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

[doppelgänger]

Heracles was God in the flesh and the son of God.

[UnityNow101]

Compelling arguments can be made on both sides...But when one wants to claim that Jesus is God Almighty, one must have absolutely rock solid evidence to confirm that, which does not exist. When I read that Jesus prayed to a Higher Power and told Mary Magdelene that He had not ascended to His God, then Jesus is not the highest and Most Powerful God Almighty. He is, however, a revealer of God's Word amongst men.

[Popeyesays]

Dear ChristianES,

By Jewish tradition and scriptural reference Jesus was the son of God, but then, so am I and so are you.

Regards,
Scott

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Muffled

It would be interesting to see those scriptures. Having seen Baha'is misinterpret other instances of their scripture, it wouldn't surprise me if the same thing has occurred in this instance.

www.bahai-library.org

I'm curious, though. Very briefly of course, where have you seen Baha'is misinterpret other instances of their own Writings? (Obviously this can happen -- we're as fallible as anyone else.)

And considering the volume of Baha'i Writings, how would you be very sure they're the ones misinterpreting the Writings? (Please don't take that as a personal challenge -- I have no idea how acquainted you are with the contents, though if you didn't know where to find them I am kinda assuming "not very" would be accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong.)

If a later scripture came along contradicting our scripture we would consider it as having come from the originator of lies.

One man's "contradiction" is another man's "correcting misinterpretation" or "updating laws to fit the times."

Some contradictions are real, and other just apparent. It pays to look carefully to see what's what, and not just take a knee-jerk reaction of "it isn't what I was taught, so it has to be wrong."

For example: I see Christians all the time using the Qu'ran to prove that Muhammad "contradicted" the Bible because Muslims don't accept a Triune God. Well, they think that's a contradition. Me, I look at it as a correction of a misunderstanding.

There was nothing divine about Mohammed or the
Bbaha'u'llah. They listened to God and related what they heard. I am sure that neither one made the claims that Jesus made.

That gets into a whole nother can of beans about various possible meanings of "divine." No Baha'i would define "divine" as "being God" -- no more than a Muslim or a Jew would.

We do view the Messengers as being not entirely like us. Fully human, yes, but also they have an unimpeded view, while we look through foggy glasses. Because of their unimpeded view, the Messengers don't make mistakes. We make plenty, though.

Hopefully this helped to clarify a few things.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Booko

We do view the Messengers as being not entirely like us. Fully human, yes, but also they have an unimpeded view, while we look through foggy glasses.

What if a Baha'i practitioner obtained an unimpeded view? Could they still be Baha'i? Can there be Baha'i mystics who are acknowledged part of the community even though they don't recognize any authoritative interpretation of Baha'i mythology?

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by doppelgänger

Heracles was God in the flesh and the son of God.

So was a dizzying array of other gods.

EDIT: However, the combination of sonship and monotheism is unique to Christianity. A rigidly logical understanding I think would produce henotheism rather than false monotheism. In most strains of Christianity, there is not only Father-Son-Holy Spirit but also a "heavenly host," "Satan," "angels," and "demons" all taking on characteristics which are normally attributed to members of the pantheon.

[Booko]

Originally Posted by Victor

Well, since I don't believe early Christians were Sola Scripturist, I don't think it matters to us whether it's in the Bible or not. Surely, you can see that many early Christians saw him as such?

Victor, many of those early Christians came from backgrounds where they thought it was normal to believe the Emperor was a god. So believing someone even greater like Jesus was God would've been like believing the sky is blue on a sunny day.

I don't think I necessarily have to interpret what Jesus said about Himself in the light of some old pagan Greco-Roman religious tradition. It's natural that they would do so, but why should I be bound by that?

I understand that you don't do sola scriptura, and I think you know I haven't any problems with that, but if it was so clear you'd think there might maybe be something in what Christ said Himself that might show it. (There *are* statements that appear to contradict the idea.)

Looking to the earlier religion of Judaism, there doesn't seem to be much of a precedent for claims like that either.

Which is the short reason of why I never did believe that Jesus was actually God. Well, that and a few others.

Christ was far more than any of us could ever hope to be, but it does not absolutely follow that He has to be God Himself either.

There are other possibilities, even if the Church has not chosen any of them.

As for what the Church has decided and whether it was "wrong," that would open an entirely new thread on the idea of "it is better to be unified than to be right."

This is a very Baha'i idea, and for that reason, I don't have a problem with the choice your Church made.

But not being a Christian, I am not bound by it.