The Trinity

[Shiranui117]

Sometimes the apostles in gospels did say they had a vision, and besides that, the chapter of revelation is full of statements that John saw visions....

And neither the Resurrection nor the Transfiguration were visions. Those literally happened.

Other parts of NT written by Paul also must be through inspiration, ....in either case it is irrelevant if they did say it is a vision or not every time...the fact is when the Scriptures is said to be inspired by God, it goes beyond literal history Book. Jesus said He was speaking Figurative in His first coming and that He comes again the second time He speaks Plainly. In either case it is not for us to decide if it is written literal or figurative, whatever God says we must accept, and Baha'u'llah who is the Manifestation of God fulfilled the Prophecies of Return of Christ, and unsealed the Book of God.

You can keep your prophet. I'll follow Who Jesus really was, what he actually did and taught, and what the Bible actually means.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Except the angels didn't tell the Apostles that Jesus would come down the second time the same way He did the first.

Even if they didn't say that Jesus would come down the second time the same way He did the first, that doesn't mean it would be any different. God already showed us what is meant by coming down from Heaven....I don't see why the second coming should be any different. I see that as a test from God, if we learn from scriptures, or we follow our own wishful thinking.

But going back to your statement that apostles didn't see visions, we know that this was a vision according to old Testament:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence." Daniel 7:13

Notice that this was a vision according to Danial, but when Jesus narrated same prophecy, He did not say this is a vision. This would mean that the scriptures does not always say this was a vision or it is symbolic, for these things are mysteries of God that He reveals in the language of Spirit, and not physical and literal. Anyhow, a vision must be interpreted 'symbolically'. Baha'u'llah explained that by 'Clouds' is meant all those things that causes men not to recognize the Sun of Truth. Just as the Cloud causes people not to see the Sun, likewise the symbolic meaning of cloud in this verse is those things that causes 'doubt' in the mind of men and does not let them see the Truth with their own eyes.

They said that, in the same way that Jesus ascended into heaven (that is, by soaring up beyond the clouds and vanishing). He would return (that is, appearing in the clouds and coming down on the clouds of Heaven, as He Himself said to the Sanhedrin at His trial).

Except, those verses are figurative.

And we are told to watch for Christ's return because we know THAT He will return from Heaven and HOW, but we don't know WHEN. This is what Jesus meant when He said that He would return like a thief in the night. Quoting from the Gospel of St. Matthew, chapter 24:
But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into.

It wouldn't make sense if Jesus said 'Watch', just because you don't know 'When' He comes. If He comes down from sky literally, and prior to His coming all those stars fall, Sun is darkened..etc, it makes no difference if you watch or not for if all these wonderful events were to happen literally You would know and recognize Him surely, then it is meaningless Jesus would emphasize several times 'watch'....Therefore the only reason that Christ would say 'Watch', is so that we don't fail recognizing Him. By watch is meant being spiritually awake to recognize Him.

Correction: The teaching of the Baha'i Faith that doesn't have a shred of Biblical support without completely mangling what the Bible says. Figurative or symbolic language doesn't contradict the literal reading like the Baha'i position does.

I believe if anyone reads Baha'i Scriptures with an open heart, free from bias, Then surely they see truth in them.


Either way I have already shown that if you say Christ was raised physically with flesh that contradicts with scriptures. Please refer to this thread:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ristians-what-purpose-day-resurrection-6.html

Let's not get too off topic....

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And neither the Resurrection nor the Transfiguration were visions. Those literally happened.

You can have your own opinion...I have already shown a case that not every time scriptures says 'this was a vision', or 'this is figurative'.

 

[sojourner]

the fact is when the Scriptures is said to be inspired by God, it goes beyond literal history Book.

The fact is that literal histories can be just as inspired as symbolic writings.

In either case it is not for us to decide if it is written literal or figurative, whatever God says we must accept

Problem is, it is up to us to do our due diligence in the work of exegesis. God never makes that distinction for us where the biblical texts are concerned.

That just means that the apostles were told plainly that Jesus was speaking figuratively.

No. It doesn't. That is patently NOT what John says.

Which church? there are so many churches.

The Church is one, with many dimensions.

