Welcome to Adobe GoLive 5

In Scripture, the miracle of Jesus Christ's Resurrection represents the pinnacle of God's plan of Salvation for mankind. Jesus' death and Resurrection is where eternal victory was won on behalf of humanity. It is also the highest defining proof of Christ's deific station as Messiah, God the Son incarnate. He Himself both laid down His life, and, signifigantly, Himself took it up again. Exactly what the Bible intends for us to believe about it is thus crucial.

First let's look at the Baha'i doctrine of Jesus' Resurrection. According to George Townshend, who clearly represents the Baha'i outlook in his book Christ and Baha'u'llah, all those surrounding Jesus during His ministry, and who wrote the New Testament, were completely deluded as to His intentions and evidently saw Him do and say things He did not do or say. Not the least of which was His literal Resurrection. Townsend tells us On page 29 of his book;

"Christ's spiritual mission was, at an early date, materialized, specifically in regard to such things as miracles, curing the blind and deaf, raising the dead. Even His own resurrection was made physical, missing the point entirely."

We are left to believe that the Apostolic authors, whose accounts include the first hand reports of many eyewitnesses, either lied or were chosen by Christ to share His entire ministry only to be left by Him so deluded as to entirely miss the point! And these being the men Jesus Himself specifically handpicked to spread the "Good News"! If this were true then it would have been Christ far more than they who was naively deluded. It is obviously not true. It obviously reveals an attitude toward Scripture anything but "consistent" with the Bible. These handpicked men whose God appointed job it was to relay to the world the ministry of Jesus Christ, and who did so with such total integrity and commitment that they too laid down their lives in defense of that Gospel, wrote down narrative accounts of real miracles, rich in detail, the intention of which was clearly not symbolic as we shall see.

In the final chapter of his book, The Wine of Astonishment, William Sears presents the logical argument by Abdul Baha from Some Answered Questions which proports to explain the symbolic meaning of Christ's Resurrection. The logic is based only on Man's worldly intellectual ability and discounts as superstitious foolishness any literal act of omnipotence on God's part beyond that level of understanding. To the Baha'i, the Resurrection of Christ is only to symbolize that after his death the Apostles were troubled, and doubted for several days so that the "cause of Christ" was like a lifeless body. Then, when they became "assured and steadfast", and began to serve the cause of Christ, his "Resurrection" was their renewed faith in his message as a teacher of good and godly behavior. Not only, then, are we to believe that his physical body was not raised, but that his person was not resurrected either.

Now let's compare that with what the Bible (that Baha'i theology says is consistent with Baha'i doctrine) has to say about Jesus' Resurrection.

Even before the Crucifiction we find that the Gospel writer's intent was to portray a literal Resurrection of Jesus' physical body. At John 2:18 we read,

"Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?"
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days."
The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?"
But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."

The Gospel writers witnessed, and assumed, and reported, a very different, and very literal, and very specifically "bodily" "Resurrection", far different than the Baha'i symbolic redefinition Abdul Baha would decieve us with.

Matthew 28:9,

"Suddenly Jesus met them. 'Greetings', He said. They came to Him, clasped His feet and worshiped Him."

One cannot clasp the feet of a spirit, much less a symbol.

Luke 24:36,

"While they were still talking about this, Jesus Himself stood among them and said to them, 'Peace be with you.' They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. He said to them, 'Why are you troubled and why do doubts rise in your minds? Look at my hands and feet. It is I myself. Touch me and see. A ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.'

When He had said this, He showed them His hands and feet. And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, He asked them, 'Do you have anything to eat?' They gave Him a piece of broiled fish and He took it and ate it in their presence."

Clearly the Gospel and very words of Christ, (spoken after the crucifixion), intend for us to believe that Christ literally rose from the dead, in the flesh, (and bones). He was resurrected in the person of Himself, able to be touched, converse, and eat physical food! There can be concocted no theory of symbolism that does not pervert the intended meaning of the Gospel and very words of Jesus.

