Did Jesus claim to be God?

[sojourner]

We seem to be getting hung up here trying to establish that Jesus is the same as the Father. It's clear that Jesus is not the same as the Father -- even Trinitarians will tell you that! We're obscuring the issue with a misnomer.

Jesus is God, just as Yahweh is God (just as the Holy Spirit is God). They are not the same person, though. One God, in three separate persons. Did Jesus say he was Yahweh? NO. How could he say that, when it wasn't true?

The problem with attempting to establish Jesus' divinity based upon direct Biblical quotation is that we are limited both by human understanding and human language, on the part of Hebrew, Greek and English. It becomes very hard to delineate what is actually meant by different words in different languages, especially when one is attempting to explain something that is mystery -- really beyond explanation. Language limits what the mind conceives (and conceives only in part.)

One has only to read the Bible for meaning, (not necessarily for factual content), to see that the intent of the writers is to portray Jesus as more than simply human. Obviously, the apostles thought of Jesus as more than human, especially after the resurrection. Jesus is portrayed as greater than Moses and Elijah. I feel that the Bible is pretty clear, when it quotes Jesus as saying, "The Father and I are One." Nobody else in the Biblical milieu claimed that. No Biblical writer protrayed anyone else in that way. I think that's a pretty good indication that the Biblical writers, hence, the earliest communities, saw Jesus as divine.

 

[Smoke]

Father + Son + Holy Spirit = GOD

ONE God...three SEPARATE manifestations...Father, Christ and Holy Ghost...separate yet the SAME God.

I understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is, but I don't think it's wise to try to express it with a mathematical equation. In the example above, God is the sum of the Persons, but in Trinitarian doctrine the Father is God, but is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is God, begotten of the Father, but is not the Father or the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is God, proceeding from the Father (for Western Christians, proceeding from the Father and the Son) but is not the Father or the Son. Yet there are not three Gods, but one God. If there's an equation that would express that, I don't know it. But then, I didn't go that far in mathematics.

 

[dawny0826]

I understand what the doctrine of the Trinity is, but I don't think it's wise to try to express it with a mathematical equation. In the example above, God is the sum of the Persons, but in Trinitarian doctrine the Father is God, but is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is God, begotten of the Father, but is not the Father or the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is God, proceeding from the Father (for Western Christians, proceeding from the Father and the Son) but is not the Father or the Son. Yet there are not three Gods, but one God. If there's an equation that would express that, I don't know it. But then, I didn't go that far in mathematics.

I fail to see how it is unwise to illustrate something that I wholeheartedly believe in.

I don't view the Trinity as you explain.

I believe in ONE God.

And my ONE God acts as Father, Son and Spirit. I view the Holy Spirit and Christ AS manifestations of God the Father.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit ARE God.

 

[Smoke]

I think that's a pretty good indication that the Biblical writers, hence, the earliest communities, saw Jesus as divine.

That wouldn't be surprising, since the New Testament was collected by people who believed that Jesus was God. But I'm not convinced that all the Biblical writers saw Jesus as God, and I'm not convinced that the Biblical writers are representative of all the earliest communities. Luke says that "many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us," so we know there were many gospels now lost to us -- though we do have a few of them. It also shows that Luke, undoubtedly a Pauline Christian, is not so much concerned with writing history as he is with declaring "the things which are most surely believed among us." But Pauline Christianity wasn't the universal form of Christianity; in fact, there were controversies from the beginning about Paul's understanding of Christianity. Pauline Christianity cannot be the very earliest form of Christianity; even the New Testament makes that very clear. In fact, you could easily make a case that Ebionite teachings are closer to the original beliefs of the Jesus community than Pauline teachings are

But the question is, Did Jesus claim to be God? As I've said before, I don't deny that people may have reasons for believing that Jesus is God even in the absence of any such teaching by Jesus, but that's not the question here.

