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

[Randy_Carson]

How does one explain that Jesus said that the authority was given to Him? Why would it be necessary to give Him authority if He already had it?

The Son proceeds from the Father so all that Jesus has comes from the Father, Tom.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Right, the points have been addressed. Also from scripture "You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. “Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power.”

Reply to Objection 1. The mystery of Incarnation was not completed through God being changed in any way from the state in which He had been from eternity, but through His having united Himself to the creature in a new way, or rather through having united it to Himself. But it is fitting that a creature which by nature is mutable, should not always be in one way. And therefore, as the creature began to be, although it had not been before, so likewise, not having been previously united to God in Person, it was afterwards united to Him.

Reply to Objection 2. To be united to God in unity of person was not fitting to human flesh, according to its natural endowments, since it was above its dignity; nevertheless, it was fitting that God, by reason of His infinite goodness, should unite it to Himself for man’s salvation.

Reply to Objection 3. Every mode of being wherein any creature whatsoever differs from the Creator has been established by God’s wisdom, and is ordained to God’s goodness. For God, Who is uncreated, immutable, and incorporeal, produced mutable and corporeal creatures for His own goodness. And so also the evil of punishment was established by God’s justice for God’s glory. But evil of fault is committed by withdrawing from the art of the Divine wisdom and from the order of the Divine goodness. And therefore it could be fitting to God to assume a nature created, mutable, corporeal, and subject to penalty, but it did not become Him to assume the evil of fault.

Reply to Objection 4. As Augustine replies (Ep. ad Volusian. 137): “The Christian doctrine nowhere holds that God was so joined to human flesh as either to desert or lose, or to transfer and as it were, contract within this frail body, the care of governing the universe. This is the thought of men unable to see anything but corporeal things . . . God is great not in mass, but in might. Hence the greatness of His might feels no straits in narrow surroundings. Nor, if the passing word of a man is heard at once by many, and wholly by each, is it incredible that the abiding Word of God should be everywhere at once?” Hence nothing unfitting arises from God becoming incarnate.

newadvent.org/summa/4001.htm#article1

John 10:30 “I and the Father are one.”

1 John 2:23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

1 Peter 4:5 But they will have to give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead.

2 Timothy 4:1 In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom,

 

[arthra]

Bible was revealed to Jesus totally at once. That occured through Spirit(Gabriel) and Jesus conveyed Bible during His life. After about 60 years later saints wrote Gospels. So writting of Gospels by saints is not a divine action. We have not the original texts and there maybe misinterpretations because Gospels were translated for many times.

Quran is revelation directly from God but although Quran can be understood in many ways by people and some of these ways could be wrong. We have many examples in the past and now. So Holy tradition may not be so holy! And that spiritual laws maybe not so spiritual. There have been many wrong things in Church. If God have been leading Church in every manner than there would not be so bad things. A faith was not deposited in Church truely but a faith have been raised in Church(that Trinity doctrine).

The most extremely issue cannot be a mystery! If Jesus were Son of God there should be many obvious proofs.

Gospel Preserved:

If I might interject a few things here… The Baha’i view of the Gospels is different from the predominant Islamic view. We acknowledge the Bible is inspired. We also believed the Gospel was preserved… Here is what our Writings say:

We have also heard a number of the foolish of the earth assert that the genuine text of the heavenly Gospel doth not exist amongst the Christians, that it hath ascended unto heaven. How grievously they have erred!

How oblivious of the fact that such a statement imputeth the gravest injustice and tyranny to a gracious and loving Providence! How could God, when once the Day-star of the beauty of Jesus had disappeared from the sight of His people, and ascended unto the fourth heaven, cause His holy Book, His most great testimony amongst His creatures, to disappear also?

What would be left to that people to cling to from the setting of the day-star of Jesus until the rise of the sun of the Muḥammadan Dispensation? What law could be their stay and guide? How could such people be made the victims of the avenging wrath of God, 90 the omnipotent Avenger? How could they be afflicted with the scourge of chastisement by the heavenly King? Above all, how could the flow of the grace of the All-Bountiful be stayed? How could the ocean of His tender mercies be stilled? We take refuge with God, from that which His creatures have fancied about Him! Exalted is He above their comprehension!

~ Baha’u’llah Kitab-i-Iqan paragraph 98, page 90

Trinity

As to the Trinity Abdul-Baha also presented the Baha’i view on the subject and it goes like this:

The epitome of the discourse is that the Reality of Christ was a clear mirror, and the Sun of Reality—that is to say, the Essence of Oneness, with its infinite perfections and attributes—became visible in the mirror. The meaning is not that the Sun, which is the Essence of the Divinity, became divided and multiplied—for the Sun is one—but it appeared in the mirror. This is why Christ said, “The Father is in the Son,” meaning that the Sun is visible and manifest in this mirror.

