The Archeology of the Kingdom of God: Diving a Bit Deeper into a Baha'i Approach to Metaphysics

[TheLightWithin]

Props to Dr. Khalil Andani. You might enjoy this (see 11:04):

Thanks. I will try to watch it very soon. It looks quite interesting.

 

[Ahanu]

To be more concrete, apocalyptic theology begins with the empty tomb. The apocalypse is not pushed out into a distant extended future. The future is now. Because God the Father raised His Son Jesus from the dead, the Last Days are currently upon us. The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead on the third day completely altered and recast human history. The empty tomb of the crucified and risen Jesus is the eschatological sign par excellence. DBH describes well its shock-and-awe effect:

In this sense, the living tradition, if indeed it is living, is essentially apocalyptic: an originating disruption of the historical past remembered in light of God’s final disruption of the historical (and cosmic) future. One might even conclude that the tradition reveals its secrets only through moments of disruption precisely because it is itself, in its very essence, a disruption: it began entirely as a novum, an unanticipated awakening to something hitherto unknown that then requires the entirety of history to interpret… This is the only true faithfulness to the memory of an absolute beginning, a sudden unveiling without precise precedent: an empty tomb, say, or the voice of God heard in rolling thunder, or the descent of the Spirit like a storm of wind or tongues of fire. In a very real sense, the tradition exists only as a sustained apocalypse, a moment of pure awakening preserved as at once an ever dissolving recollection and an ever renewed surprise. (pp. 142-143)

“Disruption” is the key word here, even if it is an understatement. If we confess with the Nicene Creed that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who rose from the dead on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, we must realize the radical consequences of such a statement. Nothing can ever be the same for a conscientious disciple of Jesus Christ. We can no longer look at our lives and our cosmos in the same way ever again.

The empty tomb is the greatest gauntlet ever thrown down to challenge historicism and its all-embracing, all-determining relativism than which none greater can be conceived. The crucified, risen, and ascended Jesus is the greatest novum of all novorum.

Review of Tradition and Apocalypse, David Bentley Hart, article here

DBH goes on to talk about the lack of "precise precedent." How does the resurrection of Jesus specifically differ from these other resurrection narratives, and how significant is that difference? Without such a comparison, the claims of "disruption" and "novum" remain empty assertions.

The resurrection from the tomb, then, is ambiguous in that it is both a presence and an absence of Christ. The resurrection surely does not mean that Christ simply walked out of the tomb as though nothing had happened. On the contrary, as we shall see, he is more present, more bodily present, than that; but he is nevertheless locally or physically absent in a way that he was not before.

It is, of course, essential to the Catholic tradition that the resurrection of Christ is bodily; that is to say that it is Christ himself, this human bodily being who is risen. The resurrection does not cancel but rather crowns the incarnation, the enfleshing of the Word. It is not, for example, that some thought about Christ, some inspiring memory of him, lives on in the minds of his followers. The message of the resurrection is that the incarnate Christ is alive and is with us. Resurrexi et adhuc tecum sum: | am risen; | am with you.]/i]

Herbert McCabe, "God Matters", p110

Many Greco-Roman heroes were believed to have ascended to heaven in their bodies, for example. Herbert McCabe doesn't explain what makes Christ's bodily resurrection unique.

He highlights the "ambiguity" of presence and absence, stating that Christ is "more present, more bodily present," yet "locally or physically absent." This paradox doesn't explain the specific nature of the resurrected state. Many cultures have stories of beings who transcend physical limitations after death, becoming present in a different way. How does Christ's "presence in absence" differ from these other concepts?

This brings us to a question much discussed by Catholic scholars and others: should we see the resurrection as an historical event in the same sense as the crucifixion or burial but simply following them in time? Was the resurrection an historical event distinct from the death of Christ? I want to stress that this is something debated amongst Catholic scholars and theologians as well as others. None of them wish to deny that the resurrection took place; the question is simply its relationship to history.