Jesus says that he and the Father are one. He does not say, as later Christian orthodoxy would have it, One God. In fact, in another place he says that his disciples can be sanctified as he is, and can be one with God:

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
​

 

[Smoke]

I don't view the Trinity as you explain.

I believe in ONE God.

And my ONE God acts as Father, Son and Spirit. I view the Holy Spirit and Christ AS manifestations of God the Father.

In orthodox Trinitarianism, you can view the Son and the Holy Spirit as the manifestations of the Father to the world, but that cannot be confused with the inner relations of the three Persons. That is, the Son and the Holy Spirit do manifest the Father to the world, but they don't exist as manifestations of the Father. But a discussion of the Trinity is a subject for another thread.

 

[Smoke]

I fail to see how it is unwise to illustrate something that I wholeheartedly believe in.

I just mean that a mathematical equation seems an unwise way to do it. (In fact, the equation you gave doesn't express the belief you stated.) But to each his own.

 

[sojourner]

That wouldn't be surprising, since the New Testament was collected by people who believed that Jesus was God. But I'm not convinced that all the Biblical writers saw Jesus as God, and I'm not convinced that the Biblical writers are representative of all the earliest communities. Luke says that "many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us," so we know there were many gospels now lost to us -- though we do have a few of them. It also shows that Luke, undoubtedly a Pauline Christian, is not so much concerned with writing history as he is with declaring "the things which are most surely believed among us." But Pauline Christianity wasn't the universal form of Christianity; in fact, there were controversies from the beginning about Paul's understanding of Christianity. Pauline Christianity cannot be the very earliest form of Christianity; even the New Testament makes that very clear. In fact, you could easily make a case that Ebionite teachings are closer to the original beliefs of the Jesus community than Pauline teachings are

But the question is, Did Jesus claim to be God? As I've said before, I don't deny that people may have reasons for believing that Jesus is God even in the absence of any such teaching by Jesus, but that's not the question here.

Jesus says that he and the Father are one. He does not say, as later Christian orthodoxy would have it, One God. In fact, in another place he says that his disciples can be sanctified as he is, and can be one with God:

As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
​

You may be quite right! Possibly not all the early writers did view Jesus as divine. and the canonized writings that we do have are most certainly not representative of all the communities. They are only representative of the communities from which they were issued.

I beg to differ with you about Luke. It was Luke's intention to set down an "orderly account of the the events that have been fulfilled among us." We know by Luke's style of writing, by his attention to detail, and by his consistency with historic cultural attitudes, that he was attempting to write an historically accurate account. We also know that Luke wrote his history from a particular theological slant. Luke was, apparently, cognizent of what he was doing, and intentional about it.

You're also right in saying that Pauline Christianity wasn't the earliest form -- and it certainly wasn't universal. Nor was Petrine Christianity, although probably earlier than Pauline. But, all that aside, the earliest writings we have are Q, now only extrapolated from later texts, Thomas, from prior to the year 40 c.e., and the First Letter to the Thessalonians, dated about 50 c.e. The problem is that written Pauline theology (I Thess.) predates any of the canonical Gospels. Put simply, there is no conclusive proof that anyone "influenced" anyone else to a great degree.

What we do know is that, at some point, the major Christian communities communicated with each other, debated points just like this one, and came to consensus. We also know that all systems and communities grow and change with time. In time, the consensus of a Trinitarian understanding came about. It's, in all likelihood, not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

That's why I said earlier that your question was probably unfair. (That is, unfair to scholasticism.) We cannot, with any degree of confidence, separate the teachings of the Church from the teachings of the Bible, since the Bible was written by humans with the particular theological slant of the Church.

I've given my conjecture as to Jesus' apparent reticence on the subject, and as to the Biblical silence on the matter. In the end, we'll never really know just what Jesus understood himself to be. We can only guess. But, we can know what understanding the community had of Jesus, and certainly the modern community, with a fairly high degree of accuracy. And, in the end, the community is the only revelation of Christ that we have.

