Did Jesus say he was God???

[Popeyesays]

Not only are the statements themselve fundamentally different gramattically (one is TO a person, one is about a 3rd party to someone else), but you're again attempting to use English to define a non-English phrase used by a 2,000 year old Jew. It's not gonna fly.

It IS an address directly to Jesus, as the verse explicitly states.

Actually both are TO a second person. The words are attributed to Henry II of England and were in reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas a Becket.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Actually both are TO a second person. The words are attributed to Henry II of England and were in reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas a Becket.

Regards,
Scott

Both are to a second person; one is about the second person and one is about a third person. Thus the fundamental difference. And again, you're using English as a paradigm for your Biblical exegesis...an ahistorical and slippery slope.

 

[Popeyesays]

Both are to a second person; one is about the second person and one is about a third person. Thus the fundamental difference. And again, you're using English as a paradigm for your Biblical exegesis...an ahistorical and slippery slope.

There's no semantic difference whatsoever. In the circumstances, if Henry had said, "S`wounds!" and left the room there would have been no doubt of his meaning or the subject at hand.

Both are oaths, though Thomas' oath was much more worthy.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

There's no semantic difference whatsoever. In the circumstances, if Henry had said, "S`wounds!" and left the room there would have been no doubt of his meaning or the subject at hand.

"By His wounds!" and "My Lord and My God!" are fundamentally semantically different; if you can't see it, I don't see a point in teaching you basic grammar. One is an adverbial phrase used essentially as slang, the other is a direct description of the person being spoken to. And once again, you're using English as a paradigm for your exegesis; bad idea.

Also, why did you cherry pick this one verse out of the many I provided? If you'd like to have a more thorough discussion give us your commentary on all of them.

 

[Popeyesays]

"By His wounds!" and "My Lord and My God!" are fundamentally semantically different; if you can't see it, I don't see a point in teaching you basic grammar. One is an adverbial phrase used essentially as slang, the other is a direct description of the person being spoken to. And once again, you're using English as a paradigm for your exegesis; bad idea.

Also, why did you cherry pick this one verse out of the many I provided? If you'd like to have a more thorough discussion give us your commentary on all of them.

Well, there's an old aphorism: Don't teach your gramma to suck eggs.

That means your gramma probably is already pretty good at it. I'm sixty (almost), college educated, and make a living writing and editing other people's writing.

As to the grammar involved here: S'wounds, My God, and My Lord are all interjections.

Interjection:
4.Grammar. a.any member of a class of words expressing emotion, distinguished in most languages by their use in grammatical isolation, as Hey! Oh! Ouch! Ugh! b.any other word or expression so used, as Good grief! Indeed!
Why did I choose this particular verse?

I reached in the hat and plucked this one out. Do you want to go on to the next one out of the hat, I'll let you pick this time.

Regards,

Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Well, there's an old aphorism: Don't teach your gramma to suck eggs.

That means your gramma probably is already pretty good at it. I'm sixty (almost), college educated, and make a living writing and editing other people's writing.

As to the grammar involved here: S'wounds, My God, and My Lord are all interjections.

I disagree that the statement is an interjection, so I guess that's where our grammar parts ways. "My God" as we use it today was not used that way 2,000 years ago in Israel, and I have no idea why you seem insistent on pushing that novel interpretation.

I reached in the hat and plucked this one out. Do you want to go on to the next one out of the hat, I'll let you pick this time.

You may respond to them all, if you like.

 

[Popeyesays]

I disagree that the statement is an interjection, so I guess that's where our grammar parts ways. "My God" as we use it today was not used that way 2,000 years ago in Israel, and I have no idea why you seem insistent on pushing that novel interpretation.

You may respond to them all, if you like.

Tell me what do you think the grammatic uswe was in the Masoretic texts of the Gospel--that's conjecture, of course, because there is little agreement that we actually have any original Masoretic texts of the time. I would submit you don't know what the proper grammatic usage would be and are just running it up the pole to see if it gets any salutes.