Was it something that happened to the corpse of Christ in the tomb as truly as the crucifixion and death happened to the living body of Christ on the cross? To put my own cards on the table, I think that it was. I think that there was an event other than the crucifixion in consequence of which the body of Christ was not to be found in the tomb but is transfigured and glorified. I just want to indicate that there are perfectly good and devout Catholics who believe in the reality of the resurrection as firmly as I do but would put things differently.

Herbert McCabe, "God Matters", p106

How does "a glorified body" differ from other accounts of individuals being raised from the dead or achieving immortality?

"The problem with calling Christ’s Resurrection a “literal, historical event”, though, is that we call only those events historical which are describable in physical ways and above all by historical causes. Something happened to Christ and to his body specifically, and we would like to explain it. However, both the cause and its result lie outside time, and the event is not itself describable other than by saying, “he was raised” or “he arose”.

The empty tomb is the sign of this resurrection, but notice that, apart from the story of the guard and the bribe in Mt 27.62-66, 28.11-15 the writers take no interest in anyone’s reaction to the empty tomb.

But even more importantly, after his crucifixion, only his disciples ever see Jesus in his risen glory— even the appearance to “more than 500 of the brethren” that St Paul mentions in 1Co 15.6 is an appearance to “the brethren”. So it seems that faith is an *essential* part of affirming his resurrection— you cannot say it occurred apart from faith somehow. (Although NT Wright i think has done a stellar job of assembling all the evidence!)

But all those “Evidence That Demands a Verdict”–type books always fall flat somehow, and fail to be as convincing as their writers are confident they will be, precisely because they are trying to prove something that’s outside of proof; to show logical something beyond logic.

...

Now, i’m aware that that might sound like i’m saying that Christ did not “really” arise “historically”, or at least that i’m hedging about it. Not at all, but I am reflecting on the nature of what Mark saw and said, what we saw and and say, and how both he and we see and say.

We have to take seriously the fact that for all the gospels, the last publicly visible image was indeed the cross. And my main point is that – this goes to the essence of what Mark is driving at in his Gospel – that for him (and for the other writers), the empty tomb is about the cross!

But already with the empty tomb (something seen in Matthew even by unbelieving guards) we’re on the border between this age and the oncoming Age, and that Age is most definitely not a mere continuation of present history, not the future of one particular stream of events, while other events in other places (and particularly, in other religions) might have other futures. The cross of Christ is the essence of this age, and the resurrection of Christ is the future of the entire world, of all time and history everywhere. So, can we speak of something like that as “historical” in the same way that we say the destruction of the Temple was historical?

Although for Mark, Luke, and John the tomb is already open and Christ already gone when the women arrive, for Matthew the tomb is still closed when the women arrive, and an angel opens it before them, sits on the stone, informs them that Jesus is not there, and instructs them as to what the tomb’s emptiness means. Matthew is midrashing Mark as he always does; he’s drawing the moment out so that he can have the angel make his speech. But each in his own way, all four of the gospel writers are dealing with what the tomb’s emptiness means for us who live in the history where the cross is the “last visible reality”.

In this sense, the resurrection is not a historical event like the cross was, but the kind of event that we can for now experience only in the Breaking of the Bread and all that surrounds it. History is always inherently a history of death— but here is someone who overcame death.


John B Burnett, in response to an article here

The idea that the cause and result of the resurrection "lie outside time" raises more questions than it answers. How can an event that affects history and is attested to by historical witnesses be outside of time?

Things would go on exactly as they are.

A view common to some of the theologies above is expressed above by Burnett:
However, both the cause and its result lie outside time, and the event is not itself describable
Indescribable because it lies outside time ... but the Fall initiates our aeon, and that aeon would just run on under its own inevitable impetus until either the Higher intervenes (the Incarnation) or until, if not eternal, which our cosmos is not, we will do something that has unforeseen but inescapably cataclysmic consequences.

The End of our Age might be likened to the Kali Yuga ... in which case we have another 42,000 odd years to go ...

