Nightingale

The Resurrection of Christ

Baha'is think that the Master's explantion of the resurrection of Christ as being a metaphor of the disciples taking courage after three days should know the following:

1. The English translation of SAQ is flawed, that is why another translation is in the works. Only the Persian notes of these talks were checked by the Master.

2. 'Abdu'l-Baha often gave "ta'wil": the esoteric explanation of the Verses of God. In ta'wil, every Verse/Event in Scripture has 1 literal meaning and 70 metaphorical meanings. The metaphorical meanings were never meant to negate the literal meaning. For example, we can say that the death of Christ "means" (esoterically) that the disciples became aggitated and troubled for three days, but that does not negate the literal fact that Christ died.

Baha'u'llah, speaking as Jesus, wrote:


"The kingdom of God circleth around Him and it is because of His Love[10] that I adorned the cross with my body.Verily, I rose from the dead to complete my mention of His Name amongst men. O people of the Gospel! Do not make mention of Me (Jesus) when you have turned away from my Father, the All- Glorious." (Revealed on the Day of Ridwan)

Shaykh Ahmad taught the existence of one physical body and two aetherical bodies, called the Spiritual Body and the Heavenly Body. The Spiritual Body is temporary, and exists up to 49 days after death, and resembles the physical body at the time of death. The Heavenly Body is the eternal youth; perfect in every way.

The chief imaam of Akka was preparing a progrom against the Baha'is after Baha'u'llah died, but on the night of His death, He openned the door of the imaams room and appeared to him. Since there was no progrom, it follows that the appearance convinced the imaam not to do it. This was the Spiritual Body that appeared to the imaam, not the physical body which still lay underneath the mansion in Bahji.

The Spiritual Body is not "material" nor "physical" but it may appear in visions. A vision is literal, but not physical.

cire perdue

Exactly what is your source for this Statement #1. The very tone of your words are very questionable. I do not imagine that the World Centre gives out infomation like this, so that the general Baha'i public can go around saying that SAQ is flawed. Baha'is do not have problems with spiritual appearances.

I do not believe anything is going to be flawed enough to change anything we understand dramatically. Your post seems rather sensational to me and meant to elicit reactions.


What are the sources for this material?

Apparently you read Persian and Arabic. However I wonder at your status due to the manner of your posting.

Shaykh Ahmad is not an authoritative figure of our Faith, only a precursor.

IndependentInvestigator

Hi All,

I should have checked before posting my thread to see if there were other open threads about Christ's resurrection.

How are statements like the one quoted above, when it says "I rose from the dead," understood by Baha'is? It appears to say that Christ after "rising from the dead" then went "among men" proclaiming the Father. Is there any diversity in how a passage like this would be understood, or would everyone understand it in pretty much the same way?

Don

BruceDLimber

"According to the &Bahá'í teaching the Resurrection has nothing to do with the gross physical body. That body, once dead, is done with. It becomes decomposed and its atoms will never be recomposed into the same body.

"Resurrection is the birth of the individual to spiritual life, through the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed through the Manifestation of God. The grave from which he arises is the grave of ignorance and negligence of God. The sleep from which he awakens is the dormant spiritual condition in which many await the dawn of the Day of God. This dawn illumines all who have lived on the face of the earth, whether they are in the body or out of the body, but those who are spiritually blind cannot perceive it. The Day of Resurrection is not a day of twenty-four hours, but an era which has now begun...."
―(Baha'u'llah and the New Era, p. 222)

And the symbolic meaning of resurrection is affirmed by the Apostle Paul:

"Buried with him [Jesus] in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." - Colossians 2:12

Again:

"...as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." - Romans 6:4

"Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular." - I Corinthians 12:27


Basically, in the Baha'i view EVERYTHING recounted about Christ after the Crucifixion is spiritual metaphor not to be taken literally!

InvestigateTruth

Abdul'Baha says that, faith is supposed to be based on logic and reason, and not just based on traditions.
So, if many early Christians traditionally understood the Bible regarding the resurrection of Jesus literally, that would be a tradition, and not necessarily the Truth.

The Baha'i view is that the Bible description of Jesus Resurrection, is symbolic entirely (eating with disciples, being seen, etc.) and by that it was meant that the cause of Jesus was resurrected 3 days after Jesus crucification, as the disciples raised to teach after 3 days.

One of the reasons that it was written as a symbolic story, might be that, People of the past could accept and have faith in Christ.

IndependentInvestigator

Bruce and InvestigateTruth,

Thank you, friends, for posting in answer to my question!

