Did Jesus say he was God???

[Dirty Penguin]

That's your interpretation.

If you say so.

You agree that we interpret everything we read, but disagree that you interpret these verses, which you read??

Yep. And I still hold that Jesus is not God. The quotes I have provided show that he is a servant to do the will of he that sent him. No interpertation needed....Becaue that is exactly what Jesus said and it exactly what he did.

Yes, God the Father. Are you seeing it yet.

Already saw it. I'm not sure you see it. Yes God the father sent Jesus the son. When Jesus was done doing the will of the father who sent him he returned to heaven.

The fact that Jesus was sent by God the Father and obeyed Him (obviously, since God cannot contradict Himself) does not mean that Jesus is not God the Son.

Sure it does. Just because you assume Jesus is God doesn't make it so.

Once again, notice that you interpret these verses ("I believe"...). Are you an infallble interpreter of Scripture?

If you notice that was done on purpose. That was an interpertation. If you noticed when I put forth a quote from Jesus and I comment on that verse it is confirmation of the quote itself to show that Jesus is not God. You've read them. I didn't say "I believe what this verse means" or "What Jesus was trying to say".....etc...etc.....

 

[arthra]

Luna,

I think when you say things like

"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."

and more recently

"For that matter, Baha'i theology is also like Pelagianism although of course it can't be Pelagianism because that is a Christian heresy."

Your "brush" is too broad and you are making assumptions based on your perspective as a Christian. There is no Baha'i "theology" as yet ...but theology is well developed institution in Christianity. What I would ask is that you consider more carefully your imputations of Arianism and Pelagianism as related to the Baha'i Faith.

- Art

 

[lunamoth]

Luna,

I think when you say things like

"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."

and more recently

"For that matter, Baha'i theology is also like Pelagianism although of course it can't be Pelagianism because that is a Christian heresy."

Your "brush" is too broad and you are making assumptions based on your perspective as a Christian. There is no Baha'i "theology" as yet ...but theology is well developed institution in Christianity. What I would ask is that you consider more carefully your imputations of Arianism and Pelagianism as related to the Baha'i Faith.

- Art

Art, I apologize for comparing Baha'i beliefs to Arianism and Pelagianism. I was not trying to misrepresent the Faith or malign it.

I wonder though how the Baha'is in this thread feel about calling the Incarantion and Trinity false doctrine and vain imaininging based upon their perspectives as Baha'is. It seems that assumptions have been made about Christian doctrine based upon Baha'i theology (teachings about God).

Here is a definition of Arianism: "Arius argued that the scriptural titles for Christ, which appeared to point to his being of equal status with God, were merely courtesy titles. Christ was to be regarded as a creature, although nevertheless as preeminent among other creatures."(Christian Theology, McGrath).

Scott above has referred to Jesus as just a creature, and I believe I've seen you explain that you view Son of God as a title, not meaning actual Sonship. Please clarify if I am understanding this incorrectly.

 

[sojourner]

Art, I apologize for comparing Baha'i beliefs to Arianism and Pelagianism. I was not trying to misrepresent the Faith or malign it.

I wonder though how the Baha'is in this thread feel about calling the Incarantion and Trinity false doctrine and vain imaininging based upon their perspectives as Baha'is. It seems that assumptions have been made about Christian doctrine based upon Baha'i theology (teachings about God).

Here is a definition of Arianism: "Arius argued that the scriptural titles for Christ, which appeared to point to his being of equal status with God, were merely courtesy titles. Christ was to be regarded as a creature, although nevertheless as preeminent among other creatures."(Christian Theology, McGrath).

Scott above has referred to Jesus as just a creature, and I believe I've seen you explain that you view Son of God as a title, not meaning actual Sonship. Please clarify if I am understanding this incorrectly.

This statement is, in orthodox Christian theology, wrong. The Nicene Creed states that Christ was "begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father." Therefore, Jesus was not a creature -- something that God created, but someone God begat.

 

[lunamoth]

This statement is, in orthodox Christian theology, wrong. The Nicene Creed states that Christ was "begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father." Therefore, Jesus was not a creature -- something that God created, but someone God begat.

Hi Soj, I know. Baha'is argue that Jesus is a creature, preeminent among creatures, the Son in title but not literally, not begotten. In the Baha'i Faith, Jesus was not God Incarnate, but has a station above that of humans and below that of God.

 

[sojourner]

Opens a whole can of worms with regard to whether or not Baha'is could be considered "Christian," in the strictest sense...