If the resurrection is truly indescribable, then how can we even discuss it?

Why is it so hard to get an explanation of the specific differences between Christ's resurrection and other narratives of resurrection in the Greco-Roman world of antiquity?

 

[Ahanu]

I do not treat Baha'u'llah as an authority, nor agree with the view expressed.

However, our discussion has demonstrated a practical point that aligns with the Baha'i perspective: the inherent limitations of human language and understanding when attempting to describe the divine.

The problem has been to explain the specific nature of Jesus' resurrection and how it differs from other similar narratives. Despite discussing historicity, "disruption," "novum," and interventions "outside time," a concrete description of the resurrected state itself has remained elusive. This difficulty reflects the inherent limitations of human understanding when dealing with transcendent realities, a point the Baha'i writings address directly.

Baha'u'llah states: "All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded, nor can they ever hope to exceed, the limitations to which man’s finite mind hath been strictly subjected… No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created… He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence."

Abdu'l-Baha further clarifies: "All these attributes, names, praises and eulogies apply to the Places of Manifestation; and all that we imagine and suppose beside them is mere imagination, for we have no means of comprehending that which is invisible and inaccessible."

And the Báb states: "The sign of His matchless Revelation as created by Him and imprinted upon the realities of all beings, is none other but their powerlessness to know Him. And he hath not shed upon anything the splendour of His revelation, except through the inmost capacity of the thing itself. He Himself hath at all times been immeasurably exalted above any association with His creatures…"

Thus far, your contribution in this discussion has practically demonstrated the validity of these statements.

 

[Thomas]

You're the one suggesting that the resurrection is both understood through existing concepts and constitutes a fundamental break from those concepts with a "rupture" of some sort that infuses existing forms with "entirely new and different meanings." This is the issue I'm trying to address.

Sorry, yes, I should have stated the obvious: Universal salvation, by his death and resurrection.

That is, not merely His own resurrection and ascent in heaven, but that by Him, in Him, through Him and with Him, all can ascend to the eternal life in God.

"Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures... (v1-4)
Just a point here that Paul's gospel is the same as the gospel preached in the church.

"For by a man came death, and by a man the resurrection of the dead. And as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be given life. And each in the proper order: Christ as the firstfruits, thereafter those who are in Christ at his arrival, then the completion, when he delivers the Kingdom to him who is God and Father, when he renders every Principality and every Authority and Power ineffectual. For he must reign till he puts all enemies under his feet. he last enemy rendered ineffectual is death. For “He subordinated all things beneath his feet.” But, when it says “all things” have been subordinated beneath his feet, it is clear that this does not include the one who has subordinated all things to him. And, when all things have been subordinated to him, then will the Son himself also be subordinated to the one who has subordinated all things to him, so that God may be all in all" (v21-28)

The fullest depiction of Paul's eschatological vision anywhere in his writings. He describes three phases in the life-giving reconciliation of all things to God:
1: Christ's resurrection,
2: then the salvation of those who already belong to Christ at the time of his parousia ('second coming'),
3: and finally the full completion of this universal renewal (perhaps on the far side of that purging fire of judgment described at 3:10-15), when all things and persons will have been “set in order beneath” Christ, including the celestial powers (who will be rendered powerless, not—as the verb often is, but probably ought not to be, translated—“abolished”), and then the whole of the cosmos will be returned in its fullness and perfect order to the Father by Christ.

"Otherwise what shall they do that are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptised for them?" (v 30).
Purely an aside – The practice of Christians receiving baptism on behalf of other persons who died unbaptised was evidently a common enough practice in the apostolic church that Paul can use it as a support of his argument without qualification. And the form of the Greek leaves no doubt
that it is to just such a posthumous proxy baptism that he is referring.

