Beautifully eloquent Baha'i quotations praising Jesus Christ - Page 2

Livindesert · 10-06-2010, 05:18 PM

1 Corinthians 15:3-9 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.'

Paul makes no distinction between the physical and non physical. As we pointed out earlier Paul said others were caught up to the third heaven(had a vision) So his account was of mass visions a spiritual resurrection and as we showed earlier there is ample evidence that the physical resurrection parts were spliced in later as in the ending of Mark.

Orthodox · 10-06-2010, 05:23 PM

Um, in that verse Paul is refferring to himself as one out of place away from the apostles of Christ. And no none of these verses are proof of a spiritual ressurection. Please read the site I gave you. It is very in depth and even though it is protestant I do happen to agree with its conclusions. The spiritual ressurection does not exist. It was a figment of your prophet's imagination.

Livindesert · 10-06-2010, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Um, in that verse Paul is refferring to himself as one out of place away from the apostles of Christ. And no none of these verses are proof of a spiritual ressurection. Please read the site I gave you. It is very in depth and even though it is protestant I do happen to agree with its conclusions. The spiritual ressurection does not exist. It was a figment of your prophet's imagination.

I am sorry but your idea falls flat.As I pointed out the earliest encounters were spiritual the physical accounts were added in later. But they are imaginary additions that still carry spiritual truth about Christ when correctly interpreted.

Orthodox · 10-06-2010, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livindesert

I am sorry but your idea falls flat.As I pointed out the earliest encounters were spiritual the physical accounts were added in later. But they are imaginary additions that still carry spiritual truth about Christ when correctly interpreted.

'

Wait they were added in later? How so? The only evidence you gave is the well known Mark 16:9-20 longer ending, which every educated person knows about and even that Gospel ends witht he empty tomb in all earliest manuscripts. Not to mention the presence of the physical ressurection Mathew, Luke and John are all still present. Luke shows Jesus eating, something a spirit does not do. IN Mathew the desciples grasp his feet and in John Jesus tells Thomas to touch his wound. These are not added in later and are in the earliest manuscripts. They were not added in. So please, keep your baseless ignorance of textual criticism out of this.

Livindesert · 10-06-2010, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

'

Wait they were added in later? How so? The only evidence you gave is the well known Mark 16:9-20 longer ending, which every educated person knows about and even that Gospel ends witht he empty tomb in all earliest manuscripts. Not to mention the presence of the physical ressurection Mathew, Luke and John are all still present. Luke shows Jesus eating, something a spirit does not do. IN Mathew the desciples grasp his feet and in John Jesus tells Thomas to touch his wound. These are not added in later and are in the earliest manuscripts. They were not added in. So please, keep your baseless ignorance of textual criticism out of this.

I have to get read for work but check this out.

http.://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/2maze92.html

and this cut and paste

Quote:

So we start with Mark. It is little known among the laity, but in fact the ending of Mark, everything after verse 16:8, does not actually exist in the earliest versions of that Gospel that survive.[28] It was added some time late in the 2nd century or even later. Before that, as far as we can tell, Mark ended at verse 16:8. But that means his Gospel ended only with an empty tomb, and a pronouncement by a mysterious young man [29] that Jesus would be seen in Galilee--nothing is said of how he would be seen. This was clearly unsatisfactory for the growing powerful arm of the Church a century later, which had staked its claim on a physical resurrection, against competing segments of the Church usually collectively referred to as the Gnostics (though not always accurately). So an ending was added that quickly pinned some physical appearances of Jesus onto the story, and for good measure put in the mouth of Christ rabid condemnations of those who didn't believe it.[30] But when we consider the original story, it supports the notion that the original belief was of a spiritual rather than a physical event. The empty tomb for Mark was likely meant to be a symbol, not a historical reality, but even if he was repeating what was told him as true, it was not unusual in the ancient world for the bodies of heroes who became gods to vanish from this world: being deified entailed being taken up into heaven, as happened to men as diverse as Hercules and Apollonius of Tyana, and Mark's story of an empty tomb would simply represent that expectation.[31]

A decade or two passes, and then Matthew appears. As this Gospel tells it, there was a vast earthquake, and instead of a mere boy standing around beside an already-opened tomb, an angel--blazing like lightning--descended from the sky and paralyzed two guards that happened to be there, rolled away the stone single handedly before several witnesses--and then announced that Jesus will appear in Galilee. Obviously we are seeing a clear case of legendary embellishment of the otherwise simple story in Mark. Then in Matthew a report is given (similar to what was later added to Mark), where, contrary to the angel's announcement, Jesus immediately meets the women that attended to his grave and repeats what the angel said. Matthew is careful to add a hint that this was a physical Jesus, having the women grovel and grab his feet as he speaks.[32]

Then, maybe a little later still, Luke appears, and suddenly what was a vague and perhaps symbolic allusion to an ascension in Mark has now become a bodily appearance, complete with a dramatic reenactment of Peter rushing to the tomb and seeing the empty death shroud for himself.[32a] As happened in Matthew, other details have grown. The one young man of Mark, which became a flying angel in Matthew, in this account has suddenly become two men, this time not merely in white, but in dazzling raiment. And to make the new story even more suspicious as a doctrinal invention, Jesus goes out of his way to say he is not a vision, and proves it by asking the Disciples to touch him, and then by eating a fish. And though both Mark and Matthew said the visions would happen in Galilee, Luke changes the story, and places this particular experience in the more populous and prestigious Jerusalem.[33]

