Did Jesus say he was God???

[Popeyesays]

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.

"Church" is another one of those words we define much differently than Christ meant back when He spoke to Peter. The Church in Jesus sense of the word was the body of the believers.

Since no particular successor and authoritative interpretation was designated the church was left bare to dissension and fragmentation. I believe Jesus was not mandated by God to make a clear successor. That concept was one of the "thjings" we were not able to bear.

In the Baha'i sense the concept of authoritative interpreter was made more clear with the later Prophetic voices. At that time we were ready to bear the concept of obedience more fully.

When one adds that to the volatile concept that the truth of Revelation is relative not absolute and I find it difficult to say to Christians that jesus is "relatively" God in the Flesh and "relatively" the Son of God. I can say that and mean that and understand that without violating the concept of the Unity of God and His Singleness.

Regards,

Scott

 

[lunamoth]

"Church" is another one of those words we define much differently than Christ meant back when He spoke to Peter. The Church in Jesus sense of the word was the body of the believers.

I agree that Church is the Body of believers today as it was in Jesus day and that it remains undivided, although granted not all see it the way I do.

Regardless, the Gospel you refer to support your idea that Jesus did not say He was God was selected by the Church, and Pauls' writings and the doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity all grew up together as those writings were canonized.

Did the Church have the 'authority' to select the Gospel writings we have today in the NT?

 

[Popeyesays]

I agree that Church is the Body of believers today as it was in Jesus day and that it remains undivided, although granted not all see it the way I do.

Regardless, the Gospel you refer to support your idea that Jesus did not say He was God was selected by the Church, and Pauls' writings and the doctrines of the Incarnation and Trinity all grew up together as those writings were canonized.

Did the Church have the 'authority' to select the Gospel writings we have today in the NT?

Interesting question. No authority was granted, I think that's clear. Was the assumnption of authority justifiable?

I think all in all, it was not. .

Why> Because they assumed authority and used their assumed authority to decide who was a believer and who was not. I view that as a usurpation.

The body of the church of those believers in the Holy Land were adamantly opposed to the idea of Jesus as God in the Flesh. James would certainly have upheld the Ebionite view that God is Single and indivisable. So did the Greek church have the right to usurp James' "authority" to interpret as an Apostle.

Nicaea was a political dogfight not a convocation of the Church, and its decisions were manipulated to put some in power and remove others from power. As soon as that happened, the will of God went right out the window.

Regards,

Scott

 

[lunamoth]

Interesting question. No authority was granted, I think that's clear. Was the assumnption of authority justifiable?

I think all in all, it was not. .

Why> Because they assumed authority and used their assumed authority to decide who was a believer and who was not. I view that as a usurpation.

The body of the church of those believers in the Holy Land were adamantly opposed to the idea of Jesus as God in the Flesh. James would certainly have upheld the Ebionite view that God is Single and indivisable. So did the Greek church have the right to usurp James' "authority" to interpret as an Apostle.

Nicaea was a political dogfight not a convocation of the Church, and its decisions were manipulated to put some in power and remove others from power. As soon as that happened, the will of God went right out the window.

Regards,

Scott

Well, I'm not talking about Nicea per se, although it was close to the third century before the canon as we know it today started to emerge. Of course you know that Paul's Epistles are some of the earliest Christian writings, being written around 60, with the Gospel of Mark probably being the next oldest.

So, when exactly did the will of God go out the window?

And does this mean that nothing in the NT is trustworthy on its own (that is, without veritification by Baha'u'llah)?

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, I'm not talking about Nicea per se, although it was close to the third century before the canon as we know it today started to emerge. Of course you know that Paul's Epistles are some of the earliest Christian writings, being written around 60, with the Gospel of Mark probably being the next oldest.

So, when exactly did the will of God go out the window?

And does this mean that nothing in the NT is trustworthy on its own (that is, without veritification by Baha'u'llah)?

No, it's trustworthy for Taw'il always. Paul is a good source of Taw'il, it's making him the ONLY source of Taw'il that leads to where I don't want to go.

