The Trinity

[InvestigateTruth]

I believe you do. The Jews all of course believe that they are children of God. But when Jesus claims to be the Son of God, they know that He means something different by it.

It would be irrelevant if according to Bible Jews thought Jesus was claiming to be God or not. It wouldn't prove if Jesus claimed this or not, because:

- That could have been their misunderstanding of what Jesus claimed.
- It could be that they saw him as a threat to their power, therefore in order to justify killing Him, they accused Him of making Himself equal to God.
- Jesus broke some of the Laws, such as Sabbath, and annulled many of the Jewish Laws, therefore they accused Him of blasphemy.
- In their view Jesus was a false Messiah, because Jesus did not fulfill the Prophecies of Messiah in their view, since Jesus reinterpreted the Jewish Text.

Have you ever read the writings of the first Christians? We still have a lot of them. And they do teach that Jesus is God in no uncertain terms.

You seem to choose to see things in support of your view. oh, well, most people do....Firstly the Writings of all early Christians is not available to know what all of them believed. Secondly, based on the available writings, those leaders or saints had different views with regards to the station of Jesus, and often disagreed, until in 4th century the Trinity Creed was written to end the disagreements, which really didn't.
Moreover, your assumption that the early Christians necessarily understood the teachings of Jesus correctly, is merely your belief, with no proof.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

If Jesus cannot claim to be the one prophesied by Isaiah, then how much less can your prophet!

What you may have overlooked is Hebrew Scriptures prophesied about different Manifestations of God. Not just Jesus.

prophet can never be called the everlasting Father unless he were God, and according to you, he clearly is not. You claim that your prophet can be called God in a metaphorical sense. Yet you deny that Jesus can be called the Father in a way other than being the Person of the Father?

Except 'the everlasting Father' is the Title, not the incarnation of the Father. Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of the Father.

You look for explicit verses in the NT to claim something, yet you claim that the explicit meaning of the Bible in these matters is not what the Bible really means.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

None of these apply to your prophet, I'm sorry.

That's just your opinion.

They had disciples, and taught their disciples. Are we to not trust anyone aside from the Apostles? Were the personally appointed, hand-picked and favored students of the Apostles absolute idiots such that they couldn't understand their teachers? Either the Apostles imparted their knowledge to their students, or the Apostles failed to continue Christ's Church, and the Holy Spirit failed to guide the Church into all truth as Jesus promised.

And the point is?

This is grasping at straws. Not every word out of Jesus' mouth was figurative. Every time He spoke a parable or spoke figuratively, He always explained what He meant soon after if no one understood. [FONT=&quot]

This is just your assumption., which I have to say contradicts with scriptures, for example as recorded in Gospel of John, Jesus said He was speaking Figuratively, and for the second time He shall speak plainly.

[/FONT]I have already cited the Scriptures for you where the Holy Spirit descended upon the Apostles at Pentecost and initiated the mission of the Church, giving the Apostles inspiration. Your prophet is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit had already come upon the Church, and the Holy Spirit has never left us. He remains with us today. Your prophet is not the Holy Spirit.

Jesus said "the Sun shall be darkened, the Moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall", we Baha'is know what these terms mean, since Baha'u'llah revealed them for us....briefly Jesus was giving signs that, the Christian Leaders who were supposed to be light of guidance and bright, like the Sun, Moon and stars, shall become dark, and fallen, meaning they would loose the light of Christ, and at that time Christ returned as Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah means Glory of God, as Christ had said, He comes in the Glory of the Father.

This is a gross overexaggeration, but it's to be expected--if you took literally the things that Jesus meant for us to take literally, then your entire position would crumble.

This is just your opinion, you have nothing to support it.

 

[Jensen]

I believe you do. The Jews all of course believe that they are children of God. But when Jesus claims to be the Son of God, they know that He means something different by it.

Have you ever read the writings of the first Christians? We still have a lot of them. And they do teach that Jesus is God in no uncertain terms.

Then maybe Jesus should have said what he did mean, if he meant something different. Sorry, I still do not agree. I think he meant what he did say....that he is the Son.

I don't think that Jesus taught it. That is what is important to me.

Jensen

 

[Shiranui117]

What you may have overlooked is Hebrew Scriptures prophesied about different Manifestations of God. Not just Jesus.

And what evidence do you have for that?

Except 'the everlasting Father' is the Title,

Yes, a title which applies to Jesus.

I am not sure what you are saying here.

I'm saying that at one time, you assert that nothing in the Bible outside the moral teachings is to be taken literally. And then you turn around and try to interpret some prophetic verses literally--those same verses you say that can only be understood figuratively. It's nothing other than inconsistency in your position.

