Bahá'í

[arthra]

If it helps I’d like to make a few comments here…

Baha’is don’t spend a lot of time among ourselves discussing the trinity or the incarnation or the various creeds in the Christian church. But to summarize our beliefs:

Baha’is accept the virgin birth of Jesus Christ…

Baha’is do not accept His physical resurrection from the grave as is held by Christians.

We do accept the **spiritual resurrection **of Jesus:

As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signifies the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v1, p. 192)

As to the** trinity** Abdul-Baha described what we accept in that regard.

*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.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113)

Baha’is accept that the Bible is inspired and has spiritual truth but we don’t accept that it is inerrant word for word. From the Universal House of Justice

*The Bahá’ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. …

…The Bahá’ís believe that God’s Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
*
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

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

 

[daler]

I never do like the Bahai’s and cherry pick Sacred Scriptures with my own interpretations in order to prove a false point.

The holy fathers of the Church through great councils and consensus compiled the New Testament Canons…and they give us proper interpretations.

Cyril of Jerusalem
“This body shall be raised, not remaining weak as it is now, but this same body shall be raised. By putting on incorruption, it shall be altered, as iron blending with fire becomes fire—or rather, in a manner the Lord who raises us knows. However it will be, this body shall be raised, but it shall not remain such as it is. Rather, it shall abide as an eternal body. It shall no longer require for its life such nourishment as now, nor shall it require a ladder for its ascent; for it shall be made a spiritual body, a marvelous thing, such as we have not the ability to describe” (*Catechetical Lectures *18:18 [A.D. 350]).

Mickey, This is a very good description, in one sense, which clearly establishes, in my opinion, that the risen “body”, or “identity” and true “reality” of Christ was not His physical body in the ordinary sense. More like a butterfly (eternal body) leaving a cocoon (natural body).
Tell me please if you believe that Jesus’ physical body went off into space, and if so, where do you reckon He went?
Cyril says “no longer require for its life such nourishment as now, nor shall it require a ladder for its ascent… spiritual body…” beyond description.
In his meaning, as I understand his attempt to describe the indescribable, I would tend to agree, and again, refer to “He entered the room, not using the door”
This creates an “apparent” disjunct with Thomas’ remarks. However, there is another way to view the scenario, but it is metaphorical in a sense, not literal, in this interpretation:
"Until I see the disciples (who are the “body” of Christ) sacrificing themselves, as did Jesus (referring to His wounds), essentially saying “Show me the evidence of your similar sacrifice - your wounds”
This requires an understanding of the telling of the story other than accepting it solely as a literal, physical event. Nevertheless, it is coherently harmonious with “He entered the room, not using the door.”
When Mary first “saw” Jesus, she did not know that He was with her on the road. To me, this refers to her finally comprehending that He was with her, though not physically with her, which is completely compatible with “Where ever two or three gather and make mention of Me, there I am also.”
Also, that historically Jesus never “appeared” to non-believers, but only believers “saw” Him. That is, they saw Him with their spiritual eyes and comprehended that He was still with them, though not physically. Otherwise, there would surely be accounts of many Jews and Romans “seeing” Him also.
Do you follow the logic of the argument being made that these accounts may be more closely in accordance with what Cyril is trying to describe, and what the Baha’is are referring to as the meaning of the Resurrection?
I’m not asking you to agree with it, just if you follow the idea being presented.

 

[Mickey]

clearly establishes, in my opinion, that the risen “body”, or “identity” and true “reality” of Christ was not His physical body

**Cyril of Jerusalem
**"This body shall be raised, not remaining weak as it is now, **but this same body shall be raised. **

Tell me please if you believe that Jesus’ physical body went off into space

Into space? You mean heaven. Why must you be rude?

Cyril says "no longer require for its life such nourishment as now, nor shall it require a ladder for its ascent…

Yes. It is a wonderful mystery.

