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

[Thomas]

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."

My point rather was, the empty tomb might be a reality, or it might be a pedagogical tool, who's to know?

The significance for me is an empty tomb says and implies more about resurrection than a residual corpse.

... but I also believe antiquity fails to describe its nature.

OK. I happen to believe otherwise.

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.

I see no limitation, other than our own. I offer this:

What happens then, to the contrary, in the Resurrection of Christ? What happens is that the resurrected Body is as if a witness, a living proof, a saving irruption of the glorious nature of the created within the bosom of its dark and opaque modality: Christ's body is still the instrument of presence in the world of bodies, but, by a total change, it is no longer of the essence of this presence to be passive and involuntary. The soul which inhabits this instrument is entirely master of it and makes use of it at will. Christ can actualise the corporeal mode of His presence according to His own decision and as He judges good. The relationship that He entertains with the corporeal medium of His presence has been completely transformed. A presence active throughout the entire world because a presence really in act, all relationships which unite this corporeal medium with the rest of the bodies, that is to say with the entire world and with the conditions that define it, all these relationships have been changed. Christ is no longer seen, He causes Himself to be seen.

This is exactly what the Gospels teach, and which so many modern exegetes are incapable of understanding. Christ glorious is not 'above' the world of the senses, except in a symbolic sense. Simply put, He is no longer subject to the conditions of this corporeal world. His bodily presentification becomes, then, a simple prolongation of its spiritual reality, entirely dependent upon this reality (whereas in the state of fallen nature, it is the person's spiritual reality which extrinsically dependent upon its bodily presence), a presentification which the spiritual person may or may not effectuate, as freely as human thought can, in its ordinary state, produce or not produce such or such a concept or sentiment. Whoever stops to consider this doctrine of the reversal in the relationship of the person to his corporeal medium and the consequences that this entails, will take into account the remarkable light that it casts on the significance of Christ's post-pascal appearances according to the Gospels.
(Jean Borella, Gnosis and anti-Christian Gnosis, "Modern Gnosticism")

As I stated earlier, Litwa notes ...

And as I pointed out, not all scholars agree with his conclusions ...

... 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.

But that's an inaccurate definition of pneuma. The Stoics, for example, saw it as permeating everything – all bodies – not just celestial bodies. Pneuma is the vehicle of the 'active principle' in prime matter, the 'passive principle' – of which all things consist,

And of course pneuma should be understood in relation to nefesh - ruah - neshamah of Scripture.

 

[Thomas]

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.

In your opinion.

As an afterthought, I don't think Litwa would suggest that.

As Armstrong says:
"Again, the point is not anything so crude as to say that the Gospel writers simply “borrowed” something from the pagan imaginary and slapped it onto Jesus; but it is rather to point out that for Early Christian language about Jesus, as a species of Early Jewish ethnoreligious language, itself just part of the broader Greco-Roman cultural web, to have any kind of positive content for the people to whom that language was addressed, then what happened to Jesus had to have had some kind of parallel point of reference in wider religious discourse."

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

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.

I pray for the day that the world embraces such a devotion to all the Names of God.

With the statement you have made, imagine when we embrace all the Messengers in the same light, all the Names and Attributes of God become One, all of humanity becomes One in One God, the entire purpose of God in giving us His Manifestations, the "Christ", the Messiahs, the Annointed Ones.

What harm is there in this? We have not lost Jesus nor His sacrifice, Better still what we will gain but the realisation of this promise, in John 10:16, "And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." and it enables the realisation of Zechariah, "And the LORD shall be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be— “The LORD is one,” And His name one."

I have been reading the discussion and all I am seeing is this wisdom unfolding, that no true and lasting unity can, or will be found, unless and until we find Christ in all the Messengers.

Regards Tony

 

[wil]

Classical metaphysics begins with God and a descent through the hierarchy of Being.

Long thread, but can I get a handle on the OP here, I looked at the definition...from Miriam Webster and oxford....

And neither mention G!d.

That would be a metaphysical theology eh? Not philosophy?

 

[TheLightWithin]

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.

Is "deep Christianity" then, simply more thorough than being what some people call "well catechized" ??