Also there has been many scandals in every church, how can we say such churches were body of Christ?

Christians (who comprise the Church) are human beings -- no more, no less. Becoming a Xtian doesn't automatically make one perfect.

 

[CG Didymus]

...NT written by Paul also must be through inspiration...

So now "inspiration" equals "figurative"? So Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were "inspired" to write the gospels, the story of Jesus, none of it really happened. It was all figurative? When they were fishing, they were searching. When Jesus went up the mountain, he was really facing the uphill struggle of the soul. I get it now. Not one thing in the NT is what it seems. Nobody for nearly 2000 years had a clue, because God told Daniel to seal everything until the end times. Because Joseph told Pharaoh's men that the interpretation of their dream could only be told by God that meant everything, dreams, visions, what was and wasn't prophecy could only be told by God and the only one who could tell us what God meant was Baha'u'llah. No wonder Baha'is believe all religions are one. None of them are really true. They were all symbols and allusions of what the truth was, and that is, the Baha'i Faith is the only truth.

One problem, God told Mohammad that Jesus didn't die on the cross, that a look-a-like took his place. Was that figurative or was that true? Or, was the cross alluding to in this world there will be suffering and Jesus took all the suffering the world had to throw at him, and survived, and "rose" again from the grave of the emptiness that living for the world has to offer and ascended into the clear blue sky of heavenly knowledge that God is greater than the world.

Yeah, I think I like this figurative stuff. So Jesus is God in the sense that he perfectly reflects God like all the other manifestations. Oh, but wait a minute, I know Moses killed a man and, I don't know, but how perfect a life did some of the other "manifestations" live? I know a couple of them had multiple wives, but polygamy was okay I guess. No wait, I get it, that was figurative also. Many wives is like many lovers. So God was telling us to love everybody like a husband loves his wife. Wow, I see how this works.

So when Jesus says that there will be wars and rumors of wars, but that is not yet the end, he really meant, he would come back as Baha'u'llah right in the middle of all kinds of wars, because the wars he was really talking about were the wars of the heart. And those wars would be over, because the pure in heart would recognize him and their lifelong battle of wondering what the heck is going on would be over. They had found the truth... that is until the next "manifestation" comes along and tells us everything about the Baha'i Faith has been misinterpreted. Wouldn't it be funny if that manifestation says that he is Jesus and that God was just testing us to see how gullible we are.

 

[CG Didymus]

Christians (who comprise the Church) are human beings -- no more, no less. Becoming a Xtian doesn't automatically make one perfect.

Baha'is are humans too. They've had scandals and heretics also. I hope Investigate Truth doesn't try and use this as a legitimate argument to disprove the NT. Unfortunately, it kind of shows the lack of faith and commitment of people in all religions. But, like Jesus said, the lukewarm are the worst ones. Christian have a ton of them, but so do the Baha'is and, I'm sure, every religion.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

So now "inspiration" equals "figurative"

No!. It means the Book is not like a history book based on individual accounts. It means God inspired them to write the Book. If you read my discussion with sh. he was saying the Book s written like a history book, just based on witnesses...I said the Book says it is inspired by God.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Baha'is are humans too. They've had scandals and heretics also. I hope Investigate Truth doesn't try and use this as a legitimate argument to disprove the NT. Unfortunately, it kind of shows the lack of faith and commitment of people in all religions. But, like Jesus said, the lukewarm are the worst ones. Christian have a ton of them, but so do the Baha'is and, I'm sure, every religion.

Except we Baha'is do not believe any of us is infallible. The only Baha'i who was infallible, was Abdulbaha, who wrote volumes of 'interpretations'...but in Christianity none of those who wrote interpretations were infallible.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Christians (who comprise the Church) are human beings -- no more, no less. Becoming a Xtian doesn't automatically make one perfect.

Exactly!. That is why no denomination in Christianity, being Orthodox or else can claim to be an infallible and perfect church, or perfectly represent the Teachings of Apostles and Christ. That was my discussion with Sh.

 

[Shiranui117]

Even if they didn't say that Jesus would come down the second time the same way He did the first, that doesn't mean it would be any different. God already showed us what is meant by coming down from Heaven....I don't see why the second coming should be any different. I see that as a test from God, if we learn from scriptures, or we follow our own wishful thinking.

