arthra

Resurrection as we Baha'is see it is fundamentally a spiritual event and should be appreciated more importnatly as a spiritual event.

If resurrection were purely physical it would be a magic trick and some claimed that the miracles of Jesus were "magical"...some pagan apologists called Jesus a magician...

Without the spiritual dimension the resurrection is a magical phenomena equivalent say to some Yogi or magician "surviving" death.

Resurrection was also a powerful symbol for many pagan religious groups in the eastern Mediterranean before and during the developement of Christianity..and I would suggest when these pagans became Christians they were affected or attracted to the new religion by the doctrines of the early Church and so on. This is why I think it's instructive to explore some of these eastern mediterranean religious practices and why i posted some of that material.

As to interpreting the Bible ... the literal interpretation of scripture tends to be fundamentalist and dogmatic.. If one can it is better i think to understand the symbolism and metaphore of scripture to grasp important meanings that overlooked by a literalist appraoch.

Science and religion should be in harmony... to believe say that a collection of vapour a cloud can carry a body violates what we know about God's creation...It violates nature which is God's law. Leaping off a tall building is something that the devil was supposed to have tempted the Lord Jesus in the wilderness but Jesus replied "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test". See the Gospel of Matthew Fourth Chapter.

Thomas experience as reported in the Gospel of John has more to do I think with believing in Jesus even when you have not seen Him. Read John 20:29...than it does with an apparition or appearance of Jesus in a room with the door locked...again, if we read the verses and focus on the appearance itself we could conclude it was a feat of magic rather than a spiritual experience. No one today can be sure also whether it was not a visionary experience as when Peter, John and James saw the Lord Jesus transfigured on the Mount conversing with Elijah and Moses... Luke 9:28-36.

The emphasis on the physical and literal i think led Simon to assume it was a magical phenomena and so he offered Peter silver to "give him the power". We know that Peter refused this request and accepted none of his money.

arthra

Baha'u'llah wrote,

"...by `Resurrection' is meant the rise of the Manifestation to proclaim His Cause ..."

(Kitab-i-Iqan, p.170).

And `Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'u'llah's Son, explained:

"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 their expressions, their parables, and their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things."

(Some Answered Questions, old ed., p.119)

Orthodox

I think you make a mistake by saying if it was purely physical (Which it was) it would be merely a magic trick, no it was confirmation that Christ was truely from God, for Christ emphasises in luke that the entire Old testamant was concerning him to come and die and rise from the dead. This was not a mere magic trick and though some pagans did accuse Jesus of this I believe it was not a magic trick but God's eternal power.

Also I must criticise your approach to the bible. The bible is many books, but for now I will consider the gospels, they have the mark of literal history about them, they set themselves within a historical time frame, Luke is most important in revealing this fact, the most spiritual is John but even then we find history. Also to simply allagorize scripture doesn't solve problems seen in it, in fact it opens more up. If the New testament is not literal, do we believe Jesus existed? Obviously not. Or if some parts are literal and others are not, on what criterion do we say it? I think the criterion is clear myself, that the parables of Jesus are not literal but have clear meanings. The NT is not a allagorical work designed purely for spirituality, it was designed and written for and by the church to tell us what the life of JEsus was. That is he died so that we may achieve theosis.

ALso, God is capable of making miracles (which you call magic) which defy the natural laws he set up. This does not contradict itself at all.

arthra

Orthodox..

You will find here predominantly Baha'i perspectives on issues of resurrection rather than the traditional Orthodox views you seem to subscribe to..

One of the problems may be you see this as a debate issue when it is more for imformation purposes..

Orthodox

I see it as a corrective issue, in which I will state the doctrine of the church and that we can discuss. It hurts no one and we will both learn in the process.

Yeshua

Hi Arthra :wub

I don't wish to turn this into a debate, just a healthy clarification of the Baha'i view and its relationship to the Christian one

Does that mean that a Baha'i could not believe in the resurrection as both a physical and a spiritual act? God created the laws of nature which means that he and only he has the authority to break them. Even from a Baha'i perspective, could one not argue that the vision of God to Baha'u'llah in which he told him he was a Manifestation of God and spoke 'through' him, could not one argue that just that in itself was a supernatural event which broke the common, run-of-the-mill everyday order of nature? If one says that God cannot break the laws of nature which he created then is that person not putting a limit on the power of God and rendering him into the realms of a Deist, impersonal, far-away God? Please remember that when we say Jesus 'resurrected' we do not mean he returned to a state of ordinary human life. His physical body was still corporeal but it was also gloriously transformed into a spiritual body. Jesus rose from the dead in the very same physical body in which He died. This resurrected body was a glorified, spiritual body. Do you see the duality and complexity of the Christian view?

After the resurrection Jesus was able to eat (Luke 24:42-43). He showed people His hands and feet, with the nail prints in them (Luke 24:39; John 20:27), and people even grabbed His feet and worshipped Him (Matt. 28:9). As the reports of Jesus' resurrection were spreading, Thomas, who was doubting the resurrection of Christ, said, "Unless I shall see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe," (John 20:25). Later, Jesus appeared to Thomas and said to him, "Reach here your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing," (John 20:27).

