Nuck81

Got into an informative discussion with my family about Baha'i Faith over the holiday nothing hostile or anything just a cool discussion discussing what it's about, what it is, etc...

My Uncle brought up Acts 1:11 “Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

I admit, I didn't have an answer but told him I would research it.

You guys are a lot smarter and knowledgeable than me. So what say you Brothers?

ahanu

So what was your Uncle's view of Acts 1:11? I assume the discussion was about the second coming of Christ?

I would like to here your Uncle's views first.

Nuck81

Yes it was.

Essentially we were talking about Jesus Return and the Rapture specifically. I was saying that there is no biblical evidence for a Rapture, and Jesus floating down to the ground on a fluffy cloud was applying literal interpretation to a symbolic passage. I argued that Jesus would truly return as he came, born a man from a woman with a new name.

He brought up Acts 1:11.

I could remember reading some Baha'i thoughts of that passage in the threads with Orthodox and Pawnraider. But it was really hard to search through the forum on my phone without knowing exactly where it is.

tonyfish58

Here is a link & extract to some quoted re this subject - Bahá'u'lláh and the New Era: Chapter 13

Return of Christ

In many of His conversations Christ speaks of the future Manifestation of God in the third person, but in others the first person is used. He says: "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself" (John xiv, 2-3). In the first chapter of Acts we read that the disciples were told, at the ascension of Jesus: "This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven." Because of these and similar sayings, many Christians expect that when the Son of Man comes "in the clouds of heaven and with great glory" they shall see in bodily form the very Jesus Who walked the streets of Jerusalem two thousand years ago, and bled and suffered on the cross. They expect to be able to thrust their fingers into the prints of the nails on His hands and feet, and their hands into the spear wound in His side. But surely a little reflection on Christ's own words would dissipate such an idea. The Jews of Christ's time had just such ideas about the return of Elias, but Jesus explained their error, showing that the prophecy that "Elias must first come" was fulfilled, not by the return of the person and body of the former Elias, but in the person of John the Baptist, who came "in the spirit and power of Elias." "And if ye will receive it," said Christ, "this is Elias, which was for to come. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." The "return" of Elias, therefore, meant the appearance of another person, born of other parents, but inspired by God with the same spirit and power. These words of Jesus may surely be taken to imply that the return of Christ will, in like manner, be accomplished by the appearance of another person, born of another mother, but showing forth the Spirit and Power of God even as Christ did. Baha'u'llah explains that the "coming again" of Christ was fulfilled in the advent of the Bab and in his own coming. He says: --

Consider the sun. Were it to say now, "I am the sun of yesterday," it would speak the truth. And should it, bearing the sequence of time in mind, claim to be other than that sun, it still would speak the truth. In like manner, if it be said that all the days are but one and the same, it is correct and true. And if it be said, with respect to their particular names and designations, that they differ, that again is true. For though they are the same, yet one doth recognize in each a separate designation, a specific attribute, a particular character. Conceive accordingly the distinction, variation, and unity characteristic of the various Manifestations of holiness, that thou mayest comprehend the allusions made by the creator of all names and attributes to the mysteries of distinction and unity, and discover the answer to thy question as to why that everlasting Beauty should have, at sundry times, called Himself by different names and titles. -- Kitab-i-Iqan, 21-22.


Abdu'l-Baha says: --

Know that the return of Christ for a second time doth not mean what the people believe, but rather signifieth the One promised to come after Him. He shall come with the Kingdom of God and His Power which hath surrounded the world. This dominion is in the world of hearts and spirits, and not in that of matter; for the material world is not comparable to a single wing of a fly, in the sight of the Lord, wert thou of those who know! Verily Christ came with His Kingdom from the beginning which hath no beginning, and will come with His Kingdom to the eternity of eternities, inasmuch as in this sense "Christ" is an expression of the Divine Reality, the simple Essence and heavenly Entity, which hath no beginning nor ending. It hath appearance, arising, manifestation and setting in each of the cycles.

Regards Tony

P/S It is not easy discussing these age old Christian topics. They are so intrenched into the belief that there are a very few who are willing to look at them from the interpretations given by Baha'u'llah & Abdul'baha.

ahanu

So I guess he is a Protestant Christian?

Play along with your Uncle: you assume it is literal. My approach would be to show him contradictions in a literal reading of Acts 1:11, because if you read it literally, then you must also read other passages dealing with the ascension literally. The Book of Acts, written decades after Paul's death, records the ascension happened forty days after the resurrection; however, that is not what the Book of Luke records (Luke 24: 1-53).

In the Book of Luke it's recorded Jesus appears on the road to Emmaus "that same day," which is Easter morning (Luke 24: 13). The two disciples invite Jesus to stay with them, for "it is nearly evening; the day is almost over” (Luke 24: 29). After eating with them (assuming it should be read literally), Jesus disappears from their sight. That evening "they got up and returned at once to Jerusalem" (Luke 24: 33). Jesus then appears to the Eleven while those two disciples left "at once to Jerusalem" (Luke 24: 36). Jesus then leads them to Bethany and ascends to heaven (Luke 24: 51). If read literally, the contradiction reveals the Book of Acts says Jesus ascended forty days later, whereas the Book of Luke says Jesus ascended on the day of his resurrection.

