Newsgroup: it.cultura.religioni.bahai
Titolo: Crocefissione secondo l'Islam (era: Re: Intanto, in Arabia Saudita...)

 salvato da Dio e portato accanto a se'.
(Followup-to: ICRB per motivi che saranno chiariti nel post)
Ho controllato, come promesso. Consideriamo due diversi passi del Corano.
Corano III:55 (...) Dio disse: "O Gesů, io ti farň morire e poi ti innalzerň
fino a me (...)"
Corano IV:156 (...) e per aver detto contro Maria calunnia orrenda, 157 e
per aver detto: "abbiamo ucciso il Cristo Gesů figlio di Maria, Messaggero
di Dio", mentre né lo uccisero né lo crocifissero, bensě qualcuno fu reso ai
loro occhi simile a Lui (...) 158 Ma Iddio lo innalzň a sé, e Dio č potente
e saggio.
Dunque sembrerebbe a prima vista che sia in effetti cosě. E confermo che
quanto dici č ciň che pensano in genere i musulmani. Dico "in genere" perché
obiettivamente le interpretazioni dell'Islam sono davvero una miriade, e non
posso avere la certezza che TUTTE sostengano che Gesů non č morto sulla
croce. Ma quelle maggioritarie lo sostengono sulla base dell'interpretazione
letteraria del secondo dei due passi citati.
Ma quella letteraria - secondo la religione Baha'ě - č spesso
un'interpretazione fuorviante e limitativa degli scritti sacri della Bibbia,
dei Vangeli e del Corano. Inoltre in questo preciso caso siamo di fronte ad
un a contraddizione palese: come č possibile che Dio dica una cosa in un
passo (III:55) e faccia accadere il contrario nell'altro (IV:156)? La
contraddizione non č risolvibile, limitandosi alla interpretazione
letteraria dei due passi. Senza contare poi che la controfigura di Gesů si
sarebbe agitata parecchio di fronte alla prospettiva di essere crocifisso al
posto di un altro...!
A questo punto chiedo aiuto anche agli amici Baha'ě di ICRB, perché mi sto
addentrando in un'interpretazione personale, e non so se ne esiste una di
Baha'u'llah o di Abdul'Bahŕ, ovviamente piů accreditate della mia. Tuttavia
cercherň di seguire la tipica falsariga delle interpretazioni Baha'ě.
Poniamo i seguenti due assiomi:
1) Il Corano č parola di Dio
2) Entrambi i entrambi i due versetti sono "veri"
3) Due versetti sulla stessa cosa non possono essere in contraddizione tra
di loro, salvo che uno dei due neghi *esplicitamente*, l'altro e spieghi
anche il perché...
....proviamo a dare un'interpretazione che rispetti i tre assiomi, visto che
a quella letteraria non riesce, cadendo in contraddizione. Trattandosi di un
testo sacro, la prima cosa da notare e cosa si intende per Gesů figlio di
Maria.
Tutti i messaggeri divini vengono facilmente confusi - ad occhi terreni -
con il Messaggio che portano con sé o addirittura con la Sorgente di quel
messaggio. Eppure nei piů alti regni spirituali la differenza č palese:
persino i Messaggeri sono "servi", se paragonati a Dio. Giovanni mette in
guardia da questa tentazione errata nelle Rivelazioni: "Allora mi prostrai
ai suoi piedi per adorarlo, ma egli mi disse: «Non farlo! Io sono servo come
te e i tuoi fratelli, che custodiscono la testimonianza di Gesů. E` Dio che
devi adorare»". (Apo 19:10).
Quando il Corano - nel secondo versetto - nega che Gesů figlio di Maria
Messaggero di Dio sia stato "ucciso", intende dire che non si puň
sconfiggere ("uccidere") il Messaggio uccidendone fisicamente il latore. Il
primo vesetto invece va persino oltre: spiega che la morte fisica del
messaggero fa sempre parte del Piano divino predisposto per quello specifico
messaggio. Perciň uccidendo il Messaggero non si fa altro che incoronare Lui
e far trionfare il suo Messaggio ("io ti farň morire e poi ti innalzerň fino
a me").