If Jesus' body had not risen, then He would not have feet and hands with the same holes of the nails of the crucifixion. Consider the following verses as further proof that His very body was raised:

•"When therefore it was evening, on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst, and said to them, "Peace be with you." 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples therefore rejoiced when they saw the Lord," (John 20:19-20).
•"And He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 "See My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself; touch Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have," (Luke 24:38-39).
It is obvious that Jesus was raised in the same body in which He died, with the same holes in His hands and feet. We see that Jesus proclaimed He had flesh and bones.

1 Cor. 15:35, 39, 42-44

35 But someone will say, "How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come?. . . 39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men, and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds, and another of fish. . . 42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown a perishable body, it is raised an imperishable body; 43 it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body

Paul is not stating that there are two separate bodies to each person, the physical and the spiritual and that after the physical one dies, the second and different spirit body takes over. Rather, when referencing the same body, he states, "it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body," (v. 44). The "it" is referring to the same body in both clauses, not separate and different ones. This same body becomes a resurrected body -- which is the spiritual body to which He is referring. In other words, the spiritual body is the very same body he previously had, though it had been changed into a spiritual one.

"For this perishable must put on the imperishable, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54 But when this perishable will have put on the imperishable, and this mortal will have put on immortality, then will come about the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory," (1 Cor. 15:53-54).

Our perishable and mortal bodies put on the imperishable and immortal aspects of the spiritual body which is the physically resurrected and changed body of the believer. Jesus was simply the first fruits of this resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20). Therefore, we can see that our future resurrected bodies will be spiritual bodies.

Obviously there is a symolic element to all of this as well. Unlike other religions of the day, Christianity involved one's dying to the elementary things of the world (Col. 2:8). Just as Christ died, so must Christians die to the rebellious nature of their flesh. A Christian approaches life from conversion onward as one who has actually died and been brought back to life as a new creature with a new, superior quality of life. However I wouldn't advice geting too 'symbolic' to the extent that one forgets or misunderstands the very real nature of the resurrection.

bwb

In the Baha'i interpretation, there are multiple interpretations given for 'resurrection from the dead':

1. The soul leaves the body and passes into a different world which is very different from this world. In this sense a human being is resurrected from the dead following bodily death.

2. Resurrection is referred to in the sense of "return", which is the prophesied 'return' of the same character qualities of one person in a different person, so much so that it is as if the same person has reappeared, but not literally. Or in the case of a Manifestation of God, the Divine Spirit returns and is manifested through a different human being, i.e. through the next Manifestation of God. (In Baha'i terminology, the Founders of God's religions, such as Christ and Baha'u'llah, are "Manifestations of God".)

3. Resurrection may be referred to in the sense of spiritual rebirth. Someone whose character and faith are transformed as a result of a spiritual awakening, is (symbolically, metaphorically) resurrected from the dead.

4. The Cause of Christ was as though dead for a few days following his death but then it was resurrected:
"...The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it. Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection.... "
-'Abdu'l-Baha, "Some Answered Questions", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Baha'i Publishing Trust, 1984), p. 104

5. The Apostles of Christ had a spiritual experience a few days after His death which proved to them that Christ's spirit was immortal. Baha'i teachings do not give a detailed explanation of what this experience consisted of, so Baha'is are presumably free to try to deduce and infer what that experience consisted of based on the Bible and on the clues given in Baha'i teachings.
"...We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realize He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and has been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing."
(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 9, 1947)
(Compilations, Lights of Guidance, p. 492)


The validity of resurrection type 4 is confirmed by this passage in St. Paul's teachings:
St. Paul: The community of Christians is referred to symbolically as Christ's body:

"12:12 For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
12:14 For the body is not one member, but many.
12:15 If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 12:16 And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? 12:17 If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? 12:18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him.
12:19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 12:20 But now are they many members, yet but one body.
12:21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
12:22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 12:23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness.
12:24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked.
12:25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another.
12:26 And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the members rejoice with it.
12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular."

(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)


The validity of resurrection types, 1 and 5 are confirmed by this passage in St. Paul's teachings:
St. Paul in 1 Corinthians says that resurrection from the dead happens in a spiritual body, not a physical body:

"15:35 But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? 15:36 Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: 15:37 And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance of wheat, or of some other grain: 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.
15:39 All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.
15:40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
15:42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 15:43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body."

(King James Bible, 1 Corinthians)

bwb

Here is a quotation from 'Abdu'l-Baha which sheds some light on this general subject:

"The people of Christianity have clung to literal interpretation of the statement in the Gospel that Christ came from heaven. The Jews, likewise, at the time of His manifestation held to outward and visible expectation of the fulfillment of the prophecies. They said, "The Messiah shall appear from heaven. This man came from Nazareth; we know his house; we know his parents and people. It is only hearsay that he descended from heaven; this cannot be proved."

