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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Techno2000 said:
Yes, it looks like The Baha’u’llah was dabbling in the occult .:o
Click to expand...
And you call “speaking in tongues” from God?

Baha’u’llah was no more occultist than Jesus Himself. Whatever Baha’u’llah revealed during these moments of awe and wonder were sufficient to transform the hearts and souls of men. The Words uttered by His lips during these moments are being studied and applied today for the regeneration of a decadent and immoral society.

Does the occult regenerate an immoral society into a moral one, where love is the foundation of every breath taken by its participants?

Your conclusions are occultist dear friend…

.
 
GaryTaylor said:
The word is capital, why is that? And what is “first emanation” language barriers need to be avoided for conversation to proceed.
Click to expand...
First Emanation is very well summarised by St. Basil actually.

Emanation is representative of Light. The Source of that Light is the Father. He shines that Light upon His Perfect Mirror, the Son, through whom the whole of Creation comes into existence.

The Light shining on the Mirror of the Son is the First Emanation of God. It is in capital letters because it is Divine.

Here’s St. Basil:
Since then, as says the Lord in the Gospels, John 14:9 he that has seen the Son sees the Father also; on this account he says that the Only-begotten is the express image of His Father’s person. That this may be made still plainer I will quote also other passages of the apostle in which he calls the Son “the image of the invisible God,” Colossians 1:15 and again “image of His goodness;” not because the image differs from the Archetype according to the definition of indivisibility and goodness, but that it may be shown that it is the same as the prototype, even though it be different. For the idea of the image would be lost were it not to preserve throughout the plain and invariable likeness. He therefore that has perception of the beauty of the image is made perceptive of the Archetype. So he, who has, as it were mental apprehension of the form of the Son, prints the express image of the Father’s hypostasis, beholding the latter in the former, not beholding in the reflection the unbegotten being of the Father (for thus there would be complete identity and no distinction), but gazing at the unbegotten beauty in the Begotten. Just as he who in a polished mirror beholds the reflection of the form as plain knowledge of the represented face, so he, who has knowledge of the Son, through his knowledge of the Son receives in his heart the express image of the Father’s Person. For all things that are the Father’s are beheld in the Son, and all things that are the Son’s are the Father’s; because the whole Son is in the Father and has all the Father in Himself. Thus the hypostasis of the Son becomes as it were form and face of the knowledge of the Father, and the hypostasis of the Father is known in the form of the Son, while the proper quality which is contemplated therein remains for the plain distinction of the hypostases.
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/fathers/3202038.htm
Click to expand...
For a more comprehensive look at this teaching, you can read these two papers:

bahai-library.com/cole_concept_manifestation

bahai-library.org/books/quest/quest.03.html

.
 
Randy_Carson said:
Servant, I see that you are using a common argument employed by those who deny the Divinity of Jesus; namely, Peter never said Jesus was God. Well, the one refutation of that claim that I have found online ran 7-8 pages, and I’m not going to reproduce all that here. Instead, I’ll spend some time putting together a more condensed response. Perhaps I will have that ready later today.

In the meantime, I’ll respond to your standard objection with the Christian’s standard response. There are lots of places where you can find refutations online; this particular version is taken from: carm.org/religious-movements/islam/did-jesus-ever-say-exact-words-i-am-god

But before I post, I need to remind you that this thread is not about what Peter said. It’s about whether Jesus claimed to be God. You’re about to see again that He did.

Enjoy!

Jesus never said the exact three words, “I am God.” But Jesus also never said the exact four words, “I am a prophet,” or the exact four words “I am a man,” but we know he was both a prophet and a man. It is not necessary for Jesus to say the exact phrase “I am a man,” for us to know that he was a man. Likewise, it is not necessary for Jesus to utter the exact three words “I am God,” in order for us to determine whether or not he is divine. Jesus may not have said the exact sentence “I am God,” but he did claim the divine name for himself (Exo. 3:14 withJohn 8:58), and he also received worship (Matt. 2:2; 14:33; 28:9; John 9:35-38).

When Moses was up at the Mount speaking to God, Moses asked God what his name was. God said, “I AM WHO I AM”; and He said, ‘Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel,’ ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ (Exodus 3:14). In John 8:58 Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Right after this the Jews picked up stones to throw at him. Later, in John 10:30-33 Jesus claimed to be one with the Father; and the Jews wanted to stone him again because they said to Jesus, “You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.” Jesus had claimed the divine name for his own, and the Jews wanted to kill him for it. Therefore, from Jesus’ own mouth we see that he was claiming to be God.