We do learn from the Scriptures. Jesus did not say that He would come and be born again. The fact that He ascended in His physical body shows that He has no intention of discarding it and being born again.

But going back to your statement that apostles didn't see visions, we know that this was a vision according to old Testament:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence." Daniel 7:13

Notice that this was a vision according to Danial, but when Jesus narrated same prophecy, He did not say this is a vision. This would mean that the scriptures does not always say this was a vision or it is symbolic, for these things are mysteries of God that He reveals in the language of Spirit, and not physical and literal.

So just because Daniel saw a vision of something, then that mean that when the Apostles saw the same thing, then it must also have been a vision even though the Scriptures never give us a single indication that it was a vision? I'm sorry, but logic doesn't work like that.

Anyhow, a vision must be interpreted 'symbolically'. Baha'u'llah explained that by 'Clouds' is meant all those things that causes men not to recognize the Sun of Truth. Just as the Cloud causes people not to see the Sun, likewise the symbolic meaning of cloud in this verse is those things that causes 'doubt' in the mind of men and does not let them see the Truth with their own eyes.

Actually, clouds have always been a signifier of God's presence. See Exodus 13, where God leads the Hebrews in a cloud by day, and in a pillar of fire by night:

The Lord was going before them in a pillar of cloud by day to lead them on the way, and in a pillar of fire by night to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. 22 [x]He did not take away the pillar of cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the people.

Additionally, God appears on Mt. Sinai in a cloud:

Exodus 20:21 So the people stood at a distance, while Moses approached the thick cloud where God was.

And throughout the Book of Exodus, and even the rest of the Pentateuch, whenever a cloud shows up before the people of Israel or in the Temple, it is always said that God is there in the cloud, or that the Lord is there, or that the glory of the Lord is there. We see this throughout the books of Kings and of Chronicles and in the prophets. Psalm 104:3 says that the Lord makes the clouds His chariots. The prophets, such as Ezekiel, that the glory of the Lord was in the form of a cloud, as in Ezekiel 1:28 and 10:4.

When Jesus said that He would be coming on the clouds of Heaven, it was only then that the Sanhedrin tore their robes and convicted Jesus of blasphemy. Why? Because the Jews recognized from the Scriptures that by saying He would come on the clouds of Heaven, the Lord was equating Himself with God, and identifying Himself as God. The Jews knew very well what this saying of Jesus meant from the Jewish Scriptures, and they knew it to be Jesus identifying Himself as divine.

Except, those verses are figurative.

According to your own opinion.

It wouldn't make sense if Jesus said 'Watch', just because you don't know 'When' He comes. If He comes down from sky literally, and prior to His coming all those stars fall, Sun is darkened..etc, it makes no difference if you watch or not for if all these wonderful events were to happen literally You would know and recognize Him surely, then it is meaningless Jesus would emphasize several times 'watch'....Therefore the only reason that Christ would say 'Watch', is so that we don't fail recognizing Him. By watch is meant being spiritually awake to recognize Him.

Well, He did say to watch, just because we don't know when He is coming. Indeed, how can we properly watch for the coming of the Lord if we don't even know how He will come in the first place? But rather, every single time Jesus tells us to watch for His coming, He says that He will come at a time we don't expect. Not in a manner we don't expect, but at a time we don't expect. Let me show you from the Scriptures:

St. Matthew's Gospel:

“Therefore be on the alert, for you do not know which day your Lord is coming. 43 But be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. 44 For this reason you also must be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not think He will. 45 “Who then is the faithful and sensible slave whom his master put in charge of his household to give them their food at the proper time? 46 Blessed is that slave whom his master finds so doing when he comes. 47 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 48 But if that evil slave says in his heart, ‘My master is not coming for a long time,’ 49 and begins to beat his fellow slaves and eat and drink with drunkards; 50 the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour which he does not know, 51 and will cut him in pieces and assign him a place with the hypocrites; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

25 “Then the kingdom of heaven will be comparable to ten virgins, who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2 Five of them were foolish, and five were prudent. 3 For when the foolish took their lamps, they took no oil with them, 4 but the prudent took oil in flasks along with their lamps. 5 Now while the bridegroom was delaying, they all got drowsy and began to sleep. 6 But at midnight there was a shout, ‘Behold, the bridegroom! Come out to meet him.’ . . . 13 Be on the alert then, for you do not know the day nor the hour.