Paul's writings only become a problem when someone else picks them up and uses them as a blunt instrument to discipline others.

As to God's word--God will protect it, it will never be corrupted. The only time it becomes a thing of error is when others blithely give up their right to read and understand to another..

It's a fedw others that pick him up and use him like a club to discipline fellow believers.

Regards,
Scott

Paul is innocent opf anywrong because he never meant anything for himself, his only desire was to serve God and his fellow Christians

 

[lunamoth]

No, it's trustworthy for Taw'il always. Paul is a good source of Taw'il, it's making him the ONLY source of Taw'il that leads to where I don't want to go.

If you don't mind, I'm not going to try to use the Tawil etc language...no need to go to Arab or whatever is when English is our native tongue, right?

How can the Bible be trustworthy for learning about God if the Church which put the canon together did not have the authority, which to me means they did not have the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Were they inspired and guided by the Spirit, or not? If not, then how can we rely on the NT? This does not make sense.

Trying to split out authority to define law is arbitrary and a non sequitor.

added: Christians are not in a legal contract with God, but in a relationship with Him. The sum of the 'law:' Love one another.

Paul's writings only become a problem when someone else picks them up and uses them as a blunt instrument to discipline others.

Non Sequitor. This is done with all scripture, not just Paul, not just the NT, not just the Bible. This is done in the Baha'i Faith as well.

As to God's word--God will protect it, it will never be corrupted.

This is not logical...it's a statement based on faith and it means either 1) You accept that the Church was rightly guided (and if the Church was rightly guided then it is also arbirtray to throw out Paul or tradition that is not part of Scripture) or 2) you are using an outside standard the measure what is authoritative and what is not (which is what I believe you are doing). I guess a third possibility is that it is a magic trick and God only let some people in on it...not the God I believe in though.

The only time it becomes a thing of error is when others blithely give up their right to read and understand to another..

Agreed...although this applies across the board to all religions, including the Baha'i Faith.

It's a fedw others that pick him up and use him like a club to discipline fellow believers.

Regards,
Scott

As I said above, this type of error is not at all limited to Paul. Non-sequitor.

Paul is innocent opf anywrong because he never meant anything for himself, his only desire was to serve God and his fellow Christians

Who ever said Paul was doing anything wrong? Certainly not I. What you seem to be saying is that Paul is wrong but you don't think God is going to hold it against him somehow. :sarcastic

So, when did the Church go wrong exactly. Jesus promised that the Spirit of Truth would guide them (the nascent community). When exactly was this promise broken?

Which parts of the Bible then are not trustworthy to teach us about the nature of Christ and God's will for the Church?

 

[Popeyesays]

Boy, there went my message again. I truly hate touch pad mice and laptop keyboards.

Okay, as I was trying to say before the mistype blew away my words:

The right to choose what was canon and what was not is not an issue to me. That they used the exercise of that right to cut out their opponents from the herd and drive them into exile is despicable in an ethical sense.

Now, I hate to confuse the issue with Arabic, but it is English that is confusing the issue. The practice of interpretation by searching for hidden meanings and symbolic truths is a perfectly legitimate dialectic. But if I use that dialectic to sway others to my point of view that is also of questionable ethics. Should I use it to cast someone out of the congregation of believers, that seems downright evil to me.

If someone in the Baha'i community uses such a dialectic to better understand something and teaches others that his dialectic is one way of considering it, that is perfectly proper.

If that individual takes his dialectic and attempts to make it binding upon others in the community that is a violation of Taf'sir, or allowing someone without authorityu to interpret for others and make it stick. No one in the Baha`i community has the right to do that. Only two human beiongs had that right--Abdu'l Baha who was given the responsibility by Baha`u'llah and Shoghi Effendi who was given that responsibility by Abdu'l Baha.

You might contend there is confusion as to their rigfht to that authority but it's not a reasonable contention. It's clear.

So the Baha`i Faith has a clear Taf'sir in the body of writings by the Center of the Covenant and the Guardian.

Christianity does not; but that's not the fault of the Bible--God intended it to be that way.