That's just your opinion.

And you have absolutely nothing to contradict it.

And the point is?

The point is that if you're right, then Jesus lied, made promises He couldn't keep, and the Holy Spirit failed. If you're right, then a "Manifestation of God" completely and utterly failed in their mission.

This is just your assumption., which I have to say contradicts with scriptures, for example as recorded in Gospel of John, Jesus said He was speaking Figuratively, and for the second time He shall speak plainly.

And Jesus started speaking plainly during His time on Earth. Four verses after Jesus said there would be a time He would speak plainly, the Apostles say this:

29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!

So Jesus dropped any figurative stuff with His disciples partway through His ministry. This doesn't mean that every word out of Jesus' mouth was figurative, it meant that Jesus was using metaphors to make His point. Here's an example of Jesus using metaphors:


Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. 21 When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. 22 So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. 23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

Jesus speaks clearly, but He also uses parables and metaphors to explain the point. The bolded is the illustrative metaphor, the underlined is Jesus' point in using said metaphor.

Jesus said "the Sun shall be darkened, the Moon shall not give her light, the stars shall fall",

Yes, and when He said that, He meant that when He comes again, His brilliance and light and glory will put the sun, moon and stars to shame; He will be so radiant, that all celestial bodies will appear dark in comparison. This is supported by the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 20:23-25 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there.

briefly Jesus was giving signs that, the Christian Leaders who were supposed to be light of guidance and bright, like the Sun, Moon and stars, shall become dark, and fallen, meaning they would loose the light of Christ, and at that time Christ returned as Baha'u'llah. Baha'u'llah means Glory of God, as Christ had said, He comes in the Glory of the Father.

So Christianity fell away as soon as it started with the Apostles, and it took God 1800 years to send another "manifestation"?? Talk about an absentee, inattentive (or maybe uncaring?) God.

This is just your opinion, you have nothing to support it.

This doesn't refute what I said.

 

[Shiranui117]

3 proven major errors in trinity based translations

1) Stauros( greek) an upright pole or stake---not cross. 0 proof on earth of what Jesus died on except that word in the bible. ( one thing for sure--the cross is a pagan symbol( table of demons) Jesus would have 0 to do with it.
2) Proskenau( greek) 4 different meanings to English--1) worship to God--2) obeisance to a king, plus 2 others----For the Messiah, Gods appointed king( Daniel 7:13-15) obeisance is the correct usage--worship is not.
3)John 1:1--- And the word was with HO Theos, and the word was Theos

Not calling the word--THE GOD-- calling the word a god( small g) --which means--has godlike qualities--it is not calling him the God.

Many being mislead by these 3 errors.

So Greek-speaking Christians didn't know how to understand their own language? You think that English-speaking, 21st-century American JW's understand the 1st-century Greek Scriptures better than 1st-century Greek-speaking Christians living in Greece and the Middle East?

 

[Shiranui117]

Then maybe Jesus should have said what he did mean, if he meant something different. Sorry, I still do not agree. I think he meant what he did say....that he is the Son.

I don't think that Jesus taught it. That is what is important to me.

Jensen

I only pray that I may be as peaceful as you in disagreement. You live up to the quote in my sig far better than I do. :namaste

 

[Jensen]

I only pray that I may be as peaceful as you in disagreement. You live up to the quote in my sig far better than I do. :namaste[/unquote]

Being that Jesus said....Say you of him, whom the Father has sanctified, and sent into the world, You blaspheme; because I said, I am the Son of God? ......I guess I am in good company then. We can be stupid together.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

And what evidence do you have for that?

In the same way that according to NT Jesus claimed to be Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures, likewise according to Baha'i Scriptures Baha'u'llah is the Manifestation of Lord of Hosts.

Yes, a title which applies to Jesus.

Not according to New Testament.

I'm saying that at one time, you assert that nothing in the Bible outside the moral teachings is to be taken literally. And then you turn around and try to interpret some prophetic verses literally--those same verses you say that can only be understood figuratively. It's nothing other than inconsistency in your position.

I don't think I said anything inconsistent. The Prophecies regarding Messiah were fulfilled symbolically by Jesus, and likewise the Prophecies regarding 'the everlasting Father' were also fulfilled symbolically by Baha'u'llah.

And you have absolutely nothing to contradict it.

Oh of course I have. The Baha'i Scriptures is the proof of Baha'u'llah, just as New Testament is the proof of Jesus.