Finally along comes John, perhaps after another decade or more. Now the legend has grown full flower, and instead of one boy, or two men, or one angel, now we have two angels at the empty tomb. And outdoing Luke in style, John has Jesus prove he is solid by showing his wounds, and breathing on people, and even obliging the Doubting Thomas by letting him put his fingers into the very wounds themselves. Like Luke, the most grandiose appearances to the Disciples happen in Jerusalem, not Galilee as Mark originally claimed. In all, John devotes more space and detail than either Luke or Matthew to demonstrations of the physicality of the resurrection, details nowhere present or even implied in Mark. It is obvious that John is trying very hard to create proof that the resurrection was the physical raising of a corpse, and at the end of a steady growth of fable, he takes license to make up a lot of details.[34]

We have no primary sources on what was going on in the forty years of the Church between Paul in the year 58 and Clement of Rome in the year 95, and Paul tells us almost nothing about what happened in the beginning. We only conjecture that the Gospels were written between Paul and Clement, though they may have been written even ten or twenty years later still. But what I suspect happened is something like this: Jesus died, was buried, and then in a vision or dream appeared to one or more of his Disciples, convincing them he had ascended to heaven, marking the beginning of the fast-approaching End Times as the first to be raised, and then what began in the simple story of Mark as a symbolic allusion to an ascended Christ soon to reveal himself in visions from heaven, in time led some Christians to believe that the resurrection was a physical rising of a corpse. Then they heard or came up with increasingly elaborate stories proving themselves right. Overzealous people often add details and color to a story they've been told without even thinking about it, and as the story passed from each to the next more detail and elaboration was added, securing the notion of a physical resurrection in popular imagination and belief.

It would have been a natural mistake to make at the time, since gods were expected to be able to raise people bodily from the dead, and physical resurrections were actually in vogue in the very 1st century when Christianity began. Consider the god Asclepius. Doctors associated themselves with this god, and many legends were circulating of doctors becoming famous by restoring the dead to life, as recounted by Pliny the Elder, Apuleius and others.[35] Asclepius was also called SOTER, "The Savior," as many gods were in that day. He was especially so-named for being able to cure the sick and bring back the dead, and since "Jesus" (properly, Joshua) means "The Savior" in Hebrew it may have been expected that his resurrection would be physical in nature, too. After all, so was that of Lazarus, or of the boy raised by Elijah in 1 Kings--a prophet with whom Jesus was often equated.[36] Jesus' association with many healing miracles may also have implied a deliberate rivalry with Asclepius, and indeed, Jesus was actually called SOTER, and still is today: we see the Christian fishes on the backs of cars now, containing the Greek word ICHTHUS, the last letter of which stands for: SOTER. Not standing to be outdone by a pagan god, Christians may have simply expected that their god could raise himself physically from the grave.[37]

Then there is Herodotus, who was always a popular author and had been for centuries. He told of a Thracian religion that began with the physical resurrection of a man called Zalmoxis, who then started a cult in which it was taught that believers went to heaven when they died. We also know that circulating in the Middle East were very ancient legends regarding the resurrection of the goddess Inanna (also known as Ishtar), who was crucified in the underworld, then rescued and raised back to earth by her divine attendant, a tale recounted in a four thousand year old clay tablet from Sumeria.[38] Finally, Plutarch writes in the latter half of the 1st century how "Romeo-and-Juliet-style" returns from the dead were a popular theme in contemporary theatre, and we know from surviving summaries and fragments that they were also a feature in romance novels of that day. This trend is discussed at some length in G. W. Bowersock's book Fiction as History.[39]

So the idea of "physical resurrection" was popular, and circulating everywhere. Associating Jesus with this trend would have been a very easy mistake to make. Since religious trust was won in those days by the charisma of speakers and the audience's subjective estimation of their sincerity, it would not be long before a charismatic man, who heard the embellished accounts, came into a position of power, inspiring complete faith from his congregation, who then sought to defend the story, and so began the transformation of the Christian idea of the resurrection from a spiritual concept to a physical one--naturally, calling themselves the "true church" and attacking all rivals, as has sadly so often happened in history.

Lending plausibility to this chain of events was the Jewish War between 66 and 70 A.D.[40], which ended with the complete destruction of the original Christian Church in Jerusalem, and much of the entire city, after all Judaea itself was ravaged by war. It is likely that many if not all of the original believers still living were killed in this war, or in Nero's persecution of 64, and with the loss of the central source of Christian authority and tradition, legends were ripe for the growing. This would explain why later Christians were so in the dark about the history of their own Church between 58 and 95. It was a kind of mini-dark age for them, a time of confusion and uncertainty. But what exactly happened we may never know. However it came to change, it seems more than likely that the first Christians, among them Paul, believed in a spiritual resurrection, and not the resurrection story told in the Gospels.

So this is where we end up. We have no trustworthy evidence of a physical resurrection, no reliable witnesses. It is among the most poorly attested of historical events. The earliest evidence, from the letters of Paul, does not appear to be of a physical resurrection, but a spiritual one. And we have at least one plausible reason available to us as to why and how the legend grew into something else. Finally, the original accounts of a resurrection of a flesh-and-blood corpse show obvious signs of legendary embellishment over time, and were written in an age of little education and even less science, a time overflowing with superstition and credulity. And, ultimately, the Gospels match perfectly the same genre of hagiography as that life of Genevieve with which I began. There the legends quickly arose, undoubted and unchallenged, of treeborn monsters and righted ships and blinded thieves. In the Gospels, we get angels and earthquakes and a resurrection of the flesh. So we have to admit that neither is any more believable than the other.

It should not be lost on us that Thomas was depicted as no less righteous for refusing to believe so wild a claim without physical proof. We have as much right, and ought to follow his example. He got to see and feel the wounds before believing, and so should we. I haven't, so I can't be expected to believe it.[41] And this leads me to one final reason why I don't buy the resurrection story. No wise or compassionate God would demand this from us. Such a god would not leave us so poorly informed about something so important.[42] If we have a message for someone that is urgently vital for their survival, and we have any compassion, that compassion will compel us to communicate that message clearly and with every necessary proof--not ambiguously, not through unreliable mediaries presenting no real evidence. Conversely, if we see something incredible, we do not attack or punish audiences who don't believe us, we don't even expect them to believe--unless and until we can present decisive proof.