To me, this refers to her finally comprehending that He was with her, though not physically with her,

You are twisting the Scriptures. Be watchful. I can see how St Mary poses a unique problem for your strange belief in a non-physical resurrection.

That is, they saw Him with their spiritual eyes and comprehended that He was still with them, though not physically.

Why do you keep twisting the Scriptures? Christ said: ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 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.’

Do you follow the logic of the argument being made that these accounts may be more closely in accordance with what Cyril is trying to describe, and what the Baha’is are referring to as the meaning of the Resurrection.

St Cyril is certainly not in accordance with your odd interpretations.

 

[meltzerboy]

If it helps I’d like to make a few comments here…

Baha’is don’t spend a lot of time among ourselves discussing the trinity or the incarnation or the various creeds in the Christian church. But to summarize our beliefs:

Baha’is accept the virgin birth of Jesus Christ…

Baha’is do not accept His physical resurrection from the grave as is held by Christians.

We do accept the **spiritual resurrection **of Jesus:

As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days subsequent to His departure: This signifies the divine teachings and spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual forevermore.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Tablets of Abdu'l-Baha v1, p. 192)

As to the** trinity** Abdul-Baha described what we accept in that regard.

*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.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, p. 113)

Baha’is accept that the Bible is inspired and has spiritual truth but we don’t accept that it is inerrant word for word. From the Universal House of Justice

*The Bahá’ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet. …

…The Bahá’ís believe that God’s Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
*
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

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

It appears from this description that Baha’is accept more about Jesus than Jews do. Was this due to the influence of Muslims? Also, with regard to the literal statements of the Prophets and so on, although we (Jews and Christians) believe they did utter such statements, not everything is interpreted in a literal manner. IOW, the Bible uses figurative and poetic language as well.

 

[daler]

**Cyril of Jerusalem
**"This body shall be raised, not remaining weak as it is now, **but this same body shall be raised. **
Into space? You mean heaven. Why must you be rude?
Yes. It is a wonderful mystery.
You are twisting the Scriptures. Be watchful. I can see how St Mary poses a unique problem for your strange belief in a non-physical resurrection.
Why do you keep twisting the Scriptures? Christ said: ‘Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts? 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.’
St Cyril is certainly not in accordance with your odd interpretations.

Mickey, I did not mean to be rude. Sorry if I did not phrase that properly. Please consider the words of Jesus and their meaning when He said:
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven”
The physical body descended from Mary, not heaven (sky). Do you agree?
Jesus says that He “is in heaven” already, not up in the sky “physically”
Hence, we can recognize that by “heaven”, the meaning is not the physical “sky” overhead. Can you agree with this?
As you have asked me to answer certain of your questions, please take a moment to answer these questions of mine, if you will. I mean no offense, just to continue the conversation with you. I do not mean to be rude.

Now as to the difficulty of resolving the account given in the gospels, which you point out, this is indeed a difficult matter to resolve, inasmuch as it calls into question exactly what transpired. Did “He enter the room, not using the door”, then suddenly Poof! appear?
Well, to me, this does not seem likely. What seems likely is that the story was told in this manner, taken literally, and recorded as though it did.
Whether one wants to even consider that people do tell stories, with sometimes profound and hidden meanings concealed within the stories, it is up to them, but is historically undeniable.
So whether Jesus did or did not physically come back to life, meaning that He could not have life without a physical body, is part of the problem. Then, whether He physically went on up into the sky and outer space becomes another problem.
I don’t know whether your want to try to address these problems or not, but I invite you to consider them.

That you consider my interpretations as odd, must be contrasted with how odd the literal resurrection interpretation certainly is, that He appeared out of nowhere, and went up into outer space somewhere. To me, that is very odd indeed.
Please comment.

 

[Mickey]

The physical body descended from Mary, not heaven (sky). Do you agree?

…who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and became man.

As you have asked me to answer certain of your questions, please take a moment to answer these questions of mine

But you were never able to answer mine.

Did “He enter the room, not using the door”, then suddenly Poof! appear?