And in St. Luke's Gospel, chapter 12:

“But [r]be sure of this, that if the head of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have allowed his house to be [s]broken into. 40You too, be ready; for the Son of Man is coming at an hour that you do not [t]expect.” 41 Peter said, “Lord, are You addressing this parable to us, or to everyone else as well?” 42 And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and sensible steward, whom his master will put in charge of his [u]servants, to give them their rations at the proper time? 43 Blessed is that slave whom his [v]master finds so doing when he comes. 44 Truly I say to you that he will put him in charge of all his possessions. 45 But if that slave says in his heart, ‘My master [w]will be a long time in coming,’ and begins to beat the slaves, both men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk; 46the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and assign him a place with the unbelievers. 47 And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, 48 but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of [x]a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.


So as you can see, it is the time of the Lord's coming we don't know, not the manner in which He will come.

 

[Shiranui117]

Exactly!. That is why no denomination in Christianity, being Orthodox or else can claim to be an infallible and perfect church, or perfectly represent the Teachings of Apostles and Christ. That was my discussion with Sh.

You can call me "Shira" if it's easier for you to type out.

Also, just because there are sinners in the Church doesn't mean that the Church isn't infallible. The Church is a hospital for sinners like me, and just because we have a lot of treatment ahead of us doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have the cure or the Physician of our souls and bodies.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

......
So as you can see, it is the time of the Lord's coming we don't know, not the manner in which He will come.

Both 'how' and 'when' was not plainly told. It depends on how you interpret them. I have already shown, by coming from Heaven cannot be literal as that was a vision, as well as in another thread I have shown why Christ's Resurrection must be interpreted figuratively. In any case, Interpretations belong to God. To me the Christian Leader repeated exactly the same as the Jews at the time of Christ did. Clinging to literal interpretations and missing the Truth.

 

[Shiranui117]

Both 'how' and 'when' was not plainly told. It depends on how you interpret them. I have already shown, by coming from Heaven cannot be literal as that was a vision,

You have neither proven the matter, nor given any solid evidence to support it.

as well as in another thread I have shown why Christ's Resurrection must be interpreted figuratively. In any case, Interpretations belong to God.

Indeed. They belong to God and were given to the Apostles by Christ. Interpretations do not belong to a Persian religious historical revisionist from the 1800's. And also, see that thread. I decided to continue it.

To me the Christian Leader repeated exactly the same as the Jews at the time of Christ did. Clinging to literal interpretations and missing the Truth.

Believe me, we don't just cling to the literal interpretation like the Jews. We see both the historical/literal AND the spiritual interpretation, without denying either. And we know when to apply one, when to apply the other, and when both are applicable. We know this because the Apostles who wrote the books of the New Testament told us how they should be interpreted.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You have neither proven the matter, nor given any solid evidence to support it.

I have done the proof, considering that I already discussed these in another thread I already left the link. I don't want to go off-topic too much here.

Indeed. They belong to God and were given to the Apostles by Christ.

And the apostles didn't write interpretations of Bible. That was left for Return of Christ to reveal 'plainly' all those things that was said in Figurative Language and to unseal the Book. I have already explained these, we don't want to go in circles', do we?

Interpretations do not belong to a Persian religious historical revisionist from the 1800's. And also, see that thread. I decided to continue it.

Well, you can have your own opinion. The Jews also say similarly: Jesus the false Messiah invented new ideas and Christians misinterpreted Hebrew Scriptures.

Believe me, we don't just cling to the literal interpretation like the Jews. We see both the historical/literal AND the spiritual interpretation, without denying either. And we know when to apply one, when to apply the other, and when both are applicable. We know this because the Apostles who wrote the books of the New Testament told us how they should be interpreted.