Quanto alla frase "bensě qualcuno fu reso ai loro occhi simile a Lui"  (nel
secondo versetto citato) significa questo: il corpo fisico del Cristo fu
certamente ucciso. Questo corpo fisico non č null'altro che un generico
"qualcuno", di cui Dio si servě per materializzare il proprio verbo. La
morte di questo qualcuno - che altri non era che il corpo fisico di Gesů di
Nazareth - serviva *proprio* perché Dio potesse far innalzare fino a sé il
suo messaggero e farlo trionfare.
E' in questo senso che gli uccisori di Gesů "non lo uccisero né lo
crocifissero" ma furono fuorviati dalla morte fisica di "qualcuno simile a
Lui". Faccio peraltro notare che la confusione tra il corpo fisico di
Cristo, la sua natura di Messaggero di Dio, e Dio stesso, č un errore in cui
caddero e tutt'ora cadono anche i cristiani trinitari. Curiosamente, secondo
il Corano, č lo stesso errore in cui cadde chi combatteva il messaggio
cristiano.
Ripeto che tutto questo č una mia interpretazione. Se qualcuno č al corrente
di una interpretazione piů valida sarei felicissimo di conoscerla.
-- 
ArAmesh

 di una interpretazione piů valida sarei felicissimo di conoscerla.
Ciao ArAmesh,
sinceramente non conosco interpretazioni ufficiali...
piů o meno vedo che la pensiamo allo stesso modo su questo argomento, di
piů non so dirti.
Shahruz
-- 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

Carissimo ArAmesh,
siccome la cosa mi sembra vivida e urgente per
i tuoi dialoghi altrove ti mando l'intera questione
resurrezione trattata dal Dipartimento delle Ricerche
per conto della Casa Universale di Giustizia che è
pubblicato sul web e raggiungibile mediante Ocean
http://bahai-education.org/
poi ti rispondo sul punto specifico traducendo
saluti
Michele Amato
  +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
M E M O R A N D U M
From: The Research Department
To: The Universal House of Justice
Date: 14 September 1987
The Resurrection of Christ
With reference to the letter dated 9 July 1987, in which
.... requests information on Bahá'í concepts related to the
Resurrection of
Christ, we can offer the following information following our
study of the question.
Before addressing the specific issue of the Resurrection, it
is necessary to consider the general Bahá'í standpoint with
regard to
Christianity and the Bible. In his letter dated 28 March
1941 addressed to the believers throughout the West, Shoghi
Effendi
emphasizes:
As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without
any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is
unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity
of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine
inspiration of
the Gospel is fully recognized, that the reality of the
mystery of the Immaculacy of the Virgin Mary is confessed,
and the primacy
of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, is upheld and
defended....
("The Promised Day is Come", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í
Publishing Trust, 1980); p. 109)
With particular regard to the Bible, a letter dated 28 May
1984 written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice in
response to
questions raised by an individual believer outlines two
principles to be observed in studying this book.
In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in
mind. The first is that many passages in Scared Scripture
are intended to
be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the
paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are
intended to indicate
this. The second is the fact that the text of the early
Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic...
The House of Justice also gives an elucidation of the Bahá'í
understanding of Christ's Resurrection in this letter:
Concerning the Resurrection of Christ you quote the
twenty-fourth chapter of the Gospel of St. Luke, where the
account stresses the
reality of the appearance of Jesus to His disciples who, the
Gospel states, at first took Him to be a ghost. From a
Bahá'í point of
view the belief that the Resurrection was the return to life
of a body of flesh and blood, which later rose from the
earth into the
sky is not reasonable, nor is it necessary to the essential
truth of the disciples' experience, which is that Jesus did
not cease to
exist when He was crucified (as would have been the belief
of many Jews of that period), but that His Spirit, released
from the
body, ascended to the presence of God and continued to
inspire and guide His followers and preside over the
destinies of His
dispensation.
Selections of extracts from the Bahá'í writings and from
letters written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi and the
Universal house of
Justice concerning the Old and New Testament, and the
Resurrection are enclosed for the Spiritual Assembly's
information.
