Is Jesus God?

[Trailblazer]

Q: And yet what was his reply when asked to show them the Father?

A: Have I been so long with you and you still don't know me? If you have seen me you have seen the Father. John 14:7-9

And he said - I and my Father are one. And they knew what he meant and wanted to stone him because he was claiming to be God. John 10:30-33

Jesus never claimed to be God, not once in the NT.

John 10:30-33 King James Version

30 I and my Father are one.
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

Please note that Jesus was not claiming to be God when He said "I and my Father are one." It was the Jews who mistakenly thought that Jesus was claiming to be God.

“I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) means that Jesus and God are one and the same, so whatever pertains to Jesus, all His acts and doings, are identical with the Will of God Himself. Jesus and God also share the same Holy Spirit, so in that sense they are one and the same. Jesus also shares the Attributes of God so in that sense they are one and the same. The verse below says that God was manifest in the flesh; it does not say that God became flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

God was manifest in the flesh and that is why Jesus said to the Jews:

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

He was the image of the invisible God - in other words he was the body the invisible God took on to shed blood for our sins. Colossians 1:15

Colossians 1:5 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The verse does not say that Jesus was "he was the body the invisible God took on to shed blood for our sins", that is a Christian doctrine. Moreover, since the verse says Jesus was the image of the invisible God we know that Jesus cannot be God because an image is not the same as what it reflects. For example, if I see myself in the mirror, that is not me in that mirror, it is a image of me. I am still standing outside of the mirror. In addition ther verse says that God is invisible, and Jesus was visible, so we know that Jesus cannot be God. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God made Himself visible. Rather, Jesus says :

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.

The upshot is that you cannot make the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God work with the Bible because it contradicts the Bible left and right.

It's not two different individuals involved here. The Father is the eternal Spirit (God) and the Son is the body the Father made himself to dwell in and sacrifice for sins. God had to make himself a body that was able to shed blood and die. His eternal Spirit didn't have blood and could never die.

Again, nowhere in the Bible does it say "the Son is the body the Father made himself to dwell in and sacrifice for sins." That is a Christian doctrine and I have no idea where it came from, certainly not from the Bible. Jesus sacrificed Himself for our sins and inequities of all mankind, but it was not necessary for Jesus to "become God" in order to do so. Jesus was sinless because He was a Manifestation of God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Like I said above, we believe this based on what we believe is revelation, not really reason. How do you know that those stories in the Bible are correct, written after thousands of years have passed? Wouldn't God, if He did indeed reveal what the situation was to Baha'u'llah, know better?

Baha'u'llah is French for "cake and eat it too"

This is what it seems like.

So Truthseeker... What are the true stories about Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses? In those stories, are they perfectly polished mirrors?

For me, I don't know if the Biblical stories are true or if they are mere myths. I lean toward them being myths. But then, why call the Bible "God's Word"? But Baha'is, having their cake and eating it too, say how great the Bible is on one hand then say it is not 100% authoritative. But then take most everything that Jews and Christians believe about it and change the interpretation. Which is fine for you, and most of us here will listen to you and the interpretations of other Baha'is, but lots of us don't believe them to be true. But, Christians do the same thing to the Jews. They see everything they need to see in the Bible to show how their interpretations are correct.

I agree with Jews... the way they interpret their own Scriptures, Jesus is not only not God, he is not their Messiah. Then I can also see how evangelical Christians can say that because of the way they interpret the NT and the Bible that Jesus is God, is the Messiah and is coming back. But I don't see in Judaism nor in Christianity that Adam, Noah, Abraham and even Moses were manifestations. Therefore, God gave them misinformation? God let people write "Scriptures" and say things that weren't true? Maybe. But then the Bible and the NT should not be called "Scripture" or "God's Word". They be nothing more than people telling, and making up stories, about their God and their prophets. And why would any of that be true?

Except, the cake and eating too of the Baha'is. Baha'is need it to be true, in one sense, and untrue in another. God knows best? I don't think so. Not if he let people write things about him and his prophets that weren't accurate. Ah yes, they were true, the serpent deceived Adam and Eve, Moses parted the seas, Jesus rose from the dead... but only symbolically. And with that Baha'is make everything they want to true, but only if interpreted symbolically... and false, if taken literally.

 

[Trailblazer]

Like I said above, we believe this based on what we believe is revelation, not really reason. How do you know that those stories in the Bible are correct, written after thousands of years have passed? Wouldn't God, if He did indeed reveal what the situation was to Baha'u'llah, know better?