The point is that if you're right, then Jesus lied, made promises He couldn't keep, and the Holy Spirit failed. If you're right, then a "Manifestation of God" completely and utterly failed in their mission.

I am not sure exactly why you think this way. Jesus did not fail to fulfill His Mission and to do the work of God, judge and say as God had sent Him to do. But the people perhaps gradually forgot His teachings, and misinterpreted His message. I see that as imperfections of mankind, not God or His Manifestations.

And Jesus started speaking plainly during His time on Earth. Four verses after Jesus said there would be a time He would speak plainly, the Apostles say this:

29 His disciples said, “Ah, now you are speaking plainly and not using figurative speech!

This verse means that the Apostles well understood that Jesus has been speaking Figuratively...In another words, Jesus told them Plainly that He has been speaking Figuratively, and they realized that, this is pretty much the only thing that Jesus said to them without Figures of speech: That I have been speaking Figuratively, when I come for the second time, then I shall speak plainly.

So Jesus dropped any figurative stuff with His disciples partway through His ministry. This doesn't mean that every word out of Jesus' mouth was figurative, it meant that Jesus was using metaphors to make His point. Here's an example of Jesus using metaphors:


Truly, truly, I say to you, you will weep and lament, but the world will rejoice. You will be sorrowful, but your sorrow will turn into joy. 21 When a woman is giving birth, she has sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world. 22 So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. 23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you. 24 Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

Yes, it is figurative. There are many, many more verses that are Figurative. But if I tell you what is it that Jesus did not say plainly, it would be that Jesus did not mean to say He physically returns. But someone else with Title of the Father, a Manifestation of the Father, would fulfill His second coming. Had He said this plainly, they would not bear it then. Therefore He alluded to this in figure of speech to veil it, and leave it to Baha'u'llah to reveal it plainly. I believe this was a sore test for mankind. Did they learn from the first coming and how they failed to recognize Him.

Jesus speaks clearly, but He also uses parables and metaphors to explain the point. The bolded is the illustrative metaphor, the underlined is Jesus' point in using said metaphor.

There is more into it than that.

Yes, and when He said that, He meant that when He comes again, His brilliance and light and glory will put the sun, moon and stars to shame; He will be so radiant, that all celestial bodies will appear dark in comparison. This is supported by the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 20:23-25 And the city has no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and its lamp is the Lamb.24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it, 25 and its gates will never be shut by day—and there will be no night there.

Except the celestial bodies are not literally stars, Moon and Sun in the sky. Jesus was not literally emitting light. His knowledge is the light of guidance. His glory is the light of God. These Religious leaders who would fail to recognize Him and become bright by His light, would be considered 'darkened' and 'fallen'.

So Christianity fell away as soon as it started with the Apostles, and it took God 1800 years to send another "manifestation"?? Talk about an absentee, inattentive (or maybe uncaring?) God.

No, it didn't fail right away. Consider revelation of Moses. For centuries it was the cause of righteousness, but when it wasn't fruitful anymore, and the teachings were only followed outwardly, and the spiritual death had arrives then Jesus came to resurrect the spiritually dead, and to renew the truth. Likewise the teachings of Christ was the cause of enlightening and unity for some centuries, until His teachings was not followed and misinterpreted more and more. Then at that time Muhammad came and brought guidance from God. His revelation was the cause of righteousness for many centuries, and the Arabs through His revelation came to a golden age. Then after a 1000 years, eventually the Muslims lost the Truth, and Message of God. At that Time the revelation of Baha'u'llah came to humanity. This is the cycle, that has no end. It is like the cycle of Day and Night. Light and darkness. Spiritual death and Resurrection. God never leaves us, to ourselves. He manifests Himself in every Age, whenever He wills.

 

[icebuddy]

icebuddy, I don't see your post as mean-spirited. However, based on several of your comments, there is clearly no reason whatsoever for me to respond to any of what you've said. I mean, you seem like a nice person and all, but your mind is obviously closed to anything I might say that otherwise give you additional insights into my religion. In other words, you've made up your mind that Mormonism is a false religion founded by a false prophet. Your response to pretty much everything I've said involves the Bible's warning about "false prophets." If there were never going to be any more "true prophets," why wouldn't the Bible have just warned against "prophets" in general? That would have made the case against Mormonism a whole lot more open and shut than it is. Since your mind is clearly made up, though, I'm pretty sure any further explanations or comments on my part would just fall on deaf ears. At any rate, this has little to do with "the Trinity" per se, so I'll just leave it at that. No hard feelings.