There is a heroic legend in the technology community about the man who invented elevator safety brakes. He claimed that any elevator fitted with his brakes, even if all the cables broke, would be safely and swiftly stopped by his new invention. No one trusted it. Did he get angry or indignant? No. He simply put himself in an elevator, ordered the cables cut, and proved to the world, by risking his own life, that his brakes worked.[43] This is the very principle that has delivered us from superstition to science. Any claim can be made about a drug, but people are rightly wary of swallowing anything that hasn't been thoroughly tested and re-tested and tested again. Since I have no such proofs regarding the resurrection story, I'm not going to swallow it, and it would be cruel, even for a god, to expect otherwise of me. So I can reason rightly that a god of all humankind would not appear in one tiny backwater of the Earth, in a backward time, revealing himself to a tiny unknown few, and then expect the billions of the rest of us to take their word for it, and not even their word, but the word of some unknown person many times removed.

Yet, if one returns to what was probably Paul's conception of a Christ risen into a new, spiritual body, then the resurrection becomes no longer a historical proof of the truth of Christianity, but an article of faith, an affirmation that is supposed to follow nothing other than a personal revelation of Christ--not to be believed on hearsay, but experienced for oneself. Though I do not believe this is a reliable way to come to a true understanding of the world, as internal experience only tells us about ourselves and not the truth of the world outside of us,[44] I leave it to the Christians here to consider a spiritual resurrection as a different way to understand their faith. But I don't see any reason to buy the resurrection story found in the Gospels.

Orthodox · 10-06-2010, 05:43 PM

I have no interest reading that but from what I am seeing of it, is the same skeptical nonsense which would threaten your own religion. Don't just google something and post it.

Livindesert · 10-06-2010, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

I have no interest reading that but from what I am seeing of it, is the same skeptical nonsense which would threaten your own religion. Don't just google something and post it.

All it is saying is that we must spiritually experience for ourselves what we believe. Just as miracles really only matter to the person they happen to.While also showing the expansion of the resurrection story over time.

Livindesert · 10-06-2010, 06:18 PM

O.k. I am heading off to work. But I just want to say that I respect the Orthodox it is a beautiful faith showing the beauty of God's love. I just happen to follow a different path where I find my spiritual connection with God. We can believe different things and still love God together.

Orthodox · 10-06-2010, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Livindesert

O.k. I am heading off to work. But I just want to say that I respect the Orthodox it is a beautiful faith showing the beauty of God's love. I just happen to follow a different path where I find my spiritual connection with God. We can believe different things and still love God together.

I must dissagree, your God is not my God. my God became human, yours did not. We can love our respective Gods, but not each others.

tonyfish58 · 10-07-2010, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

I must dissagree, your God is not my God. my God became human, yours did not. We can love our respective Gods, but not each others.

"Beware, O believers in the unity of God, least ye be tempted to make any distinction between any Manifestation of His Cause, or to discriminate against the signs that have accompanied and proclaimed their Revelation. This indeed is the true meaning of Divine Unity, if ye be of them that apprehend and believe this truth. Be ye assured, moreover, that the works and acts of each and everyone of these Manifestations of God, nay whatever pertaineth unto them, and whatsoever they may manifest in the future, are all ordained by God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Whoso maketh the slightest possible difference between their persons, their words, their messages, their acts and manners, hath indeed disbelieved in God, hath repudiated His signs, and betrayed the cause of His Messengers" (GWB Pages 59-60)

Orthodox · 10-07-2010, 08:48 PM

The words of your prophet mean nothing to me. I make a distinction because there is a distinction. Muhammad did not teach what the apostles taught, he did not teach what the church has taught. Baha'a'llah rejected elements of both and took elements he liked. So His words have no bearing on me. Use your own words to prove our God is One. For My God became flesh, John 1.1 and existed before the world was John 17:5 and his name is equal tot he father (The command for baptism in the name of the father and ht eson and the spirit something Bahai do not do today, because they have no the authority and reject Jesus).

Livindesert · 10-07-2010, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

The words of your prophet mean nothing to me. I make a distinction because there is a distinction. Muhammad did not teach what the apostles taught, he did not teach what the church has taught. Baha'a'llah rejected elements of both and took elements he liked. So His words have no bearing on me. Use your own words to prove our God is One. For My God became flesh, John 1.1 and existed before the world was John 17:5 and his name is equal tot he father (The command for baptism in the name of the father and ht eson and the spirit something Bahai do not do today, because they have no the authority and reject Jesus).

We do not reject Jesus. Baha'u'llah is his second comming.

Let me teach you the fullness of the Trinity as revealed to Abdul Baha by the second comming of Christ.

Quote:

Question.—What is the meaning of the Trinity, of the Three Persons in One?
Answer.—The Divine Reality, which is purified and sanctified from the understanding of human beings and which can never be imagined by the people of wisdom and of intelligence, is exempt from all conception. That Lordly Reality admits of no division; for division and multiplicity are properties of creatures which are contingent existences, and not accidents which happen to the self-existent.
The Divine Reality is sanctified from singleness, then how much more from plurality. The descent of that Lordly Reality into conditions and degrees would be equivalent to imperfection and contrary to perfection, and is, therefore, absolutely impossible. It perpetually has been, and is, in the exaltation of holiness and sanctity. All that is mentioned of the Manifestations and Dawning-places of God signifies the divine reflection, and not a descent into the conditions of existence. 1
God is pure perfection, and creatures are but imperfections. For God to descend into the conditions of existence would be the greatest of imperfections; on the contrary, His manifestation, His appearance, His rising are like the reflection of the sun in a clear, pure, polished mirror. All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion 114 of the light shines, through which they become visible, and are reared, and attain to the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man 2 is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.
Now if we say that we have seen the Sun in two mirrors—one the Christ and one the Holy Spirit—that is to say, that we have seen three Suns, one in heaven and the two others on the earth, we speak truly. And if we say that there is one Sun, and it is pure singleness, and has no partner and equal, we again speak truly.
The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality—that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes—became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied—for the Sun is one—but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.
The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent. 115
This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.
It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved. -Abdul Baha

tonyfish58 · 10-07-2010, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

TUse your own words to prove our God is One.

