Did Jesus say he was God???

[Popeyesays]

You almost sounded like a Christian....nice logic, it makes since. But your first sentence, in which you say Jesus said NO, and Paul said YES. Is rather wrong. Jesus never said that he was not God, actually he never adressed the question directly, just as he did all his other questions. INstead he hinted saying, I and the Father are One, and later saying God is One. Paul however is not left alone at saying Jesus is God, but John also, and even Luke in Acts. I will not bother however to quote all those scriptures it would take too long.... however do read this:

Jesus is called Emmanuel, which means "God with us," that should be proo f enough, however people still find ways to dismiss anything said...

God is with us. But God was with us when Moses spoke, when Abraham spoke.
God was "with us" when He spoke to Adam, in fact with us before we ever existed at all.

He remains with us now, because He will not leave us.

Emmanuel is a title, like "Son of God", a symbol for an eternal truth.

 

[JayHawes]

God is with us. But God was with us when Moses spoke, when Abraham spoke.
God was "with us" when He spoke to Adam, in fact with us before we ever existed at all.

He remains with us now, because He will not leave us.

Emmanuel is a title, like "Son of God", a symbol for an eternal truth.

Jesus is given the title Emmanuel to say that HE WAS God with us, and just as you say he remains with us now, Jesus taught:

Joh 14:26But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Joh 16:7Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Joh 16:8And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:

Joh 16:9Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Joh 16:10Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;

Joh 16:11Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.


Isn't it significant that the Holy Spirit, being a person of the Tirnity, which is God, is the one dwelling with us now....

 

[ChristineES]

Jesus did say He was God in more than one occasion which has already been brought up in this thread. Some people can see it and others can not. Some people say He was nothing more than a prophet. Other believe He was a regular human being with God's Spirit upon Him. There are others who say He did not even exist at all.
I see absolutely no resolution in this topic. I doubt I can convince someone that Jesus is God, no more than he could convince me that Jesus is not God.

Maybe we should just declare a stalemate.

 

[Popeyesays]

I prefer translations which uswe the term Holy Spirit, not Holy Ghost, because the first doesw not carry the connotations the second does.

Other than that absolutely, I agree.

I do not proba blyh agree with yo9u about the fact that the Holy Spirit spoken of in those verses is the same thing, but that's okay.
\
Jesus is promising a human being acting as the voice of God to come again, but He is not promising it will be Jesus Himself in the flesh that is that Holy Spirit.

He is instead promising someone who fills the same role as He did. A human vessel speaking as God directs He speak through human lips sometime in the future after Jesus has ascended again.

In fact that promise has been fulfilled--THREE times since then.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Jesus did say He was God in more than one occasion which has already been brought up in this thread. Some people can see it and others can not. Some people say He was nothing more than a prophet. Other believe He was a regular human being with God's Spirit upon Him. There are others who say He did not even exist at all.
I see absolutely no resolution in this topic. I doubt I can convince someone that Jesus is God, no more than he could convince me that Jesus is not God.

Maybe we should just declare a stalemate.

Please show me where in the actual words of Jesus while He lived on earth in the Gospels He says such a thing. Putting those words in His mouth in the Actrs, Epistles and Revelations was a disservice to the Revelation which Jesus brought to man.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Sonic247]

[/b]


Nice quote. I like that one too....

Mighty God (EL Gibor)

Gabri-El (Mighty God)

Now are we to assume that the Angel Gabriel is God as well?

It also calls him "everlasting father" and "he who's going forth has been of old, from everlasting."

 

[ChristineES]

Please show me where in the actual words of Jesus while He lived on earth in the Gospels He says such a thing. Putting those words in His mouth in the Actrs, Epistles and Revelations was a disservice to the Revelation which Jesus brought to man.

Regards,
Scott

I am done arguing the case that is what my post was about (if you had read the whole thing and not the just first part of it). Others and I have already posted many quotes for this. There is no resolution, and the thread has become redundant.
God bless you
Christine.