We are warned about False Prophets and in some way you and another here seem to have the same understanding about true prophets but 2 totally different prophets and beliefs. What Im trying to say is what validates a Prophet to be a "True Prophet"? Clearly the book of Revelation tells us that 2 True Prophets will be coming and I await for them. This Bahali religion says they already came in the form of Mohomid and Bahali (Spelling). Do you believe them to be True Prophets? What method do you take to figure this out? I made up my mind with that belief too, did you explore it and make up your mind too?

As for the LDS movement or "Restored Religion", I just dont see a need to be restored and 1 Church according to Jesus was to never have a closed door until his return...

No Hard Feelings... Im glad. Like I told Jensen in a PM, Ive got tough skin. What would you expect on a Trinity Board? Everyone to just fold their cards and convert...? Tough people will ask the tough questions...

In Love

 

[Shiranui117]

I don't think I said anything inconsistent. The Prophecies regarding Messiah were fulfilled symbolically by Jesus, and likewise the Prophecies regarding 'the everlasting Father' were also fulfilled symbolically by Baha'u'llah.

And Isaiah 9 is a Messianic prophecy.

Oh of course I have. The Baha'i Scriptures is the proof of Baha'u'llah, just as New Testament is the proof of Jesus.

Except I have no reason to accept your scriptures as valid or in any way inspired by God.

I am not sure exactly why you think this way. Jesus did not fail to fulfill His Mission and to do the work of God, judge and say as God had sent Him to do. But the people perhaps gradually forgot His teachings, and misinterpreted His message. I see that as imperfections of mankind, not God or His Manifestations.

One of Jesus' missions was to establish a church which would convey the Gospel--the Good News of Jesus Christ, Who He is, and what He did for us. If His Church failed, if the ones He appointed to lead His church fell into error, then Jesus' promise about the Church never falling was empty. His promise that the Holy Spirit would be with us forever and guide us into all truth was a lie. If His Church crumbled, then Jesus failed in establishing it forever.

This verse means that the Apostles well understood that Jesus has been speaking Figuratively...In another words, Jesus told them Plainly that He has been speaking Figuratively, and they realized that, this is pretty much the only thing that Jesus said to them without Figures of speech: That I have been speaking Figuratively, when I come for the second time, then I shall speak plainly.

So Jesus saying that He was speaking figuratively is the only non-figurative thing that He ever told His Apostles? Then how in Hades were the Apostles expected to preach the good news about Jesus when they couldn't even understand what the good news was? Why did Jesus trick them into speaking lies and falsehoods about exactly Who their Teacher was?

Yes, it is figurative. There are many, many more verses that are Figurative. But if I tell you what is it that Jesus did not say plainly, it would be that Jesus did not mean to say He physically returns. But someone else with Title of the Father, a Manifestation of the Father, would fulfill His second coming. Had He said this plainly, they would not bear it then.

No, they would have dealt with it just fine. They'd already seen Jesus risen physically from the dead, and He had already opened their hearts to understand the Hebrew Scriptures. After that, they were ready to believe whatever He told them. Had He told them that another prophet was coming, they would have believed Him.

There is more into it than that.

Like what?

Except the celestial bodies are not literally stars, Moon and Sun in the sky.

Have you ever taken a basic astronomy course? Here's what the term "celestial body" means:

The term celestial body is as expansive as the entire universe, both known and unknown. By definition a celestial body is any natural body outside of the Earth’s atmosphere. Easy examples are the Moon, Sun, and the other planets of our solar system. But those are very limited examples. The Kuiper belt contains many celestial bodies. Any asteroid in space is a celestial body.

Read more: Celestial Body
​

So when I say "celestial bodies", I mean things like "sun, moon, stars". This is the standard definition of what the term means.

No, it didn't fail right away. Consider revelation of Moses. For centuries it was the cause of righteousness, but when it wasn't fruitful anymore, and the teachings were only followed outwardly, and the spiritual death had arrives then Jesus came to resurrect the spiritually dead, and to renew the truth. Likewise the teachings of Christ was the cause of enlightening and unity for some centuries, until His teachings was not followed and misinterpreted more and more. Then at that time Muhammad came and brought guidance from God. His revelation was the cause of righteousness for many centuries, and the Arabs through His revelation came to a golden age. Then after a 1000 years, eventually the Muslims lost the Truth, and Message of God. At that Time the revelation of Baha'u'llah came to humanity. This is the cycle, that has no end. It is like the cycle of Day and Night. Light and darkness. Spiritual death and Resurrection. God never leaves us, to ourselves. He manifests Himself in every Age, whenever He wills.