 

[Popeyesays]

We seem to be getting hung up here trying to establish that Jesus is the same as the Father. It's clear that Jesus is not the same as the Father -- even Trinitarians will tell you that! We're obscuring the issue with a misnomer.

Jesus is God, just as Yahweh is God (just as the Holy Spirit is God). They are not the same person, though. One God, in three separate persons. Did Jesus say he was Yahweh? NO. How could he say that, when it wasn't true?

Of course, He never said that He was God, because it was patently obvious that He was not. The problem, of course, is that without any mention in the Bible of equality between the "Father", the "Son" and the "Holy Spirit the whole concept of "Trinity is just dogma, not revelation at all. It is in direct violation of the Laws of Moses -
"6,4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 6,5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6,6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 6,7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 6,8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 6,9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates."
(Torah (Law), Devarim (Deuteronomy))

The problem with attempting to establish Jesus' divinity based upon direct Biblical quotation is that we are limited both by human understanding and human language, on the part of Hebrew, Greek and English. It becomes very hard to delineate what is actually meant by different words in different languages, especially when one is attempting to explain something that is mystery -- really beyond explanation. Language limits what the mind conceives (and conceives only in part.)

Language is indeed a limitation, but why can't one take Jesus at His word, when His word is clear?

One has only to read the Bible for meaning, (not necessarily for factual content), to see that the intent of the writers is to portray Jesus as more than simply human. Obviously, the apostles thought of Jesus as more than human, especially after the resurrection. Jesus is portrayed as greater than Moses and Elijah. I feel that the Bible is pretty clear, when it quotes Jesus as saying, "The Father and I are One." Nobody else in the Biblical milieu claimed that. No Biblical writer protrayed anyone else in that way. I think that's a pretty good indication that the Biblical writers, hence, the earliest communities, saw Jesus as divine.

The problem is that there are "seventy and two" meanings to every word in Holy Script, so interpretation requires amalgamation of as many interpretations as possible, rather than excluding interpretations til one reaches the self-invented SINGLE, ALONE, and ONLY interpretation and attempts to enforce such upon others - that's how empty dogma gets invented in the first place.

Regards, Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

"What we do know is that, at some point, the major Christian communities communicated with each other, debated points just like this one, and came to consensus. We also know that all systems and communities grow and change with time. In time, the consensus of a Trinitarian understanding came about. It's, in all likelihood, not perfect, but it's the best we've got."

The trinity dogma was invented to prevent the church from fracturing into hundreds of tiny self-exclusive sects. By the time of the Nicean council, Christians from competing theologies were rioting in the streets, murdering one another in public brawls, and plotting and executing plots of assassination, kidnapping, betrayal, and political maneuver against one another.

Nestorians, Aryans, Gnostics of many kinds, and other tinier factions were destroying the faith of God with their petty squabbles.

Something had to be done, especially since the Christian faith was being recognized as a state religion at the same time. That something was the creation of the "Trinity" from whole cloth.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Anastasios]

I fail to see how it is unwise to illustrate something that I wholeheartedly believe in.

I don't view the Trinity as you explain.

I believe in ONE God.

And my ONE God acts as Father, Son and Spirit. I view the Holy Spirit and Christ AS manifestations of God the Father.

Father, Son and Holy Spirit ARE God.

Well, this is obviously not the teaching of Jesus (pbuh).
At this point some might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Following is brief history of Trinitarian theology.

Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E. That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead.

For many years, there had been much opposition on Biblical grounds to the developing idea that Jesus was God. To try to solve the dispute, Roman emperor Constantine summoned all bishops to Nicaea. About 300, a fraction of the total, actually attended.