The interjection is quite common in Hebrew even 3,000 years ago for instance. I doubt it's any different in Aramaic/Syriac since the two languages are so very similar.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Tell me what do you think the grammatic uswe was in the Masoretic texts of the Gospel--that's conjecture, of course, because there is little agreement that we actually have any original Masoretic texts of the time. I would submit you don't know what the proper grammatic usage would be and are just running it up the pole to see if it gets any salutes.

Hardly...it's a description of the person being spoken to, Jesus.

The interjection is quite common in Hebrew for instance.

That's nice; we have no idea what language he may have been speaking when he said this, and to my knowledge the oldest texts are in Greek. I'm not saying that interjections were completely absent in those days, but I don't believe that this is one. It was a descriptive phrase said to a person directly about them.

 

[lunamoth]

Luna moth wrote:

Aside to Art: I was not trying to misrepresent the Baha'i view of Jesus, but it is closer to the Arian view than it is to the Trinitarian view, as this thread shows. I believe I've read Baha'i commentary (by Abdul Baha) that says the Arians were correct in their understanding of God but they were wrong to try to disunite the faith: it's better to be united in error than disunited with some right and some wrong.
__________________


Luna:

I don't recall anywhere from my reading that "says the Arians were correct in their understanding of God". Could you support that with a source?

It appears like you are implying that Baha'i Faith is an Arian heresy...

- Art

The Arian heresy was that Jesus was not God in the flesh, which is exactly the point Scott is arguing for here. "ARIANISM. The principal heresy which denied the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, so-called after its author, *Arius " (from the below link). All these posts to say that Trinitarian Christians are wrong wrong wrong and Jesus was not God. I did not say that the Baha'i Faith is an off-shoot of the Arian heresy, but it upholds similar views about the nature of Jesus. Thus what Arius proposed is closer to what Baha'is beleive about Jesus than what Trinitarians believe, making similar arguments about the Unity of God.

http://bahai-library.org/uhj/arius.html

As far as I can tell, Abdul Baha refers to Arius to illustrate the problems of 'sowing seeds of dissension,' and covenanat breaking, and seems to equate Arius to a covenant breaker, not because his theology was wrong but because he caused disunity.

The Baha'i Faith is not a heresy of Christianity...it is a whole different religion.

 

[lunamoth]

"And if you believe that God can protect a covenant with us then you believe that the Tradition of the Church is just as protected as the Order of the Baha'i Faith. If it is only His words that are protected (which is not what Christiantiy believes...that is a Baha'i concept, and an Islamic concept), then the words of Abdul Baha, Shoghi Effendi and the UHJ are all equally just commentary. If you believe that the Bible is inerrant and that you do not need the Church, which is even more radically sola scritupra than most Protestants, then you encourage Biblioidolatry, elevating the book to the status of God. "

In my estimation you have skipped a logical step here. That's a non-sequitur, The conclusion is not evident from the progression of argument. One and Two do not equal Four.

Nope, I'm making a direct comparison between Christian Traditions and Baha'i Tradition. You believe that the wills and testaments protects the line of authority, Christians believe that then endowment of the Church with the Holy Spirit protects the line of authority. You have not been able to point to a time and or reason that the Holy Spirit would have abandoned the Church, but you maintain that somehow the Gospels, of all the NT, count as revelation and nothing else in the NT or Holy Tradition does. Even though those Gospels were not written by Jesus. They are a record of the early proto-Catholic Christian community's testament about Jesus. They are tradition and the only assurance that one is not drifting to one's own vain imaginings in interpretting them is to stick with Holy Tradition. Yet, to get to the Baha'i understanding that Jesus was not God in the flesh, you need to go outside Holy Tradtion. That does not hold up.

It's not logical. You suggest that Christians are wrong to adhere to Holy Tradition, that they should think for themselves what the NT means, and this somehow will not be idle fancy. But turn it around and a Baha'i going outside the authoritative tradition would be falling subject to idle fancy and vain imaginings.

You are using different standards for Christianity and Baha'i Faith, and this is what does not add up.

