-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Trinity
- Thread starter Atruthseeker
- Start date
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Just some facts about 'incarnation':
1. The word incarnation is not found in the entire Bible.
2. If we look at the writings of saints in early Christianity, many of them did not use this term and never called Jesus the incarnation of God.
3. The concept of incarnation existed in Greek Philosophy that predates Christianity.
The concept and definition of incarnation predates Christianity...those Christian leaders who became familiar with the concept of incarnation, took the expression 'word became flesh', to be the same as incarnation. So, they were influenced by the Greek Philosophy of incarnation in how they interpreted the Bible. In another words their mind was influenced and caused them to 'prejudge' mistakenly and relate Bible with another concept which was not in reality Biblical, but only apparently were similar.
As I demonstrated, 'Word became flesh' can be interpreted differently than incarnation, when seeing it in the light of the whole Bible and considering other verses of Bible, which describes Jesus as 'image of God', rather than 'incarnation of God'. It should be noted an image is different from the actual Being. If the Authors of Bible wanted to say 'incarnation of God', they would have. It is not like this word did not exist in their language and their time. so to say the apostles taught 'incarnation', is to put words in their mouth.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
I thought about this all night. I had a dream. It was inspirational. I don't know the "official" order of manifestations according to the Baha'i Faith, but in the vision I could just see kids in the 1st grade. "Hello, my name is Krishna. I'm an incarnation of the God Vishnu. We'll be learning about reincarnation today. Who can tell me what that means?" He looks around the classroom. "Yes, you." "Reincarnation is the recycling of souls into new bodies. If you have enough good karma you move up. If not, you become a big fat turd like Billy over there." All the kids laugh. The bell rings. "Okay, don't forget to do your homework. Read the Upanishads, the Vedas, and don't forget my book, the Gita."
The next year. "Good morning kids. My name is Moses. I'll be teaching you the Law and how to send plagues to your enemies. Who can tell me how many Gods there is?" "Well there is the storm god, the ocean god, the mountain god that lives in high places..." "Wrong, hear me, there is only one God and he doesn't like you worshiping false gods." He looks around the room. "Who wants to be sergeant of arms" "Me, me, me." "Okay you Elijah. Go out and kill Johnny." "Ahh, geez, how come he gets to kill people?" "Don't worry kids. Most of you will break some of the laws or do something wrong and the rest of you will be able to stone them to death." A kid raises his hand. "Are we going to sacrifice a goat again today?"
The next year Buddha. The next Zoroaster. The next Jesus. "You must all believe in me and be born again." "That's it?" "That's it. Now go out and play. It's recess time." "Hurray, I like this teacher."
The next year Mohammad. The next the Bab? "Hi, I'll just here for today. Tomorrow Baha'u'llah will be here to teach you the real truth. All the rest of the things you learned, forget them. They were only "relative" truth."
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe this is incorrect. I believe person is used as a convenient term without the real meaning of the word. The best that can be said is that Jesus is the representation of a separate person. However the reality is that He is the same person (using the spiritual definition as opposed to the material one).
Jesus does say that He is one with the Father and that is true spiritaully.
I believe this is not true. I believe the Paraclete is the Spirit of God in believers, so that The Father and Jesus are also that spirit within us.
I believe it is confusing because the concepts presented were incorrect.
Jensen
Active Member
Hi Icebuddy, these verses were posted to show that there are differences between Jesus and God,(not to have each and every verse analized) and that the things that applied to Jesus can not be applied to God because God is eternal and can not die, cannot be tempted, cannot be seen, cannot be a man, does not need to learn, does not need to be saved, is not weary, does not sleep, knows all...and being God and always God regardless of what form He may take, He would not be God if he did do those things listed which Jesus did; as God then wouldn't be described this way in scripture. If God did all these things while in the flesh, things that scripture says he can not do, then he wouldn't be God, just as these verses show that for this reason Jesus is not God, but representing God, and his messages.