The literalist must conclude one or two things: Jesus either ascended to heaven twice, or clumsy editing. Which is it?

Also, mention Pope Benedict XVI does not interpret Acts 1:11 literally. Check out these quotes from his new book:

Dom Donald's Blog: Epilogue Ascension Pope Jesus of Nazareth II

arthra

If you consider the verse:


Acts 1:11

New American Standard Bible (NASB)


11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into [a]the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

Actually "the sky" is the same word as "heaven":

In Greek: "Ouranous" which has the following meanings:


1) the vaulted expanse of the sky with all things visible in it

a) the universe, the world

b) the aerial heavens or sky, the region where the clouds and the tempests gather, and where thunder and lightning are produced

c) the sidereal or starry heavens

2) the region above the sidereal heavens, the seat of order of things eternal and consummately perfect where God dwells and other heavenly beings

Why do I emphasize this meaning? Because it alludes to a "region above the sidereal heavens" rather than the physical realm.

Jesus reportedly said:

Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

So Jesus already "came down from heaven". Did He come down from heaven in a cloud? The word "heaven" in this verse is the same Greek word noted above.

Abdul-Baha said:

Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, pp. 103-104

So this is the Baha'i view..."Going into heaven and coming down from heaven" is a spiritual reality.

Nuck81

Thank you. This is very informational. I still have much to learn...

Nightingale

My interpretation of Acts 1:11 is this:

The angels told the Apostles that "this SAME Jesus" was returning as He went up into the sky".

In the "Letter of Peter to Philip", a Coptic document purported to be written by Peter, buried about 400 A.D., found in Nag Hammadi Egypt about 1948, Peter tells Philip that Jesus descended from a cloud upon the Mount of Olives just one year after He ascended, to answer some questions and issue His final instructions to the Apostles. This letter never found its way into the New Testament, because the NT are "Greek" works only. No Coptic books got into the N.T.; which is unfortunate.

Christians think Acts 1:11 has not yet been fulfilled. But according to the Letter of Peter to Philip, it was fulfilled one year after the angels told the Apostles to look for Jesus coming in the same way he went up.

The standard "Baha'i" answer is this: Jesus was never raised literally, never appeared to His disciples literally, and never ascended literally...the Gospel are mere parables, non-historical, after Jesus died and was buried. So, what Luke wrote...never happened in reality. It is some parable.

cire perdue

"The standard "Baha'i" answer is this: Jesus was never raised literally, never appeared to His disciples literally, and never ascended literally...the Gospel are mere parables, non-historical, after Jesus died and was buried. So, what Luke wrote...never happened in reality. It is some parable."

Excuse me, but I never thought we denied appearances of Jesus after death, only that it was a body. What you are saying is news to me. This forum is public. There is a unified body of knowledge that "we" tend to agree on as Baha'is. You surely do seem to be making some unique statements and using the term "we".

arthra

Lo the nightengale wrote above:

The standard "Baha'i" answer is this: Jesus was never raised literally, never appeared to His disciples literally, and never ascended literally...the Gospel are mere parables, non-historical, after Jesus died and was buried. So, what Luke wrote...never happened in reality. It is some parable.

My comment:

I too have some issues with this.. Baha'is accept Jesus resurrection/ascension as Spiritual rather than physical or literal... this should not as it seems to many Christians make it is anyless important..

to say parables in Jesus teachings are "mere" parables also seems to me to be minimizing them and I don't think we Baha'is do that...

Baha'is do acknowledge the martyrdom of Jesus and that was not just a parable anymore than we would say the martyrdom of the Bab was a "parable".

See:

Jesus Christ endured affliction and accepted martyrdom upon the cross in order to summon mankind to unity and love. What sacrifice could be greater? He brought the religion of love and fellowship into the world. Shall we make use of it to create discord, violence and hatred among mankind?

~ Abdu'l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 234

Here's a statement about spiritual resurrection:

Question. -- What is the meaning of Christ's resurrection after three days?

Answer. -- The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body. All Their states, Their conditions, Their acts, the things They have established, Their teachings, Their expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ's coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: "For I came down from heaven"; and also in verse 42 we find: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."

Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from 104 the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 103

LordOfGoblins

I still think the resurrection is spiritual. The reason I say this is because the purpose of religion is for man to obtain his own resurrection. For him to "die to himself" and be born again as a higher soul so to speak. To bring something to life that was once dead is probably what ressurrection means literally, thus this should have no physical application whatsoever when talking about religion which is a topic that is primarily concerned with the journey and life of a mans soul (spiritual). THat is why when Abdul'Baha says that the resurrection is never of the body, should be a revelation in the minds of people as they can now see the gospels in a more spiritual light rather than a mythological one...
IMO