I've expressed my reservations on the other thread about allegorical readings of the resurrection narratives and resurrection belief among the earliest Christians. And I can see that you're engaging what I've written there.

I'd like to post more soon, perhaps tonight, about the answers above, and what I think the problems are with the understandings proposed--because I do think they're problematic.

In the mean time, could any one point me to the fullest treatments of the biblical and early Christian data on Christ's resurrection, from a Baha'i point of view?

Also, are there any Baha'i scholars who are particularly expert in the New Testament and earliest Christianity?

I'd love to see a Baha'i review of / response to something like N. T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God, since the real problems emerge, I think, when one looks at the details and set the New Testament accounts in the context of the contemporaneous background and the life of the early Christian church.

Thanks again!

Don

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by IndependentInvestigator Also, are there any Baha'i scholars who are particularly expert in the New Testament and earliest Christianity?

I'll refer you in particular to:

• Robert Riggs, the author of I, Daniel and The Apocalypse: An Exegesis (at least one of these is available in the "Books" section at: Bahá'í Library Online)
  
• Gary Matthews, author of (among other titles) The Challenge of Baha'u'llah and He Cometh With Clouds

Good hunting! :-)

Bruce

IndependentInvestigator

Thanks, Bruce!

Don

Iconodule

Baha'u'llah claimed to be Jesus himself? The self same Christ that came 2000 years ago? Dear lord, what arrogance. It makes him on the same level as those western cultists that claim to be Jesus Christ.

arthra

Rather the Spirit of God returned fulfilling prophecy.. True dear Lord...some people can be arrogant.


Therefore, men have always been taught and led by the Prophets of God. The Prophets of God are the Mediators of God. All the Prophets and Messengers have come from One Holy Spirit and bear the Message of God, fitted to the age in which they appear. The One Light is in them and they are One with each other. But the Eternal does not become phenomenal; neither can the phenomenal become Eternal.

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 24

Iconodule

Then it would seem he could not possible speak as Jesus but only as himself. Unless he were acting as some sort of medium...

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule Then it would seem he could not possible speak as Jesus but only as himself. Unless he were acting as some sort of medium...

You miss the point that it's the same Spirit (sometimes called the "Christ Spirit") invested in BOTH of them!

And ALL the Divine Messengers share this same distinction.

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Iconodule

my point remains, unless he acted as a Medium for Jesus Christ he could not claim to speak as Jesus Christ. Was He a medium in your view? BTW none of your other prophets besides the most recent ones claimed to be the Christ, so I can only assume it belonged to Christ and your founder which is odd since you say they shared it all.

BruceDLimber

As I said, what They all shared was investiture by the Spirit, and no, They're not mediums.

Bruce

Iconodule

Then he was not speaking as Jesus.

BruceDLimber

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iconodule Then he was not speaking as Jesus.

Which we fully stipulate!

He was the RETURN of the Christ Spirit speaking as Baha'u'llah, not as Jesus--just as we've always said!

Each Divine Messenger is a distinct individual, though each speaks with the same Voice of the Holy Spirit; and this is precisely why we say each as a dual nature (details upon request).

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Iconodule

So nightingale was mistaken when he said he spoke as Christ? Alright then.

BruceDLimber

[QUOTE=Iconodule;28731]So nightingale was mistaken when he said he spoke as Christ?QUOTE]

I said no such thing!

Kindly have the courtesy not to put words in my mouth.

Bruce

Fadl

I think arrogance is only inapropriate for men. It seems to suit God just fine. After all, if 'anyone' (lack of better word) can justify their arrogance, it is surely God.

This is one of my favorite quotes coz it just smacks with arrogance and conceit:

"O ye leaders of religion! Who is the man amongst
you that can rival Me in vision or insight? Where is he
to be found that dareth to claim to be My equal in
utterance or wisdom? No, by My Lord, the All-Merciful!
All on the earth shall pass away; and this is
the face of your Lord, the Almighty, the Well-Beloved."
-Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Aqdas, p. 56


The very nerve of God, with all His absolute perfection, wisdom, and righteousness to dare admit it. Have you ever??

Sen McGlinn

While this is true, it is only relevant if there is some specific failing in the 1908 translations that changes our picture of what Abdu'l-Baha meant. I don't see any.
قيام مظاهر الهيّه بجسد نيست
=The resurrections of the Divine Manifestations are not of the body.

Do you see a translation problem here? And ,

همچنين قيام مسيح از بطن ارض نيز امريست معنوی و کيفيّتی
است روحانی نه جسمانی و همچنين صعود مسيح بآسمان آن نيز امريست
روحانی نه جسمانی
= 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.

That seems perfectly correct to me.