The text of the Gospel states that He came from heaven although physically born of the mother. The meaning is that the divine reality of Christ was from heaven, but the body was born of Mary. Therefore, He came according to the prophecies of the Holy Book and, likewise, according to natural law -- His reality from heaven, His body earthly. As He came before, so must He come this time in the same way. But some arise with objections, saying, "We must have literal proof of this through the senses."

The reality of Christ was always in heaven and will always be. This is the intention of the text of the Gospel. For while Jesus Christ walked upon the earth, He said, "The Son of Man is in heaven." Therefore, holding to literal interpretation and visible fulfillment of the text of the Holy Books is simply imitation of ancestral forms and beliefs; for when we perceive the reality of Christ, these texts and statements become clear and perfectly reconcilable with each other. Unless we perceive reality, we cannot understand the meanings of the Holy Books, for these meanings are symbolical and spiritual -- such as, for instance, the raising of Lazarus, which has spiritual interpretation. We must first establish the fact that the power of God is infinite, unlimited, and that it is within that power to accomplish anything.

Second, we must understand the interpretation of Christ's words concerning the dead. A certain disciple came to Christ and asked permission to go and bury his father. He answered, "Let the dead bury their dead." Therefore, Christ designated as dead some who were still living -- that is, let the living dead, the spiritually dead, bury your father. They were dead because they were not believers in Christ. Although physically alive, they were dead spiritually. This is the meaning of Christ's words, "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of Spirit is spirit." He meant that those who were simply born of the human body were dead spiritually, while those quickened by the breaths of the Holy Spirit were living and eternally alive. These are the interpretations of Christ Himself. Reflect upon them, and the meanings of the Holy Books will become clear as the sun at midday.

The Holy Books have their special terminologies which must be known and understood. Physicians have their own peculiar terms; architects, philosophers have their characteristic expressions; poets have their phrases; and scientists, their nomenclature. In the scripture we read that Zion is dancing. It is evident that this has other than literal interpretation. The meaning is that the people of Zion shall rejoice. The Jews said Christ was not the Messiah but Antichrist, because one of the signs of the Messiah's coming was the dancing of Mount Zion, which had not yet come to pass. In reality, when Christ appeared, not only Mount Zion but all Palestine danced and rejoiced. Again in scriptures it is said, "The trees of the field shall clap their hands." This is symbolical. There are terms and expressions of usage in every language which cannot be taken literally. For instance, in oriental countries it is customary to say, "When my friend entered the house, the doors and walls began to sing and dance." In Persia they say, "Get at the head," meaning engage in the matter according to its own terms and usages. All these have other and inner meanings."

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

arthra

It may be helpful here to post a letter on the subject of resurrection that was issued by the Universal House of Justice:

UHJ letter: resurrection.bible.html

and from an essay by Mark Foster:

Resurrection: A Baha'i Perspective

And the following may be helpful:

Concerning the Resurrection of Christ you quote the twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the account stresses the reality of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples who, the Gospel states, at first took Him to be a ghost. From a Bahá'í point of view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the earth into the sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential truth of the disciples' experience, which is that Jesus did not cease to exist when He was crucified (as would have been the belief of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released from the body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to inspire and guide His followers and preside over the destinies of His dispensation.

Selections of extracts from the Bahá'í writings and from letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and the Universal house of Justice concerning the Old and New Testament, and the Resurrection are enclosed for the Spiritual Assembly's information.

(The Universal House of Justice, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ)

We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after His Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what has been reported symbolically in the New Testament and been misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after resurrection is the same thing.

9 October 1947 to an individual believer

(The Universal House of Justice, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ)

InvestigateTruth

The Baha'i Scriptures do not deny that God can change the laws that He created. But according to Baha'i Writings Resurrection of Jesus is not one of them.
Neither it means that Jesus died spiritually. But the point is, life does not end after physical death.

Orthodox

The desciples were not mystically realising the great teachings of their master. We know this from the gospels themselves. they fled from Jesus and only when Jesus appeared to them did they get the courage to again believe and then receive the Holy spirit. For the desciples did not start preaching 3 days after Jesus's death nor does the bible or any other text (other than Bahai) indicate that their faith was bolstered. No this happened 40 days after the ressurection of Christ's actual body. Thus the Bahai timeline of events is really out of sinc, were there two ressurections? Thats the only way one could explain the New testament.

BUt assuming naturally the apostles regained their faith on the third day, why? Under what possible reason would the 11 (remember Judas did not and instead killed himself but Bahai probably don't believe that) regain faith? Because of God? But why would God suddenly intefer now? To have the desciples spread the gospel? Well that failed completely as the Bahai gospel was lost the moment it was conceived. It just makes no sense. At least the docetic view made some sort of sense, Jesus's death was an illusion because he had no real body and thats why he survived crucifixion.

Orthodox

But as long as we are quoting people.