My words are nothing - you just rejected Gods word.

Cheers Tony

Orthodox · 10-08-2010, 12:24 AM

Living that is distortion of the true trinity. If the trinity was that it would have been declared at the council of Nicea, instead the trinity is the Godhead the persons and essence of God defined. That being said, I have not rejected God's word whatsoever.

InvestigateTruth · 10-09-2010, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Firstly: Actually the Holy spirit was not there at the time of Christ, this much can be certain, the desciples did not have the Holy spirit during Christ’s ministry that much is clear from reading the exact same gospel.

Joh 7:39 But He said this concerning the Spirit, whom the ones believing into Him were about to receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

So we know the Holy spirit was not with the disciples from this verse, and in the verse concerning Jesus’s promise of a comforter he was speaking to the apostles themselves. I see a connectiion between john 7:39 and the Pentecost scene.

Secondly: It is interesting to note who is Jesus speaking to in these verses? Who was the audience of whom he was speaking to. He was speaking to the apostles. Lets look at some verses establishing the comforter, whom he is.

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh 14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
The use and indicator of the word “you” means Jesus was speaking to a specific audeience a specific people, and we can safely assume it to be the apostles. Jesus was most certaintly speaking the apostles, thus promising the comforter to come to them, not 600 years later or 1900 years later.
Thirdly: Jesus tells us the comforter will speak of things concerning Christ, not the Holy spirit. Muhammad and Baha’u’llah spoke of themselves as prophets and promoted themselves this is not in line with what Jesus says.

Even, if, just for the sake of argument say, that the holy spirit, was not yet effecting the appostles does not nessassary mean that it wasn't present at the time.

Also, one verse says 'comforter', and the other verse says, 'another comforter'. These 2 can be refering to 2 different beings. One might be the Holy Spirit, the other, the next Menifestation.

Orthodox is saying that since the audience that Jesus was talking to, were apostles, He is talking about the Holy Spirit that will come upon the apostles.
Well, Jesus also talked about His own second coming to apostles. Just because the audience is the apostles, it doesn’t mean that those sayings are meant only for apostles. As Jesus knew that Bible will be written later, and the actual audience will be everybody. So, your argument does not prove your point.

and with reference to the verse:

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

it can mean that, the Father will send the holy spirit, which is the comforter, then He (Baha'u'llah or Muhammad) will teach the same things that Jesus taught. It means that the Father will send the Holy spirit on Muhammad and Baha'u'llah to glorify them, then they will teach.

Muhammad and Baha’u’llah taught the same teachings as Jesus taught. The principles are the same. This verse proves the oneness of prophets, which Baha’u’llah also confirms. So, this argument is also proving that the comforter is the Spirit that will come upon the next Manifestation.

Note that, the Holy Spirit, does not have gender, that's why 'HE' in that verse is refering to the Person of Menifestation.

For example, it is clear in this verse, that, 'it' is used for the Holy Spirit, not 'he':
And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and 'it' abode upon him.1:33 John

Also note, here 'itself' is used, not 'Himself'
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 8:17 Rom.

However in this verse, it's clearly refering to Muhammad:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 16:14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

It was Muhammad, who revealed Quran. and in Quran, whatever God said, Muhammad said it.

"O Jews! If ye be intent on crucifying once again Jesus, the Spirit of God, put Me to death, for He hath once more, in My person, been made manifest unto you. Deal with Me as ye wish, for I have vowed to lay down My life in the path of God. I will fear no one, though the powers of earth and heaven be leagued against Me."-- Baha'u'llah

Orthodox · 10-09-2010, 08:05 PM

"Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

it can mean that, the Father will send the holy spirit, which is the comforter, then He (Baha'u'llah or Muhammad) will teach the same things that Jesus taught. It means that the Father will send the Holy spirit on Muhammad and Baha'u'llah to glorify them, then they will teach."

What a blatant reading into the text, there is no way to isolate the he from the Holy spirit in this verse. It is in complete context to the Holy spirit and not someone else. The verse is speaking of the Holy spirit, not Bahu'llah. Not only that, but the Holy spirit was not being sent on Muhammad, it was being sent to the desciples, that is the whole of these verses and narratives, that the desciples would be receiving this. Your reading your religion into the text. Its like me reading in the physical ressurection into your Bahai works. it doesn't work.

that being said, i see no inconsistency between giving the holy spirit the title of he or it, as it is utterly hard to define it, given the limitations of the language. Simply admit he was not the Comforter, for the comforter was to come to the desciples, not every generations new prophet. Jesus did not promise that.

InvestigateTruth · 10-09-2010, 08:26 PM

Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Actually, when i read this verse, in my understanding (which can be quite wrong), the part which says 'Which is the Holy Ghost', could have been added by someone later. It just sounds kind of extra to me.
I think, it should be like this:
1) But the Comforter, whom the Father will send in...

or

2) The Holy Ghost, which the Father will send in....

it's like someone else kind of alter'd the text abit. Now as I said, this is only what comes to my mind (it can be wrong)

But anyways, The Spirit does not have a physical body. Only body can have gender. Spirit doesn't. This is actually consistant in whole Bible. So, the comforter to me is the menifestation person. So, considering 'He' then it should be #1)

And, just the fact that Jesus warned people for the false prophets, shows that He was expecting prophets to come. Anyways, He never said, there won't come any prophets anymore.