**The Holy Spirit is the Bounty of God which becomes visible and evident in the Reality of Christ. The Sonship station is the heart of Christ, and the Holy Spirit is the station of the spirit of Christ. Hence it has become certain and proved that the Essence of Divinity is absolutely unique and has no equal, no likeness, no equivalent.
This is the signification of the Three Persons of the Trinity. **

If it were otherwise, the foundations of the Religion of God would rest upon an illogical proposition which the mind could never conceive, and how can the mind be forced to believe a thing which it cannot conceive? A thing cannot be grasped by the intelligence except when it is clothed in an intelligible form; otherwise, it is but an effort of the imagination.
It has now become clear, from this explanation, what is the meaning of the Three Persons of the Trinity. The Oneness of God is also proved.

~ Abdul-Baha Some Answered Questions pp. 114- 115

 

[Servant19]

Perhaps, but I am trying to give you my undivided attention.

I hope to get some response from you regarding post #96.

Thanks.

Hi Randy, my response to your post #96 was given in post #120
Also arthra gave you a very good response in his post #103

Maybe you missed those…



.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well let us study some of the Letters of His Chief Steward, His Rock Peter.

Was there anywhere that Peter declares the most central teaching of Christianity, that Jesus is God?

Of course. You just have to know what to look for. However, you have carefully chosen Peter out of all the famous apostles for a reason, haven’t you? Because you know that there are no words of Peter that directly assert that Jesus was God.

Now, I could take the long way round and show you how Peter does teach the divinity of Jesus, but this is an Internet forum and it would take too long. So, instead I’m going this route:

1. You know with certainty that Paul taught that Jesus was God. Paul wrote half the NT and I could bury you with quotes from Paul. That’s why you’re avoiding mentioning him.
2. However, what you may have overlooked is the fact that Paul went to Jerusalem not once but twice to check his doctrine with Peter - the very apostle whom who claim did not teach that Jesus was God. Here is the passage:

Galatians 2
2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2** I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain**. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9** James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.**

In other words, Servant, Paul taught that Jesus was God. And just to be sure that he hadn’t made a mistake, he went to Jerusalem - meeting with Peter each time. And Peter added nothing to Paul’s message nor did he take anything away, apparently. Jesus had personally revealed himself to Paul just as he had earlier to the Twelve.

If Peter had thought that Jesus was not God, he would have corrected Paul on either occasion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well let us study some of the Letters of His Chief Steward, His Rock Peter.

Was there anywhere that Peter declares the most central teaching of Christianity, that Jesus is God?

Peter categorically declares in 1Peter 3:6

“…Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her Lord.”

Now I know this is in the context of the wife submitting themselves to their husbands but the word “master” or “leader” would have sufficed to get the point across, but even Abraham was declared a Lord.

Finally, if the Apostles knew that Jesus is God, there would be no need to use the word “GOD” in any of their Letters. They would always simply say Jesus Christ, but they don’t. They always say “God AND our Saviour Jesus Christ”, or “God THROUGH or Saviour Jesus Christ”

If they knew Jesus was God, there would be no need to say AND or THROUGH. I can give references if you need but there are so many instances of this, it will be easy for you to find…



.

And btw, don’t think that I haven’t noticed that you are trying to divert the discussion again.

My post #96 is NOT answered by your post #120. All you do in #120 is change the subject from Jesus to Peter.

Remember, I wrote #96 in direct rebuttal of your false idea that Jesus had no responsibility for teaching the truth which you claimed in post #87 after I had pinned you down in post #82.

Here are the points I have demonstrated to you thus far:

1. Jesus claimed that He was God.
2. His friends and his enemies understood this.
3. If they had misunderstood him, he would have had the responsibility to correct them.
4. He did explain his teachings to his apostles in private.
5. He did not tell his apostles privately that He was not God.
6. Absent any corrections from Jesus, we know that He approved of His disciples belief that He was God.

That is where the discussion stands, Servant. Any thoughts on those points before we move on?

 

[Servant19]

Of course. You just have to know what to look for. However, you have carefully chosen Peter out of all the famous apostles for a reason, haven’t you? Because you know that there are no words of Peter that directly assert that Jesus was God.