"... Death has been swallowed up in victory. Where, death, is your victory? Where, death, is your sting?” Now death’s sting is sin, and sin’s power is the Law; but thanks to God who gives us victory through our Lord Jesus Christ, my beloved brothers, become steadfast, immovable, ever abounding in the Lord's work, knowing that in the Lord your labour is not in vain." (v54-58)

How is the resurrection different, and how significant is that difference? Is it a difference in degree or a difference in kind?

It's different because resurrection in the Greco-Roman world was of the individual, whereas Christ's resurrection was for all.

So yes, it is significant; its absolutely fundamental to Christian faith, and it's of a different order altogether.

Again, Greco-Roman resurrections take their place in a hierarchy, whereas Paul is speaking "all in all", a boundless unity.

 

[Thomas]

When considered in isolation, it seems like an arbitrary act of power, rather than a meaningful communication of spiritual truth.

It can seem so, yes.

But, as I said, for one thing it is fitting, in the minds of those who record it, and for another it allows the idea of the resurrection of a self which the individual would associate with their own mortal being. If it is mythmaking, then it's a upaya. A pastoral device.

 

[Thomas]

The Baha'i Faith shifts the primary focus from a direct investigation of God's essence to an exploration of human nature, which was stated in the very first post in this thread.

OK ... but this does a priori assume the existence of God.

This approach is rooted in the belief that humanity is the most perfect reflection of God's attributes in the created world.

Well that is a Biblical affirmation of Genesis 1 – but outside of that:
a) the belief assumes a metaphysical insight into the divine nature – the attributes it accords to the Divine; or
b) the belief risks anthropological exemplarism, by taking the best of human nature and projecting that onto God.

Either way It seems to me the shift in focus assumes a number of particular metaphysical principles as given?

Nothing in human nature offers proof or evidence of God, many would argue, or the divine essence or energies? Even positing the existence of God, by taking humanity at the standpoint, what proof have we that we're not just projecting a human exemplar upon the divine?

(Deism, for example, would not go so far as to say that human nature is a reflection of divine attributes.)

Classical metaphysics often starts with a concept of "Being" or "God" as the ultimate reality and then tries to deduce the nature of the created world from this starting point.

I would point out that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy, and the ancients were, first and foremost, philosophers.

It seems to me the explanation assumes a non-existing dichotomy ... the philosophers inquired into the nature of being and God, they did both, not one to the exclusion of the other.

The Baha'i approach reverses this process, starting with an investigation of the created world, particularly human nature, as a means of understanding the divine.

That's not really a reversal though, it's simply a different field. The Baha'i approach is theological anthropology.

Know Thyself (Greek: Γνῶθι σεαυτόν, gnōthi seauton) was inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in Delphi, the maxim being dated to the 5th century BC ... Augustine's writings are shot through with it ...

I can't see how anything can be predicated of the Divine without recourse to metaphysics.

The classical metaphysical approach tends to focus on the resurrection as an act of God's power, demonstrating His ability to transcend natural laws.

I don't really see that as the 'focus' of classical metaphysics. Rather, I'd say the focus is the nature of the Absolute and Infinite – the nature of the transcendentals, if such things exist. Transcending the natural order then is not about power, but simply according to the nature of things.

The emphasis is on the how (the mechanics of the miracle) and the implications for God's nature (such as His omnipotence). This is reflected in your statements about God's ability to dispose of the body and the possibility of a "pneumatic body."

My comment was somewhat light-hearted, To be honest, I think you're reading too much into it, and projecting too much of that reading onto metaphysics generally. I've never seen metaphysics as a treatise on power.

The focus is on the event itself as a demonstration of divine power originating from God.

The resurrection? The focus there is because that is the point on which everything turns. No resurrection, as St Paul says, then our faith is in vain.

If you were to push me on 'deep Christianity', I'd say the Incarnation is the turning moment ... everything follows from that ... and push further and I'd say the moment of creation.

The Baha'i approach shifts the focus from the how of the resurrection to the why.

Sorry, but this is laughable ... the sole Christian point of the Resurrection is its 'why' is tied to its implication for us.

The how is not something we fuss over ... everyone else tends to do that.