We know that He was not a spirit. We know that he was flesh and bone. We do not know how He entered the room in this manner. We will know one day.

What seems likely is that the story was told in this manner, taken literally, and recorded as though it did.

The Sacred Scriptures were not corrupted…and if that is your apologetic…then our conversation ends here.

Then, whether He physically went on up into the sky and outer space becomes another problem.

Outer space? Why do you continue your rudeness?

I don’t know whether your want to try to address these problems or not, but I invite you to consider them.

I have addressed them…whether you will accept it is another matter.

That you consider my interpretations as odd, must be contrasted with how odd the literal resurrection interpretation certainly is

Sorry bud…but you are on a Christian forum which preaches the Gospel. Part of the Good News is that we believe in a bodily resurrection. That is understood and accepted and interpreted by the Church and the holy fathers and saints for 2000 years. The fact that you deny that…and counter it by twisting the Sacred Scriptures to suit your own belief system…to me…is odd.

that he appeared out of nowhere went up into outer space somewhere.

And with this final comment of uncharity and rudeness…I am placing you on my ignore list. :tiphat:

 

[Servant19]

Hi Mickey, so how exactly did Jesus enter the room?

I don’t believe you have answered this question

Thanks again

 

[arthra]

It appears from this description that Baha’is accept more about Jesus than Jews do. Was this due to the influence of Muslims? Also, with regard to the literal statements of the Prophets and so on, although we (Jews and Christians) believe they did utter such statements, not everything is interpreted in a literal manner. IOW, the Bible uses figurative and poetic language as well.

The issue may be for us is how “direct” the revelation is and the capacity of humanity when it was revealed…

*Know of a certainty that in every Dispensation the light of Divine Revelation hath been vouchsafed unto men in direct proportion to their spiritual capacity.
*
~ Baha’u’llah, Gleanings from the Writings of Baha’u’llah, p. 87

 

[Mickey]

I don’t believe you have answered this question

Yes I did…in post #165. But I’ll add a bit to it if you are still confused.

“He shows them that after His resurrection His body was both incorruptible and yet could be touched. He showed us that His body after the resurrection was the same nature as ours but of a different sort of glory.”
St Gregory the Great

 

[flameburns623]

A couple of comments bouncing off of Mickey’s final exchange with Dealer:

1. Post-resurrection appearances of Christ: the Gospels depict the Risen Christ as eating fish, breaking bread; being embraced by a follower; being touched by a disciple. These things show that the appearances are bodily and not ethereal. At the same time, Christ’s post-resurrection Body appears to be liberated from the ordinary limits of the human body. Immediately after the breaking of the bread, Christ vanishes from sight. At least twice, Christ enters into a locked room, apparently supernaturally. At His assension he is lifted away into the air where he vanishes behind clouds.
2. A lot of gentle mockery was made about whether Christ’s Ascension carried Him away to “outer space”. The text does not say this. He simply ascended to a point where He was concealed by clouds. That said–Christian theology suggests that in His resurrection body, Christ would not experience normal limitations of human flesh. As He could dematerialize before the eyes of some followers, apparently enter secured buildings supernaturally, and even deny gravity in ascending without known means of suspension–Christ very possibly COULD HAVE ascended to space–or, so far as we know, stood on the very surface of the sun or whatever.
3. However, the quip betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians understand about Heaven. For us, Heaven is “real”, it is a place where material objects very much like those we are presently familiar with can exist, it is in some way or form “above” the plane of our normal existence–yet it is not, strictly-speaking “in the sky”. In one sense, as someone has said, Heaven, and all the Saints and angels therein are as close as our skin. They are real, they are alive, if the scales could be removed from our eyes we would see them continually. But they are veiled from our ordinary perception. It is only by analogy and metaphor that Christians speak of Heaven as high-up .far-away.

Hope this helps!