Not only did God know better, Baha'u'llah knew better, because Baha'u'llah knew what God knew.

“O KING! I was but a man like others, asleep upon My couch, when lo, the breezes of the All-Glorious were wafted over Me, and taught Me the knowledge of all that hath been. This thing is not from Me, but from One Who is Almighty and All-Knowing. And He bade Me lift up My voice between earth and heaven, and for this there befell Me what hath caused the tears of every man of understanding to flow.” Proclamation of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 57

 

[Trailblazer]

Except, the cake and eating too of the Baha'is. Baha'is need it to be true, in one sense, and untrue in another.

Baha'is do not "need" anything to be true except the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, and since we know it is true, we are not in need.

The Bible is old news, as it has been superseded by three Revelations from God. Time to put it on the shelf where it belongs.

“…….. Once in about a thousand years shall this City be renewed and readorned…
That City is none other than the Word of God revealed in every age and dispensation. In the days of Moses it was the Pentateuch; in the days of Jesus, the Gospel; in the days of Muhammad, the Messenger of God, the Qur’án; in this day, the Bayán; and in the Dispensation of Him Whom God will make manifest, His own Book—the Book unto which all the Books of former Dispensations must needs be referred, the Book that standeth amongst them all transcendent and supreme.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 269-270

Tablet of the True Seeker

 

[CG Didymus]

They might be far away from Christian doctrines but they are very close to what Jesus actually taught.

And what did Jesus teach? All we know is what got written by his followers. Some of it you accept and some of it you need to reinterpret and make it work with your beliefs. Unless... you think you have some of the actual teachings of Jesus? Since we can't trust Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and especially not Paul, who can we trust to tell us what Jesus really taught? Of course, Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha', and Shoghi Effendi.

And that's the problem, Christians interpret it the way they want to, and Baha'is interpret it the way they want to. But, it was written by Christians. The early Church leaders, some of whom met with some of the original disciples, also wrote things that backed up a lot of the Christian doctrines. Sure, you can take away Jesus being God, but Baha'i also take away a lot of the other early Church beliefs and doctrines. And, that's okay with me. I don't need an evil spirit being floating around messing with me. I don't need some inherited, and/or original sin. Although having a complete and total pardon for all my sins would be nice... just in case the Christians are right. But that's the thing. They, the early Christians, believed all this stuff. If they got it wrong, then I wouldn't trust the Christians that wrote the stuff down either. And, like I say over and over, if it's not true, then it is nothing more than myths and legends about a dying and rising God/man. Why believe any of it? Only because Baha'is need Jesus to be real... to be what they say he is... a manifestation of God, but not God.

 

[CG Didymus]

Baha'is do not "need" anything to be true except the Revelation of Baha'u'llah, and since we know it is true, we are not in need.

Okay, is the Bible and NT false? Why bother with the Bible and the NT if you don't need it? You need it to "prove" that God sent messengers in the past... and that all of them told of one who would come in the future.

 

[Trailblazer]

No argument that God is Jesus right?

God is not Jesus and Jesus is not God, not according to the Bible. Jesus is only God in people's minds because men voted and decided to make Jesus into God at the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Trailblazer]

And what did Jesus teach? All we know is what got written by his followers. Some of it you accept and some of it you need to reinterpret and make it work with your beliefs.

Baha'is do not RE-interpret anything in the Bible because that would presuppose that someone already interpreted it and they had the correct interpretation. As Truthseeker9 said "It's not our version, it's Baha'u'llah's version, whom we believe reveals God's word Himself. There are signs that Baha'u'llah is who He says He is."

Unless... you think you have some of the actual teachings of Jesus? Since we can't trust Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and especially not Paul, who can we trust to tell us what Jesus really taught? Of course, Baha'u'llah, Abdul Baha', and Shoghi Effendi.

You already know the Baha'i position on the Bible, but allow me to refresh your memory:

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible
(Rosebery, Australia: Association for Baha'i Studies Australia, 1996)

In studying the Bible Bahá'ís must bear two principles in mind. The first is that many passages in Sacred Scriptures are intended to be taken metaphorically, not literally, and some of the paradoxes and apparent contradictions which appear are intended to indicate this. The second is the fact that the text of the early Scriptures, such as the Bible, is not wholly authentic.
(28 May 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet....