Of course, anyone can say the words “I am,” and it does not mean that he is claiming to be God. Someone could say, “I am over here.” That is not claiming the divine name. Likewise, someone could say, “I am hungry,” or “I am sick.” Neither example is claiming divinity because the use of the term “I am” in context clearly shows us that is not what is occurring. But, in John 8:58 when Jesus said “before Abraham was born, I am,” the Jews knew exactly what he was saying. Notice that he says before Abraham was born (using the past tense), and then he switches to the present tense when he says “I am.” Jesus switches tenses of the verbs on purpose, so that when he does so in the context of referencing Abraham, Jesus is clearly drawing the Jews’ attention to the Old Testament Scriptures and then using a present tense form of the verb “to be” by saying “I AM.” Someone who says “I am hungry” is not drawing attention to the Old Testament Scriptures for context.

Jesus was clearly causing the Jews to reflect upon the divine name “I am” that Jesus used for himself. We know that they understood this because as is said above, they said, “You, being a man, make yourself out to be God.” (John 10:33).

It is not necessary that Jesus say a certain phrase in order for the truth of who he is to be made clear. The issue is not if he speaks a certain sentence that we construct in present terms in order to satisfy our theological demands. The issue is what did Jesus say in the context and culture of the time in which he spoke.

John 1:1, 14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God . . . 14And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

John 20:28-29, "Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

Heb. 1:8, “But of the Son He says, ‘Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, and the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.’”​
Click to expand...
The problem we have here Randy, is that this argument is tailored towards the more Islamic refutations of Jesus is God.

The Baha’i Faith is very very close to the Catholic teaching. We do worship the Incarnation of the Word and we do see Them as a God worthy of worship, not their physical Temples, their Spiritual Identities, we worship that.

We see no reason to worship anything else other than the Manifestation of God, because they offer a tangible alternative to what our imaginations conceive of God (often incorrectly).

When the Manifestation of God says something, it is God saying that thing. When He wills, God wills. When He teaches, God teaches.

As far as our human understanding can possibly fathom, there is no difference between God and a Manifestation of God. This flies in the face of Islamic teaching because the mission of Muhammad was similar to the mission of Moses, to establish the one God, so no human idols!!
**Were any of the all-embracing Manifestations of God to declare: “I am God”, He, verily, speaketh the truth, and no doubt attacheth thereto. For it hath been repeatedly demonstrated that through their Revelation, their attributes and names, the Revelation of God, His names and His attributes, are made manifest in the world… **
Click to expand...
.
 
Servant19 said:
First Emanation is very well summarised by St. Basil actually.

Emanation is representative of Light. The Source of that Light is the Father. He shines that Light upon His Perfect Mirror, the Son, through whom the whole of Creation comes into existence.

The Light shining on the Mirror of the Son is the First Emanation of God. It is in capital letters because it is Divine.

Here’s St. Basil:

For a more comprehensive look at this teaching, you can read these two papers:

bahai-library.com/cole_concept_manifestation

bahai-library.org/books/quest/quest.03.html

.
Click to expand...
For it is idle to bait the mind at any detached conception from the conviction that it is beyond all conception. For the account of the uncreate and of the incomprehensible is one and the same in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. For one is not more incomprehensible and uncreate than another. And since it is necessary, by means of the notes of differentiation, in the case of the Trinity, to keep the distinction unconfounded, we shall not take into consideration, in order to estimate that which differentiates, what is contemplated in common, as the uncreate, or what is beyond all comprehension, or any quality of this nature; we shall only direct our attention to the enquiry by what means each particular conception will be lucidly and distinctly separated from that which is conceived of in common.
Click to expand...
If we ask, if the supply of good things which thus comes to the saints has its origin in the Holy Ghost alone, we are on the other hand guided by Scripture to the belief that of the supply of the good things which are wrought in us through the Holy Ghost, the Originator and Cause is the Only-begotten God; for we are taught by Holy Scripture that All things were made by Him, John 1:3 and by Him consist.
Click to expand...
👍
 
Techno2000 said:
Yes, it looks like The Baha’u’llah was dabbling in the occult .:o
Click to expand...
I personally believe that “masters” or “gurus” like this are led astray from a very early age by evil spirits who represent themselves as messengers of God.