The Jews also do see many parts of Hebrew Scriptures as symbolic and spiritual. Its just that they usually don't see Jesus is the Messiah, for same reason the mainstream Christian fail to see Baha'u'llah as return of Christ. Both stick with 'traditional and literal interpretations by their religious leaders and the so called teachers. The point is, whatever God reveals that is the Truth, even if it is different than all your traditional understanding. New Testament explains the Prophecies of Messiah recorded in Hebrew Scriptures, and Baha'i Scriptures explain the Prophecies related to second coming of Christ, that was recorded in New Testament. It is up to you whatever you want to believe.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

You can call me "Shira" if it's easier for you to type out.

Also, just because there are sinners in the Church doesn't mean that the Church isn't infallible. The Church is a hospital for sinners like me, and just because we have a lot of treatment ahead of us doesn't mean that the Church doesn't have the cure or the Physician of our souls and bodies.

Ok Shira

Well, I really didn't see any proof that the Church is infallible. But I respect your belief. It's just that if you want to debate, I don't see those who wrote the Trinity Creed as infallible, and there is no proof for them to be.

 

[CG Didymus]

...I have shown why Christ's Resurrection must be interpreted figuratively. In any case, Interpretations belong to God. To me the Christian Leader repeated exactly the same as the Jews at the time of Christ did. Clinging to literal interpretations and missing the Truth.

What about the writers of the NT. Were they "inspired" and infallible? John 1:18 says that Jesus "explained" who God is. What does Jesus say about God? Was it literally true what Jesus said about God? If it wasn't, then what did Jesus "explain" about God? If it was all figurative and people were unable to interpret what he said correctly, what good was it?

In John 8:32 Jesus says to his disciples that they will "know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." What is the truth that Jesus told them? When Jesus spoke about Satan and hell, was that the truth? When he talked about salvation and forgiveness of sins in his name, was that the truth? When he said that he, Jesus, would come again, was that the truth? I don't know, what other "truths" did he talk about? And again, uninterpretable "truths" are not real truths.

On the way to coming up with the Trinity doctrine the main point surrounding the NT is the resurrection of Jesus. The NT implies that Jesus is God and that The Holy Spirit was sent to guide them and teach them. The NT is saying that what is written there...is the truth. Central to the truth is Jesus rising from the dead. Again, Paul says that if he hasn't risen from the dead Christians have nothing. Thomas touched the flesh and bone resurrected Jesus and calls him "Lord" and "God". That is what the writers of the NT are saying. If Baha'u'llah says different, then he is saying the writers of the NT were wrong. They wrote about things as if they were actual events. They wrote as if they witnessed a risen Jesus. They wrote as if Jesus was, somehow, God in the flesh. Were they infallible? If not, the whole NT is worthless, because we have no idea what really happened.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

What about the writers of the NT. Were they "inspired" and infallible? John 1:18 says that Jesus "explained" who God is. What does Jesus say about God? Was it literally true what Jesus said about God? If it wasn't, then what did Jesus "explain" about God? If it was all figurative and people were unable to interpret what he said correctly, what good was it?

In John 8:32 Jesus says to his disciples that they will "know the truth, and the truth shall set you free." What is the truth that Jesus told them? When Jesus spoke about Satan and hell, was that the truth? When he talked about salvation and forgiveness of sins in his name, was that the truth? When he said that he, Jesus, would come again, was that the truth? I don't know, what other "truths" did he talk about? And again, uninterpretable "truths" are not real truths.

On the way to coming up with the Trinity doctrine the main point surrounding the NT is the resurrection of Jesus. The NT implies that Jesus is God and that The Holy Spirit was sent to guide them and teach them. The NT is saying that what is written there...is the truth. Central to the truth is Jesus rising from the dead. Again, Paul says that if he hasn't risen from the dead Christians have nothing. Thomas touched the flesh and bone resurrected Jesus and calls him "Lord" and "God". That is what the writers of the NT are saying. If Baha'u'llah says different, then he is saying the writers of the NT were wrong. They wrote about things as if they were actual events. They wrote as if they witnessed a risen Jesus. They wrote as if Jesus was, somehow, God in the flesh. Were they infallible? If not, the whole NT is worthless, because we have no idea what really happened.

