So the disciples sneaked into the tomb, rolled away the stone, retrieved the dead corpus, and then proclaimed that He had risen because He appeared to them in Spirit, knowing that the empty grave would cause some folks to believe in a physical resurrection, but really knowing that it was not an actual bodily resurrection?
That is what Baha u llah has professed occurred?
PR,
. My friend, I think that you are injecting much speculation here that is unwarranted. No one really “knows” what happened to the body of Jesus, but we are certainly aware of people attesting to their “belief” in His physical resurrection. I fully respect your right to believe in the literal interpretation of events, for the story is indeed told in such a way as to lead one in that direction. It is the “obvious” way of looking at it.
. No one can say for certain what motives would exist in the minds of His disciples “if” they actually recovered His body, but I certainly would not want to suggest that it was for some slight of hand. That would demonstrate a lack of faith on their part. To my thinking, it would be more along the lines of protecting His body from further insult and desecration. Simply pointing to an empty tomb would prove nothing in itself.
.
. My gut sense of the whole matter is that, for example, when Mary reported “seeing” Jesus, her story was told in such a way as to suggest, at least to me, that she had a sense of knowing, or recognition, of His still being with her, despite His being killed. What leads me to that conclusion is the way in which the story is told. i.e., That she did not know that it was Him at first.
. To my mind, this tells me something along the lines of her having a profound spiritual realization of Him truly being “alive”, and that Paul had a similar experience on the road to Damascus. Also, His “appearing” to the other disciples and believers for 40 days before simply “disappearing” into thin air makes no sense to me in a physical context, whereas people who are communicating this profound spiritual recognition to others in terms they could use, such as “He appeared to me” would easily be misconstrued in the second person’s “understanding” of what is being described.
. Such a scenario could easily be interpreted as a literal, physical event, whereas I don’t get that from the story of either Mary or Paul. Are you able to follow the logical reasoning of this perspective? I do not ask you to accept it. I only ask you if you can understand my own understanding.
. You see, I’ve been around a number of very different cultures for about 60 years, and one thing I have learned is that people both tell and “need” stories, and that in every culture there is a manner of story telling which, if you simply take the outward context, leaves you absolutely missing the point of the story. I’ve seen this over and over again, from many Native American tribes, to African story tellers, to Middle Eastern and oriental.
. People have a need for the mythical, larger than life scenarios, and other people fill that need. Still, in important stories such as those of Jesus, there are profound implications in ferreting out the subtle truths held within, rather than simply accepting the surface accounts. Seeing beyond the surface allows one to discover the hidden meaning and the deeper spiritual truths and behold reality in fuller detail, the implications of which are far, far more powerful and profound when once realized and understood.
Nah, I’ll stick around…apparently, I’m making an impact, 'cause I don’t see a singe refutation of anything I’ve said in the above post. But also, I find the fact that you’re trying to order me out of a thread, as if you as a Baha’i have any more authority over me than the 7-Up bottle currently on my desk, to be dryly amusing.