I'm not prepared to make an argumet either way. My jury's still out...

 

[lunamoth]

Opens a whole can of worms with regard to whether or not Baha'is could be considered "Christian," in the strictest sense...

I'm not prepared to make an argumet either way. My jury's still out...

I don't think Baha'is consider themselves Christian.

 

[sojourner]

I'm not concerned, particularly, with what they consider themselves to be. I'm more concerned with how Christ views them. Would Christ accept them under the umbrella of "followers," or not?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I'm not concerned, particularly, with what they consider themselves to be. I'm more concerned with how Christ views them. Would Christ accept them under the umbrella of "followers," or not?

But don't you believe that this question can be addressed to all those wo claim to be followers of the messiah, including christians?

 

[arthra]

Luna,

I accept your apology. Too many times people are associated and alleged to be similar to heresies (Arianism and Pelagianism, Manichaeism of Gnosticism) and this I think is a hold over from past ages where people were branded as heretics... Theology is not as yet a developed in the Baha'i Faith as in Christianity. We have no "theologians" which is a good thing I think.

Baha'is don't claim to be Christians.

We also though do not accept the view that Christ was "incarnated" nor do we believe the human soul is "incarnated" in the body. Here we differ with many Christians.

Abdul-Baha presented this view of the Christ Sunday Evening, February 17, 1913 —to Pasteur Monnier's Theological Seminary, Paris (The audience was composed of professors, clergy and theological students):

His Holiness the Christ is like unto the sun; his light issued forth from his own identity. He received it not from another person — therefore we give him the comprehensive title of the "word." By this we mean the all-comprehending reality and the depository of the infinite divine characteristics. This "word" has an honorary beginning and not a beginning of time. For instance, we say this person has precedence over all. This precedence comes to him through the station and honor which he now holds in life, but it is not a precedence of time. In reality the "word" has neither beginning nor ending. The letters of the "word" are those qualities which appeared in Christ and not his physical body. These attributes were from God — like unto the rays of the sun reflected in a clear mirror. The rays, the light and the heat of the sun are its qualities which have become manifest in the mirror. It is evident that these qualities were ever with God, even at this time they are with him, they are inseparable from him because divinity is not subject to division. Division is a sign of imperfection and God is the perfect one.

 

[sojourner]

But don't you believe that this question can be addressed to all those wo claim to be followers of the messiah, including christians?

Of course. But it's a little different. We claim to be followers. I'm not sure that Baha'is claim to be followers. The Baha'i question is like unto asking the same thing of a Muslim. Would Christ include them under the umbrella?

I simply don't know. I'm not willing to be a gatekeeper. God will do what God will do.

 

[Popeyesays]

Sojourener,
Baha`i means "Follower of Glory". Baha`u'llah means "The Glory of God". I like the way you consider it, that God will do as God decrees.

The Arabs say "In'shallah" meaning "As God Wills It".

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Art, I apologize for comparing Baha'i beliefs to Arianism and Pelagianism. I was not trying to misrepresent the Faith or malign it.
. . . .
Scott above has referred to Jesus as just a creature, and I believe I've seen you explain that you view Son of God as a title, not meaning actual Sonship. Please clarify if I am understanding this incorrectly.

God is not a Creature of God, He is God, the Self-Subsisting. If the Universe ceased to exist God would still BE. However, all of Creation is subsistent upon God's will and grace. If God caused the universe to end, it would ALL end, including Luna, Arthra and Popeyesays.

Jesus was born of woman like, any human. Therefore Jesus is a Creature of God (a Creation of God). Everything that exists as part of Creation is a Creature of God-- from the Glory that is Jesus, to a simple quark.

That's why Jesus is not God.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

I don't think Baha'is consider themselves Christian.

we believe Christ was Who He said He was. We believe He was the Messiah. We also believe that the Station of Christ is not limited to the person of Jesus.

Jesus was a Manifestation of God, and as such is one of a handful who have ever posessed such a Station, but Those radiant souls were not to be ranked One Above the Other.

Ask us any of the key questions constituting "Are you a Christian?" and you will be likely confused by the answers adding up to "Yes, and No."

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

"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.

Not according to verse 14. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."

Unless "us" is not part of Creation, which is ridiculous, then your interpretation makes no sense.

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.

If the Word is Creation, and Creation is not God, then why does the verse say that the Word is God? Again, your interpretation makes no sense.

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Yep. And I still hold that Jesus is not God. The quotes I have provided show that he is a servant to do the will of he that sent him.