As to whether the Spirit of Truth was the Holy Spirit with the early Christians through the Apostles and Bishops, or the SPirit of Truth was the next Manifestation of God set to clarify the Gospel that's an issue for another board and topic.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

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




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.




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?

Your interpretation of these verses is that Jesus is not God. Yes, that is an interpretation, just as my interpretation is that Jesus is God.

As you can see I don't need to interpert anything.

I'm afraid you do. We interpret everything we read, even if we do so literally, that is still a literal INTERPRETATION. It's not something you can avoid.

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

Yes, you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Really? So all your interpretations of Scripture are completely true and you are never wrong?

Secondly, I disagree about what you say He "clearly showed," so again we're back to differing interpretations.

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

Another interpretation.

Difficulty obeying what?

Christ's command to honor Him just as we honor the Father.

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

Iknow you don't worship Jesus Christ, as He commanded and as so many who personally met Him did.

I'm not sure that matters.

I think it does. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but Jesus Himself did not write any of the Bible while on Earth. All these verses you believe to show that Jesus is not God are quotes, quotes that Jesus' disciples wrote down. Disciples who believed Jesus was God. If you accept that their quotations of Jesus are accurate, then you cannot avoid also accepting their interpretations of the quotes they themselves provide as accurate. Now, if Jesus' disciples who were taught directly by Him, traveled with Him, ate with Him, slept with Him, talked with Him, worshipped Him and believed He was God, and you don't, what does that tell you?

 

[lunamoth]

Boy, there went my message again. I truly hate touch pad mice and laptop keyboards.

Sorry you're having a hassle with your computer. That's a drag.

The right to choose what was canon and what was not is not an issue to me.

The right to choose the canon is the heart of this argument. First, Paul is not just 'commentary.' It was chosen as Scripture. There were lots of writings that did not make the cut, so to speak. You are trying to justify your argument that the doctrine of the Incarnation and Trinity is wrong, and specifically that Jesus was not God, by reducing the writings of Paul to mere commentary, and then trying to say that they are in conflict with the Gospels. The Church did not see it this way...The Gospels and Paul complement each other and together are reflective of the orthodox Christian religion. Both uphold the divinity of Jesus.

That they used the exercise of that right to cut out their opponents from the herd and drive them into exile is despicable in an ethical sense.

I know you are sympathetic to the Arian view, as it is the same as the Baha'i view of Jesus. I also agree that what was done politically to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity, any cases where people were persecuted or killed for seeing it differently, was blasphemous. But the Baha'i Faith of course does the same thing to covenant breakers and people a bit too vocal about views that differ from the authoritative view. However, this whole discussion is off-point.

Now, I hate to confuse the issue with Arabic, but it is English that is confusing the issue. The practice of interpretation by searching for hidden meanings and symbolic truths is a perfectly legitimate dialectic. But if I use that dialectic to sway others to my point of view that is also of questionable ethics. Should I use it to cast someone out of the congregation of believers, that seems downright evil to me.

If someone in the Baha'i community uses such a dialectic to better understand something and teaches others that his dialectic is one way of considering it, that is perfectly proper.

If that individual takes his dialectic and attempts to make it binding upon others in the community that is a violation of Taf'sir, or allowing someone without authorityu to interpret for others and make it stick. No one in the Baha`i community has the right to do that. Only two human beiongs had that right--Abdu'l Baha who was given the responsibility by Baha`u'llah and Shoghi Effendi who was given that responsibility by Abdu'l Baha.

You might contend there is confusion as to their rigfht to that authority but it's not a reasonable contention. It's clear.

This whole aside is just clouding the issue and off-point Scott. You are trying to divide it up so that some of what the Church dictated was OK and other things were not acceptable. There's no reason for dividing it in this way except to justify how you can accept the Bible, accept it in an uneven manner, and outright reject other Christian traditions. I have no issue with how the Baha'i Faith handles its division of authority and interpretation. At the very root of it is you have faith that authority was properly handed from Baha'u'llah to Abdul Baha etc. You base this on faith. Yes, you've got the wills and the writings, but whether all of that is authentic and inassailably clear is a matter of faith. Even if it were authentic and inassailably clear, the loss of the Guardian without leaving a will leaves a huge hole that can only by plugged by faith.