Except with your argument, the Church DID fail right away, because from the start the Apostles and their students were teaching that Christ rose literally from the dead, He would return physically and raise everyone up from physical death by a physical resurrection and then the world would end, Jesus is God, God is a Trinity, Jesus is truly God and truly man, and the list goes on. If what you say about Christianity is true, it didn't take centuries for Christianity to fall away. It took days.

 

[icebuddy]

Originally Posted by Katzpur
I'm sorry, but if the Church led by the Apostles taught the Trinity, why do we have no evidence of this? I have never read a single comment by any of the Apostles that teaches of a God that is a three-in-one essence. If this is what the Apostles believed to be the case, they of all people should have been able to explain it. After all, they undoubtedly knew and understood the nature of and relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost better than anyone four centuries later did.
A fair point. But illiterate fishermen didn't have the vocabulary to succinctly formulate their experience of what the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was. They could speak of one God, and of the Father being God, the Son being God and man, and the Holy Spirit being God, and these three being one, but such things as essence and nature weren't in their vocab. They definitely had the firsthand experience of Christ that no one else had, and they spent thirty years relaying the mysteries that Christ had revealed to them and explaining Who He was. I don't think I need to explain to you that the witness of the Scriptures and the first Christians is that Jesus was God. 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.

A fair point. But illiterate fishermen didn't have the vocabulary to succinctly formulate their experience of what the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was. They could speak of one God, and of the Father being God, the Son being God and man, and the Holy Spirit being God, and these three being one, but such things as essence and nature weren't in their vocab. They definitely had the firsthand experience of Christ that no one else had, and they spent thirty years relaying the mysteries that Christ had revealed to them and explaining Who He was. I don't think I need to explain to you that the witness of the Scriptures and the first Christians is that Jesus was God. 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.

I would also like to add that some here think Jesus is an Angel, the same could be said, but there is far more pointing Jesus out as God... What Im trying to say is, does everyone here examine their own belief as hard as they do the Trinity?

The Facts are that Jesus did pre-exist and the Apostles didnt focus very much on this. However, not until all the books (Scrolls) where written did anyone start to make doctrines. Take the JW (WTBS) view of Jesus being Wisdom in Proverbs 8 for example. The Apostles didnt go around saying Jesus was Wisdom that needed Created. Yet the JW formed this doctrine after all the books came together. I dont agree with them, but thats how we as people progress.

You might say the Apostles didnt call Jesus God, but according to the scriptures I read, they Did. Jesus is called God in just as many ways as the Father himself is. Make a list of things that you would expect "GOD" to be, then see how Jesus is called all of these things too...

In Love

 

[kjw47]

So Greek-speaking Christians didn't know how to understand their own language? You think that English-speaking, 21st-century American JW's understand the 1st-century Greek Scriptures better than 1st-century Greek-speaking Christians living in Greece and the Middle East?

Catholicism translators under the guise of heresy--had 0 clue by then--over 1000 years before Catholicism allowed anyone but clergy to read the bible--the originals were gone by then no one had a clue. We do not have the first century transcripts--just Catholicism copies, and Jewish copies. The Jewish copies agree with the JW,s. They knew the language back then as well.

 

[Desert Snake]

Catholicism translators under the guise of heresy--had 0 clue by then--over 1000 years before Catholicism allowed anyone but clergy to read the bible--the originals were gone by then no one had a clue. We do not have the first century transcripts--just Catholicism copies, and Jewish copies. The Jewish copies agree with the JW,s. They knew the language back then as well.

Greetings
I think the trinity arises almost as a necessity, with any more than one Deity, however there are different ways to view this, and that depends on what someone believes about the nature of the gospels and their purpose in the first place.
A 'trinity' concept though, either trinity of Deity, or Unified Deity, does seem necessary here.

 

[Shiranui117]

Catholicism translators under the guise of heresy--had 0 clue by then--over 1000 years before Catholicism allowed anyone but clergy to read the bible--the originals were gone by then no one had a clue.

I think you're under the false impression that no layperson read the Bible before the 1500's. This is a common myth, but history tells a completely different story. Only in the medieval Western Church were lay Christians forbidden from reading the Bible. In the East, in the churches of Egypt, the Byzantine Empire, Antioch and Syria, Jerusalem and the Holy Land, Russia, Persia, India and Ethiopia, the Scriptures were made widely available for the public. All Fathers of the Church, East and West, strongly urged all Christians to read whatever Bible or single book of the Bible they could get their hands on. The medieval Roman Catholic idea that only the educated should read the Bible was a very severe departure of Roman Catholicism from what the Church taught, and thank God they've corrected their error.

