Did Jesus say he was God???

[doppelganger]

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]

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.

 

[doppelganger]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Booko]

I think there might be a typo or two in there

Welcome to the typo club.

Hey, and welcome to RF!

 

[Booko]

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

And he was built like a brick outhouse too. :run:

 

[The Seeker]

Mark 17:5 states "While he was still speaking, a bright cloud enveloped them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!"

This verse makes it very clear that Jesus is the son of God.

 

[Booko]

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

Also "son of man" in Jewish scriptures refers to a prophet. See Ezra for one example.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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?

It depends on the community.

For Jews, it is impossible to believe. In the New Testament, the Christian message is explicitly directed to Jews.

For others, Jesus as God is not a very appealing case, particularly when the Christian message is exclusive - that Jesus is the only God, and the God of the Jews - a community that is kept at arm's length by the Romans.

The only people who were particularly prone to accept this message were God-fearers, if they actually existed. The God-fearers were Greco-Romans who were partial to the Jewish message - the almost-proselyte. They participated in synogouge but were not full Jews because of their diet. Christianity taught them that they would be fully included in Judaism without the diet and following of some of the law, so it could have been a real hit with these folks, and that's what is indicated in the NT.

 

[Popeyesays]

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?

It is not within the human capacity to acquire "an unimpeded view." That's not the purpose of Creation nor is it the purpose of the creation of an individual human.

I've known several Baha`i Mystics, the most eloquent of whom was Guy Murchee (I recommend any of his books--particularly The Seven Mysteries of Life.

"Authoratative interpretation" is a phrase with a significantly different definition in the Baha`i Faith, so I am loathe to answer that question til I know what you consider the phrase to mean.

Booko is quite right we do consider the Divine Manifestation to be another order of existence as significantly different from man as man's order of existence is above the animal. The capacity of the manifestation's knowledge, Certitude, and Communion with God is no0t something I can intuitively understand.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Popeyesays]

Jesus received the Transfiguration in the presence of two other Transfigured Prophets: Moses and Elijah. Were they God incarnate as well?

Regardsx,
Scott

 

[ChristineES]

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

And I guess that is why the pharisees, who were Jews, wanted to kill Him. :sarcastic
Because He said he was the same as everyone else? That doesn't make sense. I guess it does to you.
Jesus saying He was the Son of God is saying that He is equal to God, that is why the Pharisees wanted Him killed. That is what the Bible says, and so it is what I am repeating.
This is the last I am responding to this thread, it is getting ridiculous.

 

[Booko]

It depends on the community.

For Jews, it is impossible to believe. In the New Testament, the Christian message is explicitly directed to Jews.

Yeah, I wasn't clear at all, as I didn't say anything about timeframe. What the people who heard Jesus personally would've thought and what various and sundry Gentiles might've understood from the information relayed by the early teachers of the faith would be pretty different, I'd think.

The only people who were particularly prone to accept this message were God-fearers, if they actually existed. The God-fearers were Greco-Romans who were partial to the Jewish message - the almost-proselyte. They participated in synogouge but were not full Jews because of their diet. Christianity taught them that they would be fully included in Judaism without the diet and following of some of the law, so it could have been a real hit with these folks, and that's what is indicated in the NT.

Great history summary, AE.

Yeah, whether people would be subject to Jewish law was quite a controversy. The subject of circumcision was especially touchy among the Gentiles.

 

[Booko]

And I guess that is why the pharisees, who were Jews, wanted to kill Him. :sarcastic
Because He said he was the same as everyone else? That doesn't make sense.f

Here's what makes sense: Jesus challenged their authority, prominence, and threatened their market share.

That's enough to get any new religious movement persecuted.

It's happening right now to the Baha'is in Iran, who are the largest religious minority there. It has been since our inception, when the Bab was teaching.

If I could paraphrase the Man here: a prophet is never accepted in his hometown.

In fact, this seems to be so much the typical pattern for the founder of any religion that ends up surviving, I'm automatically suspicious of any new religious movement that *isn't* persecuted by the powers-that-be.

 

[Popeyesays]

And I guess that is why the pharisees, who were Jews, wanted to kill Him. :sarcastic
Because He said he was the same as everyone else? That doesn't make sense. I guess it does to you.
Jesus saying He was the Son of God is saying that He is equal to God, that is why the Pharisees wanted Him killed. That is what the Bible says, and so it is what I am repeating.
This is the last I am responding to this thread, it is getting ridiculous.

Please note in the Gospels where everytime Jesus is accused of something His reply is "You say I am."

The Sanhedrin held the political and social reins of power. They liked that. They were in charge--then the Romans came along and crushed that ultimate power. The Sanhedrin could not prosecute Jesus and execute Him. The Romans would have cheerfully nailed Caiaphas, Ananaias and the rest of the Sanhedrin to crosses of the

If the Sanhedrin had tried to execute Jesus, the Romans would cheerfully have crucified the Sanhedrin.

Jesus was a second threat to their power and suasion. They couldn't tolerate it and keep power for themselves, so they manipulated the Romans into removing the problem for them.

To the religion of Moses all of us are the children of God. To the religion of Moses the Son of Man was something else entirely.

If you are offended b ecause others disagree with you, find another hobby.

Regards,
Scott

 

[SonOfNun]

Alright, I had work today but I quoted the gospel of John just before I left. The response to this is that God sent Jesus as his messenger, and so that doesn't make him God; however, John 1:1-14 clearly saying that Jesus Christ was not only the message bearer but also the message sender.

" In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God". It is clear that God in this passage is " the Word", It's in black and white. Then in verse 14 it continues to say," And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, ( and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the father [Jesus],) full of grace and truth. Clearly Jesus is the only begotten of the father; and it says that the only begotten was the Word from verse one. Which created the world. So either a prophet created the world of Jesus IS the Son Of God.

 

[SonOfNun]

And if Jesus was a prophet then how did he raise from the dead? And to not believe that Christ rose from the dead, then, brings all of the bible into question? doesn't that make all of our religion false. Either, there is God that sent Jesus to earth to die for the sins of man kind, or God (as in the God of Christianity) is false.