 

[TheLightWithin]

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

Salvation whether people believe in the religion or not, right?
What is salvation in this theory? What are people being saved from?
Is it individual salvation or more of a collective thing?
I used to think (as I may have alluded to in the Headcanon thread) that I used to think Jesus saved the earth somehow, and also saved society. Pretty much that he prevented the destruction of everything.
I thought that any afterlife salvation was the matter of being granted eternal life, rather than death or annihilation.
How well does that fit? What, in your view, is salvation from?

 

[Ahanu]

And as I pointed out, not all scholars agree with his conclusions.

However, Litwa is not alone in his interpretation. As I pointed out earlier, scholars like Troels Engberg-Pedersen, Paula Fredriksen, Matthew Thiessen, and Robyn Faith Walsh, among others, support similar conclusions, recognizing the influence of contemporary cosmology and Jewish eschatological beliefs on Paul's thought.

N.T. Wright offers a different perspective by reading the astral imagery in Second Temple Jewish texts, including those related to resurrection, as primarily metaphorical, but this interpretation has been met with criticism, even within New Testament scholarship.

As David Burnett describes in one of his interviews, he presented a paper at SBL connecting theosis in Paul to Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern frameworks, and he even expected Wright to be supportive since he knows Wright's own views on theosis. But Wright disagreed, arguing that the astral imagery in texts like 1 Enoch and 2 Baruch, which describe the resurrected shining like stars based on a passage from Daniel 12, should be read metaphorically, not literally.

Burnett's experience shows that other Second Temple and scholars of early Christianity, including Pamela Eisenbaum and Brant Pitre, strongly disagree with Wright's metaphorical reading. Pitre specifically pointed out that Paul uses the same language in 1 Corinthians 15 to describe the resurrected as used elsewhere to describe celestial beings in the Old Testament. This strongly suggests that Paul intended a literal connection between the resurrected body and the nature of celestial beings, not simply a metaphorical one.

It's not simply a fringe interpretation by Litwa. The fact that prominent scholars disagree with Wright's metaphorical reading and instead see a more direct connection to astral imagery strengthens the argument that Paul's understanding of the resurrection was informed by the physical and cosmological concepts of his time.

Excerpt:

DB: Yeah I actually, you know Mike, that whole SBL experience was kind of backwards for me actually because I had been really interested in the study of Theosis in Paul for quite some time, the idea deification, that the promise goal of sanctification in Paul was the idea of becoming like
God or like the gods. And I'd read a lot of great literature on this but I saw no one making these connections with the Old Testament so I'm thinking Wright was going to be my biggest proponent because he supports the idea of Theosis in Paul and I thought that by bringing the Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern framework to bear on the conversation, it would only highlight those ideas and give them the depth of background that I think is actually where Paul's deriving these ideas, along with other Second Temple Jews. And so I expected him to be all for it while I'd wasn't too sure about Eisenbaum and Blanton. I thought I might get some pushback from them and it was quite the opposite. I remember Pamela Eisenbaum very kindly saying that I had convinced her that this is how Paul was reading it. And she told me afterwards that this is something that needed to be published and Pauline scholars needed to deal with this because no one’s talked about this. And so I had mentioned to her that the paper has been solicited for the journal for Paul and his letter. And so I’m just waiting to hear back from the editorial board about that, to see what journal it will come out in. But then like you said, during the Q&A time, well just leading up to that, Wright had actually pushed back and had disagreed with my premise. And in kind and polite British fashion saying that it was an ingenious proposal but I just disagree with your premise.

He was of the persuasion, the contention is really important here though. His contention was that I was mistaking metaphor with metonymy and that the astralization passages that you're well aware of Mike in Second Temple period as they relate to the resurrection, text like 1
Enoch and 2 Baruch etc., these text that read the resurrection in astral terms coming out of Daniel 12, ‘in the resurrection they will shine as the stars of heaven,’ there's a wide ranging tradition in the Second Temple period that reads it that way and apocalyptic Judaism, which I would consider early Christianity within those strands, of reading it that way, he says that all of those texts are metaphoric. That in his reading, especially in his resurrection of the son of God book, the massive tome on the resurrection, when he deals with those texts he treats them all as metaphoric readings, like the stars is simply a metaphor and your mistaken on this.