The emphasis is not on the mechanics of the miracle or the nature of the resurrected body, but on the spiritual meaning and transformative power of the event for humanity.

That's our emphasis too. There's no difference in emphasis, just in interpretation.

"While classical metaphysics begin with God to descend thereafter through the degrees of the hierarchy of Being, from the world of essences to that of individuals, the question which is found at the heart of the philosophy of Baha’u’llah is an inquest upon the nature of man. Jean-Marc Lepain
False dilemma fallacy. That question also existed contemporaneously at the heart of classical philosophy, and it cannot be answered without resorting to some order of ontology or metaphysics.

 

[Thomas]

Does the existing Catholic Catechism define what the unique meaning of the resurrection is?

from the Catechism of the Catholic Church

III. THE MEANING AND SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESURRECTION

651 "If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain" (I Cor 15:14). The Resurrection above all constitutes the confirmation of all Christ's works and teachings. All truths, even those most inaccessible to human reason, find their justification if Christ by his Resurrection has given the definitive proof of his divine authority, which he had promised.

652 Christ's Resurrection is the fulfilment of the promises both of the Old Testament and of Jesus himself during his earthly life (Cf. Mt 28:6; Mk 16:7; Lk 24:6-7, 26-27, 44-48). The phrase "in accordance with the Scriptures" (Cf. I Cor 15:3-4; cf. the Nicene Creed) indicates that Christ's Resurrection fulfilled these predictions.

653 The truth of Jesus' divinity is confirmed by his Resurrection. He had said: "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he" (Jn 8:28). The Resurrection of the crucified one shows that he was truly "I AM", the Son of God and God himself. So St. Paul could declare to the Jews: "What God promised to the fathers, this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus; as also it is written in the second psalm, 'You are my Son, today I have begotten you'" (Acts 13:32-33; cf. Ps 2:7). Christ's Resurrection is closely linked to the Incarnation of God's Son, and is its fulfilment in accordance with God's eternal plan.

654 The Paschal mystery has two aspects: by his death, Christ liberates us from sin; by his Resurrection, he opens for us the way to a new life. This new life is above all justification that reinstates us in God's grace, "so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Rom 6:4; cf. 4:25). Justification consists in both victory over the death caused by sin and a new participation in grace (Cf. Eph 2:4-5; I Pt 1:3). It brings about filial adoption so that men become Christ's brethren, as Jesus himself called his disciples after his Resurrection: "Go and tell my brethren" (Mt 28:10; Jn 20:17). We are brethren not by nature, but by the gift of grace, because that adoptive filiation gains us a real share in the life of the only Son, which was fully revealed in his Resurrection.

655 Finally, Christ's Resurrection - and the risen Christ himself is the principle and source of our future resurrection: "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. . . For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (I Cor 15:20-22). The risen Christ lives in the hearts of his faithful while they await that fulfilment. In Christ, Christians "have tasted. . . the powers of the age to come" (Heb 6:5) and their lives are swept up by Christ into the heart of divine life, so that they may "live no longer for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised" (2 Cor 5:15; cf. Col 3:1-3).

IN BRIEF:
656 Faith in the Resurrection has as its object an event which as historically attested to by the disciples, who really encountered the Risen One. At the same time, this event is mysteriously transcendent insofar as it is the entry of Christ's humanity into the glory of God.

657 The empty tomb and the linen cloths lying there signify in themselves that by God's power Christ's body had escaped the bonds of death and corruption. They prepared the disciples to encounter the Risen Lord.

658 Christ, "the first-born from the dead" (Col 1:18), is the principle of our own resurrection, even now by the justification of our souls (cf. Rom 6:4), and one day by the new life he will impart to our bodies (cf. Rom 8:11).

 

[Thomas]

DBH goes on to talk about the lack of "precise precedent." How does the resurrection of Jesus specifically differ from these other resurrection narratives, and how significant is that difference? Without such a comparison, the claims of "disruption" and "novum" remain empty assertions.