The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments
(From letters written on behalf of the Universal House of Justice)

`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
For Bahais, anything that Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, or Shoghi Effendi said about the Bible supersedes anything Christians or anyone else believe it means. We would never question Baha'u'llah's interpretations, for this very simple reason:

“Know assuredly that just as thou firmly believest that the Word of God, exalted be His glory, endureth for ever, thou must, likewise, believe with undoubting faith that its meaning can never be exhausted. They who are its appointed interpreters, they whose hearts are the repositories of its secrets, are, however, the only ones who can comprehend its manifold wisdom. Whoso, while reading the Sacred Scriptures, is tempted to choose therefrom whatever may suit him with which to challenge the authority of the Representative of God among men, is, indeed, as one dead, though to outward seeming he may walk and converse with his neighbors, and share with them their food and their drink.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 175-176

And that's the problem, Christians interpret it the way they want to, and Baha'is interpret it the way they want to.

No, Bahais do not interpret the Bible "the way we want to." We interpret it according to what the Baha'i Faith teaches through the central figures of the Baha'i Faith -- Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, and Shoghi Effendi.

But that's the thing. They, the early Christians, believed all this stuff. If they got it wrong, then I wouldn't trust the Christians that wrote the stuff down either. And, like I say over and over, if it's not true, then it is nothing more than myths and legends about a dying and rising God/man. Why believe any of it?

Apparently, you are unable to parse out what is true and what is just stories. Apparently you are unable to believe in the important teachings of Jesus even if they were not His exact words, and discard the resurrection stories and all the other mythical stories in the Bible, but guess what? Not only Baha'is, but many Christians are able to do that just fine.

What many liberal theologians believe about Jesus' death

 

[Trailblazer]

Okay, is the Bible and NT false? Why bother with the Bible and the NT if you don't need it? You need it to "prove" that God sent messengers in the past... and that all of them told of one who would come in the future.

No, the Bahais do not need the Bible to prove anything that we believe is true. All we need to know is that Baha'u'llah was who He claimed to be, because if He was, then everything that we believe is true, logically speaking.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the evidence that establishes the truth of His claims. More specifically, Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings). Please note that Baha'u'llah did not tell us to look at the Bible in this passage.

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

 

[Trailblazer]

And so goes Baha'i interpretations of most everything in Christianity and most everything of every other religion too. Baha'is say they believe in all the other religions, and they say they believe in Jesus, but it's their own version of who Jesus is.

No, it is the version that is in the New Testament interpreted according to our understanding given what was written by the central figures of the Baha'i Faith -- Baha'u'llah, Adbu'l-Baha, and Shoghi Effendi.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that works really well for Jesus, but was Adam, Noah, Abraham, and Moses "perfectly" polished mirrors? You're the "rational" one, the "logical" one, how do all these other Biblical characters fit the Baha'i definition of a manifestation of God?

Sorry, I have to opt out on this because I do not know enough about them, but who said that they were all "perfectly" polished mirrors? Not Baha'u'lalh or Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi. Abdu'l-Baha only referred to Jesus as a perfectly polished mirror.

“All the creatures are evident signs of God, like the earthly beings upon all of which the rays of the sun shine. But upon the plains, the mountains, the trees and fruits, only a portion the object of their existence, while the Perfect Man 2 is in the condition of a clear mirror in which the Sun of Reality becomes visible and manifest with all its qualities and perfections. So the Reality of Christ was a clear and polished mirror of the greatest purity and fineness. The Sun of Reality, the Essence of Divinity, reflected itself in this mirror and manifested its light and heat in it; but from the exaltation of its holiness, and the heaven of its sanctity, the Sun did not descend to dwell and abide in the mirror. No, it continues to subsist in its exaltation and sublimity, while appearing and becoming manifest in the mirror in beauty and perfection.” Some Answered Questions, pp. 113-114

 

[firedragon]

You said to read the American translation in post #74. I'm not sure which one you mean, so let's take the ASV first:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

Looks the same.

New American Bible is the same too. The NASB, which is considered very word for word literal translation, also translates it the same.

The only version I am aware of is the New World Translation, the green bible of the Jehovah's Witnesses which translate the third clause of Jn. 1:1 erroneously as "the word was a god". Is that the one you were trying to refer me to? Please clarify.

 

[Riders]

Do you mean a Manifestation of God vs. an incarnation of God?

No .The idea that Jesus would say why call me good there is one that is Good that one is God and then have the remarks about Jesus being God in the new testament.

 

[Windwalker]

View attachment 51661

Okay, I'm fine with that translation. But what is the actual name of the translation called, and can you provide a link to info about it?

 

[oldbadger]

And that's a good question... Is God, a spirit, and therefore everywhere? But does the space taken up by some physical thing in the physical world not contain God?

