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

[Thomas]

David Litwa takes down the objections of Rabens. ... there is no reason why σῶμα πνευματικόν cannot be conceived of as made up of pneuma. Rabens objection thus does not stand."

If that is indeed Raben's objection, I agree with Litwa.

Jesus' resurrected body is in some manner able to be seen, to be touched. He eats.

But that body is clearly not a body in the sense that ours is – someone can see Him but not know it is Him, He can 'appear' and 'disappear' at will.

Now whether this body is of such a rarified substance that the molecules can pass through solid matter – I would have thought not.

But it also seems evident that pneuma, if it is some aetherial, rarified 'matter', is not matter in the sense that it, too, can pass into and out of and through material bodies – hence it is reason, or the power of reason, and so on ...

Now the ancients thought of this rarified matter as the elements, then the fifth element, and increasingly it takes of a meta-physical aspect – aether is different from air – phlogiston was believed to be a similar fiery substance in the 16th-18th century – until superseded at the end of the 18th.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But that body is clearly not a body in the sense that ours is – someone can see Him but not know it is Him, He can 'appear' and 'disappear' at will..

I don't agree with that logic..
G-d can cause anybody to "appear and disappear", if He so willed.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I don't agree with that logic..
G-d can cause anybody to "appear and disappear", if He so willed.

I suppose, but do the stories elaborate on it in such as way that you would think that?
Or is it more parsimonious to conclude, based on the descriptions in the story, that there is something different about the body of the resurrected Jesus?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Or is it more parsimonious to conclude, based on the descriptions in the story..

The story according to whom?
I mean, there are 4 Gospels, aren't there?

 

[Ahanu]

If that is indeed Raben's objection, I agree with Litwa.

Jesus' resurrected body is in some manner able to be seen, to be touched. He eats.

Engberg-Pedersen holds Paul believed Jesus' dead body was transformed; David Litwa posits that Paul may have believed Jesus received a completely new body, leaving the old one behind. This is more in line with scholars like James Tabor. Litwa emphasizes the possibility that Paul's reference to the "ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος" (redemption of the body) in Romans 8:23 could be understood as a separation of the body from its earthly form. His note states: "That Paul's ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος (Rom 8:23) is a genitive of separation is a real possibility and should be left open." Also, this is more in line with Baha'i belief.

 

[Thomas]

Engberg-Pedersen holds Paul believed Jesus' dead body was transformed;

So do I.

David Litwa posits that Paul may have believed Jesus received a completely new body, leaving the old one behind.

Not unreasonable ... based on 1 Corinthians 15.

Litwa emphasizes the possibility that Paul's reference to the "ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος" (redemption of the body) in Romans 8:23 could be understood as a separation of the body from its earthly form.

OK. As the author says, this is a possibility and a possible way of understanding.

I have no issue with it. There is a distinction between sarx, 'flesh', and soma, 'body'. The soma signifies the whole person, and Paul speaks of the natural body, psychikos soma and spiritual body, pneumatikos soma – both being, in their own right, bodies.

 

[Ahanu]

Not unreasonable ... based on 1 Corinthians 15.

Which means Paul did not believe in an empty tomb - at least not literally.

 

[Thomas]

Which means Paul did not believe in an empty tomb - at least not literally.

Well, we 'literally' don't know, do we? Let's not leap to the convenient.

Paul was a self-declared Pharisee, and they believed in physical resurrection, so why not Paul?

+++

Paul certainly believed in the death, burial and resurrection. And we can see that in offering what appear to be pre-Pauline credal statements of the early Church – the gospel he received (1 Corinthians 15:3 et seq) – although he does not mention the empty tomb, nor do the later creeds, for that matter.

D B Hart and N T Wright have contended on this point – the former believes the soma pneumatikos is a spiritual body, whereas the latter believes it a physical body animated by the spirit, in the same way the 'natural body', the soma psychikos, is animated by the soul.

I believe in bodily resurrection because Paul speaks of a soma pneumatikos and psychikos.

I do not believe God created the world as some disposable staging-point, nor as a necessary kind of gnostic safety-net to arrest the fall of satiated souls. The world was declared 'good' at each stage of its creation, albeit one brought down by a fall, and since then under the sway of archons, the Chief of which is Death, but that situation is/will be corrected, and so the world made whole again, so why not some aspect of physicality, albeit without mortality?

If, as your sources argue, with whom you seem in agreement, that the Stoic pneuma is to some degree material, then we have the soma pneumatikos as a material body, if not as an as-we-know-it corporeal body?