But the rest of the Second Temple scholars were behind me on this and other Christian scholars as well. One of the scholars that stood up immediately to my defense was Brant Pitre from Notre Dame. And he pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15 the language of heavenly ones that’s used, or celestial bodies even, that’s used in the Old Testament to talk about celestial bodies is what Paul calls the resurrected ones. And so this language of resurrection in 1 Corinthians 15 is used, uses astral terminology that would be used for the astral beings of the Old Testament and uses it for the resurrected faithful.

MSH: That's really tricky. If you’re going to approach it like Wright does when you start saying well, all this is metaphorical and then the fact of that connection in 1 Corinthians 15, Wright of course isn’t going to say the resurrection is a metaphor. He’s going to affirm that Paul's talking about a genuine resurrection but then he’s sort of trapped in that assumption of his that this is all just metaphorical language. Well, how does that work metaphorical language but yet you’re affirming the reality of this? Explain that. It seems to me like he's boxed in there a little bit.

DB: Yeah and it is kind of ironic to me because the part that I expected actually from him that he responded about was he felt that too strong of a focus on the astralization language would be reading the resurrection as a non-bodily phenomena, that they would just become spirits in the
resurrection and it would be more of a Gnostic view and not more of this earthly kind of new creation, hard fleshly type of resurrection. And so because he has that kind of apologetic considerations, it's difficult to talk about these issues because when you’re not bringing in the Divine Council background to this and then only looking it from the perspective of, well, I have to defend the bodily resurrection, things can get mixed.

And some scholars that I think are really helpful here, and Wright did mention one of them briefly, but in terms of the astral resurrection is still bodily is a scholar by the name of Troels Engberg-Pedersen who's done a lot of work on Paul and stoicism and Paul and the Stoics, reading them comparatively and especially Paul's cosmology and ethics and even his ontology frequently uses the language of stoicism. And he makes a good point here. And another scholar who has a book coming out that I'm really looking forward to is Matthew Thiessen at St. Louis University who has a book coming out on Paul and the Gentile problem. And he has a whole chapter dealing with this and he's actually cited my forthcoming article a couple of times and I've had conversations with him about this. They both point out that, for example, the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, Paul, when he talks about a pneumatic body, a spirited body, or a spiritual body as its translated often, he does not mean a non-corporeal body or incorporeal body. He does not mean a floating around spirit like the way modernists think of spirit. He's thinking spirit is actually substance. It’s this substance of the astral beings of heaven, the gods or the Angels, this is the substance that they are made out of."

 

[Ahanu]

What are stars in Paul's cultural world?

 

[Ahanu]

But that's an inaccurate definition of pneuma. The Stoics, for example, saw it as permeating everything – all bodies – not just celestial bodies. Pneuma is the vehicle of the 'active principle' in prime matter, the 'passive principle' – of which all things consist,

And of course pneuma should be understood in relation to nefesh - ruah - neshamah of Scripture.

Even within this broader context, pneuma remained fundamentally conceived as a physical substance, albeit a subtle and refined one—a kind of fiery air or breath—not an immaterial spirit in the modern sense. This is precisely the point I'm trying to make about Paul's use of the term. As Origen noted, "It is the custom of holy scripture, when it wishes to point to something of an opposite nature to this dense and solid body, to call it pneuma." This highlights that pneuma in its scriptural context is still being contrasted with the grosser aspects of physical existence.

Litwa examines the Stoic understanding of pneuma in the first century C.E., the very context in which Paul was writing. He notes that the Stoics, "identified pneuma as the substance of the soul." Zeno, the founder of Stoicism, described the soul as "heated pneuma." Other Stoic sources describe it as "a heated and fiery pneuma," "a fiery and creative pneuma," "an intelligent and hot pneuma," or "innate pneuma." According to Litwa, Paul likely encountered a "trickled down" version of these ideas, common in Hellenistic philosophy. Cicero, though not strictly a Stoic, provides valuable insight into these widely diffused teachings. Having grown up with a Stoic philosopher and being influenced by other Stoic thinkers, Cicero described the soul as material, composed of "fire or warm air (i.e., pneuma)" and a substance "more integral and pure" than flesh and blood. He even suggested that after death, the soul, which is of a similar nature to the ethereal regions above the earth, would naturally ascend there.

This connection between the soul and the heavens is further emphasized by Litwa's observation that, according to Josephus, "the soul released from the body is 'settled among the stars."' This isn't merely a metaphorical statement about location; it reflects a deeper belief that "the purified soul is actually the same or similar in substance as the stars, which are composed of aether." This is supported by Chrysippus who wrote that pneuma and aether "come under the same definition."