 

[Mickey]

A couple of comments bouncing off of Mickey’s final exchange with Dealer:

1. Post-resurrection appearances of Christ: the Gospels depict the Risen Christ as eating fish, breaking bread; being embraced by a follower; being touched by a disciple. These things show that the appearances are bodily and not ethereal. At the same time, Christ’s post-resurrection Body appears to be liberated from the ordinary limits of the human body. Immediately after the breaking of the bread, Christ vanishes from sight. At least twice, Christ enters into a locked room, apparently supernaturally. At His assension he is lifted away into the air where he vanishes behind clouds.
2. A lot of gentle mockery was made about whether Christ’s Ascension carried Him away to “outer space”. The text does not say this. He simply ascended to a point where He was concealed by clouds. That said–Christian theology suggests that in His resurrection body, Christ would not experience normal limitations of human flesh. As He could dematerialize before the eyes of some followers, apparently enter secured buildings supernaturally, and even deny gravity in ascending without known means of suspension–Christ very possibly COULD HAVE ascended to space–or, so far as we know, stood on the very surface of the sun or whatever.
3. However, the quip betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians understand about Heaven. For us, Heaven is “real”, it is a place where material objects very much like those we are presently familiar with can exist, it is in some way or form “above” the plane of our normal existence–yet it is not, strictly-speaking “in the sky”. In one sense, as someone has said, Heaven, and all the Saints and angels therein are as close as our skin. They are real, they are alive, if the scales could be removed from our eyes we would see them continually. But they are veiled from our ordinary perception. It is only by analogy and metaphor that Christians speak of Heaven as high-up .far-away.

Hope this helps!

Thank you. Good post my brother in Christ!

 

[PRmerger]

While we can love the human Jesus, we must not ignore the fact that He is truly God.

Indeed.

And I want to add one concept that no Orthodox or Catholic Christian has contributed here: no other faith has the ability to complete union with this Manifestation of God, save for the Orthodox and Catholic faith, in the One Flesh Union, the Holy Eucharist.

How awesome is that?

For anyone seeking true union with God and His Manifestations, why would anyone ignore this???

 

[arthra]

While not requested since the topic of “heaven” was brought up here is a Baha’i perspective by Robert Stockman… who has I think nicely summarized it here:

The Bahá’í Faith rejects the idea of heaven and hell as actual places. It views afterlife as involving progress through a series of spiritual realms, termed the Abhá (“Most Glorious”) Kingdom. Depictions of the Abhá Kingdom are metaphorical, not literal, because the next life is a mystery that can not be adequately described. In the next world human beings remain in the human station–they can not progress to the station of, for example, a Manifestation of God–but in the human station they progress infinitely. The Abhá Kingdom possesses a spiritual hierarchy of stations, as the following passage from the Long Obligatory Prayer suggests:

“I testify unto that whereunto have testified all created things, and the Concourse on High, and the inmates of the all-highest Paradise, and beyond them the Tongue of Grandeur itself from the all-glorious horizon. . .”

(Bahá’í Prayers, 2d United States edition, 13).

bahai-library.com/stockman_heaven

 

[flameburns623]

While not requested since the topic of “heaven” was brought up here is a Baha’i perspective by Robert Stockman… who has I think nicely summarized it here:

The Bahá’í Faith rejects the idea of heaven and hell as actual places. It views afterlife as involving progress through a series of spiritual realms, termed the Abhá (“Most Glorious”) Kingdom. Depictions of the Abhá Kingdom are metaphorical, not literal, because the next life is a mystery that can not be adequately described. In the next world human beings remain in the human station–they can not progress to the station of, for example, a Manifestation of God–but in the human station they progress infinitely. The Abhá Kingdom possesses a spiritual hierarchy of stations, as the following passage from the Long Obligatory Prayer suggests:

“I testify unto that whereunto have testified all created things, and the Concourse on High, and the inmates of the all-highest Paradise, and beyond them the Tongue of Grandeur itself from the all-glorious horizon. . .”