The Truth that is revealed by Manifestations of God is relative. The absolute Truth is confined strictly to God Himself, the unknowable Essene. Each of Manifestations of God, taught according to the measure of understanding of the people of their own time. Jesus taught according to the capacity of the people of His time to understand and accept the Truth. There is a saying by Paul, recorded in NT, that He states this analogy, when I was a child I understood like a child, but when I grow up I understand fully. It is basically the Progressive revelation. As humanity grows up, it develops better capacity to understand the Truth. Baha'u'llah also taught according to our ability to understand. When the next Manifestation of God comes, He would teach us more than Baha'u'llah. It is like school grades...so, if Jesus taught at grade level three, Baha'u'llah taught grade 5, and next manifestation more. But if Jesus had not come, humanity was not able to become ready for grade 5, how could a child learn grade 5 without passing the previous grades. Therefore each Manifestation of God is part of an ever-progressive revelations of God.

Regarding your question about Trinity, I quote from St. Augustine, He also seems to say same as what Baha'i Faith teaches:

" In his explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity, Augustine pointed out that Jesus spoke in similitudes and would later reveal the Father more plainly."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

 

[CG Didymus]

The Truth that is revealed by Manifestations of God is relative. The absolute Truth is confined strictly to God Himself, the unknowable Essene. Each of Manifestations of God, taught according to the measure of understanding of the people of their own time. Jesus taught according to the capacity of the people of His time to understand and accept the Truth.

Grades in school don't teach a "relative" truth. They teach basics that can be built upon. Religions and their founders are all over the place with what they teach. Whoever was first, let's pretend it was Adam, what did he teach? Nothing. He was a figure, maybe mythical, in the Jewish tradition. Was somebody in the Hindu tradition the first manifestation? But they've had several "enlightened" or "fully realized" saints and gurus and several "incarnations" of their Gods. They've got their own school going. It has nothing to do with the Jewish tradition.

But still, considering it's almost Easter, why would the apostles say they witnessed the resurrected Jesus if such a thing didn't happen? And, if it didn't happen, there is nothing in Christianity that is worth anything. Salvation through Jesus is the only thing they taught. That was their real, not relative, truth. So is their salvation in Jesus? If you believe in him, are your sins forgiven? If not, what good is the NT? It's a bunch of figurative sayings that people can't correctly interpret that is only "relative" truth until the next manifestation. So its time is over. Why read it? Why believe in it? Why trust in Jesus? He's irrelevant. There is no devil, hell, or eternal life as taught in the NT. None of it is real. So what kind of "school" is that? It's not the third grade leading to the fourth grade of Islam and then to the fifth grade of the Baha'i Faith. It's an empty, useless bunch of words that were never understood correctly. Right.

So Paul was right. If Jesus hasn't risen from the dead, Christians are the most pitiful of all people. They believe in a false hope... But wait, he says that Jesus did rise from the dead. Hmm? Somebody's lying. I assume it's Paul.

 

[Muffled]

That is an analogy!


And this analogy in both Biblical and the early Christians such as Saint Basil used it:

"And He, like the sun, will by the aid of thy purified eye show thee in Himself the image of the invisible, and in the blessed spectacle of the image thou shalt behold the unspeakable beauty of the archetype"

NPNF2-08. Basil: Letters and Select Works - Christian Classics Ethereal Library


In this Analogy God is the Sun, and Jesus is an spotless Mirror that the Image of Sun is Manifested in Him. And Just because the Image is in the Mirror does not mean the Sun came down. Likewise When it is said Jesus the Mirror of God, is the image of God, that does not mean 'incarnation'. Simple as that. Sorry if it bothers you if these are against your beliefs.

I believe it is also true that it does not rule out the incarnation since God provides images of Himself thoughout the Bible that are not associated with a body. If the text said that Jesus was only an imgae of God it would be different but it doesn't. The reason that God has to be revealed in an image is that He is a spirit and a spirit can't be seen so an image is necessary to reveal that God is there. So it is not a reflection but an apparition of God's presence.

I don't care if a hundred popes used it, I believe it is still erroneous.

When a person doesn't have the truth, it doesn't bother me but it does make me sad for that person. It sometimes bothers me when people use incorrect logic and when people ignore good logic.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

.....Somebody's lying. I assume it's Paul.

St. Paul accepted to be martyred for His belief. That shows He truly and sincerely believed in what He preached.