Baha'i deny Christs' physical resurrection

[Zeta Metroid]

Not crying at all, please note the moderator edited you for you abuse.

Wait, I'm confused...did your post get edited, too?

Because I'm seeing a whole lot of crying and no actual responses to the data...odd. What sneaky mods we have!

[shadowmaster]

Comprehension of basic English is all that is necessary to understand the post as written.

I was talking about your post (below), which is your usual egotistical and uncomprehending junk. Everyone is stupid but you.

Name calling and ridiculing leave little room for rational response. Go and believe what you may living in an ancient world view that calls everyone who believes differently 'evil.' Next the inquisition?

No need to respond, we see you for what you are.


sm

[shunyadragon]

Wait, I'm confused...did your post get edited, too?

Because I'm seeing a whole lot of crying and no actual responses to the data...odd. What sneaky mods we have!

No my post was not edited, only your portion quoted in my response.

You offered no data. You offer an interpretation of scripture as I do.

[shunyadragon]

I was talking about your post (below), which is your usual egotistical and uncomprehending junk. Everyone is stupid but you.


sm

.

Cite my properly. Where did I say others are stupid? I presented an alternate legitimate belief that the Resurrection is spiritual in nature, and abusive posts followed.

I gave reference that showed some Christians believed in a spiritual resurrection based on scripture. The response was Gnostics are not Christians indicating the view that Christians that believe in a spiritual resurrection are not Christians. I disagree that such judgments can be made.

[shunyadragon]

The following is an essay that interprets references in Corinthians that the resurrection could be spiritual. He is not a Baha'i. The following is an portion of the essay.

Does Corinthians 1:15 Teach a Physical or a Spiritual Resurrection?

by David Friedman

http://bahai-library.com/friedman_corinthians_resurrection

1 Corinthians 15 [see appendix, below] is a crucial chapter for understanding the meaning of the resurrection. While literalists claim that it supports a physical resurrection, I believe that evidence shows the exact opposite to be true. The main focus of this article is on what the chapter means in speaking of the natural body and the spiritual body, which is the immortal body people are raised in. I will also consider other verses in the chapter, in order. Gospel resurrection accounts will not be considered. Let's examine 1 Corinthians 15 to see what type of resurrection is spoken of.

In the first three verses Paul speaks of the gospel message which he had received, and which had been received by others whom he had preached to. In verse 3 Paul says that he delivered first to the people that Christ died for their sins according to the Scriptures, and follows this by saying that Christ was buried and rose again the third day according to the Scriptures in verse 4. These verses indicate that the main teaching of the early followers was of Christ dying for the sins of mankind, and then being raised, or resurrected, on the third day. Verses 3-4 do not provide independent confirmation of a physical resurrection. As Richard Carrier states, "the phrase "died...was buried...was raised" (απεθανεν...εταφη...εγηγερται) can just as easily be a metaphor as an indication of a physical raising; the "concept of the resurrection itself" does not entail any more a physical than a spiritual idea (and since Christianity changed many Jewish beliefs--it was, after all, new and different--we cannot appeal to Jewish tradition in favor of the physical)." {1} In addition, Colossians 2:12 speaks of people who were raised (resurrected) with Jesus. Those spoken of were not physically resurrected. Ephesians 2:1, 5-6 speaks of people who were resurrected from the dead, and the death was only spiritual. My belief is that these passages and others suggest that the resurrection is non-physical. But more on this later.

© source where applicable

[OU812]

Not crying at all, please note the moderator edited you for you abuse.

"Please note" that you have no answer.

[Vivian]

I think he was talking about ancient gnostics... were there any that didn't view the material world as a corrupt prison for the spirit?

Hi Hamster!

The nature of gnostics, ancient and modern, is that their beliefs are based on personally experience, and since all our personal experiencing, until we are liberated, is seen through the glass darkly, there will be differences of perception.

What is behind the lumping of all gnostics into one category is the same that is being questioned on this thread: the necessity of everyone having the same ideas about God, the incarnation, and creation. Originally, when gnosticism or personal/mystical experience was common, there were a lot of differing churches or sects with different ideas. We even see the disciples arguing among themselves, even at times issuing warnings about ideas that were too out there to be useful.

But we did not see shouts of heretics and blasphemers which led to persecution, even death by beheading or burning at the stake, until Christ was kidnapped and raped by those seeking power and control. This is when the term gnostic took on a negative connotation - to further increase power and control buy those raping Christ.

There are many past and present gnostics who believe(d) in a physical resurrection, who believe(d) that all is sacred - including matter, and will ultimately be liberated. This is my point.


Shalom!

Viv

[Hamster]

I disagree, it is most definitely not name calling. It is a disagreement as to the relevance of belief systems because they relate to one world view in one culture and in one region of the world with considering the universal spiritual nature of humanity

When you call something a name ("That's an ancient worldview") without providing any other information, that is simply namecalling "labeling". Saying it's "ancient" doesn't tell us how it's invalid it just invites us to assume that ancient ideas are invalid because they're ancient.

Whether you consider what other people believe 'evil' or not is problematic.There are by far many if not the majority of Christians as well as Muslims that consider those outside the faithful as 'evil,' and this by the way reflects an ancient world view.

I see no reason to label that "ancient." Yes, it is present in ancient times but it's also present in every other time in multiple religious and social contexts. Theism in and of itself is an ancient worldview. So is believing in good, evil, spirits, etc. So what makes it wrong if it's not just being around for a long time?