(Bahá’í Prayers, 2d United States edition, 13).

bahai-library.com/stockman_heaven

My prior post used the word “place” at one juncture, which might seem to put the Christian and Baha’i views somewhat at odds.

I wish to back up and note that at some juncture in the past several years, Pope Benedict XVIth or possibly John Paul II, specifically reminded Christians that Heaven IS NOT a “place” in any ordinary sense of the word. We will never have the technology to navigate there via rocketship, for example. Heaven is in one sense a “state of being”. And it is not a condition of stagnation but a dynamic one, wherein growth will continue to occur.

That said, it is absolutely true that “eye hath not seen nor ear heard; neither hath it entered into the heart of man . . . .” Words do fail in discussion of the hereafter. On this the Baha’i and Christian are not at such a far remove.

 

[daler]

1. Post-resurrection appearances of Christ: the Gospels depict the Risen Christ as eating fish, breaking bread
2. A lot of gentle mockery was made about whether Christ’s Ascension carried Him away to “outer space”.
3. However, the quip betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Christians understand about Heaven. For us, Heaven is “real”, it is a place where material objects very much like those we are presently familiar with can exist, it is in some way or form “above” the plane of our normal existence–yet it is not, strictly-speaking “in the sky”. In one sense, as someone has said, Heaven, and all the Saints and angels therein are as close as our skin. They are real, they are alive, if the scales could be removed from our eyes we would see them continually. But they are veiled from our ordinary perception. It is only by analogy and metaphor that Christians speak of Heaven as high-up .far-away.

Hope this helps!

Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut here. If this matter weren’t so deep, it wouldn’t be worth the effort to try and figure it out. I really think that God intends for us to wrestle the heck out of this stuff, just to test us, perhaps. Maybe He wants us to figure out whether our beliefs our rational, or superstition based.
What we have is essentially “stories” told, in the form of Gospels “according to”, etc, and we have to either accept them blindly and literally, or try and understand them with our rational faculties. Millions of Christians believe the “outer space” version. That was not a quip. Its what they commonly profess.
There is truth in the Gospels, I think we all agree. I fully believe that Jesus was the Christ sent from God, but I also know that people are story tellers. All cultures have story tellers. Children love stories. Thats why we have Paul Bunyan, Superman, and Bugs Bunny. There is both an entertainment factor, filled with imagination, and a “hidden meaning” factor, in which a story is told in such a way as to carefully convey a sacred truth, yet packaged within a fantastic myth.
The intention of such manner of story telling is to separate those who discern the deeper meaning from those who are caught up in the packaging. There is a reason for this. Jesus taught in parables and used expressions of earthly things to convey heavenly meaning. “Ye must be born again” was rejected by literalist Jews, who could not comprehend the metaphor.
“Let the dead bury the dead” referred to those who are “spiritually” dead, who “had eyes but could see not”, and “They have ears, but hear not.” Hence, there is a purposeful separation of “believers” (in spiritual truths) from “dis-believers” (who remain blind).
There is no doubt, in my own mind, as to the reality of Christ being in “heaven”, but what is intended by that must be taken in the context of “I came down from heaven, will ascend to heaven, and am in heaven.” Thus, heaven spoken of by Him is not geographical. Then, in light of this understanding, it is proper to question the literal understanding of the direct accounts recorded which, I will admit, requires “bending the rules” a bit. But then, we “are” dealing with humanity, you know. And humans “do” tell stories.
So, are we to blindly (with eyes, which see not) follow the outward literal story, or inwardly find meaning which our rational mind can accept. There is a separation going on here, in my opinion, and I suspect it is by God’s design, to “test” His servants.
This can also be considered in light of “Out of His mouth proceeds a two-edged sword”. Is this literal, or figurative? A sword is a dividing instrument, which separates and cleaves asunder every bond, and in the metaphorical interpretation it is the Word of God proceeding from the tongue of His Manifestation which separates believer from non-beleiver, father from son, brother from sister, nation from nation. What sword is sharper than this?