Constantine was not a Christian. Supposedly, he converted later in life, but he was not baptized until he lay dying. Regarding him, Henry Chadwick says in The Early Church: "Constantine, like his father, worshipped the Unconquered Sun; . . . his conversion should not be interpreted as an inward experience of grace . . . It was a military matter. His comprehension of Christian doctrine was never very clear, but he was sure that victory in battle lay in the gift of the God of the Christians." What role did this unbaptized emperor play at the Council of Nicaea? The Encyclopædia Britannica relates: "Constantine himself presided, actively guiding the discussions, and personally proposed . . . the crucial formula expressing the relation of Christ to God in the creed issued by the council, 'of one substance with the Father' . . . Overawed by the emperor, the bishops, with two exceptions only, signed the creed, many of them much against their inclination."
Hence, Constantine's role was crucial. After two months of furious religious debate, this pagan politician intervened and decided in favor of those who said that Jesus was God. But why? Certainly not because of any Biblical conviction. "Constantine had basically no understanding whatsoever of the questions that were being asked in Greek theology," says A Short History of Christian Doctrine. What he did understand was that religious division was a threat to his empire, and he wanted to solidify his domain.
None of the bishops at Nicaea promoted a Trinity, however. They decided only the nature of Jesus but not the role of the holy spirit. If a Trinity had been a clear Bible truth, should they not have proposed it at that time?

AFTER Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favor for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 C.E. to clarify the formula.

That council agreed to place the holy spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom's Trinity began to come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds. The Encyclopedia Americana notes: "The full development of Trinitarianism took place in the West, in the Scholasticism of the Middle Ages, when an explanation was undertaken in terms of philosophy and psychology."


THE Trinity was defined more fully in the Athanasian Creed. Athanasius was a clergyman who supported Constantine at Nicaea. The creed that bears his name declares: "We worship one God in Trinity . . . The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God; and yet they are not three gods, but one God."

Well-informed scholars agree, however, that Athanasius did not compose this creed. The New Encyclopædia Britannica comments: "The creed was unknown to the Eastern Church until the 12th century. Since the 17th century, scholars have generally agreed that the Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius (died 373) but was probably composed in southern France during the 5th century. . . . The creed's influence seems to have been primarily in southern France and Spain in the 6th and 7th centuries. It was used in the liturgy of the church in Germany in the 9th century and somewhat later in Rome." So it took centuries from the time of Christ for the Trinity to become widely accepted in Christendom. And in all of this, what guided the decisions? Was it the Word of God, or was it clerical and political considerations? In Origin and Evolution of Religion, E. W. Hopkins answers: "The final orthodox definition of the trinity was largely a matter of church politics."

 

[Smoke]

I beg to differ with you about Luke. It was Luke's intention to set down an "orderly account of the the events that have been fulfilled among us."

I have once again been tripped up by my preference for the King James Version. You're right.

The problem is that written Pauline theology (I Thess.) predates any of the canonical Gospels.

But although Pauline Christianity is just one of a number of early "subsets" of Christianity, it encompasses a wide range of beliefs besides orthodoxy. Marcion and Arius were both Pauline Christians.

What we do know is that, at some point, the major Christian communities communicated with each other, debated points just like this one, and came to consensus. We also know that all systems and communities grow and change with time. In time, the consensus of a Trinitarian understanding came about. It's, in all likelihood, not perfect, but it's the best we've got.

But in fact there was no consensus, and is no consensus. Many ancient Christians were never reconciled to Trinitarianism, and many Christians today are not Trinitarians.

We cannot, with any degree of confidence, separate the teachings of the Church from the teachings of the Bible, since the Bible was written by humans with the particular theological slant of the Church.

I think it's rash to assume that the whole New Testament was written from one particular theological perspective; it might be more accurate to say that it incorporates some perspectives while excluding others. But we do have some knowledge of the perspectives that were excluded.

But, we can know what understanding the community had of Jesus, and certainly the modern community, with a fairly high degree of accuracy.

We can't really speak of one community, not after the first few decades. We know there were various communities, with mutually exclusive understandings of Jesus. It seems rash to assume that the form of Christianity that became the dominant form is necessarily closest to the spirit and teachings of Jesus, or even that the earlier communities from which it evolved were necessarily the closest to the spirit and teachings of Jesus.