Bahá'u'lláh explains the purpose underlying the use of
symbols and metaphors throughout the Holy Texts in "The
Kitáb-i-Íqán"
(Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1985) on page 49:
Know verily that the purpose underlying all these symbolic
terms and abstruse allusions, which emanate from the
Revealers of God's
holy Cause, hath been to test and prove the peoples of the
world; that thereby the earth of the pure and illuminated
hearts may be
known from the perishable and barren soil. From time
immemorial such hath been the way of God amidst His
creatures, and to this
testify the records of the sacred books.
It is thus in the nature of such symbolic terms as
resurrection and return that differing views concerning
their meaning develop.
Indeed, there are differences among Christian scholars
themselves regarding the Resurrection of Christ, as the
"Abingdon Dictionary
of Living Religions" (Nashville: Parthenon Press, 1981)
points out on page 619: "A number of Christian theologians
today regard
resurrection as a metaphor which expresses the conviction
that the whole self has a future beyond death, but others
reaffirm the
importance of the traditional belief that Jesus' body was
raised from death."
In light of the ongoing discussion within Christian
theological circles, it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to
adduce a "proof" of the Bahá'í understanding of Christ's
resurrection which would be acceptable to all Christians.
The Research
Department suggests that it would be more fruitful to focus
on such points of agreement as are outlined by the beloved
Guardian on
page 109 of "The Promised Day Is Come".
Extracts Concerning the Resurrection
From the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá
As to the resurrection of the body of Christ three days
subsequent to His departure: This signifies the divine
teachings and
spiritual religion of His Holiness Christ, which constitute
His spiritual body, which is living and perpetual
forevermore.
By the "three days' of His death is meant that after the
great martyrdom, the penetration of the divine teachings and
the spread of
the spiritual law became relaxed on account of the
crucifixion of Christ. For the disciples were somewhat
troubled by the violence
of divine tests. But when they become firm, that divine
spirit resurrected and that body - which signifies the
divine word - arose.
Likewise the address of the angels to the people of Galilee,
"That this Christ will return in the same way and that He
will descend
from heaven," is a spiritual address. For when Christ
appeared, he came from heaven, although He was outwardly
born from the womb of
Mary. For He said: "No man hath ascended up to heaven, but
he that came down from heaven."
He said: "I came down from heaven and likewise will go to
heaven." By "Heaven" is not meant this infinite phenomenal
space, but
"heaven" signifies the world of the divine kingdom which is
the supreme station and seat of the Sun of Truth.
"Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas", Vol. 1 (Chicago: Bahá'í
Publishing Society), p. 192
...Thou hast written concerning the meeting of His Highness
Christ after the crucifixion and that some of the apostles
perceived Him
but did not recognize Him; but that they did recognize Him
after the breaking of bread.
Know thou that the Messianic Spirit and the outpouring of
the Holy Spirit is always manifest, but capacity and ability
(to receive
it) is more in some and less in others. After the
crucifixion the apostles had not in the beginning the
capacity and ability of
witnessing the Messianic reality. For they were agitated.
But when they found firmness and steadfastness, their inner
sight became
opened, and they saw the reality of the Messiah as manifest.
For the body of Christ was crucified and vanished, but the
Spirit of
Christ is always pouring upon the contingent world, and is
manifest before the insight of the people of assurance.
"Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas", Vol. 1 (Chicago: Bahá'í
Publishing Society), p. 193-194
...The Cause of Christ was like a lifeless body; and when
after three days the disciples became assured and steadfast,
and began to
serve the Cause of Christ, and resolved to spread the divine
teachings, putting His counsels into practice, and arising
to serve
Him, the Reality of Christ became resplendent and His bounty
appeared; His religion found life; His teachings and His
admonitions
became evident and visible. In other words, the Cause of
Christ was like a lifeless body until the life and the
bounty of the Holy
Spirit surrounded it. Such is the meaning of the
resurrection of Christ, and this was a true resurrection....