At John 20:17 Jesus said to Mary Magdalene,

"Do not hold on to me for I have not yet returned to the Father."

This is obviously a physical request He made of her. All scriptural accounts agree that she was the first of the disciples to see Him after the Resurrection. And though we cannot fathom the significance of why Jesus did not want her to embrace Him until He had "returned to the Father", it is clear that He stood before her, able to be embraced, but with something He had yet to do before it would be proper to embrace Him.

John 21:12;

"Jesus said to them, 'Come and have breakfast."

John 20:27;

"Then He said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here: see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."

Again Jesus walks, talks, and eats among the disciples. Again He goes to great lengths to demonstrate dramatically, this time to "doubting Thomas", that He is truly resurrected, complete with the wounds in His hands and side that Thomas must physically touch.

Acts 1:3;

"After His suffering He showed Himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that He was alive. ... On one occasion, while He was eating with them, He gave them this command, 'Do not leave Jerusalem but wait for the gift my Father promised which you heard me speak about."

This can in no way be attributed to some abstract theory that the Resurrection was symbolic of the doubts of Christ's disciples for three days. These scriptures go beyond leaving any doubt of their intention. They do not tell us that Jesus' teachings were raised. They do not tell us that He appeared as some kind of spirit. They tell us that His person and His body were ALIVE! They tell us that He was raised embraceable and able to eat physical food with the Apostles after the crucifixion and burial of His dead body. They tell us that He, Jesus, gave "many convincing proofs" that He was alive. He was raised in a glorified, physical body by all scriptural accounts.

So no, Baha'i religion is not consistent with the Bible on this foundational concept. You may reject the Message as too incredible to believe, but it is there and it is clear. Paul tells us that it will be "foolishness" to the wisdom of the world and so it is not surprising that Baha'i religion, that rests so much weight upon Science and the mind of man, cannot accept the good news as the Gospel presents it. "Religion and science walk hand in hand" says Baha'u'llah. But Paul tells us that God has chosen the foolish things to humble the wise, that God's "foolishness" is wiser than man's wisdom and His "weakness" stronger than man's strength.

At Acts 13:27 we read,

"The people of Jerusalem and their rulers did not recognize Jesus, yet in condemning Him they fulfilled the words of the prophets that are read every Sabbath. Though they found no proper ground for a death sentence, they asked Pilate to have Him executed. When they had carried out all that was written about Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb. But God raised Him from the dead and for many days He was seen by those who had traveled with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now our witnesses to His people."

Luke clearly tells us here that Paul believed that after Jesus was "executed" that He was taken "down from the tree" and that they, "laid Him in a tomb But God raised Him from the dead". To symbolize the Resurrection event, at the end of this literal narrative sequence of events, is to grossly rip that final pinnacle event that is being led up to in the sequence, completely out of its literal context at the last moment. Paul would have been horrified at the Baha'i concept of Jesus' Resurrection as only being considered some symbolically temporary waning of the Disciple's faith. He adds that, "for many days He was seen by those who had traveled with Him from Galilee to Jerusalem. They are now our witnesses to His people." Baha'is say they believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but in reality, and in the true context of what it actually teaches, they don't.

At Acts 17:31 Luke tells us that Paul says, "For God has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man (Jesus) He has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him (Jesus) from the dead." When they (those Paul was preaching to) heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, "We want to hear you again on this subject."

The obvious intention here, understood by all involved, was that Paul was speaking of Christ's Resurrection as a literal miracle. Like the Baha'is, Luke observes those who "sneered" because they could not accept the LITERAL intention of the Gospel Message Paul was relaying with regard to Christ's Resurrection. Passages like this one definitively reveal the falsehood of a rationalized symbolic interpretation of Christ's Resurrection that denies that the "true meaning" of the Resurrection is defined in Jesus' literal, personal, and bodily Resurrection. For this scripture relays the reactions of those present and to whom the original Message was given, specifically reflecting the incredible and literal intention assumed by all present as Paul spoke.