We do not have the first century transcripts--just Catholicism copies, and Jewish copies. The Jewish copies agree with the JW,s. They knew the language back then as well.

Define "Catholicism copies"? There are many diverse textual traditions of the Jewish Scriptures. The Apostles and the Church used and cited the Septuagint, a Jewish Greek translation of the Old Testament composed several hundred years before Christ was born. The Orthodox Church to this day uses the Septuagint, just as the first Christians did. Your average Jew living in the diaspora outside Palestine didn't know a lick of Hebrew, so all the Jews living in the diaspora used the Septuagint.

Also, what do you mean by "Jewish copies"? Do you mean the Masoretic Text that didn't exist and wasn't written until the middle ages?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Except I have no reason to accept your scriptures as valid or in any way inspired by God.

Well, you asked me for evidence about Baha'u'llah being the promised one in Hebrew Scriptures. Let me ask you; if someone asks you what evidence you have Jesus is Messiah, what evidence you provide?
I suppose the best evidence is what New Testament provides. So you give new testament. The person tells you: "I have no reason to accept your scriptures as valid or in any way inspired by God". Well, sure, but you are free to study and investigate the evidence and decide for yourself if its true or not. Likewise you asked me, what evidence I have. The evidence is in Baha'i Scriptures, should you wish to study, investigate and decide for yourself on their truth.

And Isaiah 9 is a Messianic prophecy.

These Prophecies are related to second coming.

"Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." Isaiah 9:7

Baha'u'llah is the Lord of Hosts:

"The third woe is the great day of the manifestation of the Lord of Hosts and the radiance of the Beauty of the Promised One. The explanation of this subject, woe, is mentioned in the thirtieth chapter of Ezekiel, where it is said: “The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Son of man, prophesy and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near.” 23


Therefore, it is certain that the day of woe is the day of the Lord; for in that day woe is for the neglectful, woe is for the sinners, woe is for the ignorant. That is why it is said, “The second woe is past; behold the third woe cometh quickly!” This third woe is the day of the manifestation of Bahá’u’lláh, the day of God; and it is near to the day of the appearance of the Báb. "

Bahá'í Reference Library - Some Answered Questions, Pages 45-61

One of Jesus' missions was to establish a church which would convey the Gospel--the Good News of Jesus Christ, Who He is, and what He did for us. If His Church failed, if the ones He appointed to lead His church fell into error, then Jesus' promise about the Church never falling was empty. His promise that the Holy Spirit would be with us forever and guide us into all truth was a lie. If His Church crumbled, then Jesus failed in establishing it forever.

Except by Church, Jesus did not mean a Christian denomination. He meant religion of God, and of course that Church now exist as Baha'i Faith.

"Christ wished by suggestion, or an allusion, to confirm the words of Peter; so on account of the suitability of his name, Peter, He said: “and upon this rock I will build My church,” meaning, thy belief that Christ is the Son of the living God will be the foundation of the Religion of God, and upon this belief the foundation of the church of God—which is the Law of God—shall be established." Some Answered Questions, Abdulbaha

So Jesus saying that He was speaking figuratively is the only non-figurative thing that He ever told His Apostles? Then how in Hades were the Apostles expected to preach the good news about Jesus when they couldn't even understand what the good news was? Why did Jesus trick them into speaking lies and falsehoods about exactly Who their Teacher was?

The good news that Apostles were preaching, was related to the first coming of Christ, and they did understood it. But all those things that directly or indirectly were related to the second coming of Christ, was revealed in figurative language. I believe the apostles knew their meanings, but they were not allowed to reveal them plainly. Other things like the story of Lazarus, was intentionally written in symbolic language, as a test. If we read it with spiritual eye, then the veil is removed from our eye, and we can see its spiritual and inner meaning. God tests us by the scriptures, and one way of testing is by symbolic language.

No, they would have dealt with it just fine. They'd already seen Jesus risen physically from the dead, and He had already opened their hearts to understand the Hebrew Scriptures. After that, they were ready to believe whatever He told them. Had He told them that another prophet was coming, they would have believed Him.

I think we went through this a couple of times already.

Like what?

That the Father that Christ was speaking, was to Manifest Himself on the Day of Resurrection.