I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because ye have followed the example3 of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days (Phi_1:5) long gone by, endureth even until now, and bringeth forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] “whom God raised froth the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave.”4 “In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;” (1Pe_1:8) into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that “by grace ye are saved, not of works,” (Eph_2:8-9) but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.

Chapter 1, Polycarp to the Phillipians

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes. —

Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1

“The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: ‘I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.’ And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, ‘A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;’ (Num_24:17) and another Scripture says, ‘Behold a man; the East is His name.’251 Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.

Chap. CVI. — Christ’s Resurrection Is Foretold in the Conclusion of the Psalm. Dialogue with Tryphro

InvestigateTruth

"The descent of the Holy Spirit is not like the entrance of air into man; it is an
expression and a simile, rather than an exact or a literal image. No, rather it is like the entrance of the image of the sun into the mirror—that is to say, its splendor becomes apparent in it.
After the death of Christ the disciples were troubled, and their ideas and thoughts were discordant and contradictory; later they became firm and united, and at the feast of Pentecost they gathered together and detached themselves from the things of this world. Disregarding themselves, they renounced their comfort and worldly happiness, sacrificing their body and soul to the Beloved, abandoning their houses, and becoming wanderers and homeless, even forgetting their own existence. Then they received the help of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit became manifested; the spirituality of Christ triumphed, and the love of God reigned.
They were given help at that time and dispersed in different directions, teaching the Cause of God, and giving forth proofs and evidences.
So the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means their attraction by the Christ Spirit, whereby they acquired stability and firmness. Through the spirit of the love of God they gained a new life, and they saw Christ living, helping and protecting them. They were like drops, and they became seas; they were like feeble insects, and they became majestic eagles; they were weak and became powerful. They were like mirrors facing the sun; verily, some of the light became manifest in them." --Abdul'baha; Some Answered Questions

Orthodox

No the holy ghost is that of the real spiritual power of God coming onto the believer. And the apostles did not detach themselves from the world, rather they went into the world establishing churches, the churches of which you reject. I often wonder what was the point of the desciples regaining faith if they failed in establishing a communitie of true believers.

InvestigateTruth

In the Baha'i Scriptures as well as all other Holy Scriptures, When it talks about "detachment", it means, detachment from worldly desires, and selfish desires. That is forgetting Self, and wishing to Serve. It is then they become worthy of receiving 'inspiration'.

Orthodox

And as orthodox do it is a complete detachment, seperating yourself from the worldy peoples, praying for them constantly and living in a life of silence and complete dedication to God.

InvestigateTruth

Question.—What is the Holy Spirit?

Answer.—"The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God and the luminous rays which emanate from
the Manifestations; for the focus of the rays of the Sun of Reality was Christ, and from this
glorious focus, which is the Reality of Christ, the Bounty of God reflected upon the other
mirrors which were the reality of the Apostles. The descent of the Holy Spirit upon the
Apostles signifies that the glorious divine bounties reflected and appeared in their reality.
Moreover, entrance and exit, descent and ascent, are characteristics of bodies and not of
spirits—that is to say, sensible realities enter and come forth, but intellectual subtleties and
mental realities, such as intelligence, love, knowledge, imagination and thought, do not enter, or come forth, nor descend, but rather they have direct connection...."--Some answered questions

By the way, I suggest you read the 'Some answered questions'. As it is mostly related to the questions with regards to Christianity.

Orthodox

He is wrong. For the Holy spirit is not light or merely hte power of God, but the third person of God. The third eternal person of the trinity. He bares the qualities of personhood which make him a rational being and thus a person not an unconscious force. This is the belief of Jehovahs witnesses which is misinformed.

Acts 13: 2While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."

For the Holy spirit talks, a force does not talk and the text is clear "the Holy spirit" not "the father" or "Jesus" this makes sense for the Holy spirit was with them.



JOhn:15: 26"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

For the Holy spirit that being the spirit of truth, the counciler (and yes I have proved that already in another thread to Arthra) testifies of the son.

These are not the qualities of a force or a ray, these are the qualities of God whom was rightly defined at the Councils.

cire perdue

When I think about it, I find that the current Christian approach at interpretation of Biblical scripture would be very familiar in Rome at the time of Christ. Thus the physical resurrection, being the son of a god, and miracles are not strange or even much of a difficulty to believe for a pagan. However the Apostles probably realized the spiritual significance of Christ's teachings and had a very difficult time attracting believers, because a Roman could say "Caesar is a God" and be aware of miracles by the Olympic gods and goddesses. Once again I cite that Christians were so spiritually changed that they were willing to die to nurse the sick during plagues, and it is that spiritual change that is significant. What change can be brought about by believing in Biblical occurrences as factual rather than allegorical. I have never in my life seen a dead body raised, water turned into wine, or seen someone walk on water. However I have spiritual changes in people who are Baha'is and Christians.

Pollwr

I agree with you cire perdue. I just found a good bit in "Some Answered Questions, relevant to this.