BBy the way I googled Arian, Aryan, and Arius in True Seeker and found no matches. Right now I do not have access to Ocean.

Regards,
Scott

See my reply to Art.

Well, it's been fun and we've run down a lot of red herrings in this conversation. Believe it or not, I firmly believe you are entitled to your view that Jesus was not God in the flesh and it's been interesting reading you explain why here. My objective in this thread was not to prove you wrong. You believe what you do, I beleive what I do. I just wanted to explain how I think you are no more rational or logical in your claim of the Baha'i Faith than Christians are in theirs. You pick and choose scpriture to support your beliefs, you disregard what you don't like or think is not important. That's fine...a lot of people do that whether they leave or change religions, or not. You found a religion that fits your beliefs better and that's great! But, it is not more rational than Christianity.

Thanks for the discussion Scott. As always it's been a pleasure.

added: naturally I expect you to respond to this post if you wish...not trying to claim the last word...just letting you know that I think we've gone as far as we can in this line.

 

[Popeyesays]

Hardly...it's a description of the person being spoken to, Jesus.


That's nice; we have no idea what language he may have been speaking when he said this, and to my knowledge the oldest texts are in Greek. I'm not saying that interjections were completely absent in those days, but I don't believe that this is one. It was a descriptive phrase said to a person directly about them.

The oldest surviving texts are Greek, but there is every reason to assume that those texts came from something else earlier. Joseph of Arimathea probably spoke Greek because he was a merchant. Jesus probably spoke whatever He needed to speak. But that's conjecture, we don't know.

I see no reason to mistake an interjection for something else, merely because it uphold an opinion one already had.

Actually, this discussion has probably gone as far as it can, and the opinions are not going to change.

I suggest moving on to another of the quotes if you like.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Inky]

A bit OT but...is the phrase "S`wounds!" the precursor to "Zounds!"? Looks like it to me.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

The oldest surviving texts are Greek, but there is every reason to assume that those texts came from something else earlier.

You know what assuming does, right?

I see no reason to mistake an interjection for something else, merely because it uphold an opinion one already had.

And I see no reason to mistake something else for an interjection, merely because it upholds an opinion one already had. The statement was said directly to Jesus Himself. If you believe He is Lord, it's not a far jump to believe He's God based on this verse.

I suggest moving on to another of the quotes if you like.

I already gave my request, it's your move if you want to comment on the other verses.

 

[Popeyesays]

A bit OT but...is the phrase "S`wounds!" the precursor to "Zounds!"? Looks like it to me.

Yes, it is, and pronounced "Zoonds".

Regards,
scott

 

[arthra]

The Arian heresy was that Jesus was not God in the flesh, which is exactly the point Scott is arguing for here. "ARIANISM. The principal heresy which denied the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, so-called after its author, *Arius " (from the below link). All these posts to say that Trinitarian Christians are wrong wrong wrong and Jesus was not God. I did not say that the Baha'i Faith is an off-shoot of the Arian heresy, but it upholds similar views about the nature of Jesus. Thus what Arius proposed is closer to what Baha'is beleive about Jesus than what Trinitarians believe, making similar arguments about the Unity of God.

http://bahai-library.org/uhj/arius.html

As far as I can tell, Abdul Baha refers to Arius to illustrate the problems of 'sowing seeds of dissension,' and covenanat breaking, and seems to equate Arius to a covenant breaker, not because his theology was wrong but because he caused disunity.

The Baha'i Faith is not a heresy of Christianity...it is a whole different religion.

Luna,

It seems to me your allegation of Arianism isn't that convincing and it's an old tactic of Christians to allege heresies on others.

As you wrote above the Baha'i Faith is not a heresy of Christianity and I don't think you can't really use Christain hermaneutics to properly understand the Baha'i Faith.