The following link will be well worth the read, if you are so inclined: (not too long)

freefictionbooks.org/books/g/14002-gems-of-divine-mysteries-by-baháulláh?start=18

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Sen:
I do not believe myself to be reading a book into the text of the quran which tells Christians to judge therein. Now if there be a context to this verse (Much of the Quran lacks an legitimate context in of itself) it is talking about the prophets who were revealed and we may note the verses before. Surah 5 44 for to them (the jews) was entrusted the protection of Allah’s book, clearly this is about a book or set of revelations. Surah 5:45 would clinch this from a direct quote from the torah “Life for Life, Eye for Eye, Tooth for tooth.” But as the verse comes to Jesus, we would not that Jesus is sent the gospel. The gospel to the quran was not something in Jesus, Jesus in of himself was not the Good news as it were, but rather it was given to him, and also given to him was a confirmation of the law given before him (ie torah). This gospel it goes on to clarify is a “guidance and admonition to those who fear allah.” One I could suppose argue that it talking about an oral revelation, but is that really the gospel? Is that what we find in the gospels? I don’t think so. The gospel is the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, his defeat of death the final enemy, not a set of oral revelations. Now given this context I see the quran as pointing to a book, not a group of oral sayings concerning the words of Jesus. Primarily because we are to judge therein, what else did Christians judge therein but from the gospels? I do not know.

Now insofar as the council of Constantinople is concerned how do you determine that Ephesus rejected Constantinople? Which of the canons says “We fathers anathematize the teaching of the gathering of the 150 bishops at Constantinople.” If I am correct it quotes the Nicene version not the later Constantinopolitan one, but what are we to infer from this? Regaurdless of this later councils would accept the authority of Constantinople like Chalcedon if I am not mistaken. Even those churches which reject chalcedon to this day accept Constantinople as a legitimate council that teaches truth, ie the copts. This in no way does anything to lessen its authority. Nothing that has been said does anything to negate the traditional teaching concerning the trinity in so far as history concerns. But I will respond to your other points Later, I don’t want to be here for twenty minutes writing a response.

 

[flameburns623]

Thank you very much for your (name removed by moderator)ut here . . . .
What we have is essentially “stories” told, in the form of Gospels “according to”, etc, and we have to either accept them blindly and literally, or try and understand them with our rational faculties. Millions of Christians believe the “outer space” version. That was not a quip. Its what they commonly profess.
There is truth in the Gospels, I think we all agree. I fully believe that Jesus was the Christ sent from God, but I also know that people are story tellers. All cultures have story tellers . . . . . The intention of such manner of story telling is to separate those who discern the deeper meaning from those who are caught up in the packaging. There is a reason for this. Jesus taught in parables and used expressions of earthly things to convey heavenly meaning. “Ye must be born again” was rejected by literalist Jews, who could not comprehend the metaphor.
“Let the dead bury the dead” referred to those who are “spiritually” dead, who “had eyes but could see not”, and “They have ears, but hear not.” . . . .
There is no doubt, in my own mind, as to the reality of Christ being in “heaven”, but what is intended by that must be taken in the context of “I came down from heaven, will ascend to heaven, and am in heaven.” Thus, heaven spoken of by Him is not geographical. Then, in light of this understanding, it is proper to question the literal understanding of the direct accounts recorded which, I will admit, requires “bending the rules” a bit . . . .
So, are we to blindly (with eyes, which see not) follow the outward literal story, or inwardly find meaning which our rational mind can accept. There is a separation going on here, in my opinion, and I suspect it is by God’s design, to “test” His servants.
This can also be considered in light of “Out of His mouth proceeds a two-edged sword”. Is this literal, or figurative? . . . .

Daler: Thanks for the response. As other pointed out earlier, there need to be strategies developed to sift thru those places in Scripture where the writing is speaking poetically, metaphorically, illustratively, hyperbolically, parabolically–or in literal terms.

