Who is Baháʼu'lláh?

[Trailblazer]

Jesus never made any claims, Trailblazer.
Show me one, and let's take it from there.

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

You did not show those rules, Trailblazer. If you would kindly show Bahauallah's hair-cut rules and his a rules about number of wives we can move forward. A little effort from you is required.

You can find those in the The Kitáb-i-Aqdas. A little effort from you is required.

 

[oldbadger]

John 18:37 Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

Sadly the Apostle John was not present at any such conversation. Apostle John was not Johanan BarZebedee, you know.

But you got it wrong in any case. Let me help you:-
Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. FULL STOP!

NEW POINT:-To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

No claim of kingship by Jesus. And Bahai dores not accenpt your version of the passage either.

You can find those in the The Kitáb-i-Aqdas.

So you say. So you say...........

 

[CG Didymus]

Sadly the Apostle John was not present at any such conversation.

As usual, Baha'is believe the NT when it suits them. But why this verse? Was any follower of Jesus present to hear what was said? I don't mind Fundies that take it all as literal as possible. I don't mind atheists that say it is all fiction. But how do you argue with Baha'is that can make any verse literal, symbolic, fictional or anything else they choose to make it? Anything they say, becomes the truth?

 

[Dawnofhope]

I wouldn't have brought up the issue of "one experience" vs. "two experiences" and "if two, to which does Paul refer?" if you hadn't said: "Paul most likely refers to a mystical experience he has of Jesus 2 Corinthians 12:1-4". I figured that, since all we're doing is casting votes for opinions, I'd cast my vote for an opinion that doesn't match yours. But I do see now, or rather 'think I see' your point: What do details matter, if they are all just details in metaphors, allegories, parables, and folktales and we can make sense of all of it without worrying about the literality of any of it and use the sense that we've made to do something more constructive than destructive? If that is your point, then it's an interesting point.

I would hope that we can agree there is just one Paul of Tarsus and not an authentic Christian Paul and an inauthentic Baha’i Paul. A careful analysis of the text is certainly required in examining the writings of the Apostles and Gospels. How do you understand the nature of Paul’s experiences of Christ?

Assuming that I've correctly (or almost correctly) understood your point, how far do you think the Baha'i dream of unifying all mankind is going to get when folks realize what Baha'i wants them to give up? And don't you think that somebody along the way is going to suggest that the Baha'i give up their belief in non-literal Manifestations of God, that Baha'u'llah fulfilled non-literal prophecies, and the Maid of Heaven, all in the interest of "unity". [Ahhh, ... fare thee well, Maid of Heaven. Will you give me a kiss before you go?]

The Baha’i Faith does not require you to give up anything. It offers a view of God’s Revelation and His relationship with humanity that you are free to agree or disagree with. I grew up Christian and decided to become a Baha’i in my mid 20s when it became apparent the Baha’i narrative was significantly more sensible than the Christian narrative. That was a personal choice for me.

The resurrection of Jesus only seems to be a major irreconcilable difference for me in your opinion because it's an issue that some folks here in RF, including you, have brought up, and that
i have not shied away from responding to. Actually, it's really not as big a deal to me as my several posts on the matter may make it seem. Einstein's Relativity is a much bigger deal to me.

I don’t know your issue with Einstein’s theory of relativity. We’ll leave that for another time. I’m pleased you wish to discuss the resurrection of Jesus and you’re comfortable with our differences.

Difficult for them? Ha! If they've been earning a living teaching that the resurrection is symbolic, they should be grateful for the added prestige that being deemed heretics gives them. It gives them a larger audience among those folks who like to "cite authoritative sources" when spouting heresy. I just wish I could be so lucky in making a living by affirming my Anti-relativitistic opinions.

There is a famous case of a Presbyterian minister Lloyd Geering who was publicly tried for heresy and doctrinal error in NZ during the 1960s.

Lloyd Geering - Wikipedia

A key issue was his views of the resurrection which are similar to mine. The charges were dismissed but it was extremely damaging for the image of the Christian Church.

Of course many Christian churches will see the literal resurrection of Christ as being the issue to defend. From an outsiders perspective it simply perpetuates negative stereotypes of Christianity but if that’s what the churches wish to do....

Is that all? I'm surprised. My father was a Lutheran preacher for roughly 60 years and believed in the resurrection of Jesus from his conversion to Christianity at the age of 13 until his death. Of his 15 grandchildren, I'd be surprised if more than 4 still believe in it.