Hi....
Thankyou for responding to my post, which made mention of my beliefs.
Well, that's a question for you to think about.
As a Deist I already believe that 'all is part of God'....... everything.

I was writing to a Christian, acknowledging his stated beliefs and faith, and then asking him if he could acknowledge my belief.

I suppose it's a game I play, because I can acknowledge just about anybody's beliefs, but I cannot remember any Christian ever just acknowledging mine. I don't usually expect an answer from extreme Christians. Only their particular creed or church has any value at all, I'm guessing.

 

[Trailblazer]

No .The idea that Jesus would say why call me good there is one that is Good that one is God and then have the remarks about Jesus being God in the new testament.

Yes, that certainly is contradictory.

 

[Trailblazer]

As a Deist I already believe that 'all is part of God'....... everything.

I Googled this and what you believe sounds more like pantheism than deism.
What does a pantheist believe?

Pantheism, the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe.

Pantheism | Britannica

Deism is a system of beliefs about God that includes everything we can know by the use of unaided human reason and rejects any theological beliefs that can't be proven by reason and can only be known by God's revelations to us through sacred scriptures.Jun 4, 2015
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tn-hbi-et-0604-god-squad-20150604-story.html
The God Squad: Deism embraces reason, but does not reject ...

 

[oldbadger]

I Googled this and what you believe sounds more like pantheism than deism.
What does a pantheist believe?

Pantheism, the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe.

Pantheism | Britannica

Deism is a system of beliefs about God that includes everything we can know by the use of unaided human reason and rejects any theological beliefs that can't be proven by reason and can only be known by God's revelations to us through sacred scriptures.Jun 4, 2015
The God Squad: Deism embraces reason, but does not reject ...

Hello Trailblazer.....
I believe that Pantheism is all about an 'Aware, involved' God.
I believe that Deism is all about an 'Unaware, Uninvolved' God.

And it surprises me, the number of so-called authorities that class Deism as a section within Theism. That's just impossible.
I go my own way within Deism.

 

[firedragon]

Okay, I'm fine with that translation. But what is the actual name of the translation called, and can you provide a link to info about it?

Its called "American Translation".

 

[Windwalker]

Its called "American Translation".

Not easy to find info on that, as all searches for "American Translation" pull up the NASB, which I cited from before. I did find "An American Translation", (AAT) which was done by a small group of scholars in the 1940's. Not a lot is said about it, other than this brief blurb in Wiki: The Bible: An American Translation - Wikipedia

It doesn't show up under Biblegateway or Biblehub as one of the long list of translations they have on their sites. It's sounds kind of obscure. How is it you are familiar with it?

Nonetheless, I have no issue with the translation that says "the word was Divine". That clearly is saying the Logos was God, just a little more refined in terms which the language supports. Do you see a contradiction with that and saying 'the word was God"?

 

[CG Didymus]

Sorry, I have to opt out on this because I do not know enough about them, but who said that they were all "perfectly" polished mirrors? Not Baha'u'lalh or Abdu'l-Baha or Shoghi Effendi. Abdu'l-Baha only referred to Jesus as a perfectly polished mirror.

Here's what I found on the manifestations being perfectly polished mirrors...

If God were to be likened to the unapproachable sun, the source of all light and life in our own solar system, then the Manifestations of God might be compared to mirrors that perfectly reflect the sun’s light in a form that human beings are capable of comprehending. “These sanctified Mirrors…are one and all the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty.”3​

And here's another one...

"Is the Divine Manifestation, God? Yes, and yet not in Essence. A Divine Manifestation is as a mirror reflecting the light of the Sun. The light is the same and yet the mirror is not the Sun. All the Manifestations of God bring the same Light; they only differ in degree, not in reality. The Truth is one. The light is the same though the lamps may be different; we must look at the Light not at the Lamp. If we accept the Light in one, we must accept the Light in all; all agree, because all are the same."[10]
"These sanctified Mirrors...are, one and all, the Exponents on earth of Him Who is the central Orb of the universe, its Essence and ultimate Purpose. From Him proceed their knowledge and power; from Him is derived their sovereignty. The beauty of their countenance is but a reflection of His image, and their revelation a sign of His deathless glory."[14]​

You don't know about Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses? I bring it up to Baha'is all the time. So in case you ever read about them in the Bible and then what it says about them in the Baha'i writings, let me tell you what the problem is... Even in Judaism these people were not considered manifestations. Why does the Baha'i Faith make into one? Were these people, especially Adam and Noah even real, historical people? The Bible says that Adam was the first man and that he got cursed by God for falling into temptation? That doesn't sound like a manifestation of God to me. So where does the Baha'i Faith get their information about him? Never mind, I found some stuff on Adam...

