> From comments you make later evidently you find some of this stuff quite > reliable historically.
Dear David, It may or may not be. My point is simply that 'Abdu'l-Baha doesn't pick this kind of thing out of the air. I'm quite well informed regarding documents within > two centuries of Jesus' death, but am not so knowledgeable of later > material. I'm assuming this tradition came about at least three hundred > years after Jesus. Can you tell me the source of this tradition? It may be in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, have you checked there? I just picked this off the internet when you asked the question. The > tradition obviously assumes the later orthodox belief in Jesus' physical > resurrection, which makes me quite skeptical to begin with. David, there *aren't* any materials on Christianity which predate the belief in the physical resurrection except maybe Paul's letters. Furthermore, > the Mary that 'Abdu'l-Baha describes would never have preached what is > described here. 'Abdu'l-Baha says: > > When Jesus Christ died upon the cross, the disciples who witnessed His > crucifixion were disturbed and shaken. Even Peter, one of the greatest of > His followers, denied Him thrice. Mary Magdalene brought them together and > confirmed their faith, saying, "Why are ye doubting? Why have ye feared? O > thou Peter! Why didst thou deny Him? For Christ was not crucified. The > reality of Christ is ever-living, everlasting, eternal. For that divine > reality there is no beginning, no ending, and, therefore, there can be no > death. At most, only the body of Jesus has suffered death." > (`Abdu'l-Baha: Promulgation of Universal Peace*, Page: 395) > > The idea of a resurrection would be meaningless to someone who would speak > such words. Were that the case then the idea of the resurrection would never have been formulated to begin with! Anyway, 'Abdu'l-Baha finds a way to > affirm the resurrection of Jesus, doing so by allegorically redefining it, > finding some way that we can say that "Jesus" (actually meaning His Cause) > was risen. So by redefining terms we can in some way affirm normative > Christian belief. So why don't we just follow His example and leave it at that? 'Abdu'l-Baha's Trinity is not at all the > Christian Trinity, and indeed its composition isn't necessariy the same. To > Christians the members of the Trinity are the Father, Jesus, and the Holy > Ghost. To Baha'is it is the Father, the Manifestation for the age, and the > Holy Ghost. On this understanding, Jesus was a member of the Trinity until > 1400 years ago. Baha'u'llah is currently a member of the Baha'i Trinity, as > He is the Manifestation of God for this age. No, it is the Manifestation generically, whether for this age or all time. How would one prove that Muhammad > never meant readers to believe that He was affirming that Noah's Ark > literally happened? It's spoken of no differently to the Virgin Birth, > which Baha'is take as historical. We can't. We affirm the virgin birth solely on the basis of authoritative interpretation. I think you are going on and on about non-issues. Or at least I fail to see why these things are so important to you. warmest, Susan ---------- You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://list.jccc.net/cgi-bin/lyris.pl?enter=bahai-st news://list.jccc.net/bahai-st http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist (public) http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] (public)