Do you see what I'm saying?
[FONT="]God has no beginning (Psalm 90:2) - Jesus had a beginning (Matthew 1:18; Luke 1:31-35)
God cannot be tempted (James 1:13) - Jesus was tempted (Hebrews 4:15)
No man or woman has ever seen God (1 John 4:12) - Jesus was seen by both men and women (John 1:29)
God is not a man (Numbers 23:19) - Jesus was and is a man (1 Timothy 2:5)
God does not ever need to learn (Isaiah 40:28) - Jesus had to grow and learn (Hebrews 5:8-9)
God does not need to be saved (Isaiah 45:7; 43:11) - Jesus needed salvation (Hebrews 5:7)
God cannot grow weary (Isaiah 40:28) - Jesus grew weary (John 4:6)
God does not sleep (Psalm 121:2-4) - Jesus slept (Matthew 8:24)
God knows all (Isaiah 46:10) - Jesus had limited knowledge (Mark 13:32) [/FONT]
Jensen
Active Member
Hi icebuddy, I see that you offered verses that do not say Jehovah sent Jehovah....and it was the verse Hosea 1:7 that you posted as saying this when it doesn't which I replied to that that verse is actually about the LORD their God, and is not saying that Jesus is Jehovah. The American Standard Version say Jehovah their God. It is not about Jesus at all or that Jesus is the Jehovah that is Jehovah is sending.
Hosea 1:7
King James 2000 Bible
But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the LORD their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
American Standard Version
But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehovah their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.
Jensen
Active Member
I feel that wearing a cross is putting to much importance on a symbol then on Jesus who is the one that by whom we are saved. I don't need a symbol to remind me of the importance of what Jesus did for us. It is to close to idolatry.
Bearing the cross means that we must suffer for our sins as Jesus suffered for our sins.
It wasn't the cross that was our High Priest, but Jesus himself. I'll stay with that.
Jensen
Active Member
They are applied to Jesus only because Jesus represents God, he is bringing us knowledge of God, he brings us the message of salvation from God.....this is why he can be called these things. It really is that simple.
Jensen
Active Member
Christs return is to bring the resurrection of the dead, judgment day, and the New Kingdom, with Jesus' reign for 1000 years....do you believe that that has come about already?
Jensen
Active Member
Yes, he had prophesied his crucifixion, but he didn't choose it as the way he would be put to death. It was his dying that reconciled the entire world to God, not the cross.
Jensen
Active Member
King James 2000 Bible
Therefore in all things he had to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17
American King James Version
Why in all things it behooved him to be made like to his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. Hebrews 2:17
God chose a man, the man Jesus, to reflect him....he had to be made like his brothers. The one reflecting God did not need to be God. He was to be a priest in things pertaining to God....not pertaining to himself which is how it would be if he was God, which he is not.
Jensen
Active Member
Actually the bible says that man was created in the image of God. Where does it say that Jesus is the "ONLY" true image of God?
This to me is an indication of Jesus' becoming man, not that He is merely man. Especially in context of John 1 and Hebrews 1. In the rest of Hebrews 2, it references Jesus as the One Who sanctifies.
10 For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11 For both He who sanctifies and those who are being sanctified are all of one, for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren, 12 saying:
I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will sing praise to You.[c]
13 And again:
I will put My trust in Him.[d]
And again:
Here am I and the children whom God has given Me.[e]
14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. 16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
IOW, Jesus became man to share in our flesh and blood and our human experience, and in order to destroy death by His death, and defeat Satan, and to release us from bondage to sin and death. Hebrews 2 fits the Orthodox position to a T.
"becoming flesh" and "becoming man" ARE found in the Bible, which is the very definition of "incarnation."
But they do all call Him both God and man, in one way or another.
So did the concept of divinity, worship of the divine, Scriptures, festivals and feasts. What's your point?