Orthodox · 10-09-2010, 08:52 PM

Actually Jesus warning of false prophets on shows that he expected false prophets to come. So you must therefore reject the term father applied to God, because God is a spirit and thus cannot have genetalia to be considered a father. No your being to literal in your understanding. What one has to realise is that when one refers to God as a He "which I have seen Bahais do" is one being literal and saying God is a male? No of course not, they are doing it because it is innappropiate to call God "it" and "she" has some what of a Goddess connatation, thus society has deemed it appropiate to call God a He, though realising he is not literally He, but only metaphorically. Now in case you are going to accuse me of taking the scripture non literally, and therefore rejecting my own standard, I would simply say that the attributes of God in the bible lend to him being something beyond human, thus the authors themselves knew this but were limited to the language they had and had to call him "he" or use a masculine form in which to identify him.

And as I have established before, the Holy spirit is a person.

arthra · 10-09-2010, 11:21 PM

There is an interesting issue about the experience of Paul and I don't know how many are aware of it:

If you read Acts 9:7 it says:

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Now read the account given in Acts 22:9

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

So there are contradictions of these supposed events in the text itself.

Pollwr · 10-10-2010, 03:00 AM

I would just like to suggest that it is not unusual, especially at dramatic events, for two witnesses to walk away with different memories of what actually happened. I have had an experience of comparing my memory with someone else's of something and finding that we both know what we saw and would swear to it but...we could not have both been correct.

InvestigateTruth · 10-10-2010, 06:35 AM

With regards to use of 'He' for God your explanation makes sense. But since the Holy Spirit is a different being than God, 'it' is used for it.
and the Unity of God is proved in Baha'i Scriptures.

About the False Prophets, actually, As Jesus warned before, there would be many false prophets.
Here is the list of people who had a claim:
List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But He knew that there will come True prophets. for 2 reasons:
1- He taught how to distinguish a True prophet from a False prophet.(By their Fruits)
2- He never said that there won't come anymore prophets. That's because he knew true prophets come. otherwise He would have said, there won't be any more.

Also, according to old testimony, false prophets, would show mirracles to prove and deceive people. Clearly that wasn't the case for Baha'u'llah. He never used miracles for proof.

Also, according to Old testimony, God Shall not allow false prophets to enter Israel:

Ezekiel 13:9 And mine hand shall be upon
the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies:
they shall not be in the assembly of my people,
neither shall they be written in the writing of the
house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the
land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the
Lord GOD.

And obviously, Baha'u'llah lived in Israel and His shrine is in Israel.
And clearly all signs of the End Time has passed already.

"Say, O ye foolish ones! Wait ye even as those before you are waiting!" -- Baha'u'llah

BruceDLimber · 10-13-2010, 04:22 AM

And in addition to the fact that the "fruits" of the Baha'i Faith clearly match those given in the list in Galatians, there's a more specific proof:

First John 4:2 asserts that any prophet who says that Christ was born in the flesh is of God, and this is something that Baha'u'llah definitely says; He's therefore of God by the Bible's own criterion!

Peace, :-)

Bruce

Mdef · 12-16-2010, 10:43 AM

12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

-This is pretty self explanatory.

I think going into comparison/arguing between things devolops probs..

Quran says in Sura 4:157-158 "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise."

12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.

-This I believe is the so called "Thesis" of the Bahai (The unity, humanity, and above all ONE GOD) faith through the manifestation's. Which there is no doubt in my mind by the Holy Scriptures of Bahai that he is the new messenger for this age.

12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit;

Peace and blessings.

Time has its meaning, I evolve.

Orthodox · 01-07-2011, 12:00 PM

It is interesting that one quote the quran as it is basically wrong on the whole conjecture thing. the Early christians were not in conjecture at all, Christ had died and rose physically, your view is more akin to the docetics whom harm the very humanity of Christ. Christ became man so that man may become god, as I like to quote that verse of St Athanasius often. That being said, the verses regarding the comforter are clearly talking about the Holy spirit not Muhammad, not baha'a'la, as that spirit was to come to the apostles the very people Christ was speaking to. Unless you maintain that they both were the Holy spirit which si blasphemy, you need to rethink your position.

Btw im back.

Lunitik · 01-07-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

It is interesting that one quote the quran as it is basically wrong on the whole conjecture thing. the Early christians were not in conjecture at all, Christ had died and rose physically, your view is more akin to the docetics whom harm the very humanity of Christ. Christ became man so that man may become god, as I like to quote that verse of St Athanasius often. That being said, the verses regarding the comforter are clearly talking about the Holy spirit not Muhammad, not baha'a'la, as that spirit was to come to the apostles the very people Christ was speaking to. Unless you maintain that they both were the Holy spirit which si blasphemy, you need to rethink your position.

Btw im back.

For Baha'is, Muhammad was born perfectly receptive to the Holy Spirit, as was Baha'u'llah and the Bab. So, in actual fact, Christians, Muslims and Baha'is are all in agreement here.

All you have issue with is the disagreements between our scripture and dogma not supported by the Bible.

Orthodox · 01-10-2011, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lunitik

For Baha'is, Muhammad was born perfectly receptive to the Holy Spirit, as was Baha'u'llah and the Bab. So, in actual fact, Christians, Muslims and Baha'is are all in agreement here.

All you have issue with is the disagreements between our scripture and dogma not supported by the Bible.

Well Muhammad is not the comforter spoken about in John's gospel certaintly. that being said, most if not all orhtodox doctrine to some extent can be found in the bible. You know, that bible the church protected, gaurded, categorized and used for 2000 years and passed on to everyone else who claims it. That church.

arthra · 01-10-2011, 12:50 AM

One of the problems in submitting a reference from article we have not written as an argument is that it's not your own.. thus in the site it says in bold letters:

Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body.

