Did Jesus say he was God??? (moral, Earth, Messiah, virgin)

[JayHawes]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

As best I read it Paul is NOT laying claim to a revelation. Good. Just what I said.
NONE of athe Apostles lay claim to a Revelation from God. So your statement and my statement are actually the same.

Regards,
Scott

Paul was talking about himself, he used to figure to approach the subject because he did not want to boast about it.

2co 12:7And lest I should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to me, a messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I be exalted above measure.

Paul said to keep him from being exalted becuase he had so many revelations, a thorn in the flesh was given to him.

If you read He says, of such a man I would boast, yet of myself i will not boast. Then following he says for though I may desire to boast, I will not be a fool. ONe said of him would boast, the other man says no. Becuase he doesn't want people giving the glory to him. Paul, after his revelation became that "other man."

Does God give revelations to people? Yes.

Re 1:1The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

Did the Apostle Paul recieve a Revelation? He said he did:
Ga 1:11But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.Ga 1:12For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Paul lays claim to revelation also in Ephesians
Eph 3:3How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,

Your Statement, having cited the previous scripture, has been proven false.

[Popeyesays]

He's not speaking of personal revelations. The abundance of revelation in question is the abundance Christ's revelation brings to everyone.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

"Second, appeal to authority in the Baha'i Faith is on just as tenuous ground as appeal to authority in orthodox Christianity. There is no more gurarantee that authority was handed down correctly from Baha'u'llah to Abdul Baha and the Gurdain Shoghi Effendi than there is that the proto-Church properly followed Apostocil Succession and thus was free from error in the formation of doctrines, including the Incarnation and the Trinity. "


It's probably for another board to discuss the particulars, but the succession of authority is clear and explicit and in fact exists today in written form. The Aqdas in particular and two other tablets of Baha`u'llah pass the authority to interpret the writings of Baha`u'llah and the Bab are passed to Abdu'l Baha.

Abdu'l Baha wrote a will which is unassailed to create the Guardianship and appoint Shoghi Effendi to the Guardianship.

The only persons appointed to authoritatively interpret the writings were Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi. No one else.That puts the responsibility for interpreting for oneself squarely on the individual. And the individual is given no authoirty to interpret for another.

The authority is without doubt.

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

THe Most Great Branch is a designation not isolated to the Aqdas, but used any number of times by Baha`u'llah and indeed the whole community of the time for Abdu'l Baha. The Greatest Holy Leaf for instance was without doubt Bahiyyih Khanum, Ab du'l Baha's sister.

Baha`u'llah is itself NOT a given name either but a title. The "birth name" of Baha`u'llah was Mirza Husayn Ali al Nuri.

Persians of the time did not have 'last names' as we know them. The government of Persia made it law for people to take last, or familial names, about 1900 CE.

Abdu'l Baha assigned a 'last name' to Shoghi Effendi. That name was Rabbani. So the Guardian's legal name was Shoghi Rabbani. "Effendi" is a Turkish title meaning roughly "Respected"--a rough equivalent of the Arabic title "Mirza".

Regards,
Scott

[Popeyesays]

He Most Great Branch is a designation not isolated to the Aqdas, but used any number of times by Baha`u'llah and indeed the whole community of the time for Abdu'l Baha. The Greatest Holy Leaf for instance was without doubt Bahiyyih Khanum, Ab du'l Baha's sister.

Baha`u'llah is itself NOT a given name either but a title. The "birth name" of Baha`u'llah was Mirza Husayn Ali al Nuri.

Persians of the time did not have 'last names' as we know them. The government of Persia made it law for people to take last, or familial names, about 1900 CE.

Abdu'l Baha assigned a 'last name' to Shoghi Effendi. That name was Rabbani. So the Guardian's legal name was Shoghi Rabbani. "Effendi" is a Turkish title meaning roughly "Respected"--a rough equivalent of the Arabic title "Mirza".

Names are funny things. Who was Barabbas the criminal exschanged for Jesus?

When Simon Peter was taken by the Romans they asked him who he was, and according to the Gospels he replied, I am the son of my father.

Well, in Aramaic the words for that name, meaning "the son of my father" is Bar Abbas.

Regards,
Scott

[Dirty Penguin]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Sorry, I should have specified that I meant eternal in the sense of being uncreated.

It's all good. I'm often misquoted. I will stay away from the created vs. uncreated debates until a new thread pops up.