My father originated from England and many of those who identify as Christian are nominal. Christianity is generally a package that includes a literal resurrection so that used to be naturally accepted by the masses. Of course many are leaving the church because of it. I have another elderly family member from England who feels outraged he was made to accept a literal resurrection as a condition of being Christian. He eventually left Christianity because of it. Some Christians now are taking a stand and refusing to be coerced into having to abandon their faith in Christ over their disbelief in a literal resurrection.

I'm reminded of a story I read several years ago.

• [from CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM: A GLOBAL DEMOGRAPHIC ASSESSMENT, Todd M. Johnson ([email protected]), Notre Dame, November 2012]
  • David Barrett pioneered the quantitative study of martyrdom. He died last year at age 83. Barrett told me the story of when he was invited to speak to a group of wealthy industrialists. They asked him what the most effective means of evangelism was so that they could invest their money to hurry up the evangelization of the world. He responded, “We have been engaged in in-depth research on this subject, and we think the most effective means might be Christian martyrdom.” There was an awkward silence until one industrialist screwed up the courage and asked, “Dr. Barrett, could you tell us the second most effective means of evangelism?”
• I suspect that persecution and martyrdom are significant factors in the spread of any religion, and possibly in any social "movement". What prestige is there in a religion that has never experienced persecution or martyrdom.

Martyrdom is certainly part of the history of the Baha’i Faith and we remain persecuted in a number of Muslim countries. It has accelerated our growth not diminished it.

I didn't think you were trying to. I was saying: If you think there are many reasons not to take Jesus' resurrection literally, it seems to me that you'd either try to dazzle me with their multiplicity or a more exciting cosmology than "Heaven - Up", "Hell - Below". Something, perhaps, like what I've suggested before elsewhere: "There is only one infinite, eternal Heaven that is Hell for those who don't want to be there."

"Should obviously?" What? All scriptures, including Baha'i's are either 100% literal or 100% metaphorical? or Paul's such an idiot that he can't tell when he's speaking literally or metaphorically? That's an odd notion, IMO, but let's go with it. Let's suppose that he was actually speaking of a metaphorical resurrected Jesus. Do you also propose that we rephrase Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 15:13-19 as follows?

• 13 If there is no metaphorical resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised metaphorically. 14 And if Christ has not been raised metaphorically, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be metaphorical false witnesses about a metaphorical God, for we have testified about God that He metaphorically raised Christ from the dead. But He did not raise him metaphorically if in fact the dead are not raised metaphorically. ... 19 If only for this life we have hope in a metaphorical Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Did I miss a "metaphorical" or "metaphorically"?

Well the whole point of Christianity is to enable spiritual life so we may be born again and attain Eternal life. If that is not true then our faith is in vain.

No, what I'm saying is that, according to the Qur'an, Allah himself said Jesus "revived a dead person" (by Allah's permission) and Allah himself spoke of "a Day of Resurrection", but your position has been that "resurrections" are to be taken metaphorically. And I'm wondering when you're going to break the news to the Muslims that the author of the Qur'an was just putting metaphorical words in Allah's mouth.

Not true. Jesus may well have brought Lazarus back to life. He may well have brought Himself back to life. When you have Jesus ascending through the stratosphere it contradicts logic and reason regardless of our faith that God can and does perform miracles.

Can I quote you?

Of course

 

[arthra]

I was going to suggest here that as Baha'is we encourage anyone to investigate who Baha'u'llah is and was...and arrive at their own conclusions:

"…every individual member of humankind is exhorted and commanded to set aside superstitious beliefs, traditions and blind imitation of ancestral forms in religion and investigate reality for himself...."

- – Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace, p. 433.

Independent Investigation of Truth

We have the available Writings of Baha'u'llah that are online for anyone to read and come to their own conclusions:

Writings of Bahá’u’lláh | Bahá’í Reference Library

We also have the orientalists who studied the rise of the Baha'i Faith

Browne, Edward Granville

and we have the testimony of those who personally observed and wrote about Him...

The Dawn-Breakers - Wikipedia

Comments about Baha'u'llah and the Baha'i Faith:

http://academic.uprm.edu/hdc/documents/famous-bahais.pdf

List of Baháʼís - Wikipedia

Testimonials of Prominent Personalities about the Bahá'í Faith

 

[Terry Sampson]

How do you understand the nature of Paul’s experiences of Christ?