Biblical exegetes have been working these principles out for centuries. Not all of the issues have been worked out, admittedly. But enough has been done that–if the Bible is a book of meaningful import at all–we have some pretty good ideas about how to extract that meaning from the text.

One thing which Catholic exegetes have used is to show what Christ did when people misunderstood his metaphors. When Nicodemus said, “How can I be born again? Can I re-enter my mother’s womb”? Christ disabused him of his hyperliteral understanding. When the Woman at the well heard Christ tell her that she should ask Him for the Water of Everlasting Life, she retorted that, “You have nothing with which to draw water”–at which point Christ used the next several minutes to illustrate how He, Himself is, metaphorically, the Water of Life.

YET–when Christ intended His declaration that “I am the Bread of Life” to be taken literally–he reaffirmed that teaching repeatedly, and despite the fact that his insistence on this language drove many of his followers away.

Now: in the Gospels we see fairly consistent re-affirmations of the physicality of Christ’s Resurection, both prior to and following His Crucifixion. The Gospel writers, composing their books in light of what they knew had transpired, make certain that we hear very physical language from Him concerning His fate “As Jonah was in the fish three days, so shall the Son of Man be in the belly of the Earth”, " ‘Tear down this temple and I shall raise it again in three days’, (but He was speaking of His Body)". They used physical language to describe how they experienced Him after His resurrection, as I noted earlier: He ate, He cooked food for them, He could be touched. These insistences seem to me to point to an intention on the part of the Gospel writers to convey a physical Resurrection.

Indeed-those Gospel writers died for that message of physical resurrection, and that when they could have made that Resurrection a metaphor or simile or symbol–and lived. Mysticism was very popular in the Roman Empire, it was becoming popular among Jews (the early origins of what would morph into Kaballah). A Christ raised mystically, symbollically, metaphorically, would have been a Christ in keeping with the Spirit of the Age. That the Holy Spirit restrained the Apostles from accomodating that Age-Spirit, and that at painful cost to those Apostles suggests from whence the Spirit of the Age tends most often to originate.

Finally: remember that the STYLE of writing doesn’t support the notion that the Resurrection was anything but literal. The Gospel writers may have recreated Christ’s sermons right down to the parables, similes, and metaphors He employed. But their narration of His Life was not metaphorical. Judea and Bethlehem are historical places where Christ lived. Pontius Pilate and Caiphas were real people. Christ was not metaphorically circumcised on the 8th day, but so far as we know, literally so, just as all Israelite males were circumcised. Why, after recounting, after narrating innumerable LITERAL details about Jesus the Christ, would not only one, but four different Gospel writers, shift in that narration to a FIGURATIVE Resurrection?

The idea just doesn’t hold up. It does violence to how we normally read almost any other work, ancient or modern.

Hope this helps as well!

 

[daler]

Finally: remember that the STYLE of writing doesn’t support the notion that the Resurrection was anything but literal. The Gospel writers may have recreated Christ’s sermons right down to the parables, similes, and metaphors He employed. But their narration of His Life was not metaphorical. Judea and Bethlehem are historical places where Christ lived. Pontius Pilate and Caiphas were real people. Christ was not metaphorically circumcised on the 8th day, but so far as we know, literally so, just as all Israelite males were circumcised. Why, after recounting, after narrating innumerable LITERAL details about Jesus the Christ, would not only one, but four different Gospel writers, shift in that narration to a FIGURATIVE Resurrection?

The idea just doesn’t hold up. It does violence to how we normally read almost any other work, ancient or modern.

Hope this helps as well!