Now, I could take the long way round and show you how Peter does teach the divinity of Jesus, but this is an Internet forum and it would take too long. So, instead I’m going this route:

1. You know with certainty that Paul taught that Jesus was God. Paul wrote half the NT and I could bury you with quotes from Paul. That’s why you’re avoiding mentioning him.
2. However, what you may have overlooked is the fact that Paul went to Jerusalem not once but twice to check his doctrine with Peter - the very apostle whom who claim did not teach that Jesus was God. Here is the passage:

Galatians 2
2 Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2** I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain**. 3 Yet not even Titus, who was with me, was compelled to be circumcised, even though he was a Greek. 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9** James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised. 10 All they asked was that we should continue to remember the poor, the very thing I had been eager to do all along.**

In other words, Servant, Paul taught that Jesus was God. And just to be sure that he hadn’t made a mistake, he went to Jerusalem - meeting with Peter each time. And Peter added nothing to Paul’s message nor did he take anything away, apparently. Jesus had personally revealed himself to Paul just as he had earlier to the Twelve.

If Peter had thought that Jesus was not God, he would have corrected Paul on either occasion.

Please go ahead and bury me with Paul quotes as well dear Randy…

I chose Peter because I knew He was key to the Catholics.

I could just as easily have said Paul.

There are many occasions that he refers to Jesus as Lord. Be he also advises that Sara called Abraham Lord.

On several occasions he says God AND Jesus.

If Paul knew Jesus is God, then why distinguish between God and Jesus? Why not just say “God”:

Hebrews 1
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

This should instead read:

1 God, Jesus who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds

…please also notice the words I removed in the second quote.

1 Corinthians 1:4
4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

should instead read:

4 I thank Jesus always on your behalf, for the grace of Jesus which is given you by Jesus Christ;

Ephesians 1:
2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.

should instead read:

2 Grace be to you, and peace, from God Jesus Christ"

It’s really not hard to do it. Paul had ample opportunity to give us the truth, if Jesus is God…

.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Please go ahead and bury me with Paul quotes as well dear Randy…It’s really not hard to do it. Paul had ample opportunity to give us the truth, if Jesus is God…

Before I do, you do understand that Trinitarians sometimes refer to God as God, and sometimes to the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit individually…but we always think of them as the one God. Right?

Tell you what…you seem reasonably knowledgeable…would you mind briefly stating what you think we Christians believe about the Trinity?

No need for a dissertation…just a few words so that I can make sure we’re not talking past each other.

Thanks.

 

[Servant19]

Before I do, you do understand that Trinitarians sometimes refer to God as God, and sometimes to the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit individually…but we always think of them as the one God. Right?

Tell you what…you seem reasonably knowledgeable…would you mind briefly stating what you think we Christians believe about the Trinity?

No need for a dissertation…just a few words so that I can make sure we’re not talking past each other.

Thanks.

Father Son and Holy Spirit. All separate Persons, but united in essence to form one God.

The question is then why refer to God, then refer to the Son as a separate entity?

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” 1Peter 1:3

Thats just one example…

.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I’m talking from a human perspective dear friend

From God’s perspective Jesus is His Son, and there is a distinction. Both are eternal, yet one is created, the other is uncreated.

.

False. Jesus is “eternally begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.” I will add though, that if you do not believe in the Holy Trinity, Jesus being God isn’t going to make any sense to you.

 

[Servant19]

False. Jesus is “eternally begotten, not made, one in being with the Father.” I will add though, that if you do not believe in the Holy Trinity, Jesus being God isn’t going to make any sense to you.

I think the Council of Nicea deviated from the teachings of Jesus.

What is the difference between being begotten and being made?

.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

I think the Council of Nicea deviated from the teachings of Jesus.

What is the difference between being begotten and being made?

.

You once said the council of Nicaea was true at the time. Have you changed your mind?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Father Son and Holy Spirit. All separate Persons, but united in essence to form one God.

The question is then why refer to God, then refer to the Son as a separate entity?

“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” 1Peter 1:3

Thats just one example…

.

Because the authors of the New testament when referring to God, are primarily referring to the father. There are a few exceptions, namely John 1.1 in which Jesus is called God directly. The argument for the deity of Christ is that he possess a unique character and functions that God alone possesses. But consider that in the Christian confession of One God and one lord Jesus Christ, we actually see further definition of the Old testament pronunciation of one God and Lord. Specifically the Shema.

It is no coincidence that Christ is called lord almost exclusively in the New testament in conjunction with the One God.

 

[Servant19]

You once said the council of Nicaea was true at the time. Have you changed your mind?

No, it was epistemologically true.

That’s not Baha’i teaching. That’s my personal understanding from what I have studied.

God, it seems very evident, reveals epistemological Truth. What we have so far in terms of our understanding of God, the universe and the Kingdom is very much incomplete. Even the Baha’i teachings will one day be superseded with further Truth, but for today, as I speak it is Truth, just as for that day, as thy spake, Nicea was Truth.