*sigh* He speaks of two unique experiences, one in 1 Corinthian 15 and the other in 2 Corinthians 12. The first, which lasted briefly, took place while he was still a traditional Jew, in the presence other men on the road to Damascus. He was blinded by a light and addressed by an entity who identified itself as Jesus. In the second, which is described as having taken place 14 years earlier, an unnamed man, "whether in the body or not", was taken up to "Paradise". Whether Jesus was involved is not stated. Those are two separate events. In verses 35 to 58 of 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks of resurrection. We live our lives on earth in perishable bodies. Resurrection, according to Paul, involves a transformation into an imperishable, spiritual body. In Jesus' resurrection, accepting Paul's words, Jesus was transformed. [Note: He surely did not transform himself.] The Jesus who spoke to Paul, according to Paul's account, would have been transformed into an imperishable, spiritual being, just as I suspect the Prophet Elijah was when he was whisked away in a fiery chariot, as described in 2 Kings 2:11.

That's what I call a "literal resurrection."

 

[Dawnofhope]

*sigh* He speaks of two unique experiences, one in 1 Corinthian 15 and the other in 2 Corinthians 12. The first, which lasted briefly, took place while he was still a traditional Jew, in the presence other men on the road to Damascus. He was blinded by a light and addressed by an entity who identified itself as Jesus. In the second, which is described as having taken place 14 years earlier, an unnamed man, "whether in the body or not", was taken up to "Paradise". Whether Jesus was involved is not stated. Those are two separate events. In verses 35 to 58 of 1 Corinthians, Paul speaks of resurrection. We live our lives on earth in perishable bodies. Resurrection, according to Paul, involves a transformation into an imperishable, spiritual body. In Jesus' resurrection, accepting Paul's words, Jesus was transformed. [Note: He surely did not transform himself.] The Jesus who spoke to Paul, according to Paul's account, would have been transformed into an imperishable, spiritual being, just as I suspect the Prophet Elijah was when he was whisked away in a fiery chariot, as described in 2 Kings 2:11.

That's what I call a "literal resurrection."

I agree there are two unique experiences as described in:
1/ Acts of the Apostles 9 (about 36 AD)
2/ 2 Corinthians 12 (about 41 AD)
The dates provided in your post seem reasonable:

Who is Baháʼu'lláh?

So when Paul refers to His experience of the resurrected Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:4-9 the key verse is:

And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

So assuming a literal resurrection, if Paul had a blinding experience involving Jesus then he could not have seen the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus. Of course it is possible Paul was referring to this particular experience but speaking figuratively. Regardless the experience was very different from the Apostle's experience of the resurrected Jesus (which were a little odd anyhow). So the one remaining experience is 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 which seems the more likely of the two experiences Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:8. But then again it could have been a totally different experience or set of experiences. With all the Pauline Epistles in the New Testament one wonders why there is no mention of such an important event. Therefore I believe the most likely reference in the NT referring to Paul’s resurrected Jesus experience is Corinthians 12:1-4 as I opined earlier in the thread.

Nevertheless, I really wanted to ensure you didn't have any further thoughts based on the New testament that could elucidate Paul's experience with Jesus. You didn’t.

We live our lives in perishable bodies and then eventually die. Even atheists believe that. So for clarification was it Christ's perishable body that came back to life after 3 days or his imperishable body? The experiences of His close companions were certainly very different after His crucifixion with moving through walls and not being recognised when first seen. So if it was His imperishable body, what happened to His perishable body. That certainly wouldn’t have ascended through the stratosphere to the spiritual heavens, would it?

So when we die do we acquire the same kind of imperishable body Jesus had where we can move spirit like through solid objects and appear before our loved ones?

Thanks for mentioning Elijah. When Elijah returned as John the Baptist did he have the same physical body, an imperishable body of Elijah or is there some other explanation for the Return of Elijah as John the Baptist?
Malachi 4:5-6
Luke 1:17
Matthew 11:13-14

 

[oldbadger]

As usual, Baha'is believe the NT when it suits them. But why this verse? Was any follower of Jesus present to hear what was said? I don't mind Fundies that take it all as literal as possible. I don't mind atheists that say it is all fiction. But how do you argue with Baha'is that can make any verse literal, symbolic, fictional or anything else they choose to make it? Anything they say, becomes the truth?