In the light of how the Resurrection is preached in Christianity and what it means with regard to universal salvation.

Many Greco-Roman heroes were believed to have ascended to heaven in their bodies, for example. Herbert McCabe doesn't explain what makes Christ's bodily resurrection unique.

Paul does.

The idea that the cause and result of the resurrection "lie outside time" raises more questions than it answers. How can an event that affects history and is attested to by historical witnesses be outside of time?

Because God is the Alpha and the Omega. God was before the world was made, and after it ceases to be.

If the resurrection is truly indescribable, then how can we even discuss it?

How God accomplishes what He accomplishes rests in God.

The events in history do not describe its 'mechanics' but its implication for humanity.

 

[Thomas]

However, our discussion has demonstrated a practical point that aligns with the Baha'i perspective: the inherent limitations of human language and understanding when attempting to describe the divine.

Yes.

The problem has been to explain the specific nature of Jesus' resurrection and how it differs from other similar narratives. Despite discussing historicity, "disruption," "novum," and interventions "outside time," a concrete description of the resurrected state itself has remained elusive. This difficulty reflects the inherent limitations of human understanding when dealing with transcendent realities, a point the Baha'i writings address directly.

It has been sufficiently explained – see above.

Baha'i writings fall far short of what Christian see and believe in the Resurrection.

Baha'u'llah states: "All that the sages and mystics have said or written have never exceeded, nor can they ever hope to exceed, the limitations to which man’s finite mind hath been strictly subjected… No tie of direct intercourse can ever bind Him to the things He hath created… He is and hath ever been veiled in the ancient eternity of His own exalted and indivisible Essence."

I would say this is provisionally the case. What is impossible for man, however, is possible for God (cf Mark 10:27). I would offer:
"And, since you are sons (by adoption), God sent forth his Son’s Spirit into our hearts, crying, “Abba!”—Father! Thus you are no longer a slave, but a son; and, if a son, also an heir through God." Galatians 4:6-7
This is the knowledge of faith, the 'dark knowledge' that transcends the human intellect.

Abdu'l-Baha further clarifies: "All these attributes, names, praises and eulogies apply to the Places of Manifestation; and all that we imagine and suppose beside them is mere imagination, for we have no means of comprehending that which is invisible and inaccessible."

"Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2)
And some, like Aquinas & Eckhart, Rumi & Ibn'Arabi, Shankara and countless others have got pretty darn close!

And the Báb states: "The sign of His matchless Revelation as created by Him and imprinted upon the realities of all beings, is none other but their powerlessness to know Him. And he hath not shed upon anything the splendour of His revelation, except through the inmost capacity of the thing itself. He Himself hath at all times been immeasurably exalted above any association with His creatures…"

Immeasurably exalted, and intimately close.

Thus far, your contribution in this discussion has practically demonstrated the validity of these statements.

And how they fall short of the Christian Revelation by emphasising Divine Transcendence over and at the expense of Divine Immanence.

 

[Thomas]

Props to Dr. Khalil Andani. You might enjoy this (see 11:04):

I thoroughly enjoyed it!

I have a lot of respect for Dr Andani.

 

[TheLightWithin]

"Otherwise what shall they do that are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not again at all? why are they then baptised for them?" (v 30).
Purely an aside – The practice of Christians receiving baptism on behalf of other persons who died unbaptised was evidently a common enough practice in the apostolic church that Paul can use it as a support of his argument without qualification. And the form of the Greek leaves no doubt
that it is to just such a posthumous proxy baptism that he is referring.

I believe Mormons may do this today.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Props to Dr. Khalil Andani. You might enjoy this (see 11:04):

I did watch it. I really appreciated it.

 

[TheLightWithin]

If you were to push me on 'deep Christianity', I'd say the Incarnation is the turning moment ... everything follows from that ... and push further and I'd say the moment of creation.

What is "deep Christianity" - Does it have to do with esoteric interpretations?