And, in the end, the community is the only revelation of Christ that we have.

Oh, Lord, I hope not.

 

[sojourner]

Of course, He never said that He was God, because it was patently obvious that He was not. The problem, of course, is that without any mention in the Bible of equality between the "Father", the "Son" and the "Holy Spirit the whole concept of "Trinity is just dogma, not revelation at all. It is in direct violation of the Laws of Moses -
"6,4 Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 6,5 And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. 6,6 And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy heart; 6,7 and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up. 6,8 And thou shalt bind them for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets between thine eyes. 6,9 And thou shalt write them upon the door-posts of thy house, and upon thy gates."
(Torah (Law), Devarim (Deuteronomy))



Language is indeed a limitation, but why can't one take Jesus at His word, when His word is clear?


The problem is that there are "seventy and two" meanings to every word in Holy Script, so interpretation requires amalgamation of as many interpretations as possible, rather than excluding interpretations til one reaches the self-invented SINGLE, ALONE, and ONLY interpretation and attempts to enforce such upon others - that's how empty dogma gets invented in the first place.

Regards, Scott

I disagree that it's patently obvious that he was not. I maintain that it's reasonable to ascertain from scriptural interpretation that he is. The Shema has no bearing in discrediting Trinitarian doctrine. Trinitarians believe that the Lord is One, too.

We can't "just take Jesus at his word," because Jesus is very reticent about the matter. We have to rely on reports and statements about him, which we do concerning other topics -- why not this one?

Again, it's pretty clear that the Biblical writers viewed Jesus as more than just a man. We find all kinds of Biblical passages talking about his divinity. That has nothing to do with limiting interpretation -- it has everything to do with the simplest of readings to find it.

 

[Popeyesays]

<SNIP for focus>
We can't "just take Jesus at his word," because Jesus is very reticent about the matter. We have to rely on reports and statements about him, which we do concerning other topics -- why not this one?

Again, it's pretty clear that the Biblical writers viewed Jesus as more than just a man. We find all kinds of Biblical passages talking about his divinity. That has nothing to do with limiting interpretation -- it has everything to do with the simplest of readings to find it.

Jesus isn't reticent about the matter. At every opportunity to subordinate Himself to God He does just that. And if one leg of the trinity is subordinated to another leg, the whole thing falls over.

I consider Jesus more than just a man as well, but I do without considering Him to be God. I consider Him to be of a different "Kingdom" than man.
Those Kingdoms from top down are:
God - Single, Alone, without partner nor equal,

The Kingdom of the Manifestations where Jesus and those other Daystars of God stand between the Knowledge of God and mankind.

The Kingdom of Man which is the pinnacle of Creation, where volition, choice and free will are evident

The Kingdom of Animals, where instinct, behavior, action are manifested.

The Vegetable Kingodm, where growth, vegetation, and the harnessing of energy are evident

The Mineral Kingdom where all the non-animate facets of creation are manifested.

So, it is possible to think Jesus "other than man" is possible without making Him God against His wishes.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

I have once again been tripped up by my preference for the King James Version. You're right.


But although Pauline Christianity is just one of a number of early "subsets" of Christianity, it encompasses a wide range of beliefs besides orthodoxy. Marcion and Arius were both Pauline Christians.

But in fact there was no consensus, and is no consensus. Many ancient Christians were never reconciled to Trinitarianism, and many Christians today are not Trinitarians.

I think it's rash to assume that the whole New Testament was written from one particular theological perspective; it might be more accurate to say that it incorporates some perspectives while excluding others. But we do have some knowledge of the perspectives that were excluded.

We can't really speak of one community, not after the first few decades. We know there were various communities, with mutually exclusive understandings of Jesus. It seems rash to assume that the form of Christianity that became the dominant form is necessarily closest to the spirit and teachings of Jesus, or even that the earlier communities from which it evolved were necessarily the closest to the spirit and teachings of Jesus.

Oh, Lord, I hope not.