[color=blue]

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker;838154[/COLOR

He is the Son of God because He was Incarnated into a physical body,

I agree.....simply because he said he came from heaven and since he came from heaven and born here on earth...I can get with that.

Joh 6:38 (in part)"For I have come down from heaven..........

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

not because He wasn't God prior to the Incarnation.

We've clearly read what Jesus said. He came from heaven to do, not his will, but to do the will of God who sent him.

Joh 6:38"For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

But you failed to answer my question that I asked you earlier: Why should we accept your interpretations? On what basis, other than your own personal opinion,

And I asked you what interpertations were made. I gave you what Jesus said...;

Joh 5:30 "I can of Myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment
is righteous, because I do not seek My own will but the will of the
Father who sent Me.


Joh 6:38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but
the will of Him who sent Me.

Joh 7:16 Jesus answered them and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His
who sent Me.


Joh 12:49 "For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who
sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak.

John 13:16 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his master; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.

John 14:24
and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

Lu 22:42 saying, "Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me;
nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done."


Luke 3:21-22
Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, And the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.


Mt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the
kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.

Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?


As you can see I don't need to interpert anything. Jesus has said more than enough on this.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

do you reject my interpretations?

Uhhh...YEAH....

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

Well If I said Jesus is not God or God in the flesh because he clearly showed us that he wasn't...then YES......

Divine...Yes
A son of God...Yes
God...No

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Jesus said we are to honor Him just as we honor God the Father; I worship God the Father, and therefore I worship Jesus; you don't. It is you who apparently has difficulty obeying Him.

Difficulty obeying what?

You don't know me.....!!!!

If you want to worship Jesus then that is your way of life. I haven't criticized you on that at all because it is not my place to do so.

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Yes, God the FATHER. None of those negates that Jesus is God the Son.

"God the Son"???

If that is how you see it then that is ok....

Originally Posted by FerventGodSeeker

Let me ask you a question: Do you consider yourself a Christian?

I'm not sure that matters. As you can see there are other christians here that do not see Jesus as God. I don't think being a christian is a criteria for understanding what Jesus said.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Popeyesays

"Second, appeal to authority in the Baha'i Faith is on just as tenuous ground as appeal to authority in orthodox Christianity. There is no more gurarantee that authority was handed down correctly from Baha'u'llah to Abdul Baha and the Gurdain Shoghi Effendi than there is that the proto-Church properly followed Apostocil Succession and thus was free from error in the formation of doctrines, including the Incarnation and the Trinity. "


It's probably for another board to discuss the particulars, but the succession of authority is clear and explicit and in fact exists today in written form. The Aqdas in particular and two other tablets of Baha`u'llah pass the authority to interpret the writings of Baha`u'llah and the Bab are passed to Abdu'l Baha.

Abdu'l Baha wrote a will which is unassailed to create the Guardianship and appoint Shoghi Effendi to the Guardianship.

The only persons appointed to authoritatively interpret the writings were Abdu'l Baha and Shoghi Effendi. No one else.That puts the responsibility for interpreting for oneself squarely on the individual. And the individual is given no authoirty to interpret for another.

The authority is without doubt.

Regards,
Scott

Just as authority was given to the Church, with Peter having primacy, as recorded in the Gospels. That Church selected the Epistles of Paul as inspired, as part of the Christian Revelation. Likewise the Church was promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit to lead them into truth. Obviously the Church, to which authority of interpretation was given, found no conflict between the mission of Paul and the teachings and message of Jeus. And as I said, if things went wrong by the time of Paul, then things were already wrong by the time of the compilation of the NT canon, and so you can't appeal to the authority of the Gospels either.

If it went horribly wrong in spite of God's promise recorded in the Gospels, and if it went horribly wrong at Muhammad's deathbead in spite of the presence of the faithful, I don't see how amy authority handed down by Baha'u'llah or Abdul Baha has any greater guarentee of not also going horribly wrong, even with written documents that are believed by the faithful to substantiate that authority.

If it's consistency with the message of the Manifestation which is the guideline, then I think there are things written by Shoghi Effendi, and some by Abdul Baha too, that are in conflict or reverse what Baha'u'llah said.

As for the symbolic meaning and malleability of names it just goes to support my point that there is a level of interpretation to the wills and other places where authority is supposedly assigned.

luna