MIRACLES

Question. -- It is recorded that miracles were performed by Christ. Are the reports of these miracles really to be accepted literally, or have they another meaning? It has been proved by exact science that the essence of things does not change, and that all beings are under one universal law and organization from which they cannot deviate; and, therefore, that which is contrary to universal law is impossible.

Answer. -- The Holy Manifestations are the sources of miracles and the originators of wonderful signs. For Them, any difficult and impracticable thing is possible and easy. For through a supernatural power wonders appear from Them; and by this power, which is beyond nature, They influence the world of nature. From all the Manifestations marvelous things have appeared.

But in the Holy Books an especial terminology is employed, and for the Manifestations these miracles and wonderful signs have no importance. They do not even wish to mention them. For if we consider miracles a great proof, they are still only proofs and arguments for those who are present when they are performed, and not for those who are absent.

For example, if we relate to a seeker, a stranger to Moses and Christ, marvelous signs, he will deny them and will say: "Wonderful signs are also continually related of false gods by the testimony of many people, and they are affirmed in the Books. The Brahmans have written a book about wonderful prodigies from Brahma." He will also say: "How can we know that the Jews and the Christians speak the truth, and that the Brahmans tell a lie? For both are generally admitted traditions, which are collected in books, and may be supposed to be true or false." The same may be said of other religions: if one is true, all are true; if one is accepted, all must be accepted. Therefore, miracles are not a proof. For if they are proofs for those who are present, they fail as proofs to those who are absent.

But in the day of the Manifestation the people with insight see that all the conditions of the Manifestation are miracles, for They are superior to all others, and this alone is an absolute miracle. Recollect that Christ, solitary and alone, without a helper or protector, without armies and legions, and under the greatest oppression, uplifted the standard of God before all the people of the world, and withstood them, and finally conquered all, although outwardly He was crucified. Now this is a veritable miracle which can never be denied. There is no need of any other proof of the truth of Christ.

The outward miracles have no importance for the people of Reality. If a blind man receives sight, for example, he will finally again become sightless, for he will die and be deprived of all his senses and powers. Therefore, causing the blind man to see is comparatively of little importance, for this faculty of sight will at last disappear. If the body of a dead person be resuscitated, of what use is it since the body will die again? But it is important to give perception and eternal life -- that is, the spiritual and divine life. For this physical life is not immortal, and its existence is equivalent to nonexistence. So it is that Christ said to one of His disciples: "Let the dead bury their dead;" for "That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit."[1]
[1 Matt. 8:22; John 3:6.]

Observe: those who in appearance were physically alive, Christ considered dead; for life is the eternal life, and existence is the real existence. Wherever in the Holy Books they speak of raising the dead, the meaning is that the dead were blessed by eternal life; where it is said that the blind received sight, the signification is that he obtained the true perception; where it is said a deaf man received hearing, the meaning is that he acquired spiritual and heavenly hearing. This is ascertained from the text of the Gospel where Christ said: "These are like those of whom Isaiah said, They have eyes and see not, they have ears and hear not; and I healed them."[1]
[1 Cf. Matt. 13:14 and John 12:40-41.]

The meaning is not that the Manifestations are unable to perform miracles, for They have all power. But for Them inner sight, spiritual healing and eternal life are the valuable and important things. Consequently, whenever it is recorded in the Holy Books that such a one was blind and recovered his sight, the meaning is that he was inwardly blind, and that he obtained spiritual vision, or that he was ignorant and became wise, or that he was negligent and became heedful, or that he was worldly and became heavenly.

As this inner sight, hearing, life and healing are eternal, they are of importance. What, comparatively, is the importance, the value and the worth of this animal life with its powers? In a few days it will cease like fleeting thoughts. For example, if one relights an extinguished lamp, it will again become extinguished; but the light of the sun is always luminous. This is of importance.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 101)

InvestigateTruth

The problem is similar to the first time that Messiah appeared from the heaven in the 'cloud!'
That was the reason people at that time had so much difficulties recognizing Jesus.
Even as the clouds prevent the eyes of men from beholding the sun, so do the 'Vain Imaginations' of people, specially the Divines and Religious Leaders of that age, prevented men from recognizing Him.

The same thing is true with respect to His second coming.

He did come in the cloud!

To gain the true understanding, we need to recognize, that always, the Divines and Religious leaders mislead people from recognizing the Prophets.

We need to learn the lesson from history!

This is why, Baha'u'llah said:

"No man shall attain the shores of the ocean of true understanding except he be detached from all that is in heaven and on earth."

Orthodox

Cire i think you lack a basic knowledge of paganism. There was no real idea of ressurection within roman paganism, that being said the idea of Christ being the son of God is completely distinct. Whereas Christ is the eternally begotton son, the pagan gods were sons becuase they were sexually conceived. This Is not the same. And Cire why would you expcet those things to happen? They were isolated events, and if you choke them up as rediculous, deny the virgin birth. Deny it, if miracles are so impossible and pagan deny the virgin birth. You've watched zeitgeist right? Horus was born of a virgin! Cire, do not be silly. Be consistent.

