This segment is interesting in that I discover that Marty was, indeed, coming to the text with preconceived notions that he could not disregard without being excommunicated from this religion.
I have been researching the scholarship that has been done on this issue. There is a great deal of disagreement in the scholarly research that has been done since the 19th century about the reserrection and specifically relating to 1 Cor 15. It’s true that I just started looking into it after reading Paul and what I’ve read confirms that others have made the same points that I am making. I put great importance on Paul’s letters because the are the first record we have of Christian beliefs and he goes into a great deal of detail on various issues. I’m not happy with my previous post.
I think it was rushed and overlooked maybe the most important point (IMHO) This is that you will not find the Gospel resurrection accounts reflected in his letters. You may be right that those accounts do not repeat word for word what actually took place but I believe that for the most part the early Christian community did a good job of collecting what Jesus acutally said. So certainly if Jesus actually and physically appeared to the disciples and spoke the things that they report that he spoke, WHY doesn’t Paul mention ANYTHING that Jesus said after His resurrection?? WHY doesn’t Paul mention an empty tomb?? If the empty tomb was so important to the Christian story why doesn’t Paul even mention it??I would also like to respond to your accusation of following my preconcieved notions. First, I’ve just been following the thread that is there for anyone to follow. I had no idea I would find Paul saying that flesh and blood cannot enter the Kingdom of God. I just wanted to see if he affirms anywhere that the resurrection (which we both agree occurred) was a physical one.
I couldn’t find that anywhere (just saying Christ has risen does not imply that He rose physically any more than his saying that he was buried and then rose implies that there is an empty tomb – this was an argument made in the research I did.) But all my responses have not been my own thinking but stem from my beliefs as a Baha’i. My only reason for responding to your post was that you were attacking something Abdul Baha said and as a Baha’i I have a right to defend my beliefs. But Bahais do not go around attacking others beliefs. We state our beliefs and let others decide for themselves.Finally I would like to make a counterargument to your assertion that Paul saw the physical body of Christ on the way to Damascus. In the account it says there was a light and he heard a voice. It further says that the men who were with him heard of voice but saw no man. Then Paul lost his sight. The way to distinguish a spiritual appearance is that different people will experience it in different ways depending on their spiritual development. It seems clear from this account that Paul and his companions had different experiences of this event which would indicate a spiritual vision.
He referenced Baha’is because the original dialogue ensued due to an essay about Baha’i views on the resurrection: Baha’i Faith : Physical Resurrection, part 1 of 2
What is the Baha’i view on the physical resurrection? That it is a false doctrine. Therefore, logically, they do go around attacking others beliefs as I mentioned to Marty.
Here is my section on Baha’ism in general.
Great to hear (or, read) from you again.
I must say that when I read the words “accusation” and worse yet, “attacking,” in your comment I hoped that I had not come across unduly harsh or dismissive. It is hard to gauge emotion via letters on a screen, for us both, but be assured that my intent is not to accuse or attack (in a derogatory sense). I was stating an “estimation” shall we say.
That I disagree does not mean that I am attacking. I, and the overwhelming majority of Christian all over the planet for the past 2,000 years, believe in the physical resurrection of Jesus. You say that “Bahais do not go around attacking others beliefs” but by denying the physical resurrection Baha’is are doing just that by telling us that we are wrong and Baha’is are right—and yet, I do not consider this an “attack.”The Baha’i Faith invites an independent investigation of their claims. I have conducted an independent investigation and find that, for example in this case, their claims are not correct. If I report that the results of my investigation are disagreement with Baha’ism and I am then said to be on the “attack” I would question the sincerity of the invitation to conduct an independent investigation.
Now, I must carefully point out that, as it turns out, I may have been right after all. I understand that you are studying the subject now but: since you are a Baha’i (which I did not know before) you have already been told that you must believe in the spirit/non-physical resurrection of Jesus. You cannot disagree with this and remain a faithful Baha’i. Thus, you did come to the texts with not only preconceived notions but with the force of authority of your faith telling you that there is one infallible interpretation and that you cannot disagree with it—“something Abdul Baha said.” The only way that you could come to a different conclusion is if you are willing to become a covenant breaker. In other words, even while you are reading and studying you know that you may be excommunicated if you come to an alternate conclusion.