1) Well...to an extent. They did deviate. But, point taken. Pauline Xy is not the sum total of orthodoxy. I never claimed that it was. I was pointing out that Paul seemed to form a consensus among several communities.

2) Of course there's no actual consensus. But, I maintain that, while some communities do not subscribe to strict trinitarianism, most (if not all) still ascribe some form of divinity to Jesus. Again, as I said earlier, I'm not sure that any concise human definition could be given to the nature of the three Persons. Certainly any formulaic expression (as you said with regard to mathematical equations) is bound to contain holes. While I maintain that I am Trinitarian, I do not pretend to understand all that means, nor can I explain it. But...I do have faith that it is. That's the best any of us can do.

3) You're probably right. But, I don't really think a "correct" understanding is all that important to Jesus, much as many communities would like to think that it is. In the end, all Trinitarianism does is provide us a general way to think about and talk about the Three.

4) Well...I hate to disappoint you. Unfortunately, the human community is the best reflection we have of the nature of Jesus. :faint: Sorry...

 

[sojourner]

Jesus isn't reticent about the matter. At every opportunity to subordinate Himself to God He does just that. And if one leg of the trinity is subordinated to another leg, the whole thing falls over.

I consider Jesus more than just a man as well, but I do without considering Him to be God. I consider Him to be of a different "Kingdom" than man.
Those Kingdoms from top down are:
God - Single, Alone, without partner nor equal,

The Kingdom of the Manifestations where Jesus and those other Daystars of God stand between the Knowledge of God and mankind.

The Kingdom of Man which is the pinnacle of Creation, where volition, choice and free will are evident

The Kingdom of Animals, where instinct, behavior, action are manifested.

The Vegetable Kingodm, where growth, vegetation, and the harnessing of energy are evident

The Mineral Kingdom where all the non-animate facets of creation are manifested.

So, it is possible to think Jesus "other than man" is possible without making Him God against His wishes.

Regards,
Scott

I don't think it's particularly "against his wishes" that we conceptualize him in that way. Y'all have your way of thinking about Jesus, and we have ours.
But, consider this:
I wonder why Jesus is presented as doing that? What did the writers have in mind? If the quotations are authentic, what did Jesus have in mind when he did and said what he did? I'm just not so sure that it's reasonable to take what's written on the page at "face value." I think we need to dig deeper.

 

[Popeyesays]

I don't think it's particularly "against his wishes" that we conceptualize him in that way. Y'all have your way of thinking about Jesus, and we have ours.
But, consider this:
I wonder why Jesus is presented as doing that? What did the writers have in mind? If the quotations are authentic, what did Jesus have in mind when he did and said what he did? I'm just not so sure that it's reasonable to take what's written on the page at "face value." I think we need to dig deeper.

Well, without doubt Jesus, like the other Manifestations KNOWS all of God's message to mankind from beginning to end of that revelation. But when He transmits that message to mankind, He is bound by the will of God as to what He can transmit at any given time. Jesus said it Himself: "There are many things I have to tell you, but you cannot bear them now."

God has a message to deliver, but the Manifestation is guided to reveal what God desires at that point in time.

So, the revelation of Jesus IS incomplete in respect to the entire revelation of God. That is a fact, and it will take another step in this progressive nature of revelation to reveal more. One, then, is welcome to dig deeper, but should be aware that once he has dug beneath the message, the dirt he overturns is more likely to be his own imagination and idle fancies than revelation. That's where dogma comes from.

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

Well, without doubt Jesus, like the other Manifestations KNOWS all of God's message to mankind from beginning to end of that revelation. But when He transmits that message to mankind, He is bound by the will of God as to what He can transmit at any given time. Jesus said it Himself: &quot;There are many things I have to tell you, but you cannot bear them now.&quot;

God has a message to deliver, but the Manifestation is guided to reveal what God desires at that point in time.