Have you ever taken a basic astronomy course? Here's what the term "celestial body" means:

"the signs and conditions which have been spoken of all have meanings, and are not to be taken literally. Among other things it is said that the stars will fall upon the earth. The stars are endless and innumerable, and modern mathematicians have established and proved scientifically that the globe of the sun is estimated to be about one million and a half times greater than the earth, and each of the fixed stars to be a thousand times larger than the sun. If these stars were to fall upon the surface of the earth, how could they find place there? It would be as though a thousand million of Himalaya mountains were to fall upon a grain of mustard seed. According to reason and science this thing is quite impossible. What is even more strange is that Christ said: “Perhaps I shall come when you are yet asleep, for the coming of the Son of man is like the coming of a thief.”‡ Perhaps the thief will be in the house, and the owner will not know it.
It is clear and evident that these signs have symbolic signification, and that they are not literal. They are fully explained in the Kitáb-i-Íqán. Refer to it."
Some Answered Questions, Abdulbaha

So when I say "celestial bodies", I mean things like "sun, moon, stars". This is the standard definition of what the term means.

There is a metaphoric meaning for these celestial bodies.

"Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear." Matthew 13:43

"The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor. So will it be with the resurrection of the dead." 1 Corin. 15:42



Meaning when the next Manifestation of God comes, on the Day of Resurrection, to awake the spiritually dead, some will rise like Sun, some like Moon, and some like stars....However, those religious leaders who do not recognize Him, their light is faded and are fallen stars (like Christian Leaders at the time of Baha'u'llah)

Except with your argument, the Church DID fail right away, because from the start the Apostles and their students were teaching that Christ rose literally from the dead, He would return physically and raise everyone up from physical death by a physical resurrection and then the world would end, Jesus is God, God is a Trinity, Jesus is truly God and truly man, and the list goes on. If what you say about Christianity is true, it didn't take centuries for Christianity to fall away. It took days.

Not all the early Christians understood these literally. Those who understood their figurative meaning, were not allowed to reveal their meaning, until the second coming Christ, He Himself would reveal it, in its own time. As the Book of Revelation says, only Christ is worthy to unseal the Book of God and reveal its mysteries.

 

[icebuddy]

Jesus said 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? ...when he was accused that he was making himself out to be God, he was denying what the Jews were accusing him of (being God) when he corrected them with his answer that he is the Son of God. There is no more to his meaning then just what he answered.

Only today can one say the "son of God" and not see the Son as Equal to God. First off, we are talking about Jesus after he emptied himself and the Father says, "Today I have become a Father". Before Jesus became the "Son of God" he was the Eternal Word. However, I see this as no different as one would see "Son of Man". Let me ask you a question: Can Jesus be a Man and the Son of Man at the same Time? So then why force he cannot be God when one sees "Son of God"?

When he said in verse ...29..... My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all;.....I think that he meant it just as he said...the Father is greater then all;

The Father is the First Person (Head) of the Trinity. i do not see a problem with the Father being Greater than Jesus within the Godhead of the Trinity.(I dont disagree) The "Fact" that he is called "Father" demands this. I see this as no different as a Husband and Wife. The Husband and Wife become one Flesh and the Husband is Greater in this union. The woman is equal in being a man, but submits to her husband. One thing we must see here, no one is "Forced" into Submission and this is a voluntary action that has no bearing on nature. If I submit to someone, that doesnt make me any less of a man or a mini-man. So why when Jesus submits do many make him a mini-god?

He is the Son of God, and one in purpose and will, with his Father.

I agree that they are one in purpose. They would have to be...

And he also said that we all are one with the Father and with him. He was not stating that he is the Father, and the trinity does not claim he is the Father.....to do so is what is called Oneness, and not the trinity.

The only thing i can say to help you understand the thought of mine is that if God was defined as a Plural entity (as the hebrew allows) And this plural Entity is like a Marriage between a man and a women. Then Could the Woman say the Husband is Greater and still remain inside that Marriage Entity? What makes you define God as a single digit person with no Possibility of being a plural entity? Specially when the Hebrew words for God are in the Plural?

In my post, that post, I was not on the topic of creation. Nor do I remember saying anything on creation in that post. Are you trying to change the subject?

It all goes together for a Trinitarian. If I read a passage that says God Alone Created and that no one helped him and no one was with him, then what are we to do when we find out Jesus Created and the Father applies passages of a Creating God directly to Jesus? Do we say Jesus was with God or that Jesus was God too? John 1:1-3 says exactly what we believe, that Jesus was God and with God. Not 1 thing created was created apart from Jesus. This is how we piece the mystery of God together. That is why we see Doctorines being developed after all the documents where read together as a whole. (Something that couldnt be done early on)

Actually, when I see Son of Man I see Son of Man, and when I see Son of God I see Son of God. Sons.....not sons being their father.

Let me ask you direct:
Do you agree that Jesus is the "Son of Man"?
Do you believe Jesus to be Man?