At Acts 23:6 Luke says, "Then Paul, knowing that some of them were Sadducees and the others Pharisees, called out in the Sanhedrin, "My brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee. I stand on trial because of my hope in the resurrection of the dead." When he said this, a dispute broke out between the Pharisees and the Sadducees, and the assembly was divided. (The Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, and that there are neither angels nor spirits, but the Pharisees acknowledge them all.)"

We can observe in this the historical fact that by associating himself with the Pharisaic belief in resurrection of the dead, he was revealing the non Baha'i view of Jesus' literal Resurrection as a real, not symbolic, event, as "firstborn from the dead", as opposed to the symbolically distorted Baha'i outlook that would have no connection to pharisaical belief in Resurrection.

In Acts 25:18 Luke quotes an unbiased third party, the governor of Caesarea, Festus, who discusses Paul's case to the king saying, " When his accusers got up to speak, they did not charge him with any of the crimes I had expected. Instead, they had some points of dispute with him about their own religion and a dead man named Jesus who Paul claimed was alive."

In this we must observe that Scripture includes here the report of an independent third party (even a man of great authority) who, in commenting upon the intended Message that Paul was relaying, reflects how that intended Message concerning Christ's Resurrection, was, in fact, assumed to be taken as an absolutely literal one of the personal Resurrection of a dead man.

Though he is a central figure in it, Paul did not write Acts. But it is better that he didn't. For Luke's independent testimony, even including third party witnesses, builds a stronger case for authenticating the legitimate Christian perspective concerning Christ's Resurrection. We see this borne out as we read what Paul himself writes in Romans.

Romans 8:10, "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness. And if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your MORTAL BODIES through His Spirit, who lives in you. Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation--but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it."

We find Paul warning us not to live by our "sinful" natures (non Baha'i), but to look toward Christ's literal Resurrection as a model for our own future hope (non Baha'i). Once again, Baha'i religion picks and chooses what it accepts from the Bible, capriciously rejecting what doesn't fit its presuppositions. It takes Paul's words out of context, presuming to have him believe in doctrines he would have been appalled at when we look at what he taught and believed within a proper context. Not only does Paul say these things himself, but Luke independently corroborates Paul's words and intentions, solidifying the true intention of Scripture's message.

These kinds of verses, especially as relayed in the clearly historical, narrative style of Acts, have nothing to do with a symbolic or "Midrash" writing style, interwoven as they are within the chronological description of events as they unfolded in the new Church and whose literal intention is confirmed by those other passages that reflect back on the miracles themselves with commentary that assumes literal intent. (recall the point made earlier concerning Paul's comments in 1Corinthians). This is not to mention the fact that most of the other New Testament books consist of authentic and functional letters of correspondence sent out to the fledgling church communities.

In regard to the literal miracle of Jesus Resurrection, Baha'is must utterly disregard much of the post crucifixion passages of Scripture that have the "dead" Jesus walking, talking and eating amongst His disciples again. Also, the first two chapters of Acts in which that "Spirit of truth" already had come at the Pentecost are in bold disagreement with the forced symbolism of Baha'i interpretation of the Pentecost. In Acts ch1 Jesus SPECIFICALLY refers to the promise referred to in John 16, telling the Disciples to wait "for a few days" (not until the 19th century) for the one He promised would come, the indwelling of God's Spirit. Acts chapter 2 describes that coming.

Abdul Baha's interpretation of what the Pentecost was supposed to mean, utterly ignores Christ's direct association with the promises He had made concerning the coming of the "Comforter" or "Counselor" that Baha'i religion is so anxious to attribute to Baha'u'llah. We must compare Abdul Baha's version of what the Pentecost meant with that of the Scripture's. On page 106 of Some Answered Questions Abdul Baha says,

"Question.--What is the manner, and what is the meaning, of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, as described in the Gospel?