So, the revelation of Jesus IS incomplete in respect to the entire revelation of God. That is a fact, and it will take another step in this progressive nature of revelation to reveal more. One, then, is welcome to dig deeper, but should be aware that once he has dug beneath the message, the dirt he overturns is more likely to be his own imagination and idle fancies than revelation. That's where dogma comes from.

Regards,
Scott

Nowhere in the Bible will you find it written that Jesus is simply one human "manifestation" of God's Spirit. That belief has even less Biblical veracity than trinitarian doctrine. Insufficient scholarship is likely to breed the imaginary and dogmatic sort of idle fancy that we find so often in attempting to define Jesus. Where in the Bible does Jesus say that, after he goes, God will send Mizra Ali Muhammad to reveal what Jesus "could not reveal?" While it may, indeed be true that later devout people have spoken the word of God -- and I inlcude people like John Paul II, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King, Jr, those words are rooted in Christ, from the Christian viewpoint. they really add nothing to what Christ has already revealed. God became human in the person of Jesus. In that event, God fully entered the human story and thus reconciled humanity to God's self. In Christ was full revelation. ("He who has seen me has seen the Father...") The Christ-event was the completion of creation and has lifted humanity so that humanity is the image of God.

 

[Popeyesays]

Nowhere in the Bible will you find it written that Jesus is simply one human "manifestation" of God's Spirit. That belief has even less Biblical veracity than trinitarian doctrine. Insufficient scholarship is likely to breed the imaginary and dogmatic sort of idle fancy that we find so often in attempting to define Jesus. Where in the Bible does Jesus say that, after he goes, God will send Mizra Ali Muhammad to reveal what Jesus "could not reveal?" While it may, indeed be true that later devout people have spoken the word of God -- and I inlcude people like John Paul II, Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King, Jr, those words are rooted in Christ, from the Christian viewpoint. they really add nothing to what Christ has already revealed. God became human in the person of Jesus. In that event, God fully entered the human story and thus reconciled humanity to God's self. In Christ was full revelation. ("He who has seen me has seen the Father...") The Christ-event was the completion of creation and has lifted humanity so that humanity is the image of God.

"18,15 A prophet will the LORD thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 18,16 according to all that thou didst desire of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying: 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.' 18,17 And the LORD said unto me: 'They have well said that which they have spoken. 18,18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
(Torah (Law), Devarim (Deuteronomy))

"14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." Luke, KJV

"14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." John, KJV
"15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
16:1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me."
(King James Bible, John)

"O thou yearner after the Kingdom! Each Manifestation is the heart of the world and the proficient Physician of every patient. 381 The world of humanity is sick, but that skilled Physician hath the healing remedy and He bestoweth divine teachings, exhortations and advices which are the remedy of every ailment and the dressing for every wound. Undoubtedly, the wise physician discovereth the needs of the patient at every season and prescribeth medicine. Therefore, when thou wilt compare the teachings of the Beauty of Abha with the requisitions and necessities of the present time, thou wilt conclude that they are to the sick body of the world the swift healing antidote; nay, rather they are the remedy of everlasting health. The prescription of the proficient physicians of the past and the future will not be the same; nay, rather they will be in accord with the ailment of the patient. Although the medicine is changed, yet all of these are for the sole purpose of the healing of the sick. In former dispensations the sick body of the world could not bear the strong and overpowering remedies. That is why His Highness the Christ said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of the Comforter, who is sent by the Father, is come, He will guide you into all truth." Therefore, in this age of lights, specific teachings have become universal, in order that the outpouring of the Merciful One environ both the East and the West, the oneness of the kingdom of humanity become visible and the luminosity of truth enlighten the world of consciousness. The descent of the New Jerusalem is the heavenly religion which secures the prosperity of the human world and is the effulgence of the illumination of the realm of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section)

Dr. King was in many ways a spiritual guide, but he was not the Spirit of Truth or the Comforter. Neither was John Paul II, or Mother Teresa - they were selfless ervants of God and their fellow beings, but not the Comforter nor the Spirit of Truth promised by Christ. www.bahai.org