But "becoming flesh" is literally what the word "incarnation" means. "Carne" in Latin means "flesh" or "meat". "In carne" means "in flesh." "Incarnation" is a verb or state of being in flesh or going into flesh, or otherwise taking on a fleshy form.
So, they were influenced by the Greek Philosophy of incarnation in how they interpreted the Bible. In another words their mind was influenced and caused them to 'prejudge' mistakenly and relate Bible with another concept which was not in reality Biblical, but only apparently were similar.
But you say that the Bible isn't to be taken literally. Even if it flat-out said "Jesus is the incarnation of God", it STILL wouldn't mean that Jesus is the incarnation of God according to you. According to you, "Jesus is the incarnation of God" would have a figurative meaning and is not to be taken literally.
Don't try to take the literal word of the Bible and say "Well look, the Bible doesn't literally say this--if the authors of the Bible wanted to say this, they would have," when you yourself don't believe that the Bible should be taken literally in the first place. It's moving goalposts and, quite frankly, incredibly inconsistent.
I think you need to look up what the word "incarnation" means. Hint: I gave you an etymology lesson up above.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
All religions need to be accepted as authoritative for them to work. Once a Christian believes in the NT, what is it that they believe to be true? "The Word was with God and the Word was God." "The Word became flesh." What were the writers of the NT trying to say? When they quote Jesus, what was he trying to say? The verse you quoted above says it all. Jesus believed he was coming to conquer Satan and death and pay the penalty for the sins of a wayward people. How did he do that? By rising from the dead. The NT builds him up in such a way that, somehow, he must be God in the flesh to accomplish that.
The Baha'i Faith to be accepted as authoritative cannot have Jesus as God. It can't have him rising from the dead. And, it can't have him being the one and only savior of humankind. They need Baha'u'llah to be God's true messenger for this age to have their laws be accepted and followed. They can't do that if Jesus is who the NT claims him to be. He, essentially, has to be proven false, at least, how Christians interpret him to be as false.
The "school grades" analogy only works on a superficial level. The important doctrines of all the different religions don't agree. They are not stepping stones to the next level. If they were to rather say that all religions had pieces of "truths" but were really man's poor attempt at knowing and explaining the truth, that would be different. But, the don't. They say all these "manifestations" were perfect mirrors and reflected the one true God. None of the religions fall into this grade school pattern. They don't describe one true God. They are all over the place in beliefs.
If such a thing were true, then a Hindu should have become a Jew, who should have become a Buddhist, who should have become a Zoroastrian, to a Christian, to a Muslim, to a Baha'i. And where other religious movements fit in, I don't know? They all seem to be trying to explain the supernatural in a way to get us to believe, to get us to love and respect each other. And in that way, barely, are all religions kind of one, one in purpose. The purpose of getting us to love one another. But, we don't. We argue and fight over what the "truth" is. Unfortunately, for all mankind to come together in love and truth according to the Baha'i Faith, everything you believe in... is wrong.
I know you don't feel it wrong. The foundation of your beliefs comes from the NT. It is what gives you the strength and confidence that what you believe is the truth. The NT tells you that Jesus did rise from the dead and he is real... and he, to you, is God. He said he would send you the Holy Spirit to teach you all things. The NT tells you this Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost. You are born again in the Spirit. And now you are told by a "manifestation" of God that all those things you believe are based on a wrong interpretation? That all those things were only "relative" truths and everything was meant to be taken figurative? It's sad, but if the Baha'i Faith is true, Christians never had anything. Everything they believed in and hoped for is false. If that is so, then not only wasn't Jesus God, but this god that the Baha'is claim is real, I hope, isn't real also. He's a deceiver and game player. He's playing with the hearts of men and women, getting them to commit and believe one thing only to dash their hopes and dreams. What is truth? I don't know. No matter what anyone believes, someone else seems to think their truth is better. Keep believing and living your truth.
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
But was he right? He believed Jesus was alive and well. He didn't believe that a look-a-like was crucified in his place or that after 3 days of being down in the dumps, the apostles got up off their butts and started teaching about Christ's message. Which if he didn't rise from the dead, what was the message they were preaching?