If we take this story in its apparent meaning, according to the interpretation of the masses, it is indeed extraordinary. The intelligence cannot accept it, affirm it, or imagine it; for such arrangements, such details, such speeches and reproaches are far from being those of an intelligent man, how much less of the Divinity -- that Divinity Who has organized this infinite universe in the most perfect form, and its innumerable inhabitants with absolute system, strength and perfection.

We must reflect a little: if the literal meaning of this story were attributed to a wise man, certainly all would logically deny that this arrangement, this invention, could have emanated from an intelligent being. Therefore, this story of Adam and Eve who ate from the tree, and their expulsion from Paradise, must be thought of simply as a symbol. It contains divine mysteries and universal meanings, and it is capable of marvelous explanations. Only those who are initiated into mysteries, and those who are near the Court of the All-Powerful, are aware of these secrets. Hence these verses of the Bible have numerous meanings.

We will explain one of them, and we will say: Adam signifies the heavenly spirit of Adam, and Eve His human soul. For in some passages in the Holy Books where women are mentioned, they represent the soul of man. The tree of good and evil signifies the human world; for the spiritual and divine world is purely good and absolutely luminous, but in the human world light and darkness, good and evil, exist as opposite conditions.

The meaning of the serpent is attachment to the human world. This attachment of the spirit to the human world led the soul and spirit of Adam from the world of freedom to the world of bondage and caused Him to turn from the Kingdom of Unity to the human world. When the soul and spirit of Adam entered the human world, He came out from the paradise of freedom and fell into the world of 124 bondage. From the height of purity and absolute goodness, He entered into the world of good and evil.​

Same with Noah... Was he and his family the only ones that survived a flood that killed all the other people on Earth? Apparently, the Baha'i Faith writes this, and his age, off as "symbolic"...

Noah and other patriarch years are symbolic[edit]
"Then the Master asked Esmael: "How old was Moses?"

"One hundred and twenty years," he replied. "But the patriarchs, such as Noah and others lived many hundreds of years."

"The Master said: "The age of those ancient prophets as recorded in the Old Testament is symbolic. It has a spiritual interpretation. Wert thou informed of the science of anatomy thou wouldst realize that this human mechanism and these material organs cannot last more than one hundred and twenty years.""

(Attributed to 'Abdu'l-Baha, Star of the West, volume 13, issue 6, p. 152)
Ark and the Flood symbolical[edit]
"The statement in 'Seven Days of Creation' certainly cannot be considered authoritative or correct. The Ark and the Flood we believe are symbolical."

(From a letter written on behalf of the Guardian to an individual believer, October 28, 1949: Baha'i News, No. 228, February 1950, p. 4; quoted in Lights of Guidance, no. 1716)
​

So, again, the Baha'i "truth" about the Bible stories is that they are to be interpreted symbolically. Fine, I don't believe they really happened. But then, why make the characters in the story real, and then make them manifestations?

Now what about the things said about Jesus? Virgin born? Why would he have to be? Unless you want to make him divine. Able to heal the sick and raise the dead? That is God-like power. Able to forgive sins? Even in the NT, that was the complaint... that only God can forgive sins. Yet, Jesus told a guy his sins were forgiven, then healed the guy of his ailment. Then rising from the dead and appearing and disappearing and then floating off into space. Surely he is God... but he was also a man. So he must be a God/man. And was that a problem believing such things 2000 years ago? I don't think so.

So for me, still, it might all be real and the exact truth, but I doubt it. But what I absolutely don't believe is that the NT and Bible writers all wrote "symbolic" stories. Fiction yes. That could be have some symbolic meaning? Yeah, sure. But I think their intent was to write a story that was to be believed as true. Stories that got people to fear their God. People got stoned to death for breaking God's laws. Can a symbolic, fictional story do that? Can symbolic fire from heaven that destroys a symbolic city of symbolic people put the fear of God into people and get them to obey? I don't think so.

So, same thing with Jesus. Why lesson to him? Is he just a man? Then forget it. But what if he was God in the flesh come down to teach them? And that's what I think they did. They put a lot of myth and legends into the Jesus story to make him a God/man. So what were the early Christians supposed to do? Of course, vote on it. And who's going to vote against Jesus being God? I don't have a problem not believing all those Bible stories and the NT stories, but I do have a problem with how they are explained away by the Baha'is.

​