Hi........
That piece was selected by a Bahai, which was strange because Bahai does not believe that Jesus was more than a messenger. I don't like G-John's editing of the gospels but I love much of the content.

I researched as much as I could about Jesus and his life and do find that many anecdotes about him can 'click' in to place, and of course I am aware that humans can push too hard to fit stuff together.

Bahai seems to grasp anything that can help to give a quick-fire winning answer, without realising that the sentences often confound other aspects of Bahai.

Bahai doesn't seem to understand that 90% of opposition on RF would NOT BE THERE if Bahai was not trying to sell itself. Until a year or two ago I associated with Bahais for many decades at social functions without contention, but the Bahai sell was muted by comparison with what I read on RF.

 

[Vinayaka]

Bahai doesn't seem to understand that 90% of opposition on RF would NOT BE THERE if Bahai was not trying to sell itself. Until a year or two ago I associated with Bahais for many decades at social functions without contention, but the Bahai sell was muted by comparison with what I read on RF.

Exactly. I didn't know much about it, but since I'm an active opponent to proselytising, I noticed, and got involved. So just who caused all this contention, and where should the blame be put?

 

[oldbadger]

Exactly. I didn't know much about it, but since I'm an active opponent to proselytising, I noticed, and got involved. So just who caused all this contention, and where should the blame be put?

...... I think that Baha'i must shoulder any blame. One Baha'i member once wrote on RF that the RF management had told him off for proselytising.

But what makes me so strongly opposed to Baha'i is how it seems to be set upon many deceptions.
Baha'i does not seek any kind of government.
Baha'i accepts other religions.

.....and on.......and on .....

 

[Vinayaka]

But what makes me so strongly opposed to Baha'i is how it seems to be set upon many deceptions.

Yes, the phony statistics about numbers really stuck me as odd. When 'honesty is the best policy' is basically a world wide ethic, how could such a religion claiming to be out to get along and help mankind be so full of lies?

 

[oldbadger]

Yes, the phony statistics about numbers really stuck me as odd. When 'honesty is the best policy' is basically a world wide ethic, how could such a religion claiming to be out to get along and help mankind be so full of lies?

Do you remember how we used to debate so hard against each other over JW door-knockers? My point is, how many times have JWs started threads on RF selling themselves? From my perspective they haven't. They will defend their faith from antagonists, but they don't start threads which lead to 'Join the JWs and save yerself' etc
That's the point. And they don't double talk.

If a Baha'i just tells it as it is, honour-bright, then they get respect, regardless of there is agreement. I can think of a couple that do, but they don't post that often.

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you remember how we used to debate so hard against each other over JW door-knockers? My point is, how many times have JWs started threads on RF selling themselves? From my perspective they haven't. They will defend their faith from antagonists, but they don't start threads which lead to 'Join the JWs and save yerself' etc
That's the point. And they don't double talk.

If a Baha'i just tells it as it is, honour-bright, then they get respect, regardless of there is agreement. I can think of a couple that do, but they don't post that often.

Ah ... the internet. When it first got popular 20 or so years ago, proselytising faiths must have thought it was such a boon. A whole new method to use. But all that optimism about the new tool must have gone down so fast, because that same tool can be used to dig up the 'other side', and have discussions where you don't look very good at all. In the days before the internet it was far easier to be deceptive and hide stuff.

As we know, as far as faiths and internet discussions go, the Baha'i faith is by far the most represented in relation to its actual numbers. The harm they've done to their own agenda is immeasurable.

 

[oldbadger]

Ah ... the internet. When it first got popular 20 or so years ago, proselytising faiths must have thought it was such a boon. A whole new method to use. But all that optimism about the new tool must have gone down so fast, because that same tool can be used to dig up the 'other side', and have discussions where you don't look very good at all. In the days before the internet it was far easier to be deceptive and hide stuff.

As we know, as far as faiths and internet discussions go, the Baha'i faith is by far the most represented in relation to its actual numbers. The harm they've done to their own agenda is immeasurable.

Yes! Yes!
Back in the day I would take my latre wife to open Bahai events. I was often amazed to hear Bahais tell visitors 'We believe that too!' or 'Well, so do we!' in response to almost any opinion or belief that they held.

A huge % of Bahais must have joined up because they believed that Bahai fitted exactly with their beliefs..... when in fact it did not. I know that now.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes! Yes!
Back in the day I would take my latre wife to open Bahai events. I was often amazed to hear Bahais tell visitors 'We believe that too!' or 'Well, so do we!' in response to almost any opinion or belief that they held.