"Some Answered Questions", rev. ed. (Wilmette: Bahá'í
Publishing Trust, 1984), p. 104
From letters written on behalf of the Guardian
We do not believe that there was a bodily resurrection after
the Crucifixion of Christ, but that there was a time after
His
Ascension when His disciples perceived spiritually His true
greatness and realized He was eternal in being. This is what
has been
reported symbolically in the New Testament and been
misunderstood. His eating with His disciples after
resurrection is the same
thing.
9 October 1947 to an individual believer
The two Biblical verses you had enclosed for explanation on
behalf of Dr. ...; the Guardian wishes you to explain to him
that these
passages are allegorical, and should not be taken literally.
They indicate the reality of the presence of the Spirit of
Christ and
not His bodily resurrection....
14 August 1937 to an individual believer in response to a
request for an explanation of the Biblical verses Luke 24:39
and John
20:24-29 for a person who was investigating the Teachings of
the Faith.
Extracts from the Bahá'í Writings and from Letters of the
Guardian and the Universal House of Justice on the Old and
New Testaments
From the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh:
Mention hath been made in certain books of a deluge which
caused all that existed on earth, historical records as well
as other
things, to be destroyed. Moreover, many cataclysms have
occurred which have effaced the traces of many events.
Furthermore, among
existing historical records differences are to be found, and
each of the various peoples of the world hath its own
account of the
age of the earth and of its history. Some trace their
history as far back as eight thousand years, others as far
as twelve thousand
years. To any one that hath read the book of Juk it is clear
and evident how much the accounts given by the various books
have
differed.
Please God thou wilt turn thine eyes towards the Most Great
Revelation, and entirely disregard these conflicting tales
and
traditions.
("Gleanings from the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh", 2nd. ed.
(Wilmette: Bahá'í Publishing Trust, 1982), pp. 174-175)
The Four Gospels were written after Him [Christ]. John,
Luke, Mark and Matthew - these four wrote after Christ what
they remembered
of His utterances.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
...the Torah that God hath confirmed consists of the exact
words that streamed forth at the bidding of God from the
tongue of Him
Who conversed with Him (Moses).
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
From the Writings of 'Abdu'l-Bahá
Know ye that the Torah is that which was revealed in the
Tablets to Moses, may peace be upon Him, or that to which He
was bidden.
But the stories are historical narratives and were written
after Moses, may peace be upon Him.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
Know ye that the Torah is that which was revealed in the
Tablets unto Moses, may peace be upon Him, and in that which
He was
commanded to do.... The glorious Book, the Mighty Decree, is
what was in the Tablets which Moses, upon Him be peace,
brought from
Mount Sinai, and that which He proclaimed unto the Children
of Israel, in accordance with the explicit text of those
Tablets.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
...What is intended by the creation of heaven and earth in
six days is a spiritual creation and a divine day, as prior
to the
creation of this heaven and earth there were no days and
nights.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
The disciples of Christ taught His Faith with the language
of the Kingdom. That language conformeth to all languages,
for it
consisteth of celestial meanings and divine mysteries. For
the one who becometh conversant with that language the
realities and
secrets of creation stand unveiled before him. Divine truths
are common to all languages. The Holy Spirit, therefore,
taught the
disciples the language of the Kingdom, and they thus were
able to converse with the people of all nations. Whenever
they spoke to
those of other nations of the world, it was as if they
conversed in their tongues. The well-known and outstanding
languages of the
world number about a thousand. It was necessary for the
disciples to have written the Gospels in at least one of the
languages of
other nations. Thus, as it is known, the Gospels were
written only in Hebrew and Greek, and not even in the
language of the Romans,
although it was at the time the official language. As the
disciples were not well-versed in it, the Gospels were not
written in that
language.
(From a previously untranslated Tablet)
From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:
...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is
not to be compared with the Qur'án, and should be wholly
subordinated
to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)
...we cannot be sure how much or how little of the four
Gospels are accurate and include the words of Christ and His
undiluted
teachings, all we can be sure of, as Bahá'ís, is that what
has been quoted by Bahá'u'lláh and the Master must be
absolutely
authentic. As many times passages in the Gospel of St. John
are quoted we may assume that it is his Gospel and much of
it accurate.
