Baha'i: Jesus Claims to be God (and how do you respond to those claims?)

[Servant19]

Okay. So we have agreed that both Jesus’ friends as well as His enemies understood that He claimed to be God. But you don’t - despite the fact that you weren’t actually there as an eye-witness to these events.

Interesting.

Well, moving on as promised, I would like to ask you a question: Would God or any of the multiple manifestations of God ever tell a lie? Would God ever deliberately mislead?

God does not mislead. He guides using His all-Knowing wisdom.

We give milk to a baby. Are we lying to them when we give them milk?

Jesus never lied. Not once

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

God does not mislead. He guides using His all-Knowing wisdom.

We give milk to a baby. Are we lying to them when we give them milk?

Jesus never lied. Not once.

.

We agree.

Now, if Jesus was aware that either his friends or his foes had misunderstood him in anyway, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon him to correct their misunderstanding so that none would be lost?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Why is Jesus’ authority “assumed”, yet Baha’u’llah’s authority is “questioned”

You mean other than the fact that Jesus turned water into wine, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, cured the lepers, cast out demons, raised the dead, walked on water, multiplied the loaves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven in the sight of many witnesses?

Gee, I dunno. Just doesn’t seem very sporting, does it?

 

[Randy_Carson]

This article totally ignores the passage in play here dear friend.

It does not address “the Father is greater than I” at all…

Would you mind explaining it please?

.

See post #72.

 

[Servant19]

You mean other than the fact that Jesus turned water into wine, healed the sick, gave sight to the blind, cured the lepers, cast out demons, raised the dead, walked on water, multiplied the loaves, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven in the sight of many witnesses?

Gee, I dunno. Just doesn’t seem very sporting, does it?

The Bab and Baha’u’llah raised plenty from the dead, amongst other miracles.

So why Jesus over Baha’u’llah and the Bab as an authority?

.

 

[Tomdstone]

Gee, I dunno. Just doesn’t seem very sporting, does it?

Sarcasm.

 

[Servant19]

We agree.

Now, if Jesus was aware that either his friends or his foes had misunderstood him in anyway, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon him to correct their misunderstanding so that none would be lost?

No it was an important understanding of the concept of the Manifestation of God, for Jesus NOT to correct them, to bring us closer to God. We, finite human beings, cannot fathom an infinite God. We have in the past used our imaginations to create false gods. The Manifestation of God is worthy of worship for it enables human beings to, for the first time, understand God through the channel of a Human Person.

We can then, as Baha’u’llah puts it, “dwell in the rose-garden of the spirit” at all times, under all conditions.

Aren’t you striving daily to “see Christ in all things”?

It is because Jesus did not correct the Pharisees that you are enabled to do this…

.

 

[arthra]

The question was asked above

• if Jesus was aware that either his friends or his foes had misunderstood him in anyway, wouldn’t it be incumbent upon him to correct their misunderstanding so that none would be lost?*

I was thinking the answer can be found in the Gospel when Jesus is explaining His use of parables…

*The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied,

“The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and he will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them in parables:
Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand.”*

So the answer appears to be the want of capacity on the part of many of the people of His time.

Abdul-Baha indicated the following:

“…all are excellent but they are more or less so, according to the degree. So all mankind possess intelligence and capacities, but the intelligence, the capacity and the worthiness of men differ. This is evident.”

 

[ehijoe]

The world has not changed or per say people have not changed since Christ was here. We still the same. People will treat Jesus the same way they treated him them. The heart man is evil. Unless you walk in his shoes, you will not understand.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The answer to your question
The rules are the same. We need to be fair in our judgement

.

Judgement, who has the final word of interpretation. The judgement has been made to be “fair” in this world its the Catholic Church. And from reading here it appears prudent in Gods wisdom. You don’t want to afford the Church the same fairness Baha’i demands. You have an obvious double standard here, Baha’i isn’t the authority of Christian scripture, which makes his opinion subject to the rule of scripture as a false prophet.

The question arose of what God cannot do according to Baha’i? I missed your response. Are we having a conversation or not?

We, finite human beings, cannot fathom an infinite God.