 

[Sonic247]

Please show me where in the actual words of Jesus while He lived on earth in the Gospels He says such a thing. Putting those words in His mouth in the Actrs, Epistles and Revelations was a disservice to the Revelation which Jesus brought to man.

Well I don't think anyone who believes the Bible would think that you (or anyone else here) is closer to God then John or Paul, and Paul did meet Jesus, what do you think, that he was dead?

And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.I and [my] Father are one.

 

[lunamoth]

Does Paul say that Jesus is God? If he does say that, then he is editing the words of Jesus which deny that Jesus was God.

Every Christian, everywhere and everywhen is the instrument of spreading the Gospel. None of them (including Paul) can lay claim to authoritative interpretation.
Regards,
Scott

Scott, Your whole logic for rejecting Paul based upon authority is faulty. According to the Gospels the authority to make decisions for the Christian community was given to the Apostles, with Peter perhaps with some sort of primacy. The NT canon itself was selected by the Church, which was the proto-Catholic Church. Either they had the authority (and inspriation) to pick the canon, or they did not. If they did, then Paul's writings are just as inspired as those of the Gospels. If they did not, then you can look to neither the Gospels nor Paul to learn anything about the nature of Jesus and the nature of God.

Second, appeal to authority in the Baha'i Faith is on just as tenuous ground as appeal to authority in orthodox Christianity. There is no more gurarantee that authority was handed down correctly from Baha'u'llah to Abdul Baha and the Gurdain Shoghi Effendi than there is that the proto-Church properly followed Apostocil Succession and thus was free from error in the formation of doctrines, including the Incarnation and the Trinity.

If Christianity (and Islam for that matter) could go so hopelessly wrong so quickly after the passing of the Prophet, then there is no greater guarentee that it did not go equally wrong with the Bab and Baha'u'llah. You say that the verified writings of Baha'u'llah preclude this, but they do not. Even if there was not outright forgery (a very easily conceived possiblity since many writings were done by his amanuensis), even Hi sWill adn Testament never refers to Abdul Baha by his legal name, but uses such names as the Greatest Branch and the Most Great Branch. That all of this was correctly interpretted is just as open to speculation as that somehow the Apostolic succession was broken or that Paul was incorrectly identified as a true Apostle due to his conversion. There is just as much grey area in each transition of power in the Baha'i Faith, just as much room for loss of anyone with true authority to be precisely identified, as there was in Christianity. In fact, given what you accept to be as a very dismal track record after each Manifestation of God to keep the nascent religion free from error, cahnces are very high that the Baha'i Faith we have today is already way off track from what Baha'u'llah originally intended.

Now, I actually do not care to criticize the Baha'i Faith in this way or suggest that you are off-trrack and not following the Faith as Baha'u'llah intended. My point only is that the argument you are making against Christianity is not rational, or if you think it is a rational argument against the idea that Jesus was God incarnate, then you equally can not trust anything written or said by Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi, or the Universal House of Justice.

luna

 

[JayHawes]

The differences in religion affect us. The terms we use differ in meaning. TO the Christian the Holy Spirit, is a person of GOd, his presense on earth, to another it may just be figuritive of a man. However we look at it, becuase i realise everyone will not accept Jesus, atleast, atleast, be a good person. Atleast feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those who are in Prison. Becuase Jesus was not lying when he said:

Mt 25:35 -For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Mt 25:36 -Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

For the Christian however, this applies directly to those who will stand on the right hand of the Mighty God Jesus the Christ, whom they are, I'm sure we all disagree.

 

[JayHawes]

As best I read it Paul is NOT laying claim to a revelation. Good. Just what I said.
NONE of athe Apostles lay claim to a Revelation from God. So your statement and my statement are actually the same.

Regards,
Scott

Paul was talking about himself, he used to figure to approach the subject because he did not want to boast about it.

2co 12:7And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

Paul said to keep him from being exalted becuase he had so many revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to him.

If you read He says, of such a man I would boast, yet of myself i will not boast. Then following he says for though I may desire to boast, I will not be a fool. ONe said of him would boast, the other man says no. Becuase he doesn't want people giving the glory to him. Paul, after his revelation became that "other man."