To quote the article we have both quoted earlier:


As to the doctrines of Arianism, it is difficult at this time and in light of the paucity of documents remaining, to ascertain exactly what Arius taught, but in "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" we find the following description:

ARIANISM. The principal heresy which denied the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, so-called after its author, *Arius (q.v.).
Arianism maintained that the Son of God was not eternal but created by the Father from nothing as an instrument for the creation of the world; and that therefore He was not God by nature, but a changeable creature, His dignity as the Son of God having been bestowed on Him by the Father by account of His foreseen abiding righteousness.
​

It would, perhaps, be difficult to maintain that the teaching of Arius is closer to that of the Baha'i Revelation than that of the Church in light of the Baha'i Teachings about the nature of the Manifestations of God, of `Abdu'l-Baha's elucidation of the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the following words of the Guardian...

- Art

 

[Popeyesays]

FGS,

I can't find your list of quotes, can you link it lor paste it?

Regards,
Scott

 

[lunamoth]

Luna,

It seems to me your allegation of Arianism isn't that convincing and it's an old tactic of Christians to allege heresies on others.

As you wrote above the Baha'i Faith is not a heresy of Christianity and I don't think you can't really use Christain hermaneutics to properly understand the Baha'i Faith.

To quote the article we have both quoted earlier:


As to the doctrines of Arianism, it is difficult at this time and in light of the paucity of documents remaining, to ascertain exactly what Arius taught, but in "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church" we find the following description:

ARIANISM. The principal heresy which denied the true Divinity of Jesus Christ, so-called after its author, *Arius (q.v.). ​

Arianism maintained that the Son of God was not eternal but created by the Father from nothing as an instrument for the creation of the world; and that therefore He was not God by nature, but a changeable creature, His dignity as the Son of God having been bestowed on Him by the Father by account of His foreseen abiding righteousness. ​

It would, perhaps, be difficult to maintain that the teaching of Arius is closer to that of the Baha'i Revelation than that of the Church in light of the Baha'i Teachings about the nature of the Manifestations of God, of `Abdu'l-Baha's elucidation of the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the following words of the Guardian...

- Art

Art, What in the world are you talking about? I did not say that the Baha'i Faith is Arianism...I did not "allege" this...I compared it to Arianism in theology, but did not say it was Arian heresy. In fact, I said explicitly in my last post to you that it could not be Arian heresy. :sarcastic

It is like Arianism in that it denies that Jesus is God in the flesh...the topic of this thread. For that matter, Baha'i theology is also like Pelagianism although of course it can't be Pelagianism because that is a Christian heresy.

So please stop being so sensitive. If you don't like what I've said then fine, but please do not invent charges to condemn me.

I wish Sharon were online because it is from her that I remember most recently talking about this idea.

luna

 

[xexon]

Is Jesus God in the flesh?

Has anyone answered the question recently?

Jesus is God in the flesh. God is the air that surrounded him, the people who killed him, the people who wrote about it. God is the ground beneath your feet and the moon above your head. God is you, when you are awake and when you slumber. God is the reflection you see in your eye when you look into a mirror.

God is even all the things you don't like.

There is nothing that God is not.


x

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

FGS,

I can't find your list of quotes, can you link it lor paste it?

Regards,
Scott

Sure, from post #285 of this thread:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1

"But Jesus answered them, 'My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.' Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God." John 5:17-18

And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:28

"Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." Acts 20:28

"of whom are the fathers and from whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, the eternally blessed God. Amen." Romans 9:5

"For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;" Colossians 2:9

"But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom.' " Hebrews 1:8

There's several, and let's not forget the numerous times that Jesus is worshipped in Scripture: Matt. 2:2, 11; Matt. 8:2; Matt. 9:18; Matt. 14:33; Matt. 15:25; Matt. 20:20; Matt. 28:9, 17; Mark 5:6; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Hebrews 1:6; Rev. 5:12-14.

 

[Popeyesays]

"In the beginning there was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

This is a preface to the Gospel of John.

In the beginning there was God only, and within God was His love for the Creation. He uttered the Word and the Word became all of Creation--Jesus included. Man is the pinnacle of Creation and the pinnacle of man is the Manifestation of God. The Manifestation of God is the very apex of all Creation. That still means God is God and Creation is not God.

Regards,
Scott