Also Investigate, i ask you for a list of these men who lead people away from the faith. Because in order to say men have lead people away from the truth, that is the religious leaders, you must have some sense of who they are, or at least at what time this happened.

And No, Christ has not come again. Christ will come again, which is why his body ascended into heaven in the gospels.

Orthodox

I will simply post some tracts myself from Orthodox christians.

After Christ was risen from the dead He laid aside all His passions, I mean His corruption or hunger or thirst or sleep or weariness or such like. For, although He did taste food after the resurrection(1), yet He did not do so because it was a law of His nature (for He felt no hunger), but in the way of economy, in order that He might convince us of the reality of the resurrection, and that it was one and the same flesh which suffered and rose again(2). But He laid aside none of the divisions of His nature, neither body nor spirit, but possesses both the body and the soul intelligent and reasonable, volitional and energetic, and in this wise He sits at the right hand of the Father, using His will both as God and as man in behalf of our salvation, energising in His divine capacity to provide for and maintain and govern all things, and remembering in His human capacity the time He spent on earth, while all the time He both sees and knows that He is adored by all rational creation. For His Holy Spirit knows that He is one in substance with God the Word, and shares as Spirit of God and not simply as Spirit the worship accorded to Him. Moreover, His ascent from earth to heaven, and again, His descent from heaven to earth, are manifestations of the energies of His circumscribed body. For He shall so come again to you, saith he, in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven(3).

Book 4 Chapter one, The exact Disposition of the Orthodox faith, John Damascene

InvestigateTruth

For this part I can understand. I can see your point.
But you are asking what happend. Ok. Nothing happend! It's about what happend in the mind of them! I think it's about realizing, that human can make a mistake.
Human understanding is not perfect, every one has an understanding according to his perception of reality.
2 people can look at one thing, and have different perception.
Specially, when it comes to understanding of sacred writings such as Bible, we need to understand that part of these writings are Figurative. God has made them that way, to hide certain things and reveal them later.

Why God didn't clearly say when messiah comes for the second time? Think about it, if you truely believe Bible is from God!!![/B]

But for this part, you are making a conclusion too fast! Logically think about this: When you are investigating the truth of something, you can not make a conclusion and say He is wrong or Messiah has not come back. Because you are making a conclusion, while you are in the process of investigating.

If you are truely searching for truth, you can not make this conclusion at this point, when you have not investigated everything. I told you before, Baha'u'llah has 17,000 works. plus the writings of Abdulbaha, the Bab, Shoghi, etc.
How many of these have you read? it took me several years to get my convincing answers.

And when I say, we need to learn from history. I meant Pharisees.

Let me ask you this: Are the leaders of chiristianity, generally speaking, infallible? Whether orthodox or catholics or whatever?
If you say, they are guided by Holy Spirit. Then Why so many people deviated or broke off the church? They must have been guided by the same Holy spirit to follow the same path

Also, Jewish have orthodox too. Just because they think they are Orthodox, it doesn't make them the right path.

You need to see, what human mind has made of Jesus, is more like a science fiction movies. He come from sky like superman? sounds like voodoo! That's not the way of God.

Think about this: It's not strange to say, that in the future, the science may prograss to the point that it can discover a new sort of Energy, that every person can go to sky and come back by wearing some type of Cloths!! Then how many Jesus are we going to have?!!!

These are called 'idle fancies' These are the 'cloud'


"For the people are wandering in the paths of delusion, bereft of discernment to see God with their own eyes, or hear His Melody with their own ears. Thus have We found them, as thou also dost witness.
Thus have their superstitions become veils between them and their own hearts and kept them from the path of God, the Exalted, the Great." Tablet of Ahmad-- Baha'u'llah

Orthodox

Yet God (according to your view) must have guided the canon through these men of the early church. One wonders why God could not just tell them how to read it as well or what the point of Jesus coming was. In fact why doesn;t ever tell us the main point in the Bahai view? After all things are hidden from you, you have no idea what you say is right, its all conjecture why does God have to be so cryptic? Maybe cause its not from God, but human revisionism desperately wanting human kind to unite in spite of the contradictions.

That being said my conclusion is based on a lot of things, the fact that baha'a'llah misreads teh verses of the comforter and applies it to himself which is impossible in light of the Comforter "who is the Holy spirit" was to come to the desciples.

Secondly it is due to him rejecting the church and proclaiming the blasphemy of him being the second coming.

Why have peopel broke off from the church? Becuase humans are prideful they reject the truth, however that does no impede the unity of the church which through history has clearly been unified and has been able to defend itself against heresies such as Bahai. And no the Holy spirit is not hte author of confusion, for if the Holy spirit is in every person or member of the church truely God is a cruel mallicious being who does not care whether man finds the truth, truely if God is not clear and is cryptic and completely contradicts himself every time he reveals himself. He is truely a God who is mallicious and dishonest. But if that is the God you submit to, feel free.

