It says in the Writings that words have seventy-one meanings. I find several proofs given by 'Abdu'l-Baha problematic in light of this, as to me some of these seem to assume a word can only be taken one way and are based on this assumption. Perhaps I'm missing something. 'Abdu'l-Baha says:
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)
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)
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 101-102)
Appealing to a passage like "Let the dead bury their dead" as proof that instances like the raising of Lazarus were not meant to be taken literally seems totally unwarranted. Yes, Jesus said a living person was "dead," but why does that make it inconsistent with Him raising people from the dead physically? Jesus also considered physically dead people dead. The living person referred to as dead was up and walking at the time whereas Lazarus was in a tomb. There's no parallel between situations. Furthermore, if wherever the Holy Books speak of raising the dead the maning is that the dead were blessed by eternal life, then wouldn't we have to interpret Jesus' death and resurrection on the same lines? If we did it would be incompatible with the Baha'i definition of a Manifestation as it would involve Jesus sinning.
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)
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 101-102)
Appealing to a passage like "Let the dead bury their dead" as proof that instances like the raising of Lazarus were not meant to be taken literally seems totally unwarranted. Yes, Jesus said a living person was "dead," but why does that make it inconsistent with Him raising people from the dead physically? Jesus also considered physically dead people dead. The living person referred to as dead was up and walking at the time whereas Lazarus was in a tomb. There's no parallel between situations. Furthermore, if wherever the Holy Books speak of raising the dead the maning is that the dead were blessed by eternal life, then wouldn't we have to interpret Jesus' death and resurrection on the same lines? If we did it would be incompatible with the Baha'i definition of a Manifestation as it would involve Jesus sinning.
In regards to Isaiah it also appears to me that 'Abdu'l-Baha is focussing on one definition of what 'sight' means in order to prove His point. He appeals to a passage in which Isaiah, speaking metaphorically, refers to sight, equating spiritual guidance with receiving sight. I don't see why Isaiah's referring to spiritual insight as sight prevents other parts of the Bible referring to a miracle of physically receiving sight. Why shouldn't the Bible be allowed to use the word 'sight' in more ways than one?
Again:
Question. - What is the meaning of Christ's resurrection after three days?
Answer. - 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 expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ's coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: "For I came down from heaven"; and also in verse 42 we find: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.
Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 103-104)
Answer. - 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 expressions, Their parables and Their instructions have a spiritual and divine signification, and have no connection with material things. For example, there is the subject of Christ's coming from heaven: it is clearly stated in many places in the Gospel that the Son of man came from heaven, He is in heaven, and He will go to heaven. So in chapter 6, verse 38, of the Gospel of John it is written: "For I came down from heaven"; and also in verse 42 we find: "And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Also in John, chapter 3, verse 13: "And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven."
Observe that it is said, "The Son of man is in heaven," while at that time Christ was on earth. Notice also that it is said that Christ came from heaven, though He came from the womb of Mary, and His body was born of Mary. It is clear, then, that when it is said that the Son of man is come from heaven, this has not an outward but an inward signification; it is a spiritual, not a material, fact. The meaning is that though, apparently, Christ was born from the womb of Mary, in reality He came from heaven, from the center of the Sun of Reality, from the Divine World, and the Spiritual Kingdom. And as it has become evident that Christ came from the spiritual heaven of the Divine Kingdom, therefore, His disappearance under the earth for three days has an inner signification and is not an outward fact. In the same way, His resurrection from the interior of the earth is also symbolical; it is a spiritual and divine fact, and not material; and likewise His ascension to heaven is a spiritual and not material ascension.
Beside these explanations, it has been established and proved by science that the visible heaven is a limitless area, void and empty, where innumerable stars and planets revolve.
(`Abdu'l-Baha: Some Answered Questions, Pages: 103-104)
This all seems reasonable to me until He gets to the resurrection. No one disputes that when Jesus said He came from heaven that He was speaking metaphorically. Yet again His logic in assuming that if the Gospels are internally consistent that therefore they must mean to teach a spritual resurrection is hard for me to fathom. I agree that all the verses about heaven have nothing to do with the body of Jesus. But just because Jesus spoke metaphorically about heaven in a few places, why is that inconsistent with Him physically ascending to heaven? If we assume that the Bible does record this, why should we see those verses in John as incompatible? If words can mean many things surely heaven can be used to mean many things. The Bible often refers to the physical sky as heaven, hence I don't see what biblically prevents Jesus from physically ascending.
So it's the seemingly unwarranted wooden interpretations of certain terms that I don't get. I find that many parts of SAQ have biblical interpretations which look well proven, such as the passage about the meaning of the bread and wine. But other parts I just don't follow. Your comments would be appreciated.
Regards,
David
David
Shop ‘til you drop at XtraMSN Shopping
The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments thereto ("e-mail") is sent by the Johnson County Community College ("JCCC") and is intended to be confidential and for the use of only the individual or entity named above. The information may be protected by federal and state privacy and disclosures acts or other legal rules. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that retention, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please immediately notify JCCC by email reply and immediately and permanently delete this e-mail message and any attachments thereto. Thank you.
__________________________________________________
You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe: send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: send subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe: http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/all_forums/subscribe?name=bahai-st
Baha'i Studies is available through the following:
Mail - mailto:[email protected]
Web - http://list.jccc.edu:8080/read/?forum=bahai-st
News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st
Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist
Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