Flame, I greatly appreciate your precision here. You help clarify the two sides of this fence that people tend to stand on. What many people have to deal with, myself among them, is that we come equipped with a rational brain, which longs to be fed and satisfied with understanding, without which it serves no purpose, and “I don’t wanna shoot that dog, cuz it helps me hunt”.
So then we are faced with these “incredible” stories as evidence of the “genuineness” of Christ, as though without these supernatural occurrences, He cannot be accepted as coming from God Himself, as His Son, or Representative Word.
Then one camp says, “You must believe in the literal resurrection”, despite the contradictions, because (often for emotional reasons) that is how it reads in the Bible word for word, but the other camp looks for meaning in the many metaphors, still attempting to retain the sanity of the mind, and come to some rational conclusions, and still have Faith, of which I fall in the latter camp.
As a side example, the “miracle” of the loaves and fishes begins with Jesus telling His disciples to “share” what they have, and after all 5000 were fed, there was plenty of food left over. There are two ways to interpret the miracle. Either Jesus pulled the equivalent of a whole bunch of bunnies out of the hat, a trick which no one else has pulled off since, or that the essential power of His Words inspired selfish men to recognize their fellows as friends and brothers, which is consistent with the story of the Good Samaritan.
The fantasy believing side of our brain, which longs for the entertainment we “need” as children, is caught up in the literal/non-literal contest of these stories, as is our rational side, which is subject to scientific scrutiny, and able to test hypotheses. When not allowed to do the latter, the effect is a whole scientific community turned into atheists because of the insistence on the suppression of reason.
Reason suggests an alternative to literal interpretation of metaphors, parables, and stories in order to make sense of such things and still retain Faith. Thus, the two-edged sword proceeding out of the Mouth of the Lord being a dividing instrument which separates “believers from non-believer”, for example, is reasonable acceptable.
What is not “reasonably” acceptable to many is that Jesus “floated off into space”, as has been blindly accepted for a couple of thousand years, and seeks a more sensible answer. I do not mean to insult anyone’s beliefs here, just stating the case.

To me, the “power” of the Word of God is the “proof”, not improbable miracles which my mind rejects. Such arguments as “Only those who “believed” in Him “saw” that He lived” while no one who did not “believe” in Him “saw” Him.
Thus, Mary walking along the road at some point came to “know” that her Lord was with her, “really” with her, which story was recorded, amongst these very literal-bound people, as “I saw” my Lord risen. When we comprehend things, we often say: I “see” what you mean. “Insight” is not a thing to be disregarded as inferior to “out-sight”. Indeed, this is precisely what Jesus was trying to convey to those who had eyes, but “saw” not, such as in the “Ye must be born again” scenario.

Thank you very much for taking me seriously in my thoughts.

 

[Mickey]

That the Holy Spirit restrained the Apostles from accomodating that Age-Spirit, and that at painful cost to those Apostles suggests from whence the Spirit of the Age tends most often to originate.

But though he had done so many miracles before them, yet they believed not on him:
John 12:37

 

[flameburns623]

Dealer: if you deem yourself yet a seeker and not one who has been led to the fullness of Truth as your own nature and proclivities are able to apprehend and receive that Truth–you might do a bit more reading in the work of Christian theologians and apologists.

Your last response smacks of the views of Feuerbach, Freud, and others. At the risk of raising howls of dismay at the mention of his name, might I point out that Hans Kung–an arch-progressive with whom I have little in common–has done a rather lengthy work entitled “Does God Exist?”, in which he shows how many of the ideas you tossed out really fall short of the intellectual force you imagine them to carry. Most of this book is in fact a survey and a critical analysis of the history of atheist thought for the past several centuries.

Kung is no longer considered a Catholic theologian, but this volume for all it’s flaws, addresses some of the thoughts you expressed above. If anyone knows of a more-mainstream and/or faithful theologian who does a similar survey of the history of atheism, feel free to suggest their work instead.

At some point these ideas get too big to be digested and discussed in a webforum, at least all at once. Please know you are in my prayers and that you have my best wishes, wherever your spiritual pilgrimmage leads you. I’m not running away from or “signing-off” on the dialogue, just not certain that I will be able to tender much more of a constructive nature if the conversation continues in this vein.