Regards,
Scott

 

[sojourner]

"18,15 A prophet will the LORD thy God raise up unto thee, from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 18,16 according to all that thou didst desire of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying: 'Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.' 18,17 And the LORD said unto me: 'They have well said that which they have spoken. 18,18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
(Torah (Law), Devarim (Deuteronomy))

"14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
14:13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.
14:14 If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it.
14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
14:16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 14:17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.
14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.
14:20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
14:21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." Luke, KJV

"14:25 These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you.
14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.
14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
14:29 And now I have told you before it come to pass, that, when it is come to pass, ye might believe." John, KJV
"15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.
15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me: 15:27 And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.
16:1 These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.
16:2 They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.
16:3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me."
(King James Bible, John)

"O thou yearner after the Kingdom! Each Manifestation is the heart of the world and the proficient Physician of every patient. 381 The world of humanity is sick, but that skilled Physician hath the healing remedy and He bestoweth divine teachings, exhortations and advices which are the remedy of every ailment and the dressing for every wound. Undoubtedly, the wise physician discovereth the needs of the patient at every season and prescribeth medicine. Therefore, when thou wilt compare the teachings of the Beauty of Abha with the requisitions and necessities of the present time, thou wilt conclude that they are to the sick body of the world the swift healing antidote; nay, rather they are the remedy of everlasting health. The prescription of the proficient physicians of the past and the future will not be the same; nay, rather they will be in accord with the ailment of the patient. Although the medicine is changed, yet all of these are for the sole purpose of the healing of the sick. In former dispensations the sick body of the world could not bear the strong and overpowering remedies. That is why His Highness the Christ said: "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit, when He, the Spirit of the Comforter, who is sent by the Father, is come, He will guide you into all truth." Therefore, in this age of lights, specific teachings have become universal, in order that the outpouring of the Merciful One environ both the East and the West, the oneness of the kingdom of humanity become visible and the luminosity of truth enlighten the world of consciousness. The descent of the New Jerusalem is the heavenly religion which secures the prosperity of the human world and is the effulgence of the illumination of the realm of God."
(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section)

Dr. King was in many ways a spiritual guide, but he was not the Spirit of Truth or the Comforter. Neither was John Paul II, or Mother Teresa - they were selfless ervants of God and their fellow beings, but not the Comforter nor the Spirit of Truth promised by Christ. www.bahai.org

Regards,
Scott

Well...your Biblical quotes make a pretty solid case for the Holy Spirit, as it is known in the Trinity. I don't see anything in there about arabic people, though.
The last selection is non sequitur. I asked for Biblical proof...and the OP asked about what Jesus said.

About Dr. King, et.al. That's precisely my point. No human being is Biblically "the Comforter." The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, who, as the Bible says, is given to all -- not just embodied in some people whom you happen to believe are special. They're not any more special to me, or to Biblical Christianity than the Pope or Mother Teresa--or anyone else, for that matter. The Christian Savior is Jesus.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well...your Biblical quotes make a pretty solid case for the Holy Spirit, as it is known in the Trinity. I don't see anything in there about arabic people, though.
The last selection is non sequitur. I asked for Biblical proof...and the OP asked about what Jesus said.

About Dr. King, et.al. That's precisely my point. No human being is Biblically "the Comforter." The Comforter is the Holy Spirit, who, as the Bible says, is given to all -- not just embodied in some people whom you happen to believe are special. They're not any more special to me, or to Biblical Christianity than the Pope or Mother Teresa--or anyone else, for that matter. The Christian Savior is Jesus.

The Holy Spirit is the rays of the sun, so to speak. The rays are not the SUN, however, If we bathed directly in the energy of the sun we would be consumed. But the rays of the sun at the proper distance do not.

Jesus WAS, physically, a human being or everything about Him is pointless. Jesus WAS the Perfect Mirror of God's Emanations, or everything about Him is pointless.

Regards,
Scott