'The Father is in Me, and I am in the Father', meaning the light of the Sun which symbolises God's Attributes are in Jesus, and same Attributes that are in Jesus are in God.
Then He would have said "the attributes," and made no reference to the Persons of Himself and His Father. To use your analogy, the mirror is not in the sun in any way, though one may say that "the sun is in the mirror", meaning that the light of the sun is in the mirror.
Notice that if these sayings meant that Jesus is literally equal to God, then we had to accept that the disciples of Jesus were Gods too, as in their case also it is written 'you are in Me, and I am in you'.
Jesus says that He and the Father are ONE. He never says that He and His Apostles are one.
Why not? The analogy is in the Scriptures. Does not scriptures call Jesus 'Mirror'? Does not scriptures calls God 'Sun'? Does not scripture calls Jesus 'Light'? Does not Scripture says Jesus face became bright as the Sun? Does not Scriptures says Jesus is image of God?
Jesus is called Light, Image of God, Sun of Righteousness, and His face became bright as the Sun, yes. But He is not called a mirror in the Scriptures.
The analogy is perfectly in the scriptures. All we need to do is put all these verses together to see the relationship of Christ with God in the light of the whole Bible. I honestly haven't understood why you think this is not in the scriptures.
The analogy does not exist in the Scriptures as you construct it. That's the difference. Every Christian from the early centuries that called Jesus a mirror did so in a manner different from how you Baha'i do. When they call Jesus a "mirror" of God, they mean something different than what you assert.
Well pretty much yes. Consider how many verses in both OT and NT says God spoke in parables. Consider the prophecies about Messiah are also figurative. Why OT talks about Emmanuel without actually saying this Person is Messiah?
Because the Jews knew a Messianic prophecy when they saw one. This is why so many Jews became Christians--3,000 on the first day alone.
There is no parable in the Scriptures which is left unexplained. The parable is first given to illustrate an image, then the image is explained immediately after.
In the verses there are signs. The NT verses are also not just outwardly. They have signs in them. Remember that the Prophecies about Messiah are mostly Figurative. When did Jesus have a sword? His words was sword. When was a king with the Crown? Why the OT did not make it clear that Messiah is not literally a worldly king so the Jews know about it, and don't fail to recognize Him?
The fact is that vast numbers of Jews did recognize Him. It was getting so bad for the Jewish leaders that they abandoned the Septuagint and removed several prophetic books from the final cut of their canon and stuck to only certain textual traditions.
You see, the Christian Leaders treat OT in a way to prove Jesus is Messiah, yet when it comes to NT they treat it literally. Don't you think this is inconsistent if not a double standard?
Not at all. The NT books aren't the same as the OT books. We treat the Gospels literally because they are the firsthand accounts of what the Apostles did and saw and learned and experienced with the Lord. They're not figurative. The Apostles didn't die for symbolic accounts. They preached Christ risen physically from the dead and preached that He is God come to save the world, and died for that witness, because that is what they actually experienced. They didn't die defending symbolic stories. They died defending their own witness and testimony of what really happened.
Also keep in mind that the Apostles personally trained and taught the Christian leaders. Your argument implies that the Apostles completely failed to teach their students.
Yes, I know what incarnation means. when you say 'incarnation of God' it means God from sky came down and took the form of a Man. But when you say image of God, it does not mean God came down. But it means His attributes became manifested in a Man on earth. Compare Sun with its image in the Mirror. I understand that you have hard time accepting Jesus was Mirror of God, and not literally equal to God. But consider that the beliefs that Jesus is equal to God in Essence was not Biblical to begin with.
All the fullness of the Godhead dwelling bodily in Jesus, Jesus being the Word which is God, Jesus and the Father being one, Jesus being called God?
[FONT="]
[/FONT]Look at Hebrews 1.
8 But of the Son He says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,[FONT="]
[/FONT]And the righteous scepter is the scepter of [
h]His kingdom.
9 “You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You
With the oil of gladness above Your companions.”[FONT="]
[/FONT]10 And,[FONT="]
[/FONT]
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth,
And the heavens are the works of Your hands;
11 They will perish, but You remain;
And they all will become old like a garment,
12 And like a mantle You will roll them up;
Like a garment they will also be changed.
But You are the same,
And Your years will not come to an end.”[FONT="]
[/FONT]
13 But to which of the angels has He ever said,
“Sit at My right hand,
Until I make Your enemies
A footstool for Your feet”?
These Psalm verses were applied to God directly in their original context. The author of Hebrews is using them to refer to Jesus. This is nothing other than Jesus being identified as God.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
I would demand you use Bible to show what 'Word' is. By this I mean use other verses in Bible to make your point as what is meant by 'Word'. Does it mean literally God? If yes how do you know?
I have posted John 1 before, and I will post it again. Hopefully you won't ignore it this time.[FONT="]
[/FONT]
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[
a] it.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.[b]
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him,and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own,[
c] and His own[
d] did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
[FONT="]
[/FONT]
If it means " the principle which orders the universe, sustains it and keeps it in balance" then make this by using scriptures." then the Word is not literally God, but according to this, it would be the 'Will of God, or command of God'
Right?
The Word is literally God according to St. John, not just His will or command.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, the personal student of St. John the Apostle, says this about Jesus:
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost. He was born and baptized, that by His passion He might purify the water." (
Epistle to the Ephesians)
"And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles." (
Epistle to the Trallians)
I have many more examples I can pull up. Needless to say, St. John was teaching that Jesus is in fact God--practically every Biblical scholar recognizes that Jesus is considered divine and is identified as God in St. John's Gospel.
But you and I both ask the same questions next: What does it mean that Jesus is both God and man? And what is the exact relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? It took later converts better versed in more technical and philosophical language to find the right words to sum up and clarify what the Apostles were exactly talking about in these matters.