The problem is if you take the text of writings reputed to be Paul's you have the following where II Corinthians 12:3 says

And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows--

this doesn't sound like the "body" is all that improtant to him.

Also consider when Jesus used the term "flesh":

... It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words
that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. ...

The emphasis for Jesus was on the "spirit" not the flesh.

Another example along the same lines ..

How are we to consider the importance of the "bodies" of Elias and Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration...

After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.… Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

- Matthew 17:1-9

Are we to assume here that Moses and Elijah were physically and bodily present? .. I don't think so. It says they "appeared" and people did have visionary experiences.

Orthodox · 01-10-2011, 01:09 AM

No we are not to assume they were physically present, though they were certaintly there, be it in spirit. but one cannot draw such a conclusion and drag that to Jesus in light of the many verses speaking of the physicality of the ressurection.

Luke 24 7, Christ speaking: The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and the third day rise again.

this in the context of Christ appearing to the desciples. Do you believe that Christ actually appeared as spirit and spent 40 days with the apostles in accordance with what Luke clearly teaches? I dont think you do. You cannot believe that, you have to ignore the clear teaching luke in this regard.

That being said the emphesis was on both the body and the spirit. When Christ came incarnate he showed that the gnostic assumption of spirit good, flesh bad was wrong. There is an inherent value in flesh in which because God created everything and everything was Good, and this includes man. So yes there is a spiritual element, and Christ who was God came flesh so that we may be reunited witht he father. Through his death this was made possible and through his ressurection we are shown that Christ is real. if this was a spiritual ressurection Christ has no proof for his claims. I might as well make him to be of satan.

Livindesert · 01-10-2011, 05:06 AM

Please keep all anti-Baha'i posts to the interfaith forum

arthra · 01-10-2011, 07:24 AM

No we are not to assume they were physically present, though they were certaintly there, be it in spirit. but one cannot draw such a conclusion and drag that to Jesus in light of the many verses speaking of the physicality of the ressurection.

Luke 24 7, Christ speaking: The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and the third day rise again.

The verse you cite though refers to Jesus crucifixion and not to the reported appearances later..being "raised again" after three days was reported to have been said before while alive.. Being "raised again" does not necessarily support a physical literral resurrection. I think the visionary experience of the disciples at the Mount of Transfiguration and the reports after the cruficixion are paralllel.

Orthodox · 01-10-2011, 10:53 AM

Um no, it is clearly taking place after teh crucifxion, I might need to post the entire chapter to prove as such. But tell me since this verse is after teh crucifixion which you cannot deny in context (i dont want to ahve to show you it as it should be plainly obvious) do you say that Christ appeared as a spirit to his desciples? Somewhat like a merging of Doceticism and Gospel of Judas?

arthra · 01-10-2011, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orthodox

Um no, it is clearly taking place after teh crucifxion, I might need to post the entire chapter to prove as such. But tell me since this verse is after teh crucifixion which you cannot deny in context (i dont want to ahve to show you it as it should be plainly obvious) do you say that Christ appeared as a spirit to his desciples? Somewhat like a merging of Doceticism and Gospel of Judas?

Well we note that you didn't bother to quote the context..

Remember how He spoke to you while He was still in Galilee, 7 saying that the Son of Man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

The verse in question is a prophecy of Jesus while alive alluding to His own death.. The reference to rising on the third day is not necessrily to be taken literally but spiritually..

How about the graves of the saints opening after the crucifixion alluded to in Matthew 27:52

The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life.

Do you take that literally too..?

We take it spiritually..

The breeze of the All-Merciful hath wafted, and the souls have been quickened in the tombs of their bodies.

(Baha'u'llah, Epistle to the Son of the Wolf, p. 133)

Behold, all the people are imprisoned within the tomb of self, and lie buried beneath the nethermost depths of worldly desire!

(Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 120)

Orthodox · 01-10-2011, 01:41 PM

And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared.

What does that first verse in the chapter say, the first day of the week as opposed to the crufixion which took place on the friday. We will not you ignored the context.

This event happened after. THe Only way you can maintain as any sort of spiritual is if you believe Christ talked as a disembodied spirit to his apostles for 40 days, as Luke teaches. But let us move on. Yes I take the saints rising physically literally. Theres no reason not to other than preconceived bias and notion that the gospels aren't literal, which they are because they are works of history. They name places, and persons who existed in that time. this is not the book of revelationw e are talking about, we are talking about a historical text. Should I allegorize every historical thing I see? No. The only reason you reject it as literal because of your presupposed naturalism.

10-06-2010, 05:43 PM	#46
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	I have no interest reading that but from what I am seeing of it, is the same skeptical nonsense which would threaten your own religion. Don't just google something and post it. Last edited by Orthodox; 10-06-2010 at 05:46 PM.

10-09-2010, 08:26 PM	#57
InvestigateTruth Senior Member Joined: Sep 2010 From: Canada Posts: 396	Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Actually, when i read this verse, in my understanding (which can be quite wrong), the part which says 'Which is the Holy Ghost', could have been added by someone later. It just sounds kind of extra to me. I think, it should be like this: 1) But the Comforter, whom the Father will send in... or 2) The Holy Ghost, which the Father will send in.... it's like someone else kind of alter'd the text abit. Now as I said, this is only what comes to my mind (it can be wrong) But anyways, The Spirit does not have a physical body. Only body can have gender. Spirit doesn't. This is actually consistant in whole Bible. So, the comforter to me is the menifestation person. So, considering 'He' then it should be #1) And, just the fact that Jesus warned people for the false prophets, shows that He was expecting prophets to come. Anyways, He never said, there won't come any prophets anymore. Last edited by InvestigateTruth; 10-09-2010 at 08:34 PM.