Now, I wish to note something: the Bible is the word of God and while you may not think that I am understanding it correctly I assure you that I am not out to do fancy footwork in order to make something say what it is not saying—I take this very seriously and am honestly only attempting to help us both gain a better understanding.
It seems to me that you are now going about to solidify the Baha’i interpretation by asking questions like the ones I will review below and suggesting that the only answer is that the Baha’i interpretation is correct.
Now, to your points:
“WHY doesn’t Paul mention ANYTHING that Jesus said after His resurrection??” If Jesus resurrected as a spirit why doesn’t Paul mention anything that Jesus said? You will note that Paul is, almost exclusively, writing his epistles to answer questions from the various churches and was therefore, not providing a history of Jesus not collecting sayings but was dealing with the minutiae of church life and community. Moreover, Paul traveled with Luke and would know that Luke was writing the history and sayings. Overall, it is noteworthy that Paul did not know the pre-resurrection Jesus he did not spend three years in His company walking and talking with Him as the other apostles did.Yet, we may note that Paul wrote,
“Concerning this thing [“a thorn in the flesh”] I pleaded with the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He said to me, ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for My strength is made perfect in weakness.’ Therefore most gladly I will rather boast in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me” (2nd Corinthians 12:8-9).
And,
“But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Galatians 1:11-21).
“WHY doesn’t Paul mention an empty tomb…why doesn’t Paul even mention it??…saying Christ has risen does not imply that He rose physically any more than his saying that he was buried and then rose implies that there is an empty tomb” As you continue your studies you will come to find that claiming that Paul was saying that He was buried and then rose does not imply an empty tomb is like saying that when a Baha’i states that Jesus rose a spirit they mean that He rose physically. This is where both textual/grammatical as well as historical/cultural context come into play. At the time there were two major divisions amongst the Jews: Pharisees and Sadducees. One of the main differences between the two is that the Pharisees believed in the resurrection and the Sadducees did not.
Paul was a Pharisee and so for him to say that Jesus was buried and then rose most certainly implies that he was very clearly professing a physical resurrection and therefore an empty tomb.
In fact, you will note that when Paul was brought before the chief priests and all his council,
“Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, ‘Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!’ And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection—and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both” (Acts 23:6-8).
“your assertion that Paul saw the physical body of Christ on the way to Damascus” While I did assert that Paul saw a physical body I also made it clear that the account was not detailed enough to come to a direct conclusion either way and so I alluded to the fact that he “could not see” (Acts 22:11) that “when his eyes were opened he saw no one” (Acts 9:8) and yet that Paul stated that Jesus “was seen by me” and Jesus stated that He appeared to Paul (“I have appeared to you” Acts 26:16). I also correlated this appearance to the transfiguration where Jesus was physically present (see Matthew 17; Mark 9 and Luke 9).
I would be perfectly willing to affirm that Paul saw a vision of some sort. Now, at this point you have stated that since Paul likens the apostles’ seeing Jesus after the resurrection to his own they all must have seen a mere vision or seen a spirit. However, this does not necessarily follow: there is no reason to logically conclude that Paul’s purpose was to make a one to one correlation between the apostles’ manner of seeing and his own and if there is then Paul saw Jesus physically as it is exceedingly clear that the apostles did so. You may say, “I saw generic actress on a California sidewalk” and I could say “I saw her too, in a movie.” Or I may say, “I saw my son’s soccer game the other day” and you may say, “I know that he is on a team, I saw a team photo.”
Also, and this is very, very important in considering the greater context and historical/cultural context; there were other resurrections recorded in the Bible and they are all physical. Paul himself raised a young man from the dead and there is no indication at all that he discerned a difference.
This is something with which the Baha’i never seem to deal: the fact of the other physical resurrections in the Bible.
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.