But God never leaves His creation without renewed guidance and a new source of untainted Truth.

.

 

[Servant19]

Because the authors of the New testament when referring to God, are primarily referring to the father. There are a few exceptions, namely John 1.1 in which Jesus is called God directly. The argument for the deity of Christ is that he possess a unique character and functions that God alone possesses. But consider that in the Christian confession of One God and one lord Jesus Christ, we actually see further definition of the Old testament pronunciation of one God and Lord. Specifically the Shema.

Why would they be so willing to call the Father “God the Father”, yet they never called Jesus “God the Son”?

It is no coincidence that Christ is called lord almost exclusively in the New testament in conjunction with the One God.

I agree, when the concept of the Manifestation of God is first introduced, there is no distinction to the mind of all finite-minded people.

As Baha’is we are taught very rationally and reasonably the distinction between God and the Manifestation of God, yet there are still, and have always been a small group of Baha’is who believe that Baha’u’llah is God. Baha’u’llah states emphatically that if some believers wish to believe that He is God, it is ok as long as it does not lead to contention and strife.

Again we see here that referring to a Manifestation of God as “God” is not frowned upon by Jesus or Baha’u’llah, because epistemologically, there is no difference.

.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I think the Council of Nicea deviated from the teachings of Jesus.

What is the difference between being begotten and being made?

.

Being begotten means that one proceeds from another, in that Jesus, the Word of God, proceeds from God. To be made would mean inherently that there was a point before which Jesus was not. Yet He always IS and WAS just as God the Father IS and WAS. He was not made, yet is begotten.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

No, it was epistemologically true.

That’s not Baha’i teaching. That’s my personal understanding from what I have studied.

God, it seems very evident, reveals epistemological Truth. What we have so far in terms of our understanding of God, the universe and the Kingdom is very much incomplete. Even the Baha’i teachings will one day be superseded with further Truth, but for today, as I speak it is Truth, just as for that day, as thy spake, Nicea was Truth.

But God never leaves His creation without renewed guidance and a new source of untainted Truth.

.

And what exactly does epistemologically true mean exactly? I am confused by your usage of this word. The question is, is the doctrine in of itself true at the time of hte council, that is, does it describe reality? You seem to deny it, thus it cannot be in any real sense true.

So speak clearly, did Nicaea, speak rightly about who God is, or wrongly about who God is? Don’t attempt to manipulate Nicaea and interpret it how you like it either, rather accept Nicaea as Athanasius and the cappadocians would have. Don’t read your theology into Athanasius and the cappadocians either mind you.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I think the Council of Nicea deviated from the teachings of Jesus.

What is the difference between being begotten and being made?

.

Furthermore, if the Council of Nicea deviated from the teachings of Jesus, it taught error, and as such the Holy Spirit would not be protecting the Catholic Church from error and Jesus lied when He promised that it would. Naturally, as a Catholic, I believe that the Council did not deviate from the Truth, seeing as this is a matter of doctrine, being a part of the Creed.

 

[Servant19]

And what exactly does epistemologically true mean exactly?

It means Truth given to us according to our capacity to understand. Social consciousness, intellect and the mind evolves over time, over the centuries, and God tailors Truth according to our ability to understand it.

Remember this:

youtube.com/watch?v=S1i5coU-0_Q

What he says at the end is an example of this.
“I guess you guys aren’t quite ready for that yet”

.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Why would they be so willing to call the Father “God the Father”, yet they never called Jesus “God the Son”?

I agree, when the concept of the Manifestation of God is first introduced, there is no distinction to the mind of all finite-minded people.

As Baha’is we are taught very rationally and reasonably the distinction between God and the Manifestation of God, yet there are still, and have always been a small group of Baha’is who believe that Baha’u’llah is God. Baha’u’llah states emphatically that if some believers wish to believe that He is God, it is ok as long as it does not lead to contention and strife.

Again we see here that referring to a Manifestation of God as “God” is not frowned upon by Jesus or Baha’u’llah, because epistemologically, there is no difference.

.

Because the apostles I imagine did not want to be accused of believing in multiple Gods. Yet they did call Christ God a few times in the New testament, and had no problem giving him the attributes of God, that Jesus is creator of universe, Jesus is the judge of all creation, that we owe obedience and honour to Christ as we owe honour and obedience to the father.

But you can’t honestly tell me you would accept a fellow bahai saying “I believe Jesus to be actually God.” And I suppose you would respond. “Well of course he is God, Symbolically but not really.” And he would respond “No he is actually God, no clarification needed.”

You need to speak more clearly. What did Nicaea get wrong, while remaining epistemologically true? You deride it and yet at the same time want to maintain the fathers were correct? I suspect you are not really saying they were correct.