Nonsense, the injection of infinite, essence, is not consistent with “fathom God” God’s existence is self-evident. Therefore, any effort to demonstrate God’s existence or essence is, at best, unnecessary. God can be known and is known, this statement is self-evident if its predicate is contained in the essence of the subject. In other words “You admit God exists”, your incorrect thinking resides in “fathom God”. Which obviously is a dilemma for “you” of which your opinion is then transferred as fact and by Baha’i? .Can you add this writing also along with what God cannot do. Thank You in advance.

 

[GaryTaylor]

You are again looking at the Manifestation of God from a human perspective.
.

Actually it appears as your cross and certainly misunderstanding imho. Which is addressed right above. Your doctrine of the manifestation of God, needs to be broken down completely as so critical analysis can be taken. Bahá’í teaches a God that transcends the world so completely as to remain utterly unknowable. So then how do you know the unknowable of Gods manifestation?

Baha’i appears as distant from God, as to be utterly unknowable is to be unable to assimilate to obtain within a personal relationship with the savior.

God can be known and is known, we can know God through nature and His creatures and further through revelation. Your in denial of both as I see.

According to the Bahá’í writings, the manifestation of God is not an incarnation of God, as the transcendent Godhead can never incarnate itself in a mere mortal frame. Yet there is no articulated response in this regard. Which is the point in fair judgement.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Servant19 the question in fairness comes to this point.

We, finite human beings, cannot fathom an infinite God.

Bahá’í teaches a God that transcends the world so completely as to remain unknowable.

So we need to understand each others dialogue and understanding of injected words from here such as knowable.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Fsumma%2F1012.htm&ei=vZOFVOG8N4uWyAS15YCwDQ&usg=AFQjCNGMLsrd9dICvUm3BNJ3CPONhJgvKA

Further as I have proposed its also fair from here to address what God cannot do according to His will, in general. and more directly leading to the Incarnation of the Word of God as the point is denied. Or we need to further clarify my premise of it being denied…

According to the Bahá’í writings, the manifestation of God is not an incarnation of God

Which I also begin to address on this thread. Perhaps the idea of God also questioned in relation to creature-cause needs to be further addressed also.

But yes the scripture is very important, and its what caught my attention in the thread in relation to the Father is greater verse elaborated on. I don’t want to distract from that point of the conversation either.

Thanks.

 

[GaryTaylor]

One more point as it may be the coffee. My point of sola scriptura perhaps was understood as uncharitable. Perhaps again this is seeing from two different perspectives. This Father touches on the dilemma.

Essentially all Protestant denominations believe that they rightly understand the Bible. And though they may disagree on what the Bible says, they generally do agree on how one is to interpret the Bible: “on one’s own”, “apart from Church Tradition.”[1] If one can come to understand this belief, why it is wrong, and how one is rightly to approach the Holy Scriptures, then one can engage any Protestant of any denomination in a discussion of Orthodox Christianity with understanding. Even groups as different as the Baptists and the Jehovah’s Witnesses are really not as different as they outwardly appear, once you have understood this essential point. Indeed, if you ever have an opportunity to watch a Baptist and a Jehovah’s Witness argue over the Bible, you will notice that in the final analysis they simply quote different scriptures back and forth at each other. If they are equally matched intellectually, neither will get anywhere in the discussion, because they both essentially agree on their approach to the Bible. And because neither questions their common underlying assumption, neither can see that their mutually flawed approach to the Scriptures is the real problem.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Foodegr.com%2Fenglish%2Fprotestantism%2Fsola_scriptura.htm&ei=zaCFVK-hCo6fyATKtoHQCA&usg=AFQjCNHu0LoNK5pSH37DxUT7neZFZc8fDA

Which is why I suggested the Church authority thus Tradition, the article isn’t to endorse or deny denominations or orthodoxy in any paradigm nor were my posts, but to point out the obvious. Its to understand we are seeing from two perspectives and most importantly the same paradigm of protestant biblical understanding being imposed on the thread by Baha’i and as a authority unto themselves of scripture[which also btw conclude otherwise than Trinitarian protestants].

In fairness the point is worth noting. It appears the judgement rejects orthodoxy understanding? In fairness and judgement this needs perspective imho.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Bab and Baha’u’llah raised plenty from the dead, amongst other miracles.