(23 January 1944 to an individual believer)
When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He
means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to
be taken
literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the
Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)
We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases
in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is
when such
references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran
or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)
We have no way of substantiating the stories of the Old
Testament other than references to them in our own
teachings, so we cannot
say exactly what happened at the battle of Jericho.
(25 November 1950 to an individual believer)
Except for what has been explained by Bahá'u'lláh and
'Abdu'l-Bahá, we have no way of knowing what various
symbolic allusions in the
Bible mean.
(31 January 1955 to an individual believer)
From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of
Justice:
The interpretation of biblical prophecies has long been the
subject of controversy and speculation among religious
scholars. As
Bahá'ís, we know that we must turn to the Writings of
Bahá'u'lláh, 'Abdu'l-Bahá and Shoghi Effendi for
authoritative guidance in
these matters. When a subject has not been mentioned or
explained in the Sacred Writings, we are free to consult
other books and to
consider the opinions of scholars if we wish to do so. This
principle is affirmed in the following excerpts from letters
written on
behalf of the Guardian by his secretary to individual
believers:
As regards what Mirza Abu'l-Fadl has said concerning the
seven religions of the past. Shoghi Effendi wishes to
emphasize that what
is truly authoritative are the Master's words. In all such
cases we should try and find out what He has said and abide
by His words,
even though they seem conflicting with the findings of
modern scholars. If He does not say anything on the subject
then the
individual is free to accept or refute what scholars such as
Mirza Abu'l-Fadl say. Through the discussions of these the
truth will
ultimately be found. But at no time should their decision be
considered as final.
As regards Confucianism, the Teachings contain no data on
this subject, and the Guardian would therefore advise that
you refer to
authoritative books regarding the history and teachings of
this Faith.
The Universal House of Justice has asked us to recommend
your continued study of "Some Answered Questions" since this
book contains
the interpretations given by 'Abdu'l-Bahá on the meaning of
some of the passages you mention from the Book of Daniel as
well as
other subjects found in the Old and New Testaments. You will
note that in addition to giving His explanations,
'Abdu'l-Bahá
encourages personal initiative in unravelling divine
mysteries. For example, at the end of Chapter XX on "The
Necessity of Baptism"
He says: "This subject needs deep thought. Then the cause of
these changes will be evident and apparent." And at the end
of Chapter
XXX on "Adam and Eve", after setting forth His own
interpretation of the subject, He goes on to say: "This is
one of the meanings of
the Biblical story of Adam. Reflect until you discover the
others."
(17 January 1978 to an individual believer)
You ask for elucidation of the statement made on behalf of
the Guardian in this letter of 11 February 1944, "When
'Abdu'l-Bahá
states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in
substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken
literally or that
every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet." Is it
not clear that what Shoghi Effendi means here is that we
cannot
categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of
Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Moses
and Christ
in the Old and New Testaments are Their exact words, but
that, in view of the general principle enunciated by
Bahá'u'lláh in the
"Kitáb-i-Íqán" that God's Revelation is under His care and
protection, we can be confident that the essence, or
essential elements,
of what these two Manifestations of God intended to convey
has been recorded and preserved in these two Books?
(19 July 1981 to an individual believer)
In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in
mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures
are intended to
be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the
paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are
intended to indicate
this. The second is the fact that the text of the early
Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)
The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in
substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in
that Book is to be
taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a
Prophet. A striking example is given in the account of the
sacrifice which
Abraham was called upon to make. The Guardian of the Faith
confirms that the record in the Qur'án and the Writings of
Bahá'u'lláh,
namely that it was Ishmael, and not Isaac as stated in the
Old Testament, whom Abraham was to sacrifice, is to be
upheld. In one of
His Tablets 'Abdu'l-Bahá refers to this discrepancy, and
explains that, from a spiritual point of view, it is
irrelevant which son
was involved. The essential part of the story is that
Abraham was willing to obey God's command to sacrifice His
son. Thus, although
the account in the Torah is inaccurate in detail, it is true
in substance....
...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His
care and protection and that the essence, or essential
elements, of what
His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and
preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of
the ancient
Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot
categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of
Bahá'u'lláh, that
the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact
words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)
 (Letters, 1987 Sept 14, Resurrection of Christ)