Now the Jewish are not orthodox, they are jewish, false pharisees whom Jesus condemned, they were succeeded by the new israel the church through the clear teachings of Christ, not your metaphorical ramblings on what they could possibly mean.

Sorry if Im being harsh, but I cannot stand hte heresy. Lord Jesus Christ in heaven, Father son and Holy spirit, have mercy on me.

Orthodox

You say part are figurative yet you have no rational or even consistent way of giving me the idea that some are figurative. On what grounds do you dismiss the ressurection narrative and yet believe in the virgin birth? Because your prophet said so? That makes no sense, it would be like me reading Josephesu's history and taking parts about the jewish war as being metaphore because of my predisposition that jews are peaceloving people and couldn't possibly war.

Are you to honestly ignore the wars of the OT? Despite the huge detail gone into them in which gives a very real implication that the author believed it real? What Metaphorical purposes do the numbers of the armies serve? Does the number have any signifficance? The Bahai view is simply picking and choosing what you don't like, well what Baha'u'llah did not like. He wanted a united world, but he blasphemed God in the process by disregarding scripture and the church.

Lord have mercy on me a sinner.

InvestigateTruth

You haven't given me the answer to questions i asked you above. I need to know your openion, regarding the questions i asked above. Maybe you can teach me.

The concept of TEST is a real concept in bible. Jesus taught it.
You are thinking of God as a simple being. The Creater of All that is in Heavens and the earth.
You think God's Tests are limmited to what you want?
Do you expect to be able to know His ways? Do, you expect His tests be easy? He tests everyone, with difficault tests. This concept is also taught in the Bible.

I have already gave you the example of 'King'. Though I can give you alot more.

Orthodox

And your accusation of Christ coming as a superman is clouded by the fact you believe in a virgin birth, something completely unnatural for which there was no reason for it to occur. God could not have possibly come like htat! Thats something out of a fantasy movie.

You see the inconsistency? At one point you will deny the miracles of Christ as rediculous but completely accept a miracle when it agrees with your predescribed agenda. You know what is a truely rediculous miracle, a talking Cross, which is found in a gnostic gospel, that is truely rediculous. The miracles of JEsus in the gospels are not symbols and if they are you must regard the virgin birth as one also. Christ performed miracles and healled sick (surely something God wouldn't do). Yet you have the gaul to laugh at Christ. It was you he was talking about when he said told them of the people who do miracles in his name.

I suppose the holy ghost never went onto the apostles, and instead like modern pentacostals they were just mindlessly jibbering to themselves in extatic frenzy. this is the conclusion of what bahai makes. it Makes everything that does not agree with its naturallism (except when it arbitrarily says God can break it) a fantasy and mocks it. You are jews who mocked Jesus you are a pharisee.

Lord have mercy on me, a terrible sinner.

I did not address all your questions, but instead addressed the most important one.

InvestigateTruth

No, The ones you didn't answer, are the ones that are very very important!:lol
Seriously. I am hoping we can come to a conclusion with those first.

I just want to understand your point of view, regarding God's Tests.
Maybe we should open a dedicated thread for TESTs

P.S. it's late here,i go to sleep

Orthodox

I have answered the most important of your ussumptions that is of adversus Miracles. Yours and hte bahai view towards, calling the one who admits to miracles as a lunatic yet yourself will believe in the virgin birth. This undermines your entire assumption that the gospels must be taken figuratively. Bahai undermines itself. I addressed the most important one.

Now do I expect to know everything? No, but I do expect to know some things, and God has given this knowledge to us through the church which God established but you reject. You however accept the churches decision on her canon, steal it and make off with it. The inconsistency baffles me.

InvestigateTruth

Old Testament Scriptures
GENESIS 22:1-2 NKJ
Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham . . . .
And He said, “Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering"

CORINTHIANS 2:9 NKJ
For to this end I also wrote, that I might put you to the test, whether you are obedient in all things.

Clearly Jesus said He would test. So, now that He returned, and is saying that some part of it was Figurative, and it is a test for people of this age, some people have a problem, passing the test.
Simply because He said things against the church. Well, He is the True Founder of the church. He can change it whenever He wants. No body can say why or what for, except those who disobey.
He has given the correct interpretation of the verses of Bible. So, people become free from their own idle fancies'. Simply because it's against what they understood, it doesn't give them an excuse to not accept, except those who disobey.

Clearly the Tests are always against the desire of people, but it's a test for obedience.


Also, Bible didn't clearly say, when Messiah would return. Because it was a test, to know who has kept the covenant. But the signs are given for the end time. All the signs of the end of time has come to pass. you name it.

Also, clearly, the leaders of christianity are not and have never been infallible beings. No wonder they misinterpreted the verses of Bible so much! and they never came to an agreement.

Orthodox

I asked you, where were these false teachers. but consider the words of Justin Martyr who has written an entire on how the Old testament predicts Christ. Perhaps you should read it, and get some truth, its called Dialogue with Tryphro. Now your assumption Bahu'a'llah is not based on anything. Your simply assuming it. And I have shown in another thread he is not comforter, as the scripture tells us the comforter was the Holy spirit.