+++

The empty tomb is not a dogma of faith. There again, while 'bodily resurrection' most definitely is, the precise nature of the body is not defined, and in Koine Greek we're talking soma, not necessarily sarx.

Who's to say a soma pneumatikos cannot be touched, if the body in question allows it – as the body in question can, we are told, decide when and how it is perceived.

+++

My own belief, not a dogma, just an opinion, is in the empty tomb, because it is fitting. If it is not empty, we have two bodies, and if God can raise Jesus from the dead in whatever 'form' (eidos or morphê) suits, I'm sure He is capable of disposing of the no-longer required flesh, if that is indeed what happened.

 

[Ahanu]

Well, we 'literally' don't know, do we? Let's not leap to the convenient.

What leap? I don't see any leaping being done here. Seems to me more like a plot twist. Neither do I take it as convenient.

Imagine millions realizing that all along Paul was saying "redemption from the body," not "redemption of the body." Think about why redemption from the body would be inconvenient for millions of Christians: It would mean Jesus' flesh rotted away.

Redemption of the body, however, would be convenient: It means Jesus' flesh did not rot; rather, it was transformed into a pneumatic body.

Which sounds more inconvenient?

Paul was a self-declared Pharisee, and they believed in physical resurrection, so why not Paul?

Context, context, context.

He does say that he was a Pharisee:

περιτομῇ ὀκταήμερος ἐκ γένους Ἰσραήλ φυλῆς Βενιαμίν Ἑβραῖος ἐξ Ἑβραίων κατὰ νόμον Φαρισαῖος (Philippians 3.5)

But, then just a few lines after making the statement, he regards his former ways as a Pharisee to be σκύβαλα (skubalon):

ἀλλὰ μὲν οὖν γε καὶ ἡγοῦμαι πάντα ζημίαν εἶναι διὰ τὸ ὑπερέχον τῆς γνώσεως Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου μου, δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα ἐζημιώθην, καὶ ἡγοῦμαι σκύβαλα ἵνα Χριστὸν κερδήσω (3.8)

I also doubt your logic here. Speaking of myself, I could say: "I was a self-declared Southern Baptist Christian, and they believe in physical resurrection, so why not me?" Wouldn't make sense. I just disregard parts of my old identity and adopt new ones.

"Paul was a self-declared Pharisee, and they believed in _______, so why not Paul?" Play this game of fill-in-the-blank long enough, and you will see how it conflicts with Paul's new belief system.

Paul certainly believed in the death, burial and resurrection. And we can see that in offering what appear to be pre-Pauline credal statements of the early Church – the gospel he received (1 Corinthians 15:3 et seq) – although he does not mention the empty tomb, nor do the later creeds, for that matter.

No empty tomb. No resurrected Jesus to be touched or seen eating with his followers. It is strange that this was the response to a community that asked: "How are the dead raised? With what sort of body do they come?" Note that later creeds weren't specifically addressing these 1st-century questions. Context matters.

I do not believe God created the world as some disposable staging-point, nor as a necessary kind of gnostic safety-net to arrest the fall of satiated souls. The world was declared 'good' at each stage of its creation, albeit one brought down by a fall, and since then under the sway of archons, the Chief of which is Death, but that situation is/will be corrected, and so the world made whole again, so why not some aspect of physicality, albeit without mortality?

The Baha'i Faith does not believe in the physical resurrection of the body. However, it does not view the world as a "disposable staging-point" or a "safety-net for satiated souls." Baha'is believe that the world is a place of learning and growth, where souls can develop and evolve spiritually. The physical world is seen as a necessary part of this process, providing opportunities for experience and development. The Baha'i teachings emphasize the importance of living a meaningful life in this world and contributing to the betterment of society. This includes working towards the spiritual and material advancement of humanity.

By the way, how will the situation be corrected? Miraculous intervention that initiates substantial change?

If, as your sources argue, with whom you seem in agreement, that the Stoic pneuma is to some degree material, then we have the soma pneumatikos as a material body, if not as an as-we-know-it corporeal body?

Yep. Material spirit. But definitely not flesh according to Paul. It's star stuff.

The empty tomb is not a dogma of faith. There again, while 'bodily resurrection' most definitely is, the precise nature of the body is not defined, and in Koine Greek we're talking soma, not necessarily sarx.

Who's to say a soma pneumatikos cannot be touched, if the body in question allows it – as the body in question can, we are told, decide when and how it is perceived.

