes and what a Christian believes, you see a contradiction between their view of the nature of Jesus. Orthodox Christians say "both points can't be equally valid: one must to be wrong."

In other words, Baha'is do not say "a thing [Christ's nature] can both be and not be the same thing [God and not God] in the same respect and at the same time," because Baha'is do not assume both knowers (the Christian and the Muslim) have equally valid truth. If Baha'is accepted relativism, then the law of non-contradiction would apply to them; however, Baha'is accept something more like perspectivism.

Perspectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No way of knowing "a thing" can be accepted as the absolute truth. We can't know "a thing" in itself because of our "cultural formations" and "subjective designations." All human knowledge of the world is an interpretation. For example, Baha'is accept the view "Jesus is not God" as a lower interpretation. People in a lower station can rise to a higher perspective. Nietzsche wrote:

“The value of the world lies in our interpretation . . . that every elevation of man brings with it the overcoming of narrower interpretation; that every strengthening and increase of power opens up new perspectives and believing in new horizons.”

So truth is created. Nietzsche calls relativism and absolutism "equally childish." Christianity accepts the idea of a "thing-in-itself," but Nietzsche does not. I'll have to compare his ideas with the Baha'i Faith to see to what extent both agree. To wrap all of this up, it seems the law of non-contradiction assumes a "thing-in-itself" can be known--without our "subjective designtations" and "cultural formations" interfering with our knowledge of the "thing-in-itself."

LordOfGoblins

I have a slightly different way of seeing things though I agree with most points.
I think the lower perspective is still true its just a less complete (less informed) truth...
In other words God has all ultimate truth and we as poor humans are just trying to describe this truth with our fallible minds. As we advance through the ages our abilities to describe it becomes more advanced and thus we gain deeper and more accurate truth..
Baha'u'llah does say Jesus was telling the truth when he said "i am God"...