So the Baha`i Faith has a clear Taf'sir in the body of writings by the Center of the Covenant and the Guardian.

Christianity does not; but that's not the fault of the Bible--God intended it to be that way.

Christianity is the Body of Christ in relationship with God and with the mission of the reconcilliation of the world. Authority in Christianity is not about enforcing laws and this is very clear in the NT writings, both in the Gospels and Paul. It's a whole new thing that God has done Scott.

As to whether the Spirit of Truth was the Holy Spirit with the early Christians through the Apostles and Bishops, or the SPirit of Truth was the next Manifestation of God set to clarify the Gospel that's an issue for another board and topic.

Regards,
Scott

I don't think it's another topic...I think it is germane to this question: Was Jesus God in the flesh? I answer yes based upon faith. You contend that this is not rational based upon your interpretation of the Bible. You are trying to convince us here that your interpretation makes sense and is rational, while the Christian view is not. Whatever I might think about the Baha'i teachings on the nature of Christ and God, the point I am making is that your view is just as much based upon faith as the Christian view. This is illustrated by how you use the Bible in a selective manner to uphold Baha'i teachings while at the same time saying that the Church which put together the NT canon was not inspired (guided by the Spirit) in doing so.

If your approach is more rational than that of Christians who believe Jesus was the Incarnation of God, you should be able to answer these questions:

So, when did the Church go wrong exactly? Jesus promised that the Spirit of Truth would guide them (the nascent community). When exactly was this promise broken?

Which parts of the Bible then are not trustworthy to teach us about the nature of Christ and God's will for the Church? How do you know?

 

[Popeyesays]

Of course my argument is faith based.

It was you who brought up the notion that Bahai succession of authority is unclear.

Love is also the basis of the law in the Bahai Faith.

COmmentary can easily be scripture, it certainly is in the TaNakh. The hadith are nothing but commentary, yet many consider them equal to the Qur'an.

None of this changes the fact that Paul has as much authority as the individual is willing to grant him. He has no claim for more.

If the Gospel were the sum of the New Testament, things would be clearer, not muddier. The reason the waters are muddy is the assumption of authority where none really existed.

Let Christ speak for Himself. He was certainly capaqble of it.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JayHawes]

Of course my argument is faith based.

It was you who brought up the notion that Bahai succession of authority is unclear.

Love is also the basis of the law in the Bahai Faith.

COmmentary can easily be scripture, it certainly is in the TaNakh. The hadith are nothing but commentary, yet many consider them equal to the Qur'an.

None of this changes the fact that Paul has as much authority as the individual is willing to grant him. He has no claim for more.

If the Gospel were the sum of the New Testament, things would be clearer, not muddier. The reason the waters are muddy is the assumption of authority where none really existed.

Let Christ speak for Himself. He was certainly capaqble of it.

Regards,
Scott

Baha'i is almost like any other world faith. A man rises ups, claims revelation, dies and his teachings are carried on. The only difference is, Baha'i's founder incorporated the ideas of many faiths that preceded it. Making it much different than any other faith. But let me add....Jesus is the only founder of a faith, to die for those who didn't know them, just so they could go to heaven.

 

[arthra]

I've sort of been following this discussion and really am not offering any arguments here about "Jesus being God"... The Baha'i view is that Jesus perfectly reflected the attributes of God, but i wanted to comment on the statement by Lunamoth above where she wrote to Scott:

"I know you are sympathetic to the Arian view, as it is the same as the Baha'i view of Jesus. I also agree that what was done politically to uphold the doctrine of the Trinity, any cases where people were persecuted or killed for seeing it differently, was blasphemous. But the Baha'i Faith of course does the same thing to covenant breakers and people a bit too vocal about views that differ from the authoritative view. However, this whole discussion is off-point."