 

[Thomas]

What is "deep Christianity" - Does it have to do with esoteric interpretations?

I wouldn't call it esoteric per se.

Rather, it's diving deep into the understandings and insights of the Fathers, mystics and saints, in that order.

 

[Ahanu]

Sorry, yes, I should have stated the obvious: Universal salvation, by his death and resurrection.

The obvious? Many Christian denominations and theologians reject universal salvation, and it is not universally accepted within the tradition itself. Some believe in annihilation (as you once did); others believe in eternal hell.

Universal salvation was strongly championed in early Greek strains of Christianity. It didn't take off in Latin Christianity. The reason is because idea of universal restoration has roots in pre-Christian Greek philosophy, such as the the Ionian philosophers, Heraclitus, and the Stoics. They believed in cyclical cosmic renewals, where the cosmos periodically returns to its original state. Platonic philosophical worldviews shifted the focus to the restoration of the human soul or the divine element within rational beings. Later Neoplatonists, probably influenced by Christianity, broadened the concept and applied it to everybody.

Now we're getting somewhere. In other words, although the application of universal salvation within Christian theology might have a unique flavor, the nature of the Christian resurrection is practically indistinguishable from Greek conceptions of resurrection we saw earlier. We're now shifting from ontology to soteriology. Christ democratizes and paves a path for everyone. However, as noted above, you are basing the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection on a contested doctrine within Christianity.

It's different because resurrection in the Greco-Roman world was of the individual, whereas Christ's resurrection was for all.

There was also the idea of groups of people achieving immortality or translation to a blessed realm. Hesiod, for example, describes how Zeus transported a portion of the generation of warriors from the Theban and Trojan Wars to the Islands of the Blessed, where they dwell in a state of perpetual happiness, becoming like gods.

Well, I concede that the Christian concept of universal salvation distinguishes the scope and accessibility of resurrection from the limited instances of physical immortality found in Greek mythology. As Endsjø points out, Greek religion offered the hope of physical immortality only to a select few, creating a longing that it could not fulfill for the majority. Christianity addresses this longing by extending the possibility of resurrection to all.
-

 

[Thomas]

The obvious? Many Christian denominations and theologians reject universal salvation ...

OK. For the sake of simplicity, let's say Christ paved the way for the faithful's salvation.

Universal salvation was strongly championed in early Greek strains of Christianity. It didn't take off in Latin Christianity. The reason is because idea of universal restoration has roots in pre-Christian Greek philosophy ...

Actually its failure was a lot more mundane ... a mistranslation of the Greek, argued by scholars like Ilaria Ramelli, Hart and others.

Now we're getting somewhere. In other words, although the application of universal salvation within Christian theology might have a unique flavor, the nature of the Christian resurrection is practically indistinguishable from Greek conceptions of resurrection we saw earlier.

The Early Church saw their own salvation in light of the resurrection – the prior Greek conceptions did not equal that.

We're now shifting from ontology to soteriology. Christ democratizes and paves a path for everyone. However, as noted above, you are basing the uniqueness of Christ's resurrection on a contested doctrine within Christianity.

The scope of 'universal' is contested, not salvation as such.

Well, I concede that the Christian concept of universal salvation distinguishes the scope and accessibility of resurrection from the limited instances of physical immortality found in Greek mythology. As Endsjø points out, Greek religion offered the hope of physical immortality only to a select few, creating a longing that it could not fulfill for the majority. Christianity addresses this longing by extending the possibility of resurrection to all.

There you go then.

The question then is: Was Jesus just a variation on Greek myth ... or was He something else altogether?

 

[Ahanu]

It can seem so, yes.

But, as I said, for one thing it is fitting, in the minds of those who record it, and for another it allows the idea of the resurrection of a self which the individual would associate with their own mortal being. If it is mythmaking, then it's a upaya. A pastoral device.