Does God give revelations to people? Yes.

Re 1:1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Did the Apostle Paul recieve a Revelation? He said he did:
Ga 1:11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.Ga 1:12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul lays claim to revelation also in Ephesians
Eph 3:3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Your Statement, having cited the previous scripture, has been proven false.

 

[Popeyesays]

He's not speaking of personal revelations. The abundance of revelation in question is the abundance Christ's revelation brings to everyone.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

"Second, appeal to authority in the Baha'i Faith is on just as tenuous ground as appeal to authority in orthodox Christianity. There is no more gurarantee that authority was handed down correctly from Baha'u'llah to Abdul Baha and the Gurdain Shoghi Effendi than there is that the proto-Church properly followed Apostocil Succession and thus was free from error in the formation of doctrines, including the Incarnation and the Trinity. "


It's probably for another board to discuss the particulars, but the succession of authority is clear and explicit and in fact exists today in written form. The Aqdas in particular and two other tablets of Baha`u'llah pass the authority to interpret the writings of Baha`u'llah and the Bab are passed to Abdu'l Baha.

Abdu'l Baha wrote a will which is unassailed to create the Guardianship and appoint Shoghi Effendi to the Guardianship.

The only persons appointed to authoritatively interpret the writings were Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi. No one else.That puts the responsibility for interpreting for oneself squarely on the individual. And the individual is given no authoirty to interpret for another.

The authority is without doubt.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

THe Most Great Branch is a designation not isolated to the Aqdas, but used any number of times by Baha`u'llah and indeed the whole community of the time for Abdu'l Baha. The Greatest Holy Leaf for instance was without doubt Bahiyyih Khanum, Ab du'l Baha's sister.

Baha`u'llah is itself NOT a given name either but a title. The "birth name" of Baha`u'llah was Mirza Husayn Ali al Nuri.

Persians of the time did not have 'last names' as we know them. The government of Persia made it law for people to take last, or familial names, about 1900 CE.

Abdu'l Baha assigned a 'last name' to Shoghi Effendi. That name was Rabbani. So the Guardian's legal name was Shoghi Rabbani. "Effendi" is a Turkish title meaning roughly "Respected"--a rough equivalent of the Arabic title "Mirza".

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

He Most Great Branch is a designation not isolated to the Aqdas, but used any number of times by Baha`u'llah and indeed the whole community of the time for Abdu'l Baha. The Greatest Holy Leaf for instance was without doubt Bahiyyih Khanum, Ab du'l Baha's sister.

Baha`u'llah is itself NOT a given name either but a title. The "birth name" of Baha`u'llah was Mirza Husayn Ali al Nuri.

Persians of the time did not have 'last names' as we know them. The government of Persia made it law for people to take last, or familial names, about 1900 CE.

Abdu'l Baha assigned a 'last name' to Shoghi Effendi. That name was Rabbani. So the Guardian's legal name was Shoghi Rabbani. "Effendi" is a Turkish title meaning roughly "Respected"--a rough equivalent of the Arabic title "Mirza".

Names are funny things. Who was Barabbas the criminal exschanged for Jesus?

When Simon Peter was taken by the Romans they asked him who he was, and according to the Gospels he replied, I am the son of my father.

Well, in Aramaic the words for that name, meaning "the son of my father" is Bar Abbas.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Sorry, I should have specified that I meant eternal in the sense of being uncreated.

It's all good. I'm often misquoted. I will stay away from the created vs. uncreated debates until a new thread pops up.

He is the Son of God because He was Incarnated into a physical body,

I agree.....simply because he said he came from heaven and since he came from heaven and born here on earth...I can get with that.

Joh 6:38 (in part) "For I have come down from heaven..........

not because He wasn't God prior to the Incarnation.

We've clearly read what Jesus said. He came from heaven to do, not his will, but to do the will of God who sent him.

Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.

But you failed to answer my question that I asked you earlier: Why should we accept your interpretations? On what basis, other than your own personal opinion,

And I asked you what interpertations were made. I gave you what Jesus said...;

Joh 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me.


Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.


Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:24
and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Lu 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."


Luke 3:21-22
Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.


Mt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


As you can see I don't need to interpert anything. Jesus has said more than enough on this.

do you reject my interpretations?

Uhhh...YEAH....

Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Well If I said Jesus is not God or God in the flesh because he clearly showed us that he wasn't...then YES......

Divine...Yes
A son of God...Yes
God...No

Jesus said we are to honor Him just as we honor God the Father; I worship God the Father, and therefore I worship Jesus; you don't. It is you who apparently has difficulty obeying Him.

Difficulty obeying what?

You don't know me.....!!!!

If you want to worship Jesus then that is your way of life. I haven't criticized you on that at all because it is not my place to do so.

Yes, God the FATHER. None of those negates that Jesus is God the Son.

"God the Son"???

If that is how you see it then that is ok....

Let me ask you a question: Do you consider yourself a Christian?

I'm not sure that matters. As you can see there are other christians here that do not see Jesus as God. I don't think being a christian is a criteria for understanding what Jesus said.

 

[lunamoth]

"Second, appeal to authority in the Baha'i Faith is on just as tenuous ground as appeal to authority in orthodox Christianity. There is no more gurarantee that authority was handed down correctly from Baha'u'llah to Abdul Baha and the Gurdain Shoghi Effendi than there is that the proto-Church properly followed Apostocil Succession and thus was free from error in the formation of doctrines, including the Incarnation and the Trinity. "


It's probably for another board to discuss the particulars, but the succession of authority is clear and explicit and in fact exists today in written form. The Aqdas in particular and two other tablets of Baha`u'llah pass the authority to interpret the writings of Baha`u'llah and the Bab are passed to Abdu'l Baha.

Abdu'l Baha wrote a will which is unassailed to create the Guardianship and appoint Shoghi Effendi to the Guardianship.

The only persons appointed to authoritatively interpret the writings were Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi. No one else.That puts the responsibility for interpreting for oneself squarely on the individual. And the individual is given no authoirty to interpret for another.

The authority is without doubt.

Regards,
Scott

Just as authority was given to the Church, with Peter having primacy, as recorded in the Gospels. That Church selected the Epistles of Paul as inspired, as part of the Christian Revelation. Likewise the Church was promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead them into truth. Obviously the Church, to which authority of interpretation was given, found no conflict between the mission of Paul and the teachings and message of Jeus. And as I said, if things went wrong by the time of Paul, then things were already wrong by the time of the compilation of the NT canon, and so you can't appeal to the authority of the Gospels either.

If it went horribly wrong in spite of God's promise recorded in the Gospels, and if it went horribly wrong at Muhammad's deathbead in spite of the presence of the faithful, I don't see how amy authority handed down by Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha has any greater guarentee of not also going horribly wrong, even with written documents that are believed by the faithful to substantiate that authority.

If it's consistency with the message of the Manifestation which is the guideline, then I think there are things written by Shoghi Effendi, and some by Abdul Baha too, that are in conflict or reverse what Baha'u'llah said.

As for the symbolic meaning and malleability of names it just goes to support my point that there is a level of interpretation to the wills and other places where authority is supposedly assigned.

luna

 

[Popeyesays]

Just as authority was given to the Church, with Peter having primacy, as recorded in the Gospels. That Church selected the Epistles of Paul as inspired, as part of the Christian Revelation. Likewise the Church was promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead them into truth. Obviously the Church, to which authority of interpretation was given, found no conflict between the mission of Paul and the teachings and message of Jeus. And as I said, if things went wrong by the time of Paul, then things were already wrong by the time of the compilation of the NT canon, and so you can't appeal to the authority of the Gospels either.

If it went horribly wrong in spite of God's promise recorded in the Gospels, and if it went horribly wrong at Muhammad's deathbead in spite of the presence of the faithful, I don't see how amy authority handed down by Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha has any greater guarentee of not also going horribly wrong, even with written documents that are believed by the faithful to substantiate that authority.