I think that may be inaccurate and misrepresent the Baha'i view of Jesus.. stating that the Baha'i view of Jesus is Arian, also, the term "covenant breaker" has a special meaning that may not be appreciated or undersood very well in general parlance and relates to those who attack the authority of the central institutions of our Faith more than it does to doctrinal discussions, but this article may be of interest to some of you:

http://bahai-library.com/file.php5?file=uhj_tablet_abdulbaha_arius&language=English

 

[lunamoth]

Of course my argument is faith based.

It was you who brought up the notion that Bahai succession of authority is unclear.

It is as clear as the authority given to the Church.

Love is also the basis of the law in the Bahai Faith.

That is a whole other thread.

COmmentary can easily be scripture, it certainly is in the TaNakh. The hadith are nothing but commentary, yet many consider them equal to the Qur'an.

But Baha'is also reject the hadith, except where directly upheld by Baha'u'llah.

None of this changes the fact that Paul has as much authority as the individual is willing to grant him. He has no claim for more.

This is true of the Gospels, the Baha'i Writings, all scripture, all cases where authority is evident.

If the Gospel were the sum of the New Testament, things would be clearer, not muddier. The reason the waters are muddy is the assumption of authority where none really existed.

I don't think Paul had authority to write law, and if you ask Christians they will also say (most anyway) that Paul did not write new laws. Jesus gave us only one new commandment: love each other as He loves us. That's it. That's the authority. Yes...ALL the rest is commentary. All the rest of the Gospels point to this one idea. The teachings, the actions, the death and the resurrection all point to this one thing: Love. And this is what Paul teaches too: we are not under the law, but free in the love of Christ.

Let Christ speak for Himself. He was certainly capaqble of it.

He certainly is:

22 Then came the Festival of Dedication [b] at Jerusalem. It was winter, 23 and Jesus was in the temple courts walking in Solomon's Colonnade. 24 The Jews who were there gathered around him, saying, "How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Messiah, tell us plainly."
25 Jesus answered, "I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father's name testify about me, 26 but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27 My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28 I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all [c]; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. 30 I and the Father are one."
31 Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" 33 "We are not stoning you for any good work," they replied, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods" ' [d]? 35 If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp. 40 Then Jesus went back across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing in the early days. Here he stayed 41 and many people came to him. They said, "Though John never performed a sign, all that John said about this man was true." 42 And in that place many believed in Jesus.

The Gospels and rest of the NT are part of the Tradition of the Church, the same Church which developed the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. If you reject those doctrines, you need to explain when the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church.

 

[Popeyesays]

It is as clear as the authority given to the Church.

That is a whole other thread.


But Baha'is also reject the hadith, except where directly upheld by Baha'u'llah.

This is true of the Gospels, the Baha'i Writings, all scripture, all cases where authority is evident.

I don't think Paul had authority to write law, and if you ask Christians they will also say (most anyway) that Paul did not write new laws. Jesus gave us only one new commandment: love each other as He loves us. That's it. That's the authority. Yes...ALL the rest is commentary. All the rest of the Gospels point to this one idea. The teachings, the actions, the death and the resurrection all point to this one thing: Love. And this is what Paul teaches too: we are not under the law, but free in the love of Christ.



He certainly is:






The Gospels and rest of the NT are part of the Tradition of the Church, the same Church which developed the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity. If you reject those doctrines, you need to explain when the Holy Spirit stopped guiding the Church.

The words of Jesus are the words of Jesus. The traditions of the church are tradition.
The two are not necessarily the same.

The words of Christ do not claim divinity. God is in me and I am in God as well. To say thqt does n ot claim divinity.

To say He is one with the Father seems to mean that He is one in purpose and one speech; neither does that claim divinity.

Hadith is as hadith does, Ep[istles do as epistles do. They aren't Revelation. They are tradition and tradition is not infallible.

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

The words of Jesus are the words of Jesus. The traditions of the church are tradition.
The two are not necessarily the same.

Regards,
Scott

We only know the words of Jesus because of Tradition. If you don't trust Tradition you also can't trust that Jesus said those words.

 

[lunamoth]

The words of Jesus are the words of Jesus. The traditions of the church are tradition.
The two are not necessarily the same.

The words of Christ do not claim divinity. God is in me and I am in God as well. To say thqt does n ot claim divinity.