Because angels are vastly superior to us, it is easy for them to teach and reveal all sorts of things to a young, potential guru in order to win his or her confidence. Later, the enlightened “guru” will use this “wisdom” to win followers who accept his knowledge as miraculous.

But it is not from God.
 
Servant19 said:
And you call “speaking in tongues” from God?

Baha’u’llah was no more occultist than Jesus Himself. Whatever Baha’u’llah revealed during these moments of awe and wonder were sufficient to transform the hearts and souls of men. The Words uttered by His lips during these moments are being studied and applied today for the regeneration of a decadent and immoral society.

Does the occult regenerate an immoral society into a moral one, where love is the foundation of every breath taken by its participants?

Your conclusions are occultist dear friend…

.
Click to expand...
The Devil can appear as a Angel of Light.
 
Servant19 said:
I would believe your conclusion here dear Randy, if you can show me when Jesus was called Everlasting Father,
Click to expand...
First, be honest. You wouldn’t believe me even if I did show you. That’s what indoctrination does to the mind.

However, it is relatively easy to understand Jesus as Father in a very specific sense of the word. In Jesus time, there were a number of Jewish sects: the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Zealots.

These sects had schools or houses of teaching within them. Within the Pharisees there were two famous rival houses; they were the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel. The individuals that these houses were named after were considered the “father” of the house.

Jesus warns the apostles not to be fathers to “separate” houses—for there is but one house of the Lord. Jesus also says to call no man “teacher” or “master.” This is interesting because the Apostle Paul was taught by Gamaliel (cf. Acts 22:3), a Pharisee from the House of Hillel. Gamaliel, the grandson of Hillel, was known as an elder and had the title of “Rabban” which means “Our Master.” This title explains why Jesus also said call no one “master”; there is but one house and one master of all. Jesus prayed for unity (cf. John 17) and did not want the apostles to set up separate houses or schools of thought.

This is clearly expressed in Paul’s complaint in 1 Corinthians 1:10-15 when he describes how some are arguing their superiority after being baptized by, and belonging to, Paul or Apollos, or Cephas, etc. Paul goes on elsewhere to warn against factions and divisions and stresses the importance of one mind and unity of doctrine.

The followers of Jesus were definitely a new group within Judaism initially; however, they eventually overwhelmed all others and the group he formed is known today by His name, Christian.

Now, a final word of explanation: Christians do NOT refer to Jesus as the Father of Christianity since A) it would be confusing in light of our Trinitarian view of God, and B) Jesus is God and not merely the man who formed a religious school. Thus, the term “Father” is typically applied to Peter or Paul or the other leaders of the Church.

So, although we have not taken up that particular title given by Isaiah to refer to Jesus, it is abundantly clear that the prophet saw that a child to be born was called “Mighty God”. Again, this is evidence of the Incarnation.
and if you can show me how Jesus ever talked about governance? How did Jesus put the government upon His shoulder?
Click to expand...
Obviously, you have read the Bible (some probably) but you have not learned or understood it, have you?

Luke 1:32-33
32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

Jesus inherited the throne of his father, David, and He is seated upon the throne in heaven.
This verse is in reference to Baha’u’llah who was entitled all of those Names. He has come in the station of the Everlasting Father, and the government is upon His shoulder.
Click to expand...
IMO, the only name he is entitled to is the one he received at birth: Mírzá Ḥusayn-`Alí Núrí. He was born in 1817 Tehran (modern day Iran), and his parents were both human: His mother was Khadíjih Khánum and his father was Mírzá Buzurg. After contracting a fever in 1892, he died in present-day Israel, and he was buried there. You can visit his tomb, if you like.

While in Israel, you can visit the site of Jesus’ tomb, also. But it is empty. 👍
 
Servant19 said:
When the Manifestation of God says something, it is God saying that thing. When He wills, God wills. When He teaches, God teaches.

As far as our human understanding can possibly fathom, there is no difference between God and a Manifestation of God. This flies in the face of Islamic teaching because the mission of Muhammad was similar to the mission of Moses, to establish the one God, so no human idols!!
Click to expand...
God is uncreated.
Jesus is created.
And yet, you claim that there is no difference between God and Jesus who was a manifestation of God.