If it's consistency with the message of the Manifestation which is the guideline, then I think there are things written by Shoghi Effendi, and some by Abdul Baha too, that are in conflict or reverse what Baha'u'llah said.

As for the symbolic meaning and malleability of names it just goes to support my point that there is a level of interpretation to the wills and other places where authority is supposedly assigned.

luna

My reply just disappeared on me, oh well, tomorrow . . .

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Okay, let's try again.

"Interpretation" is a word in English that means a lot of different things. Prophet is another word like that where we all know what it means but we don't really knopw if the other person means the same thing by it as we do.

Just like in the case of "Prophet" where Arabic splits that English word in to two different things with different words to describe them--major and minor prophets are Rasul and Nabi in Arabic.

Interpretation is also split into three different words to categorize "onterpretation".

Tawi'l is interpretation of the verses fore esoteric and hidden meanings and we are largely7 doing just that when we talk about Jesus as GOd in the Flesh or not. We look for symbolism and metaphor to illumine the bare meaning of the words. We're all supposed to do that, and those interpretations are often highly personal.

Then there is Taf'sir, which is the interpretation of verses which are meant to be very specific like the laws expressed in the Old Testament or the Qur'an. A good example of that in the Baha`i writings is the statement from the Aqdas where Baha`u'llah promises another Manifestation of God to come but specifies that it will be at least a thousand years before one such Manifestation does appear. Then Baha`u'llah specifically says one cannot play with that verse with Taw'il. It is not open to hidden meanings, but must be accepted to be 1000 years of the normal span of what we consider time. One cannot get fancy and claim that it really means 1000 days because in other less swevere verses in sacred script one can use the term 'day' of God being a year. Taf'sir forbids getting fancy with it.

Then there is Tab'i'yun where scholars look at amplifying an interpretation of Tafsir without violating the injunctions in Tafsir.

So, which "interpretation" are we discussing here. I find the Gospels very short on versees which require Taf'sir and therefore might be subject to Tabb'i'yun.

Authoritative interpretation applies particularly to Taf'sir.

Regardes,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

Okay, let's try again.

"Interpretation" is a word in English that means a lot of different things. Prophet is another word like that where we all know what it means but we don't really knopw if the other person means the same thing by it as we do.

Just like in the case of "Prophet" where Arabic splits that English word in to two different things with different words to describe them--major and minor prophets are Rasul and Nabi in Arabic.

Interpretation is also split into three different words to categorize "onterpretation".

Tawi'l is interpretation of the verses fore esoteric and hidden meanings and we are largely7 doing just that when we talk about Jesus as GOd in the Flesh or not. We look for symbolism and metaphor to illumine the bare meaning of the words. We're all supposed to do that, and those interpretations are often highly personal.

Then there is Taf'sir, which is the interpretation of verses which are meant to be very specific like the laws expressed in the Old Testament or the Qur'an. A good example of that in the Baha`i writings is the statement from the Aqdas where Baha`u'llah promises another Manifestation of God to come but specifies that it will be at least a thousand years before one such Manifestation does appear. Then Baha`u'llah specifically says one cannot play with that verse with Taw'il. It is not open to hidden meanings, but must be accepted to be 1000 years of the normal span of what we consider time. One cannot get fancy and claim that it really means 1000 days because in other less swevere verses in sacred script one can use the term 'day' of God being a year. Taf'sir forbids getting fancy with it.

Then there is Tab'i'yun where scholars look at amplifying an interpretation of Tafsir without violating the injunctions in Tafsir.

So, which "interpretation" are we discussing here. I find the Gospels very short on versees which require Taf'sir and therefore might be subject to Tabb'i'yun.

Authoritative interpretation applies particularly to Taf'sir.

Regardes,
Scott

We are all to look for personal meaning in Scripture...that's part of what makes it a living faith, and I don't think anyone will argue about that. I don't think there is an equivalent of laws to which Taf'sir can apply in Christianity. There is the idea of authority for making descisions for the community, whether it be the selection of canon or development of doctrine or determining the form of worship. This authority was given to the Church.