A huge % of Bahais must have joined up because they believed that Bahai fitted exactly with their beliefs..... when in fact it did not. I know that now.

Live and learn, live and learn.

 

[oldbadger]

Live and learn, live and learn.

I remember a very successful and rich Bahai sea captain who was ruthless about kicking a gay Bahai off an LSA. Now..... if I has known better, I could have told him that as a Bahai he was wrong to retire early in life, as he did, because Bahauallah wrote that retirement was not to be done!

And on ..... and on ...... but actually, I would not ... still would not. If I was still taking a Bahai wife to open meetings I would think of her first. She would be the only person I would confide in.

 

[Vinayaka]

I remember a very successful and rich Bahai sea captain who was ruthless about kicking a gay Bahai off an LSA. Now..... if I has known better, I could have told him that as a Bahai he was wrong to retire early in life, as he did, because Bahauallah wrote that retirement was not to be done!

And on ..... and on ...... but actually, I would not ... still would not. If I was still taking a Bahai wife to open meetings I would think of her first. She would be the only person I would confide in.

I can't imagine my child self ever having much to do with anything resembling that sort of stuff. Dad was all about being an independent thinker to the core. He walked his own walk, and most certainly expected his kids to as well. I would have been extremely hesitant to marry anyone of faith. We had evangelical neighbours and the closest town had some JWs. Mom would engage them a bit when they came by. (Yes they drove around the countryside, trying to enlist farmers.) I got a bit interested at 16 or so, and took an old aunt to a liberal church (her old church) in the countryside. All she did was complain about the length of the student minister's shorts. I tried to listen but didn't understand much. It was the first of two Christian services I ever went to. The second was a Christmas service in town, with 3 friends. The whole entire thing was just so strange to me. Love and peace, but then who is sleeping who tomorrow. I was just all confused.

But you at least have real experience with real people re the Baha'i. That's more than a lot of us can say.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I agree there are two unique experiences as described in:

And that's pretty much all that we agree on with respect to Paul's experiences.

• So when Paul refers to His experience of the resurrected Jesus in 1 Corinthians 15:4-9 the key verse is:
  • And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
• So assuming a literal resurrection, if Paul had a blinding experience involving Jesus then he could not have seen the resurrected Jesus on the road to Damascus.
• Of course it is possible Paul was referring to this particular experience but speaking figuratively.
• Regardless the experience was very different from the Apostle's experience of the resurrected Jesus (which were a little odd anyhow).
• So the one remaining experience is 2 Corinthians 12:1-4 which seems the more likely of the two experiences Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:8. But then again it could have been a totally different experience or set of experiences. With all the Pauline Epistles in the New Testament one wonders why there is no mention of such an important event.
• Therefore I believe the most likely reference in the NT referring to Paul’s resurrected Jesus experience is Corinthians 12:1-4 as I opined earlier in the thread.
• Nevertheless, I really wanted to ensure you didn't have any further thoughts based on the New testament that could elucidate Paul's experience with Jesus. You didn’t.

The mystery to me is why I'm bothering to rehash the same stuff that I wrote to you about earlier, in my post #64, to which you responded:

I’m not sure why all this matters. Paul clearly had a profound experience with ‘the resurrected Jesus’ and whether it was once or a whole series of events. The point is it doesn’t need to have been literal and the whole story makes sense if it wasn’t.

The point IS:

• You don't want to believe that Jesus was "literally resurrected" and "literally ascended in to heaven";
  
• You have been told by your Baha'i sources to believe that Paul did not "literally see" the resurrected Jesus; and
  
• You are quite content with the metaphor of Jesus' resurrection and ascension.
  
• While I, on the other hand, believe that Jesus' was literally resurrected from the dead, that he was taken up "into the stratosphere", that Paul--in the presence of other men--saw the resurrected, ascended, and glorified Jesus ... on the road to Damascus, that what blinded him spoke to him, and what he saw and was told by what he saw changed his life. I believe all that because: [1 Corinthians 15:19] "If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied."

So for clarification was it Christ's perishable body that came back to life after 3 days or his imperishable body?

IMO, imperishable, prior to his ascension.

The experiences of His close companions were certainly very different after His crucifixion with moving through walls and not being recognised when first seen.