So why Jesus over Baha’u’llah and the Bab as an authority?

.

:tsktsk:

I answered your question but that was not a green light to derail this thread. Fortunately, once we have concluded that Jesus DID claim to be God and that His claim was legitimate, then you will have your answer. However, if we try to skip any steps in the chain of logic, then the foundation will not be solid.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sarcasm.

:yup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

No it was an important understanding of the concept of the Manifestation of God, for Jesus NOT to correct them, to bring us closer to God. We, finite human beings, cannot fathom an infinite God. We have in the past used our imaginations to create false gods. The Manifestation of God is worthy of worship for it enables human beings to, for the first time, understand God through the channel of a Human Person.

We can then, as Baha’u’llah puts it, “dwell in the rose-garden of the spirit” at all times, under all conditions.

Aren’t you striving daily to “see Christ in all things”?

It is because Jesus did not correct the Pharisees that you are enabled to do this…

.

As I understand what you are saying, Jesus knew that some people misunderstood His teaching, but He was okay with that because he was acting under some sort of “Prime Directive” that prevented Him from interfering with our development. Is that right?

Well, as you may be aware, Jesus used parables when teaching the crowds. The Gospels are chock full of them, and there are many occasions when the people did not understand Him. And you claim that it was better for “Jesus NOT to correct them, to bring us closer to God.”

What you have missed, apparently, is the fact that Jesus DID explain everything in private to His disciples. The Bible makes this clear:

Mark 4:33-34
33 With many such parables he spoke the word to them [the crowds], as they were able to hear it; 34 he did not speak to them [the crowds] without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

Matthew 13:10-11
10 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them [the crowds] in parables?” 11 And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them [the crowds] it has not been given.

From these two passages, we see that Jesus actually DID enable his closest disciples to understand the truths he was teaching. But does this mean that those truth were meant for a select, inner circle of believers only? NO!

Matthew 28:18-20
18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

And so, Servant19, we can see that your position is false based upon Jesus’ own words. Jesus taught the truth, He explained Himself carefully to a few trusted disciples, and He commissioned those disciples to explain those revealed truths to the entire world.

It WAS incumbent upon Jesus to teach the truth to the people so that none would be lost.

 

[GaryTaylor]

The conversation is reminiscent of the early dialogue in the Church with Platonic philosophy. In which it appears to touch on Neoplatonism today in which I see a striking parallel perhaps as some point worthy of discussion.

Just exactly how Plato believed that the nous of people lets them come to understand things in any way which improves upon sense perception and the kind of thinking which animals have, is a subject of long running discussion and debate. On the one hand, in the Republic Plato’s Socrates, in the so-called “metaphor of the sun”, and “allegory of the cave” describes people as being able to perceive more clearly because of something from outside themselves, something like when the sun shines, helping eyesight. The source of this illumination for the intellect is referred to as the Form of the Good. On the other hand, in the Meno for example, Plato’s Socrates explains the theory of anamnesis whereby people are born with ideas already in their soul, which they somehow remember from previous lives. Both theories were to become highly influential.
As in Xenophon, Plato’s Socrates frequently describes the soul in a political way, with ruling parts, and parts which are by nature meant to be ruled. Nous is associated with the rational (logistikon) part of the individual human soul, which by nature should rule. In his Republic, in the so-called “analogy of the divided line”, it has a special function within this rational part. Plato tended to treat nous as the only immortal part of the soul.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNeoplatonism&ei=ysKFVNTYAoaWyQTa5oHgAg&usg=AFQjCNHY-bvWqpyTjFfbGu18PWtC7icpgw

The One[edit]
One of the characteristic features of Plotinus’ system, which was also taken up by subsequent Neoplatonists, is the doctrine of “the One” beyond being. For Plotinus, the first principle of reality is an utterly simple, ineffable, unknowable subsistence which is both the creative source and the teleological end of all existing things. Although, properly speaking, there is no name appropriate for the first principle, the most adequate names are “the One” or “the Good”. The One is so simple that it cannot even be said to exist or to be a being. Rather, the creative principle of all things is beyond being, a notion which is derived from book VI of the Republic,[11] when, in the course of his famous analogy of the Sun, Plato says that the Good is beyond being (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσίας) in power and dignity.[12] In Plotinus’ model of reality, the One is the cause of the rest of reality, which takes the form of two subsequent “hypostases”, Nous and Soul. Although Neoplatonists after Plotinus adhered to his cosmological scheme in its most general outline, later developments in the tradition also departed substantively from Plotinus’ teachings in regards to significant philosophical issues, such as the nature of evil.

