I posted the scripture so you can see how physical resurrection of a christian lets that christian know he or she will be transformed
just as christ. If christ was not risen in the body as scripture
says (only what it says), then christians (those who do believe in his physical resurrection) would not believe they will rise in christ and be transformed. No Christian who does not believe in the resurrection has explained his or her view with scripture.
"Therefore, we say that the meaning of Christ’s resurrection is as follows: the disciples were troubled and agitated after the martyrdom of Christ. The Reality of Christ, which signifies His teachings, His bounties, His perfections and His spiritual power, was hidden and concealed for two or three days after His martyrdom, and was not resplendent and manifest. No, rather it was lost, for the believers were few in number and were troubled and agitated. The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast, and began to serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising to serve Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His admonitions became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the bounty of the Holy Spirit surrounded it.
This all makes sense to christian faith
with his bodily resurrection. His body resurrection doesn't void what you posted about his nature etc. It just means christians will rise and be transformed not only in spirit but they will have new bodies in heaven-purified just as christ.
Such is the meaning of the resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection. But as the clergy have neither understood the meaning of the Gospels nor comprehended the symbols, therefore, it has been said that religion is in contradiction to science, and science in opposition to religion, as, for example, this subject of the ascension of Christ with an elemental body to the visible heaven is contrary to the science of mathematics. But when the truth of this subject becomes clear, and the symbol is explained, science in no way contradicts it; but, on the contrary, science and the intelligence affirm it."
This isn't the bible. All denominations turn to the bible in one way or another as the source of their beliefs and/or practices. Unless this is in the bible, how can this be a christian teaching?
I can see you have very strong beliefs about a physical resurrection. You write with such passion!
My
former experience has left a dent I can't quite erase. I'm not someone who wants to wipe out my christian experience. I just know what I read, studied, and experienced and from that, unless you are christian and can tell me from an actual christian perspective, we are in the same boat to an extent that we are not christians.
I included the words of Abdu'l-Baha because he provided a simple and clear explanation. I wasn't expecting you to recognise his words as the same as the bible.
No. I'm just saying christians don't see Abdu'l Baha explanation simple or complicated a good explanation of their beliefs. Hindu sacred text write beautiful discription of god that I haven't seen in any abrahamic religion; yet, I would never use it to clarify and justify what I'm trying to describe in a christian belief. That's, well, to me, I'd feel wrong and insulting christians for doing so.
You say that a spiritual resurrection is new age. I would suggest its just viewing scripture in the light of reason and science. it was a hard road for the church to admit Galileo was right. He questioned firmly held beliefs by the church for over a thousand years. He was put under house arrest. It was only in recent times that the Catholic Church pardoned him.
Saying it is
just spiritual sounds new age. I'm a pagan an use
physical and
spiritual things in my rituals and prayers. Without one or the other (without the objects or prayers, for example), what I am doing and what for would not be complete. It needs both. That is how the world works. You are not just spirit you are also flesh. They work together. Without one or the other, you would not be alive. That is science and reason.
I like the Church because they see the physical inline with the spiritual. The Eucharist is physical bread and wine. It is
also jesus christ. Its not a representation, symbolism, or spiritual (looking within) only it is both. When one has the consecrated bread and wine and take communion, where more than one come together, they are becoming the body of christ. All meals in the bible brought people together as one body.
Without that physical communion, there is no spiritual communion. It goes together.
I was using the Church to make a point.
What about the world being literally created 6,000 years ago. Is that new age to see these verses in genesis as symbolic?
New age just mean something that has a modern perspective on spirituality. It's that new thing "spiritual but not religious" internet movement. All religions I've studied in books, talked with people from African, Pagan, Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, and, what was the other, couple of others use physical things in addition to their faith either as a tradition, as part of their practice.
There are only a selective few that disregard the physical. Most religions don't. New age just means modern. In the past and now physical has always been important. Look at any ol' school religion. There is always something physical. For some reason as time went on, we had
new perspectives on religion and now, in the modern
age we are trying to get away with the nasty word people say religion is and call ourselves spiritual.
It's annoying but there it is.
As clearly stated Paul never saw the resurrected Christ but he framed the mystical experience He had in these terms.
If the resurrection wasn't physical, what (not who) did jesus' disciples see when he came back to talk to them? Do spirits talk and have bodies?
"It is not expedient for me doubtless to glory. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth"
You'd have to quote.
Lets consider the words of Jesus when He spoke of His resurrection
Matthew 12:38-40
"Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
If jesus' death wasn't physical
as well then why was his tomb empty? Really. The bible isn't a science book; so, we can't assume his body went into actual decomposition.
How can christian's body be transformed into a new one if they were only resurrected in spirit and not in body?
Remember, jesus taught deeds
and he taught faith. They go together: the physical and the spiritual.
There's no comparison between Jesus and Jonas. But there is between Jonas and Jesus' disciples who really were hard to teach and struggled with their faith, became depressed and lifeless after He died, but were so transformed spiritually by His message at Pentacost they would spread the gospel far and wide. This is the miracle of Jonas.
This doesn't mean jesus didn't rise physically. All of what you are saying can probably be confirmed by christians except the fact that jesus rose in the flesh as well as spirit. Everything else, just because he rose in flesh doesn't mean what you say is invalid.