You might want to find a basic primer on logic at a used bookshop…
 
CHEEEEKY!

I think you will struggle to find one teaching of Baha’u’llah, in terms of how we should conduct ourselves in our lives, tha the Catholic Church would not endorse as praiseworthy.

PLUS…

EVERY SPIRIT THAT CONFESSES THAT JESUS HAS COME IN THE FLESH IS FROM GOD

That means Baha’u’llah was from God.

Very simple reasoning really…

You can argue, twist and turn, wriggle and squirm as much as you want but the words are very very clear…

.
 
Servant19-

I do want to apologize if we Catholics get a little carried away at times when chatting with you. It’s hard for us to take much of anything you say too seriously, and there’s certainly no possibility of us of treating the Baha’i faith as an equal to Catholicism which was founded by God Himself upon Peter, the rock.

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1)

I don’t know whether you were of any particular Christian faith before falling under the influence of this latest middle-Eastern shaman or whether you were simply an empty vessel looking for some spiritual fulfillment.

So, let me say that it’s wrong to make jokes at your expense since I know you actually believe this stuff and it’s obviously very important to you since you dedicate an amazing amount of time trying to explain and defend it. I mean no offense to you personally.

However, the Baha’i faith deserves all the criticism, ridicule and scorn that it receives because through it, people are led away from the truth of Jesus Christ, and that is no laughing matter.

I’ve given you plenty of material to think about, and I strongly urge you to consider it as well as the path that you are on. It is not what you believe it to be.
 
Servant19 said:
CHEEEEKY!

I think you will struggle to find one teaching of Baha’u’llah, in terms of how we should conduct ourselves in our lives, tha the Catholic Church would not endorse as praiseworthy.

PLUS…

EVERY SPIRIT THAT CONFESSES THAT JESUS HAS COME IN THE FLESH IS FROM GOD

That means Baha’u’llah was from God.

Very simple reasoning really…

You can argue, twist and turn, wriggle and squirm as much as you want but the words are very very clear…

.
Click to expand...
Ok, give us the writing from Baha’u’llah on Jesus.
 
Randy_Carson said:
I personally believe that “masters” or “gurus” like this are led astray from a very early age by evil spirits who represent themselves as messengers of God.

Because angels are vastly superior to us, it is easy for them to teach and reveal all sorts of things to a young, potential guru in order to win his or her confidence. Later, the enlightened “guru” will use this “wisdom” to win followers who accept his knowledge as miraculous.

But it is not from God.
Click to expand...
So I keep asking you this question but you seem to want to avoid it.

What makes you so sure that a man that walked the earth 2000 years ago was not led astray by evil spirits which caused God’s Chosen People to deny the commandments of their Prophet?

.
 
Servant19 said:
So I keep asking you this question but you seem to want to avoid it.

What makes you so sure that a man that walked the earth 2000 years ago was not led astray by evil spirits which caused God’s Chosen People to deny the commandments of their Prophet?

.
Click to expand...
I’m pretty much done, but your question deserves a response, because the answer makes all the difference in the world:

The Resurrection.

:signofcross:
 
Randy_Carson said:
Servant19-

I do want to apologize if we Catholics get a little carried away at times when chatting with you. It’s hard for us to take much of anything you say too seriously, and there’s certainly no possibility of us of treating the Baha’i faith as an equal to Catholicism which was founded by God Himself upon Peter, the rock.

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.” (1 Timothy 4:1)

I don’t know whether you were of any particular Christian faith before falling under the influence of this latest middle-Eastern shaman or whether you were simply an empty vessel looking for some spiritual fulfillment.

So, let me say that it’s wrong to make jokes at your expense since I know you actually believe this stuff and it’s obviously very important to you since you dedicate an amazing amount of time trying to explain and defend it. I mean no offense to you personally.

However, the Baha’i faith deserves all the criticism, ridicule and scorn that it receives because through it, people are led away from the truth of Jesus Christ, and that is no laughing matter.

I’ve given you plenty of material to think about, and I strongly urge you to consider it as well as the path that you are on. It is not what you believe it to be.
Click to expand...
The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 1 Timothy 4:1

Randy I’m embarrassed to say this is the first time I seeing this, I could have used it earlier .🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top