This widespread association of celestial bodies with divinity and a refined, ethereal substance is further illustrated by the writings of Varro and Ovid, as recounted by Litwa. Varro, a Stoicizing Platonist, divided the cosmos into levels of aether, air, earth, and water, stating that "all these four parts… are full of souls; those which are in the aether and air being immortal, and those which are in the water and earth mortal. From the highest part of the heavens to the orbit of the moon there are souls, namely, the stars and the planets; and these are not only understood to be Gods, but are seen to be such." Similarly, Ovid described the stars as "forms of the Gods" and stated that "everybody agrees that they are themselves Gods." He also connected the human mind to these celestial realms, stating that it is made of "aetherial seeds," and concluding that "there is a God in us," which he identifies with pneuma descending from the aetherial regions.

This evidence from Josephus, Chrysippus, Varro, and Ovid demonstrates that the association of pneuma with a refined, physical substance closely connected to the divine and the celestial realm was pervasive in the intellectual climate of Paul's time.

As Litwa shows, Paul's own language indicates a similar understanding of a celestial destiny for the resurrected. His descriptions of meeting the Lord "in the air" (1 Thess 4.17) and having a heavenly city or citizenship (Phil 3.20, cf. 1 Cor 15.48-49) suggest an "ascent to heaven or celestial sojourn after death (or the parousia)."

 

[Ahanu]

But that's an inaccurate definition of pneuma. The Stoics, for example, saw it as permeating everything – all bodies – not just celestial bodies. Pneuma is the vehicle of the 'active principle' in prime matter, the 'passive principle' – of which all things consist,

And of course pneuma should be understood in relation to nefesh - ruah - neshamah of Scripture.

Based on the understanding of pneuma prevalent in the Hellenistic world during Paul's time, it's accurate to say that pneuma was seen as a subtle, physical substance that animated living beings. It was conceived as a refined form of matter, often associated with air, fire, or breath, and sometimes equated with aether, the substance believed to make up the heavens.

It seems to me the pneuma within a living being could be understood as being contained or bound within the coarser physical body. Upon death, the release of this pneuma or even transformation of the fleshly body into pneumatic body was thought to result in its ascent to the higher realms, the aether or heavens, which, in Greco-Roman cosmology, corresponded to what we might today consider outer space.

However, they didn't have the same concept of a vacuum or the vast distances between stars and planets. Their "heavens" were understood as a more immediate and accessible realm, still part of the physical cosmos that is a more refined and divine part. The pneumatic body's journey was a transition to a higher level of the cosmos, a realm of greater purity and divinity, where the pneuma was understood to be at home.

 

[Thomas]

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.

Never said it was, the implication makes it unique ...

 

[Ahanu]

That would be a metaphysical theology eh? Not philosophy?

It's both, in a way. Philosophical methods are applied to theological questions . . .

 

[Thomas]

These seemingly contradictory attributes exist in a dialectical unity within a higher universe of discourse, what Shaykh Ahmad calls the "topos of cognizance."
https://www.walayah.org/blog/major-...haykh-aḥmad-ii-objective-logic-and-dialectics

Thanks for the link, I'll read it; there's a lot to extract, and a lot of stuff on symbol ...

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.

Ah, there's the distinction – yours is a 'conditional immanence' dependent upon an intermediary. The New Testament says otherwise.

 

[Ahanu]

Never said it was, the implication makes it unique ...

See your quote from N.T. Wright that says otherwise.

 

[Ahanu]

The New Testament says otherwise.

Well, it is bound by Greco-Roman thought that features heavenly beings - star beings - literally descending through celestial spheres, as we see in Paul.

 

[Thomas]

I pray for the day that the world embraces such a devotion to all the Names of God.

"No one can serve two masters" Tony (Matthew 6:24).

If one worships God "in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24) then one worships God, who transcends all names.

With the statement you have made, imagine when we embrace all the Messengers in the same light ...

"One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in us all" (Ephesians 4:6) – so there's my embrace, and in that embrace which is utterly immanent and personal, I embrace all.