Reminds me of the "stuff" of dreams.

If it is not empty, we have two bodies,

Even if the tomb is not empty, your physical form will return to the earth, its elements scattered and absorbed, leaving you with one body.

 

[Thomas]

What leap? I don't see any leaping being done here.

It's a leap, because we just don't know, because Paul said nothing about the tomb. He might have believed it empty, he might not ... who knows?

I'm not saying Paul did or did not believe in an empty tomb – I can't go that far. You may assume yours is the only logical conclusion, but I do not, and in light of my Christological logic, yours is open to doubt.

Is the Resurrection a metamorphosis of a dead psychikos into a living pneumatikos? A lesser body assumed into a greater body – a lesser reality incorporated into a greater reality? Who knows ... who is to say?

We do know that Paul repeats the ancient credal formula – that Christ died, was buried, and rose again on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4). That's it in a nutshell, and that credal statement underpins the Gospel accounts.

+++

Imagine millions realizing that all along Paul was saying "redemption from the body," not "redemption of the body." Think about why redemption from the body would be inconvenient for millions of Christians: It would mean Jesus' flesh rotted away.

But that's not what he said, is it? (I'm assuming you mean 'resurrection' and not 'redemption'? If redemption, check Romans 8:23)

Had he said that, then it would be doctrine before your millions came to believe. But he didn't.

I also doubt your logic here. Speaking of myself, I could say: "I was a self-declared Southern Baptist Christian, and they believe in physical resurrection, so why not me?" Wouldn't make sense. I just disregard parts of my old identity and adopt new ones.

"Paul was a self-declared Pharisee, and they believed in _______, so why not Paul?" Play this game of fill-in-the-blank long enough, and you will see how it conflicts with Paul's new belief system.

LOL! YES!
I'm saying I believe the empty tomb because of its implication in the light of the Revelation of Christ.

By the way, how will the situation be corrected? Miraculous intervention that initiates substantial change?

That would seem the gist of it. Does your way differ?

Yep. Material spirit. But definitely not flesh according to Paul. It's star stuff.

Yep, but beyond star stuff as a mode of pneuma incarnation – there are degrees of manifestation / materialisation, as Paul says.

Reminds me of the "stuff" of dreams.

Dare to dream, then.

Even if the tomb is not empty, your physical form will return to the earth, its elements scattered and absorbed, leaving you with one body.

Or perhaps not ...

 

[Ahanu]

It's a leap, because we just don't know, because Paul said nothing about the tomb. He might have believed it empty, he might not ... who knows?

I'm not saying Paul did or did not believe in an empty tomb – I can't go that far. You may assume yours is the only logical conclusion, but I do not, and in light of my Christological logic, yours is open to doubt.

It is not a leap, because the short ending of Mark suggests that the story of an empty tomb was unknown to exist to Christians, including Paul. On the traditional longer ending (Mark 16.9-20), The Jewish Annotated New Testament says: "This was not likely the original ending of Mark; most scholars assume that it is a second-century pastiche of phrases from the other Gospels. For centuries it was accepted as the authentic conclusion of the Gospel, and was included in the King James Version, until recently the most widely used English translation." On top of that, Paul's answer isn't even one hundred percent clear, leading to those that believe he spoke of a transformed flesh into pneumatic body or leaving the old flesh behind for an entirely new pneumatic body. How could he fail to mention a missing tomb or a resurrected Jesus eating fish when the Corinthians asked him about the nature of the resurrected body?! How could Mark fail to mention it too?!

 

[Ahanu]

But that's not what he said, is it? (I'm assuming you mean 'resurrection' and not 'redemption'? If redemption, check Romans 8:23)

Let's check Romans 8.23 again: The issue is the ambiguity in the Greek phrase "ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος." This phrase could be interpreted as including the possibility of a separation from the physical body, which aligns with certain interpretations of the resurrection, as suggested by Litwa.

Had he said that, then it would be doctrine before your millions came to believe. But he didn't.

Had he said that? Seriously? Doctrine evolves over time, and it's not always directly tied to the original words of a religious figure.