10-09-2010, 11:21 PM	#59
arthra Senior Member Joined: Jun 2006 From: California Posts: 3,062	There is an interesting issue about the experience of Paul and I don't know how many are aware of it: If you read Acts 9:7 it says: And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. Now read the account given in Acts 22:9 And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice* of him that spake to me.* So there are contradictions of these supposed events in the text itself. Last edited by arthra; 10-09-2010 at 11:25 PM.

10-10-2010, 06:35 AM	#61
InvestigateTruth Senior Member Joined: Sep 2010 From: Canada Posts: 396	With regards to use of 'He' for God your explanation makes sense. But since the Holy Spirit is a different being than God, 'it' is used for it. and the Unity of God is proved in Baha'i Scriptures. About the False Prophets, actually, As Jesus warned before, there would be many false prophets. Here is the list of people who had a claim: List of messiah claimants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia But He knew that there will come True prophets. for 2 reasons: 1- He taught how to distinguish a True prophet from a False prophet.(By their Fruits) 2- He never said that there won't come anymore prophets. That's because he knew true prophets come. otherwise He would have said, there won't be any more. Also, according to old testimony, false prophets, would show mirracles to prove and deceive people. Clearly that wasn't the case for Baha'u'llah. He never used miracles for proof. Also, according to Old testimony, God Shall not allow false prophets to enter Israel: Ezekiel 13:9 And mine hand shall be upon the prophets that see vanity, and that divine lies: they shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land of Israel; and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD. And obviously, Baha'u'llah lived in Israel and His shrine is in Israel. And clearly all signs of the End Time has passed already. "Say, O ye foolish ones! Wait ye even as those before you are waiting!" -- Baha'u'llah Last edited by InvestigateTruth; 10-10-2010 at 06:44 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

10-06-2010, 05:18 PM	#41
Livindesert Senior Member Joined: Jul 2010 From: Delmarva Posts: 430	1 Corinthians 15:3-9 'For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.' Paul makes no distinction between the physical and non physical. As we pointed out earlier Paul said others were caught up to the third heaven(had a vision) So his account was of mass visions a spiritual resurrection and as we showed earlier there is ample evidence that the physical resurrection parts were spliced in later as in the ending of Mark.

10-06-2010, 05:23 PM	#42
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	Um, in that verse Paul is refferring to himself as one out of place away from the apostles of Christ. And no none of these verses are proof of a spiritual ressurection. Please read the site I gave you. It is very in depth and even though it is protestant I do happen to agree with its conclusions. The spiritual ressurection does not exist. It was a figment of your prophet's imagination.

10-06-2010, 06:18 PM	#48
Livindesert Senior Member Joined: Jul 2010 From: Delmarva Posts: 430	O.k. I am heading off to work. But I just want to say that I respect the Orthodox it is a beautiful faith showing the beauty of God's love. I just happen to follow a different path where I find my spiritual connection with God. We can believe different things and still love God together.

10-07-2010, 08:48 PM	#51
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	The words of your prophet mean nothing to me. I make a distinction because there is a distinction. Muhammad did not teach what the apostles taught, he did not teach what the church has taught. Baha'a'llah rejected elements of both and took elements he liked. So His words have no bearing on me. Use your own words to prove our God is One. For My God became flesh, John 1.1 and existed before the world was John 17:5 and his name is equal tot he father (The command for baptism in the name of the father and ht eson and the spirit something Bahai do not do today, because they have no the authority and reject Jesus).

10-08-2010, 12:24 AM	#54
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	Living that is distortion of the true trinity. If the trinity was that it would have been declared at the council of Nicea, instead the trinity is the Godhead the persons and essence of God defined. That being said, I have not rejected God's word whatsoever.

10-09-2010, 08:05 PM	#56
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	"Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. it can mean that, the Father will send the holy spirit, which is the comforter, then He (Baha'u'llah or Muhammad) will teach the same things that Jesus taught. It means that the Father will send the Holy spirit on Muhammad and Baha'u'llah to glorify them, then they will teach." What a blatant reading into the text, there is no way to isolate the he from the Holy spirit in this verse. It is in complete context to the Holy spirit and not someone else. The verse is speaking of the Holy spirit, not Bahu'llah. Not only that, but the Holy spirit was not being sent on Muhammad, it was being sent to the desciples, that is the whole of these verses and narratives, that the desciples would be receiving this. Your reading your religion into the text. Its like me reading in the physical ressurection into your Bahai works. it doesn't work. that being said, i see no inconsistency between giving the holy spirit the title of he or it, as it is utterly hard to define it, given the limitations of the language. Simply admit he was not the Comforter, for the comforter was to come to the desciples, not every generations new prophet. Jesus did not promise that.

10-09-2010, 08:52 PM	#58
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	Actually Jesus warning of false prophets on shows that he expected false prophets to come. So you must therefore reject the term father applied to God, because God is a spirit and thus cannot have genetalia to be considered a father. No your being to literal in your understanding. What one has to realise is that when one refers to God as a He "which I have seen Bahais do" is one being literal and saying God is a male? No of course not, they are doing it because it is innappropiate to call God "it" and "she" has some what of a Goddess connatation, thus society has deemed it appropiate to call God a He, though realising he is not literally He, but only metaphorically. Now in case you are going to accuse me of taking the scripture non literally, and therefore rejecting my own standard, I would simply say that the attributes of God in the bible lend to him being something beyond human, thus the authors themselves knew this but were limited to the language they had and had to call him "he" or use a masculine form in which to identify him. And as I have established before, the Holy spirit is a person.