In other words, "You Baha'is, with your focus on the 'why' rather than the 'how,' are treating the resurrection like a myth or a pedagogical tool." Actually, the Baha'i Faith affirms the importance of Christ's life, death, and resurrection, even while interpreting these events on multiple levels of meaning. I believe in continuation after death, but I also believe antiquity fails to describe its nature.

Why limit that to the non-physical? Why not so much 'different from matter' as 'different form of matter'? Spiritual matter?

I recognize that ancient understandings of the afterlife were limited by the scientific and philosophical knowledge of the time. The descriptions of the resurrected state found in early Christian texts, including Paul's writings, reflect this limitation.

As I stated earlier, Litwa notes that Paul's concept of the "pneumatic body" was likely an attempt to translate the Jewish concept of a "glory body" into terms intelligible to Greek audiences familiar with Stoic physics. As Litwa points out, Philo described the heavens as "the most holy dwelling place of the manifest and visible gods," made of "the purest ουσία [substance]," fitting for the stars and planets.

And, as I stated earlier, Paula Fredriksen adds, "Transformed into bodies of πνεῦμα, Paul proclaims, the redeemed will enter their celestial commonwealth, ascending ἐν οὐρανοῖς above the lunar border, to God’s kingdom…"

Paul's vision of the resurrected body as a "pneumatic body" composed of pneuma—a physical, though subtle, substance associated with celestial bodies—reflects the ancient understanding of the cosmos and the divine. This is very different from modern conceptions. This shows that antiquity falls short in describing the true nature of the afterlife.

 

[Ahanu]

Actually its failure was a lot more mundane ... a mistranslation of the Greek, argued by scholars like Ilaria Ramelli, Hart and others.

The mistranslation is a valid point in my opinion, but it doesn't negate the influence of pre-Christian Greek philosophy as an alley-oop - setting up the play - for later Christians to dunk the idea of universal salvation.

 

[Ahanu]

The question then is: Was Jesus just a variation on Greek myth ... or was He something else altogether?

The evidence proves that, regarding the nature of the resurrection itself, there is no fundamental difference from Greek mythological precedents. The outcome or application might be different in Christian theology, but the event itself, as a concept, is not unique.

 

[Ahanu]

And how they fall short of the Christian Revelation by emphasising Divine Transcendence over and at the expense of Divine Immanence.

God is Far in His Not-Farness and Not-Far in His Farness; God is Near in His Not-Nearness and Not-Near in his Nearness.

If God's essence is utterly beyond human comprehension, then any attempt to explain how He creates through self-limitation (God making Himself "world" or incarnation) is necessarily a human construct, limited by our finite understanding. The Qur'an's statement, "It begets not, nor is it begotten" (Q 112.3), and the Báb's statement that God's essence is "utterly sanctified from any attribute of causation" and that He creates through His Will, bring this point home. God's Will acts as a separate cause and obviates the need for self-limitation.

Apparent contradictions in describing God arise from operating within a single, limited framework. For example, in ordinary logic, a statement and its negation cannot both be true simultaneously. However, in certain universes of discourse, particularly those dealing with the divine, this is not the case. This means that God can be both near and far, transcendent and immanent, simultaneously, but not within the same limited frame of reference. These seemingly contradictory attributes exist in a dialectical unity within a higher universe of discourse, what Shaykh Ahmad calls the "topos of cognizance."

"'In mathematical objective logic (category theory) it is well known that the law of excluded middle ('Either A is the case or not-A is the case') does not generally hold in a mathematical topos. Furthermore, in a universe fundamentally characterized by continuity, not discontinuity, it is also the case that the law of excluded middle does not hold. Contradictory opposites are not always jointly exhaustive."

Within the appropriate universe of discourse, apparent contradictions can be reconciled. God’s nearness and farness are not mutually exclusive; they are two aspects of the same divine reality, understood within a higher frame of reference. The Baha'i emphasis on divine transcendence does not negate divine immanence. God is both infinitely transcendent, beyond all human comprehension in His essence, and intimately near, manifesting His attributes in creation and through His Messengers.