That does not mean He is not God.

No interpertation needed

You just said we interpret everything we read. If this is the case, you're now contradicting yourself.

Becaue that is exactly what Jesus said and it exactly what he did.

Yes, He said He was sent...He didn't say that He was not God. That's your assumption, which is not in any of the texts you have shown.

Yes God the father sent Jesus the son. When Jesus was done doing the will of the father who sent him he returned to heaven.

And what part of that rules out Him being God in your mind?

Sure it does. Just because you assume Jesus is God doesn't make it so.

I didn't assume anything. Rather, you assume that just because Jesus was sent by the Father and did the will of the Father that He must not be God. You have yet to establish the logic behind that assumption.

If you notice that was done on purpose. That was an interpertation.

As with the rest of your commentary on these verses, yes.

If you noticed when I put forth a quote from Jesus and I comment on that verse it is confirmation of the quote itself to show that Jesus is not God.

It is confirmation of your own interpretation of what the words mean, not the words themselves. Trinitarians believe that the Son was sent by the Father and did the Father's will. However, that doesn't mean He wasn't God. Showing us verses that confirm what we already believe doesn't do anything to further your argument.

You've read them. I didn't say "I believe what this verse means" or "What Jesus was trying to say".....etc...etc.....

No, you were much more declarative in the matter most of the time...thus my question about your apparent belief that you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture. A question which I haven't received a very direct answer to as of yet: Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Are your interpretations of Scripture ever wrong?

 

[Popeyesays]

Not according to verse 14. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..."

Unless "us" is not part of Creation, which is ridiculous, then your interpretation makes no sense.


If the Word is Creation, and Creation is not God, then why does the verse say that the Word is God? Again, your interpretation makes no sense.

Perhaps because Creation is God's possession. I possess many things, bujt none of my possessions is ME.

Regards,
Scott

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

Perhaps because Creation is God's possession. I possess many things, bujt none of my possessions is ME.

Regards,
Scott

If none of your possessions is you, and therefore none of God's possessions is Himself, then how could the Word be God, since according to you the Word is Creation and Creation is one of God's possessions?? You are saying that God possesses Himself with that logic.

Not to mention that this is a complete non sequitur to the words of the verse itself, which say nothing about God possessing or not possessing the Word. The Word is God; God is not Creation; therefore the Word is not Creation.

 

[Popeyesays]

THe Word is Creation. God not only Creates but maintains Creation, therefore the Word is still with God. Just like Jesus came to earth, but the Word remained with God even while it was on earth with Jesus. Also at the same time it remains with Creation all the time

The Word is God's connection to Creation.

You know it's not the end of the world that we do not agree. It's not the end of either of us. Coming to an understanding is a voyage never to be completed.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That does not mean He is not God.

It certainly doesn't mean that he is.

You just said we interpret everything we read. If this is the case, you're now contradicting yourself.

Jesus was clear when he said;

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Matt 19:17
And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.............

Matt 26:39
And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Matt 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

John
5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.
5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.
5:32 There is another that beareth witness of me; and I know that the witness which he witnesseth of me is true.

John
5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.
5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.

Yes, He said He was sent.

Yep...

He didn't say that He was not God. That's your assumption, which is not in any of the texts you have shown.

So because, as you say, he didn't say he was not God we are to assume, like you, that he is??? Where's the logic in that???

Observe Matt 19:17

I didn't assume anything. Rather, you assume that just because Jesus was sent by the Father and did the will of the Father that He must not be God. You have yet to establish the logic behind that assumption.

John
5:16 And he withdrew himself into the wilderness, and prayed.

John 17:21
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

As with the rest of your commentary on these verses, yes. It is confirmation of your own interpretation of what the words mean, not the words themselves. Trinitarians believe that the Son was sent by the Father and did the Father's will. However, that doesn't mean He wasn't God. Showing us verses that confirm what we already believe doesn't do anything to further your argument.

I'm was never arguing, but as you say, commenting. If the trinity works for you then keep on doing what you do. It is not my way of life to force change. For you there is no need to change. My "commentary" was just that....(commentary)

No, you were much more declarative in the matter most of the time...thus my question about your apparent belief that you are an infallible interpreter of Scripture. A question which I haven't received a very direct answer to as of yet: Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? Are your interpretations of Scripture ever wrong?

And again, it is my position that I did not interpert the scriptures to make them fit a theory. What interpertation did I give? Go back throughout this thread and grab one.