I suspect that some of the failure to recognize the resurrected Jesus would have been due to the unexpected appearance of somebody that, last seen, had been dying or dead on a cross or laid out in a tomb.

So if it was His imperishable body, what happened to His perishable body. That certainly wouldn’t have ascended through the stratosphere to the spiritual heavens, would it?

LOL! Not likely, given what we know about perishable bodies and traveling unprotected through the stratosphere.
My speculative opinion is that the perishable body was transformed into a imperishable body, ... literally. If and when it happens to me, I'll try to get word of what happens back to you if I can.
BTW, ... regarding your term "spiritual heavens". I don't know what you mean by "spiritual heavens". Are you speaking of some metaphorical, Baha'i illusory stuff or something real? Seems to me that it would be very un-Baha'i-like to speak of a "real spiritual heaven", as if it has a physical aspect or nature to it, no?

So when we die do we acquire the same kind of imperishable body Jesus had where we can move spirit like through solid objects and appear before our loved ones?

You're wanting to see how far I'll take this "literal imperishable body" stuff, aren't you? Suffice it to say: I can take it pretty far and, I suspect, a lot farther than you're prepared to follow.

When Elijah returned as John the Baptist did he have the same physical body, an imperishable body of Elijah or is there some other explanation for the Return of Elijah as John the Baptist?

Are you testing me or playing with me? In either case, either John the Baptist was the prophet Elijah reincarnated, if reincarnations are possible, in which case, I suppose, that Elijah's imperishable spirit was "in" John the Baptist's perishable body; or John the Baptist was figuratively/non-literally Elijah. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that John was Elijah figuratively-speaking, not literally.[/QUOTE]

 

[oldbadger]

I can't imagine my child self ever having much to do with anything resembling that sort of stuff. Dad was all about being an independent thinker to the core. He walked his own walk, and most certainly expected his kids to as well. I would have been extremely hesitant to marry anyone of faith. We had evangelical neighbours and the closest town had some JWs. Mom would engage them a bit when they came by. (Yes they drove around the countryside, trying to enlist farmers.) I got a bit interested at 16 or so, and took an old aunt to a liberal church (her old church) in the countryside. All she did was complain about the length of the student minister's shorts. I tried to listen but didn't understand much. It was the first of two Christian services I ever went to. The second was a Christmas service in town, with 3 friends. The whole entire thing was just so strange to me. Love and peace, but then who is sleeping who tomorrow. I was just all confused.

But you at least have real experience with real people re the Baha'i. That's more than a lot of us can say.

Clearly, you have been more level headed than I.
I married because I was in love, but also because I fancied her so much, both feelings which never died, even after her death in 91'.
Same as with my wife today.
I still visit churches, a soup-and-chat at the salvation army every few months, a Baptist coffee-n-cake morning occasionally. And I still gather unique ideas about the Jesus story from Christians at such pleasant venues. And as you know, a JW couple have visited me for three decades now. They are all friends, is all.
My wife has no interest in any of it but she will make coffee for anybody who calls. She tells me that she sees no connections between any folks other than life-partnership. She reckons that there are no two similar Christians, or Muslims, etc ....... they are all individuals to her and that is how she treats with them. Very unique.... my wife.

 

[CG Didymus]

No, what I'm saying is that, according to the Qur'an, Allah himself said Jesus "revived a dead person" (by Allah's permission) and Allah himself spoke of "a Day of Resurrection", but your position has been that "resurrections" are to be taken metaphorically.

Not true. Jesus may well have brought Lazarus back to life. He may well have brought Himself back to life. When you have Jesus ascending through the stratosphere it contradicts logic and reason regardless of our faith that God can and does perform miracles.

So what is the real Baha'i belief on this? Was bringing Lazarus back life metaphorical or literal? Does the Quran support that it was literal? But, never, ever have I heard a Baha'i say that the resurrection of Jesus was literal. And that's the important one.

But contradicting logic and reasoning? Everything that Jesus did contradicted science and logic. Walking on water, the resurrection and then floating off into the sky. But can God create a body that has flesh and bone and then de-materializes? If so, problem solved.... for Christians but not for Baha'is. Baha'is need a physically dead Jesus. That makes all the post resurrection appearances for Baha'is to be only metaphorical. And that solves all their problems. The physical body of Jesus is dead. He rose in spirit. The appearances and ascension were not real. But that contradicts what the NT says. So what you gonna do?