To say He is one with the Father seems to mean that He is one in purpose and one speech; neither does that claim divinity.

As you say Scott, we all get to choose what those words mean.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Your interpretation of these verses is that Jesus is not God. Yes, that is an interpretation, just as my interpretation is that Jesus is God.

I didn't have to because he shows us in these verses that he isn't God. The "Son of God" is clearly different than "God the son"

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


This verse goes hand in hand with this one.

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

okay...okay...maybe it's just me that thinks Jesus isn't God....apparently Jesus believed it too.

We interpret everything we read, even if we do so literally, that is still a literal INTERPRETATION. It's not something you can avoid.

I agree with you here but I disagree with you that I interperted the passages to say he wasn't God. There was no need to do that. He said God sent him to do, not his will, but the will of God. He says this over and over...He said he was commanded by God to say the things he did.....The holy spirit decended upon Jesus and (God spoke from the heavens)

Matt
3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Christ's command to honor Him just as we honor the Father.

Iknow you don't worship Jesus Christ, as He commanded and as so many who personally met Him did.

I believe honoring and worshiping are two seperate acts. I believe it to mean to (respect)

I you take that verse to mean that you would worship Jesus then keep doing what you do.

I think it does.

So are we all here to understand that the only way for us to understand Jesus is for us to be christians????

Disciples who believed Jesus was God.

What verses show the deciples considered Jesus (God)?

If you accept that their quotations of Jesus are accurate, then you cannot avoid also accepting their interpretations of the quotes they themselves provide as accurate. Now, if Jesus' disciples who were taught directly by Him, traveled with Him, ate with Him, slept with Him, talked with Him, worshipped Him and believed He was God, and you don't, what does that tell you?

Come on now. If you seriously believed they believed he was God then bring forth the biblical quotes.

 

[neves]

Here are some more verses in the Bible to contemplate… (King James Version)

Deuteronomy 6 (note: not whole passage, first 10 verses)

“1Now these are the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments, which the LORD your God commanded to teach you, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go to possess it:
2That thou mightest fear the LORD thy God, to keep all his statutes and his commandments, which I command thee, thou, and thy son, and thy son's son, all the days of thy life; and that thy days may be prolonged.
3Hear therefore, O Israel, and observe to do it; that it may be well with thee, and that ye may increase mightily, as the LORD God of thy fathers hath promised thee, in the land that floweth with milk and honey.
4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.
6And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart:
7And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up.
8And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thine hand, and they shall be as frontlets between thine eyes.
9And thou shalt write them upon the posts of thy house, and on thy gates.
10And it shall be, when the LORD thy God shall have brought thee into the land which he sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give thee great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not,”

Mark 12 (note: not whole passage, 5 lines before and after relative verse)

“24And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?
25For when they shall rise from the dead, they neither marry, nor are given in marriage; but are as the angels which are in heaven.
26And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?
27He is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living: ye therefore do greatly err.
28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?
29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.
32And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:
33And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.
34And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.”

Mark 10 (note: not whole passage, 5 lines before and after relative verse)

“13And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them.
14But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
15Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.
16And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and blessed them.
17And when he was gone forth into the way, there came one running, and kneeled to him, and asked him, Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?
18And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
19Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Defraud not, Honour thy father and mother.
20And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.
21Then Jesus beholding him loved him, and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.
22And he was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: for he had great possessions.
23And Jesus looked round about, and saith unto his disciples, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! “

 

[EtuMalku]

Baha'i is almost like any other world faith. A man rises ups, claims revelation, dies and his teachings are carried on. The only difference is, Baha'i's founder incorporated the ideas of many faiths that preceded it. Making it much different than any other faith. But let me add....Jesus is the only founder of a faith, to die for those who didn't know them, just so they could go to heaven.

This idea of the 'human sacrifice' is an old story that was already told in Egypt and by the Sumerians thousands of years before Christ.

 

[EtuMalku]

We only know the words of Jesus because of Tradition. If you don't trust Tradition you also can't trust that Jesus said those words.

I have yet to read one word that was written by Jesus!