I am not going to define my understanding of Son of God by the thought of Roman leaders, Very bad example Tom, being that the bible was not written by them.

Let me ask you another question: Read John 5:18 where John inspired by the Holy Spirit says Jesus was making himself equal to God by calling God his own Father. What was John saying? This was said by John, who did write the bible.

What fits nicely together is believing what the bible says so many times, God the Father and Son of God. One Yahweh the other Jesus.

Where do you place Jesus before he humbled himself as a man?

If I where to read you Psalms 102:25-28 and then ask you if that is Yahweh what would you say?
What then If the Father tells you that this is Jesus too?

Now read Rev 22:12 to the end to a little child. After reading it to the little child, ask who the Alpha and Omega, First and Last, Beginning and End is....

In Love

 

[icebuddy]

Originally Posted by Jensen John
17 These things Jesus spoke, and lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son may glorify thee;
2 as thou hast given him authority over all flesh, that [as to] all that thou hast given to him, he should give them life eternal.
3 And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.


Jesus here is talking to the Father and calls him the only true God.
It can't get any plainer.

How accepted is this viewpoint in the Xian churches?

The Problem i see, is that some see the Term "God and savior" as one YHWH
Yet when revealed as "God and Jesus" people see One YHWH and a tool used by him

If you read Titus 2:13 it says we await the glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Question is: Who appearing?

In Love

 

[Desert Snake]

The Problem i see, is that some see the Term "God and savior" as one YHWH
Yet when revealed as "God and Jesus" people see One YHWH and a tool used by him

If you read Titus 2:13 it says we await the glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Question is: Who appearing?

In Love

I think that 'Lord' is clearly an indication of 'God'. That term was used for Deities, add that Titus verse and it is clearly saying that 'Jesus' is God.
Even Yeshua is a bit of a title, as are the terms used throughout the Bible for Deities.

But, back to the trinity, I think you can have three separate Deity and still maintain monotheism, this idea of a "problem" with that, is, to me of foreign import....It is non=theistic logical conclusion stemming from over=materialism/

 

[icebuddy]

If I were to read it?1 I have read Psalms 102 and have stated already that I believe it to be God. So bring it up again as if I hadn't read it? See my post 2585 it says Adonai, in Psalms 102 the name Adonai that is used in this verse is only ever used for God the Father and never for Jesus.

Is 9:6 uses the same word "EL" of Jesus...?

Remember that Jesus is the representative of the Father, and in these verses it has God saying ( Hebrews 1:5-14) Sit on my right hand,
not that he is saying that he is God.
Also I already covered those verses.

Jesus is still a man who mediates for us, once he completes this Roll, he will be as he was before the world began.

My discussion isn't about whether Jesus is created or an angel, so why do you bring that up? It blurs the subject. Why do you veer off the topic so much? You do.

I dont think this is off topic. Most people that dont believe Jesus as God have to place him somewhere. Where do you place him? Its clear you believe him to be Created, so one must ask, who do you believe Jesus to be? I would like to examine your belief as well. One thing i have learned is that its easy for anti-trinitarians to say "Jesus isnt God", but then where do you place him and why?

For example: i was listening to a radio show and one of the views was that the disciples didn't go around saying Jesus is God, so therefore he cannot be God. (Although we see Jesus being called God in the New testament books) At the same time, they also didnt go around saying Jesus was an angel, a created being, the Arch-angel, or any of that either. begging for the question: Why are the Trinitarian views being held under such Scrutiny that no other beliefs can stand under?

In Love

 

[icebuddy]

And if you were to ask Jews that believe in and practice Judaism they would say that Jesus is not the God of the OT, being that they do not even believe that he is their messiah, least of all their God, Jesus that is.

I guess they are too stupid to know who their God really was all that time, since some Christians say it is Jesus, and they would not accept this.

You clearly do not see my point. Every Jew knows that Ps 102:25-28 is YHWH or God
So if there is a passage that says Ps 102:25-28 was Jesus, kind of how some see Proverbs 8 being Jesus in the OT, what would you think then?

Humor me: If I could show you a passage that shows us that PS 102:25-28 was speaking of Jesus, wouldnt that make Jesus God or YHWH or Adoni of the Old Test?

1 Cor 10:1-4 also points Jesus out as who the Jew all know to be YHWH of the Old testament. If I where to tell a Jew that their Rock was anyone but God they would say I was Crazy or that the one who followed them by cloud was someone other than YHWH, they would say Im nuts or in error... However the NT tells us exactly that Jesus is this one...