[Manwë Súlimo]

The tradition of breathing is so ancient. Only the truly enlightened shrug off such outdated, ancient thinking. Now excuse me as I turn purple.

[Zeta Metroid]

You offered no data. You offer an interpretation of scripture as I do.

Stuff like this is what I think gives a lot of credence to simulism. There's just...no way another human being, with a mind and brain like mine, could possibly say such idotic things

Let me give an example of something I said, because it looks like you must've read the wrong post (unless your stupidity goes to such unimaginable depths that all hope is already lost):

Now, I'm arguing that the Bible defines resurrection as something involving your body. Then I gave this passage as an example that illustrates that:

Isaiah 26:19 - "But your dead will live, Lord; their bodies will rise-"

This isn't a matter of interpretation. The text explicitly specifies again and again, as do non-Biblical, informing documents, that its your body.

Verses 3-4 do not provide independent confirmation of a physical resurrection.

That’s…great? That’s what we’ve got passages like the one in Ezekiel for, to tell us what resurrection is.

...since Christianity changed many Jewish beliefs--it was, after all, new and different--we cannot appeal to Jewish tradition in favor of the physical...

XD
Wow, is this the best you can come up with?

Yes a lot of Jewish beliefs were changed…ones that had their roots in non-Biblical traditions like the teachings of great Rabbis. But they use the same Old Testament scriptures, so this doesn’t effect my main argument at all. At best, it only nullifies the non-Biblical references…though even then, I’d say that’s stretching it.

In addition, Colossians 2:12 speaks of people who were raised (resurrected) with Jesus. Those spoken of were not physically resurrected.

This argument is obviously deceptive to anyone who knows their Bible

Colossians 2:11-12 – “In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by sin was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.”

This is talking about what things are symbolic of. You might as well be arguing that being buried doesn’t necessarily involve going into the ground, or being circumcised doesn’t necessarily involve your wang. Or trying to say that it was thought ghosts cut people’s foreskin off because it says it was “a circumcision not performed by human hands”.
Circumcision, burial, and resurrection are being used as symbols here, he isn’t literally referring to them. That should be immediately obvious to anyone with a reading level greater than a toddler’s

Same with the Ephesians passage. You might as well be trying to argue that the Bible teaches they were zombies before becoming Christians, because it says “you were dead”.
And, do you think its saying they were literally “seated…with him in the heavenly realms”? You can’t take passages where the concept is being applied symbolically and then impose a literal meaning on them.

[shunyadragon]

"Please note" that you have no answer.

I answered in my posts. I do not reply to rude insulting, childish and trollish posts.

[shunyadragon]

When you call something a name ("That's an ancient worldview") without providing any other information, that is simply namecalling "labeling". Saying it's "ancient" doesn't tell us how it's invalid it just invites us to assume that ancient ideas are invalid because they're ancient.

Absolutely NO! It does not in any way represent name calling, it is a disagreement on the relevance of ancient world views that do not considering others in a greater theme of the universal..

I have provided much information over time to base my objections, and no I do not consider them invalid because they are old, just limited because of their rigidness and perspective toward others who believe differently, which is in part what this thread is about.

I see no reason to label that "ancient." Yes, it is present in ancient times but it's also present in every other time in multiple religious and social contexts. Theism in and of itself is an ancient worldview. So is believing in good, evil, spirits, etc. So what makes it wrong if it's not just being around for a long time?

Ancient world views do not consider the universal in the human spiritual nature. They only believe in one narrow cultural view with the rejection of others based on the rigid doctrine of one world view.

Yes, in part the problem is universal from the perspective of other ancient world view. They, such as Vedic beliefs, Buddhism, and others, also have a limited perspective of other beliefs from other cultures.

The problem of ancient world views is manifest in our world in many ways, like the conflicts between science and their beliefs, and the diminished interest in new searches for knowledge and philosophy. Christians in the USA are decreasing in numbers in graduate schools in science and philosophy. Muslims are increasingly opposed to modern science, where in their past they were the heralds of the advancement of science.

[shunyadragon]

Stuff like this is what I think gives a lot of credence to simulism. There's just...no way another human being, with a mind and brain like mine, could possibly say such idotic things

Let me give an example of something I said, because it looks like you must've read the wrong post (unless your stupidity goes to such unimaginable depths that all hope is already lost):

Now, I'm arguing that the Bible defines resurrection as something involving your body. Then I gave this passage as an example that illustrates that:

Isaiah 26:19 - "But your dead will live, Lord; their bodies will rise-"

This isn't a matter of interpretation. The text explicitly specifies again and again, as do non-Biblical, informing documents, that its your body.



That’s…great? That’s what we’ve got passages like the one in Ezekiel for, to tell us what resurrection is.

This post was a little bit less troolish, I will research and respond.

Yes a lot of Jewish beliefs were changed…ones that had their roots in non-Biblical traditions like the teachings of great Rabbis. But they use the same Old Testament scriptures, so this doesn’t effect my main argument at all. At best, it only nullifies the non-Biblical references…though even then, I’d say that’s stretching it.

Yes, a lot of Christian beliefs were changed in the Baha'i writings . . . the ones with Roman roots.

[Zeta Metroid]

Yes, a lot of Christian beliefs were changed in the Baha'i writings . . . the ones with Roman roots.

What's that got to do with anything?

[Hamster]

Why would Roman roots matter if man's spirituality/religion is universal?