When the mind is completely freed from the passions, writes Saint Maximus the Confessor, “its journey is straight ahead to the contemplation of created things and from there to the knowledge of the Holy Trinity” (5). There can be no progress where the heart is impure, that is, dominated by the passions. The degree of advance depends on the extent to which the passions have retreated. Victory for the soul relies upon “guarding the mind” or “inner watchfulness”

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=10&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CFsQFjAJ&url=http%3A%2F%2Forthodoxy21.blogspot.com%2F2010%2F07%2Fnous-gnosis-theoria-and-theosis.html&ei=mL-FVNzYF8ipyAScvoHQDw&usg=AFQjCNE8RZJzto0bsbR6Yw1MIPzhM566Xg

I am interested in what is really happening to say Saul in Epistemological-Ontological terms

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.newadvent.org%2Ffathers%2F0103213.htm&ei=P8iFVL2UNMGryAT7gILYBA&usg=AFQjCNEpMRTeEuUewJpfEkZXaMmZQ_OfDQ

I’m sorry am I being obnoxious? But I am on track? :sad_yes:

 

[eddie_too]

never forget that what the RCC teaches comes from Jesus through the twelve apostles, with whom He spent three years, day and night, teaching and training.

the faith the RCC has in Jesus does not come from the Bible. it comes from the successors to the apostles.

it seems quite naïve to believe that the new testament contains everything Jesus taught the twelve over those three years He lived with them.

consequently, to engage in discussions as though the Bible determines what Jesus came to teach us will typically lead to incredulity in one way or another.

interpreting sacred scripture out of context (and by out of context I do not mean solely the literary concept of out of context, context also means in light of the history that preceded and followed the writing of sacred scripture as well as the words and actions of the successors to the apostles) will never lead to the full meaning of Jesus Christ and God’s revelations to mankind.

so, if you end up in a discussion about interpreting the meaning of sacred scripture with those who use only the writings of sacred scripture, I fear you will end up in the proverbial spitting (?) contest.

if you find such exercises entertaining and useful, go for it.

 

[eddie_too]

I place full faith in the teachings of the successors to the apostles (the RC bishops). they, unanimously teach that Jesus Christ was fully human and fully Divine (One in Being with the Father). I can think of no good reason to follow the teachings of anyone else besides the apostles successors. Their teaching in this area is conclusive. playing detective with sacred scripture will not reveal anything more than the bishops teach.

if Jesus had not created apostolic succession, it would make sense for people to play detective with the sacred scriptures. but, He did create the sacrament of apostolic succession and thus I believe it fruitless and even senseless to try and use sacred scripture to disprove the teachings of the RC bishops at least and most especially as they relate to the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Most Holy Trinity.

declaring the apostles and their successors got it wrong means nothing to me because it implies that Perfect Being incarnated in Jesus of Nazareth could not figure out a way to ensure faithfulness to His teachings for all generations.

since, I fully accept Jesus claim as to His own Divinity I try to respond with complete devotion, reverence and love for Jesus Christ and the Most Holy Trinity and for His human creatures, some of whom are in heaven and purgatory and all of those who are here sharing this world with me.

and yes, this does seem quite simple. it is that simple. follow the RC bishops and you will grow in truth and grace. it is that simple. as regards the fate of our immortal souls, following the teaching of the magisterium of the RCC IS all it takes.

 

[eddie_too]

a related question to the topic (at least I believe it is related and relevant Randy, I do not mean to hijack your thread), is why would anyone oppose the teachings of the apostles and their successors on questions about what Jesus taught?

right reason leads anyone to the magisterium of the RCC for answers to questions about the Divine Mysteries. who else has their authority? whoever you might come up with to answer that question, it will beg the question of where did these alternate people get their authority to contradict what the RCC teaches?