In so saying, as a Perrenialist, is that the Perrenial Tradition offers the idea that the One is like a many-faceted jewel, and that the source and origin of each religion is a face or facet of that one jewel, and that because of that, those who worship 'in spirit and truth', that is who look beyond the world of phenomena and form, toward the transcendent principles, will see the likeness in every other facet, and if time allows, delight in comparing notes.

Whereas, in all my dealing with Baha'i, I find myself constantly having to address their perceived 'errors', 'limitations', 'contradictions' and 'shortcomings' of my religion, which they seem obliged to point out, in defence and promotion of their own.

So please don't preach to me ... I have found Christ, He alone suffices.

 

[Thomas]

Is "deep Christianity" then, simply more thorough than being what some people call "well catechized" ??

I dunno ... when I did my degree, there was a school of catechetics (which subsequently shipped, lock, stock and barrel to the Franciscan university in Steubenville, Ohio) ... catechetics is more concerned with pastoral teaching ...

... the trouble is, the mystical has all but vanished from the public discourse, flooded out in a wave of New Age pap consumerism, and philosophical relativism and empiricism. Generally, I think it out of favour today.

When I read Augustine's sermons to the catechumen at their baptism, you're looking at what would be perceived as a 'highly esoteric teaching' – but I don't think it was, then, I think the idea of the spirit and the mystical was much closer to a commonplace of understanding than it is today – and I do not mean the usual straw man superstitions – increasingly modernity has lost its sense of the numinous.

So I suppose I'd say be deep I mean into the metaphysics of the matter – hence my embrace of Perennialism.

 

[Thomas]

Salvation whether people believe in the religion or not, right?

Yes

What is salvation in this theory? What are people being saved from?

It assumes a 'fall from grace' and salvation is the restoration of that condition, when God walked with us in the Garden, as it were.

Is it individual salvation or more of a collective thing?

Both, but in the end collective.

I used to think (as I may have alluded to in the Headcanon thread) that I used to think Jesus saved the earth somehow, and also saved society. Pretty much that he prevented the destruction of everything.

The whole cosmos groans in expectation.

I thought that any afterlife salvation was the matter of being granted eternal life, rather than death or annihilation.
How well does that fit? What, in your view, is salvation from?

Death, as in extinction ... or if not extinction, existing (rather than living) in a perpetual shadowland. I think the Jewish idea of Sheol has it. I stand to be corrected.

 

[Ahanu]

Were they?

N.T Wright's Resurrection of the Son of God argues that the resurrection of Jesus had no clear parallel in ancient times. More specifically, to the point of deifying emperors and their souls ascending to heaven, he writes in summary:
“…who were the dead? They were humans who, through quite extraordinary lives, had shown themselves either worthy of translation to divine status or perhaps to have been all along a divine being in disguise. Where were they? In the heavenly home of the immortal gods; perhaps among the stars. They had not, however, been raised from the dead. Cicero is quite clear and completely in the mainstream of greco-roman thought: the body is a prison-house. A necessary one for the moment; but nobody in their right mind, having got rid of it, would want it or something like it back again. At no point in the spectrum of option about life after death did the ancient pagan world envisage that the denials of Homer, Aeschylus and the rest would be overthrown. Resurrection was not an option”. (p.60.)

“The fact that dead people do not ordinarily rise [from the dead] is itself part of early Christian belief…The early Christians insisted that what had happened to Jesus was precisely something new; was, indeed, the start of a whole new mode of existence, a new creation. The fact that Jesus’ resurrection was, and remains, without analogy is not an objection to the early Christian claim. It is a part of the claim itself” (Ibid, p712 emphasis in the text).

This argues the nature of Christ's resurrection was distinct and unique, something completely different from the nature of Greek resurrections.

 

[Thomas]

From your citation:
"... Troels Engberg-Pedersen ... Matthew Thiessen ... They both point out that, for example, the 1 Corinthians 15 passage, Paul, when he talks about a pneumatic body, a spirited body, or a spiritual body as its translated often, he does not mean a non-corporeal body or incorporeal body. He does not mean a floating around spirit like the way modernists think of spirit. He's thinking spirit is actually substance. It’s this substance of the astral beings of heaven, the gods or the Angels, this is the substance that they are made out of."

Yes. Just what my Borella post alludes to!

The Risen Christ has total control over his corporeal modality – it's a body, corporeal but incorruptible. Corporeal, but able to pass through walls, to be seen and not recognised ...