10-10-2010, 03:00 AM	#60
Pollwr Senior Member Joined: Jun 2009 From: earth Posts: 311	I would just like to suggest that it is not unusual, especially at dramatic events, for two witnesses to walk away with different memories of what actually happened. I have had an experience of comparing my memory with someone else's of something and finding that we both know what we saw and would swear to it but...we could not have both been correct.

10-13-2010, 04:22 AM	#62
BruceDLimber Senior Member Joined: Mar 2010 From: Rockville, MD, USA Posts: 823	And in addition to the fact that the "fruits" of the Baha'i Faith clearly match those given in the list in Galatians, there's a more specific proof: First John 4:2 asserts that any prophet who says that Christ was born in the flesh is of God, and this is something that Baha'u'llah definitely says; He's therefore of God by the Bible's own criterion! Peace, :-) Bruce

12-16-2010, 10:43 AM	#63
Mdef Member Joined: Dec 2010 From: Pittsburgh Posts: 88	12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. -This is pretty self explanatory. I think going into comparison/arguing between things devolops probs.. Quran says in Sura 4:157-158 "And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise." 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all. -This I believe is the so called "Thesis" of the Bahai (The unity, humanity, and above all ONE GOD) faith through the manifestation's. Which there is no doubt in my mind by the Holy Scriptures of Bahai that he is the new messenger for this age. 12:9 To another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; Peace and blessings. Time has its meaning, I evolve.

01-07-2011, 12:00 PM	#64
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	It is interesting that one quote the quran as it is basically wrong on the whole conjecture thing. the Early christians were not in conjecture at all, Christ had died and rose physically, your view is more akin to the docetics whom harm the very humanity of Christ. Christ became man so that man may become god, as I like to quote that verse of St Athanasius often. That being said, the verses regarding the comforter are clearly talking about the Holy spirit not Muhammad, not baha'a'la, as that spirit was to come to the apostles the very people Christ was speaking to. Unless you maintain that they both were the Holy spirit which si blasphemy, you need to rethink your position. Btw im back.

01-10-2011, 12:50 AM	#67
arthra Senior Member Joined: Jun 2006 From: California Posts: 3,062	One of the problems in submitting a reference from article we have not written as an argument is that it's not your own.. thus in the site it says in bold letters: Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body. The problem is if you take the text of writings reputed to be Paul's you have the following where II Corinthians 12:3 says And I know that this man--whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows-- this doesn't sound like the "body" is all that improtant to him. Also consider when Jesus used the term "flesh": ... It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. ... The emphasis for Jesus was on the "spirit" not the flesh. Another example along the same lines .. How are we to consider the importance of the "bodies" of Elias and Moses at the Mount of Transfiguration... After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.… Jesus instructed them, "Don't tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." - Matthew 17:1-9 Are we to assume here that Moses and Elijah were physically and bodily present? .. I don't think so. It says they "appeared" and people did have visionary experiences.

01-10-2011, 01:09 AM	#68
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	No we are not to assume they were physically present, though they were certaintly there, be it in spirit. but one cannot draw such a conclusion and drag that to Jesus in light of the many verses speaking of the physicality of the ressurection. Luke 24 7, Christ speaking: The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and the third day rise again. this in the context of Christ appearing to the desciples. Do you believe that Christ actually appeared as spirit and spent 40 days with the apostles in accordance with what Luke clearly teaches? I dont think you do. You cannot believe that, you have to ignore the clear teaching luke in this regard. That being said the emphesis was on both the body and the spirit. When Christ came incarnate he showed that the gnostic assumption of spirit good, flesh bad was wrong. There is an inherent value in flesh in which because God created everything and everything was Good, and this includes man. So yes there is a spiritual element, and Christ who was God came flesh so that we may be reunited witht he father. Through his death this was made possible and through his ressurection we are shown that Christ is real. if this was a spiritual ressurection Christ has no proof for his claims. I might as well make him to be of satan.

01-10-2011, 05:06 AM	#69
Livindesert Senior Member Joined: Jul 2010 From: Delmarva Posts: 430	Please keep all anti-Baha'i posts to the interfaith forum

01-10-2011, 07:24 AM	#70
arthra Senior Member Joined: Jun 2006 From: California Posts: 3,062	No we are not to assume they were physically present, though they were certaintly there, be it in spirit. but one cannot draw such a conclusion and drag that to Jesus in light of the many verses speaking of the physicality of the ressurection. Luke 24 7, Christ speaking: The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men and be crucified and the third day rise again. The verse you cite though refers to Jesus crucifixion and not to the reported appearances later..being "raised again" after three days was reported to have been said before while alive.. Being "raised again" does not necessarily support a physical literral resurrection. I think the visionary experience of the disciples at the Mount of Transfiguration and the reports after the cruficixion are paralllel.

01-10-2011, 10:53 AM	#71
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	Um no, it is clearly taking place after teh crucifxion, I might need to post the entire chapter to prove as such. But tell me since this verse is after teh crucifixion which you cannot deny in context (i dont want to ahve to show you it as it should be plainly obvious) do you say that Christ appeared as a spirit to his desciples? Somewhat like a merging of Doceticism and Gospel of Judas?

01-10-2011, 01:41 PM	#73
Orthodox Dedicated to Orthodoxy Joined: Sep 2010 From: New Zealand Posts: 1,302	And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared. What does that first verse in the chapter say, the first day of the week as opposed to the crufixion which took place on the friday. We will not you ignored the context. This event happened after. THe Only way you can maintain as any sort of spiritual is if you believe Christ talked as a disembodied spirit to his apostles for 40 days, as Luke teaches. But let us move on. Yes I take the saints rising physically literally. Theres no reason not to other than preconceived bias and notion that the gospels aren't literal, which they are because they are works of history. They name places, and persons who existed in that time. this is not the book of revelationw e are talking about, we are talking about a historical text. Should I allegorize every historical thing I see? No. The only reason you reject it as literal because of your presupposed naturalism.