 

[Ahanu]

It is not a leap, because the short ending of Mark suggests that the story of an empty tomb was unknown to exist to Christians, including Paul. On the traditional longer ending (Mark 16.9-20), The Jewish Annotated New Testament says: "This was not likely the original ending of Mark; most scholars assume that it is a second-century pastiche of phrases from the other Gospels. For centuries it was accepted as the authentic conclusion of the Gospel, and was included in the King James Version, until recently the most widely used English translation." On top of that, Paul's answer isn't even one hundred percent clear, leading to those that believe he spoke of a transformed flesh into pneumatic body or leaving the old flesh behind for an entirely new pneumatic body. How could he fail to mention a missing tomb or a resurrected Jesus eating fish when the Corinthians asked him about the nature of the resurrected body?! How could Mark fail to mention it too?!

Looks like I made a mistake here.

Mark does mention the empty tomb. It still doesn't prove the writer believed in a physical resurrection, however.

 

[Ahanu]

That would seem the gist of it. Does your way differ?

Yes.

 

[Ahanu]

Yep, but beyond star stuff as a mode of pneuma incarnation – there are degrees of manifestation / materialisation, as Paul says.

Please explain "but beyond star stuff as a mode of pneuma incarnation" in Pauline thought.

 

[Ahanu]

Or perhaps not ...

This is a fundamental law of nature. Your body, like all matter, is composed of elements that have existed for billions of years and will continue to exist long after you're gone.

Consider the vastness of geological time. The Earth is over 4 billion years old. Human history is a mere blink of an eye in this cosmic timeline. Scale down about 4.5 billion years to a calendar year. At this scale humans appeared late into the night on December 31. Within the last 60 seconds, humans have initiated the Agricultural and Industrial Revolutions. Within that time frame countless generations have come and gone, their remains absorbed back into the Earth. Let this sink into your "so it goes" philosophical outlook as well.

The elements that once made up your body will be recycled, becoming part of plants, animals, and even future generations. This is the natural cycle of life and death. If there is a survival after death, it would have to be that consciousness, a non-physical aspect of being, is fundamentally different from matter as we know it today. While I personally believe in an afterlife, I don't believe ancient humans in 1st century Judaism fully captured its nature with their words. They all fail. The same is true for our own words today.

 

[Thomas]

It is not a leap, because the short ending of Mark suggests that the story of an empty tomb was unknown to exist to Christians, including Paul.

But it's there – Mark 16:5-6:
"And entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting to the right, clothed in a white robe, and they were amazed. But he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look: the place where they laid him."

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

But it's there – Mark 16:5-6:
"And entering the tomb they saw a young man sitting to the right, clothed in a white robe, and they were amazed. But he says to them, “Do not be amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified. He has been raised; he is not here. Look: the place where they laid him."

The disciples would have done much to ensure the desecration of the remains of Jesus was not possible.

The story of the Bab is also the most logical comparison to what happened to the body of Jesus.

At any time during the process of preventing the enemy obtaining those remains, the people that knew their location suffered martyrdom, the story would never have been told. In the case of the Bab, that also nearly became a reality.

In offering this, there is a truth that will never be eroded, Christ rose from the death of Jesus and is always with us, from the beginning, until the end. The Church was born, the Message spread throughout the earth.

Regards Tony

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

I always wonder why people see a flesh body plays a part after death. The Bible goes to great lengths to tell us we need to, and how to be born again from the flesh into the Spirit that is Jesus Christ.

Then God gives us dreams and NDE experiences. When we dream we traverse many worlds and experiences, we walk, run and fly without the flesh body, that is not conscious in the material world. The NDE experiences emphatically indicate life without the flesh body that lays unresponsive to the material world.

Why hold to the flesh? Well I may already know why, it changes the required frame of reference for the possibility of the return of Jesus Christ, a whole new world of thought would be required. Is that a fair and just statement?

Regards Tony

 

[TheLightWithin]

I always wonder why people see a flesh body plays a part after death. The Bible goes to great lengths to tell us we need to, and how to be born again from the flesh into the Spirit that is Jesus Christ.

Then God gives us dreams and NDE experiences. When we dream we traverse many worlds and experiences, we walk, run and fly without the flesh body, that is not conscious in the material world. The NDE experiences emphatically indicate life without the flesh body that lays unresponsive to the material world.

Why hold to the flesh? Well I may already know why, it changes the required frame of reference for the possibility of the return of Jesus Christ, a whole new world of thought would be required. Is that a fair and just statement?

Regards Tony

I think the idea of bodily resurrection is scriptural, is adhered to by a few religions (I think possibly even outside the Abrahamic religions but I would have to double check) and what that bodily resurrection actually looks like is not spelled out in a fully self evident or heavily detailed manner thus is subject to all sorts of interpretive strategies.