CG Didymus
Veteran Member
So to continue, what would the "school" of the truth God look like? Baha'u'llah comes into the class and asks, "Who can tell me who God is?" A Hindu raises his hand. "There are multiple Gods, but the main ones are Vishnu, Shiva and Brahma." "Wrong. Who else?" A Christian raises his hand. "Jesus is God the Son, then there is God the Holy Spirit and then God the Father." Baha'u'llah shakes his head. "Wrong. What have they been teaching you kids?" The Hindu boy raises his hand, "But teacher that is what Lord Krishna taught me. He said he was an incarnation of Vishnu." "Wrong, there is no such thing as an incarnation of God." The Christian raises his hand. "But Jesus said he and the Father were one."
"Oh my God, look." Baha'u'llah holds up a mirror to his face. "What do I see?" "You see yourself." "Is that the real me?" "No, it's a reflection." "Right, Jesus was a reflection of God. He wasn't God." "But the New Testament says the Word became flesh." "Wrong, there is no such thing as an incarnation. The NT writers were wrong. They spoke in parables and symbols. Now listen up, I'm going to straighten up all this confusing mess your previous teacher taught you. You can't believe what they taught you literally. Listen, forget all you know and think you know and I'll tell you plainly what the real truth is." A kid raises his hand. "If they were wrong and didn't tell us the literal truth, then why did we have to go through learning all those things they taught us?" "To get you prepared for me." "What?"
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Yes. Resurrection of dead, in our view is always spiritual, meaning every time, a Manifestation of God comes, by His guidance the spiritually dead is raised from their spiritual sleep. That is what was meant by Prophecies of Resurrection of Dead. Also, every time God manifests Himself, He judges mankind, just as when Moses, or Jesus came. Both Moses and Jesus are called 'Judge' according to Scriptures. Every time a Manifestation of God appears, His presence is 'Kingdom of God on earth'. 'Reigning' is also purely spiritual, and by that means ruling the hearts. Yes, all of them have come about....
InvestigateTruth
Veteran Member
Not according to Bible. If the authors of Bible mean it to be literally taken, they would have said 'incarnation'. The fact is they did not!.
The verse must be understood with its context and in the light of the whole Bible. Obviously God is not literally just a Word. The Word signifies the Perfections of God, that was manifested in Jesus, who was the Mirror of God, hence the Word became Flesh. Nothing whatsoever about incarnation.
No problem there. It is repeatedly shown through Him, the Will and Attributes of God was Manifested into the World. Moses is also called a god, and No it is not just because to say Aaron was to help Him. Moses was a god even to Pharaoh, and as scriptures says He was Like Jesus.
Those concepts are somewhat different from Bible. Even if they aren't (which they are), the point is you can find the words "worship of the divine, Scriptures, festivals and feasts" in Bible, but you cannot find the Word 'incarnation'.
Well this is a hypothetical scenario. The concept of incarnation had never been a divine origin concept. If it was you would find the word in Bible.
The proper way is to say, 'Christ was the word, the word was with God, and the Word was God'. This is what Bible says, and whatever is meant, God knows. To say it means 'incarnation' is to put word in the mouth of God. Not very good in my opinion!
The Bible has both literal and figurative verses. I am sure you agree.
I don't think I need to, because this word does not exist in Bible.
Jensen
Active Member
He did deny that he is God, in that he answered the Jews with this verse...
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
At the same time he said that he said this....
38 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.
and in verse ...29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and my Father are one.
Was he saying that he was the Son of God? Yes. Was he claiming to be the Father when he said I and my Father are one? No. He did not claim to be the Father, and neither do Trinitarians, and so what he is saying that he is the Son of God, and one in purpose and will, with his Father. Being the Son of God does not make him God. There is one God, and He doesn't birth
anyone.I have never denied that Jesus is the true Son of God. Surely, you know this.