Answer.--The descent of the Holy Spirit is not like the entrance of air into man; it is an expression and a simile, rather than an exact or a literal image. No, rather it is like the entrance of the image of the sun into the mirror--that is to say, its splendor becomes apparent in it.

After the death of Christ the disciples were troubled, and their ideas and thoughts were discordant and contradictory; later they became firm and united, and at the feast of Pentecost they gathered together and detached themselves from the things of this world. Disregarding themselves, they renounced their comfort and worldly happiness, sacrificing their body and soul to the Beloved, abandoning their houses, and becoming wanderers and homeless, even forgetting their own existence. Then they received the help of God, and the power of the Holy Spirit became manifested; the spirituality of Christ triumphed, and the love of God reigned. They were given help at that time and dispersed in different directions, teaching the Cause of God, and giving forth proofs and evidences.

So the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles means their attraction by the Christ Spirit, whereby they acquired stability and firmness."

Let's compare this interpretation of the Pentecost to the promise of Christ for a Comforter/Counselor (the prophecy Baha'u'llah claims). We can then see whether or not Abdul Baha's interpretation agrees with Both Baha'u'llah's claims to be the promised Counselor, and Christ's Words about the fulfillment of the promise.

At John 14:16 we find Christ speaking of the promised Counselor that Baha'u'llah claims to be, and that Jesus promised in these passages.

"And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you... (14:25) All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Jn.15:26,

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.

Jn.16:7,

But I tell you the truth: It is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.

Now, at Acts Ch 1:3 we are told of Jesus that;

"After his suffering, he showed himself to these men (the Disciples) and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God. On one occasion, while he was eating with them, he gave them this command: "Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait for the gift my Father promised, WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK ABOUT. For John baptized with water, but IN A FEW DAYS you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit."

Several things become clear from this passage. It specifically refutes any possibility that Jesus Resurrection was symbolic. It says that the Disciples were given many convincing proofs that He was "alive" AFTER His death on the cross. The passage tells us that Jesus spoke with them, and ate physical food in their presence, AFTER His death on the cross. Jesus told them not to leave Jerusalem, but to wait SPECIFICALLY, "for the gift my Father promised, WHICH YOU HAVE HEARD ME SPEAK ABOUT." (John 14:16, Jn.15:26, Jn.16:7). Jesus tells us SPECIFICALLY that upon waiting in Jerusalem that, "in a few DAYS you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Not nearly two thousand years later with the arrival of Baha'u'llah. Jesus' promise of John 14:16 says that the Counselor promised was to "live with you and be in you" and that this was to be "forever". So we must concede that the Counselor was never intended by Christ to be seen as another incarnation of a person such as Baha'u'llah who could never fulfill those criterion as could the direct indwelling of God's Spirit.

As I have also said before, it is very revealing when we consider Abdul Baha's answered question, to keep in mind that all of this excitement on the part of the Disciples concerning the risen Jesus in Acts ch 1, is BEFORE the Pentecost and thus reveals the impossible theory that the Pentecost itself was the symbolic story wherein they became "steadfast". They were already steadfast BEFORE the Pentecost.

We find that when Baha'i theology tries to twist the intentions of Scripture regarding Christ's Resurrection and the ensuing Pentecost, it is unable to make a viable case when compared to any honest reading of the text of Scripture. Baha'i religion desperately "needs" its forced reinterpretation of these biblical events to be true if Baha'i theology as a whole is itself to remain valid. Too many implications fatal to the Baha'i world view become evident when Scripture is left to express it's intentions with integrity. There is no dispensation whose revelation is higher than the Salvation of all humanity. And there is only one "Messiah". He is Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whose literal rising from death certifies that the return He also promises will also be literal and will be personal. There is no professed Message of peace that is greater than the Christian Message of agape love and peace. The Pentecostal arrival of the promised Counselor happened "in a few days" according to the literal Words of the then literally risen Christ, and we see the event recorded in Acts 1, not the mid 19th century.