InvestigateTruth

In the same thread, I proved that the Comforter is refering to Muhammad and Baha'u'llah!

You only prove things to yourself, not to anyone else!:lol
It's simply because you haven't done enough deepening. You need to read the Baha'i sacred writings and pray constantly, so you become worthy of receiving the knowledge of true understanding.

As I said before, what they taught you in the church, has become a veil for you to see the truth. You need to clean your mind from those things first. Their names doesn't matter. What matters is they are not infallible.

You need to get the knowledge from it's true Source.

"We informed you of the knowledge of God, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. Were We to find worthy vessels, We would deposit within them the treasures of hidden meanings and impart unto them a knowledge, one letter of which would encompass all created things."-- Baha'u'llah- Súriy-i-Haykal

Orthodox

You did not investigate. The Comforter is explisively declared the Holy spirit and he is promised to the desciples. This is in continuity with acts in which the apostles received the comfoter. Now what baha'u'llah has taught you is a distortion of the truth, he was a heretical innovator so desperate in wanting world unity he would blaspheme God to achieve it. He was the false prophet Christ talked about, and warned about, like Muhammad before him.,

God forgive me, a sinnner.

Clex19

God does not need to break His laws of nature to perform a miracle. For example, Christ not having a biological, physical father obviously doesn't go against the laws of nature. The first human obviously couldn't have had a human father. So, why didn't God make the birth of Christ impossible? He could have made Jesus' simply come down from the clouds, yet He instead chose to make it something that was unimaginably improbable, but still possible. In the Kitáb-i-Iqan, Bahá'u'lláh says that if Jesus had descended from the sky, no sane person would be able to deny that Jesus was a Divine Manifestation of God. Then, how could one distinguish faith resulting from choice, versus faith resulting from not being able to not believe? It would defeat the purpose of God granting humans free will. Similarly, if Jesus had physically been resurrected, there wouldn't be a single person that could oppose Jesus' Divinity. If it was the Will of God for His laws of nature to be broken, then why go through the trouble of having Jesus die? Why not make Jesus impervious to death? It would be just as effective as seeing Jesus rise from the dead. An impossible miracle would take away the opportunity to believe because of choosing to believe. Faith through choice is more commendable than faith through undeniability. It's like believing you know the answer to a math problem on a test is right because you honestly did the work is more virtuous than believing you know the correct answer because you cheated. I'm not saying that God could not have physically resurrected, for God is All-Powerful, but that the Resurrection was not physical.

Orthodox

Um yes it does go against natural laws Clex, for naturally a woman and the man have sexual relations in which the sperm is transmitted to the egg and this causes birth. This is the natural process by which women and men are born. JEsus was not born that way. he was born of the spirit. By God's intervention, it would not have occured naturally (in of itself by nature) if it weren't for God.

Clex19

@Orthodox But the first human did not need the sperm of a man, so why should Jesus, a Manifestation of God, not just a simple human, require the sperm of a man? A miracle does not have to be impossible. Just because science is not yet advanced enough to explain an event doesn't mean it can't abide with the laws of nature. Consider the earth orbiting the sun. It could not be explained by science hundreds of years ago but it is still true and is in conformity with nature and gravity.

Orthodox

But Clex that is the natural process, perhaps you would realise maybe mankinds creation was not natural, happening in of itself, but rather man was created in the image of God by God's pwoer. This is not natural. Now Clex, science tells us how people are conceived, science cannot explain how God was able to use his holy spirit to impregnate mary, you want something that cannot be measured with the scientific method. So No, it was not natural. but something tells me you will just define natural as what happens, and therefore I might say just because science cannot explain how someone can walk on water today, doesn't mean they won't in the future. Just because science cannot explain the ressurection, doesn't mean they won't in the future. Your own criteria for believing the virgin birth in of itself opens up all the miracles of the bible as natural phenomom your being ignorant.

Clex, the only way you can maintain a virgin birth is as if Mary sat down where a man had ejaculated and got pregnant from that. A virgin birth cannot happen naturally without semen and you know this. Clearly Christ was conceivd by the Holy spirit as the gospel says. But you probable arbitrarily reject such a part.

Livindesert

Orthodox we have the second comming telling us what is true and what is not. Just because we do not yet understand why we were told this dose not mean we have to accept every miracle somebody else claims.

Orthodox

You have not the second coming, lord have mercy. That does not change the logical fallacies and problems within what clex has said. He will reject the miracles of Christ because they are not scientific, yet he will believe the virgin birth because he believes science will prove it, despite the fact he knows it won't. I have explained the process of naturally giving birth, that is when a man and woman have sex the sperm is passed through the penis into the vagina heading into the womb into the egg creating life. this is the natural process. So to call the virgin birth natural, completely denies what happens in of itself by human will. And living, stop accepting this arbritrary doctrine of accepting mriacles you like and rejecting others you don't like.