Believing in the True Jesus - Christians vs Baha'is

[Servant19]

I will again address what “first-born” means in the New Testament which derived from the Greek word “prototokos” which I already did in Post #25 but perhaps it wasn’t enough. Just so you know the Gospel of John was written in Koine (common) Greek. I will quote from my post in Post #25 once more so it will be more convenient for you before attempting to explain further to you below:

When we read a text from our own view instead of the author’s style & written language, we can fall into all sorts of error, especially when it is a very old text dating thousands of years ago.

Lets have a closer look here:

πρωτότοκος (first-born; prōtótokos): **first, pre-eminent, first in time **(Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); **pre-eminent **(Col 1:15; Rev 1:5). Specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is “preeminent” – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16). **The preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life **(Jn 5:26).

We see here all the words pertaining to the word “first-born” which John intends to tell us through his usage of the Greek language to the gentiles. We cannot use the modern day English or the Hebrew language in the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament Greek. Some words of the past just cannot be shared with the modern day languages. If Jesus is the first-created as you are trying to reason to me, the correct word in Greek will be:

hyiós (υἱός): son by birth or adoption. Emphasizing the likeness of the believer to the heavenly Father, resembling His character more and more by living in faith. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). A son with the right to the Father’s inheritance, as the believer lives in conformity with the Father’s purpose.

So if Jesus is the first-created, He is actually a hyiós of God and not prōtótokos which is the word used in both Colossians & John. I cannot find anything to dispute here about the choice of words Paul & John have used. They wrote what they bear witness to, Servant.

Yes indeed. But we Catholics are not speculating. We know that the doctrines of Catholicism are infallible, which are preserved since the days of the First Apostles. What you are trying to prove here is that Catholic doctrines are fallible using the “I’m speculating” basket, just because Jesus did not explain Himself using the words you wish to hear.

I will be charitable here & not take issue of being accused for not reasoning, Servant. What you are proposing is that I reason according to the Baha’i faith or everything I explained is unreasonable. What I have been proposing was that I reason from the Bible and the Catholic faith and see where it leads while you reason yours. When someone is already determined that the Catholic doctrine is flawed, then everything in the Bible must be proven word for word instead of using their own discernment to understand the entire Bible from front to back.

A word for word in the wrong places will be like this:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” - John 15:1
Does that mean Jesus is a vegetable?

"Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life” - John 6:35
Does that mean Jesus is a loaf of bread?

Since you require word for word verification, using the same standards you set I humbly seek your perspective on this passage:

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” - John 20:28

Firstly, my sincere apologies Guy. I was in no way implying you lack reason. If it came across that way I do apologize.

Can you give me the rationality behind why the first born of God is actually saying the first born of creation?

Also how does that then equal pre-existence?

Thankyou

.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Think about it Guy, why would the Torah be superceded? The Jews had Rabbinic succession, they followed S’michah, they were taught infallibly by the Rabbinic schools, they also found comfort in it, from the very early days of Moses, nothing was changed, and now the Law is “death”!!!
According to the Law, the Messiah was NOT Jesus, so why not find comfort in that?
What made you a Christian and not a Jew?

I have to concede in some ways with those comparisons you just made, Servant. You have made a strong argument to reason your case that Christians may have got it wrong concerning His second coming, but just didn’t want to say it casually.

However, (I seek the forgiveness of any Jews who may read this paragraph) the Jews did not have the scriptural evidences of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ which the Church and the New Testament have. And that itself hinges upon everything both faiths believe in.

The better question will be why am I journeying to be a Catholic and not to be a Baha’i?

And that too, Servant… the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is what hinges upon my reasoning. I was hoping someone could prove me wrong about Jesus physical resurrection, but there’s no one yet who could give me any grounds from the Bible to have any doubts.

GuyNextDoor

 

[Servant19]

I will again address what “first-born” means in the New Testament which derived from the Greek word “prototokos” which I already did in Post #25 but perhaps it wasn’t enough. Just so you know the Gospel of John was written in Koine (common) Greek. I will quote from my post in Post #25 once more so it will be more convenient for you before attempting to explain further to you below:

…

Lets have a closer look here:

πρωτότοκος (first-born; prōtótokos): **first, pre-eminent, first in time **(Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7); **pre-eminent **(Col 1:15; Rev 1:5). Specifically refers to Christ as the first to experience glorification at His resurrection (see Heb 12:23; Rev 1:5). For this (and countless other reasons) Jesus is “preeminent” – the unequivocal Sovereign over all creation (Col 1:16). **The preeminent, glorified Christ, the eternal Logos who possesses self-existent life **(Jn 5:26).

We see here all the words pertaining to the word “first-born” which John intends to tell us through his usage of the Greek language to the gentiles. We cannot use the modern day English or the Hebrew language in the Old Testament to interpret the New Testament Greek. Some words of the past just cannot be shared with the modern day languages. If Jesus is the first-created as you are trying to reason to me, the correct word in Greek will be:

hyiós (υἱός): son by birth or adoption. Emphasizing the likeness of the believer to the heavenly Father, resembling His character more and more by living in faith. For the believer, becoming a son of God begins with being reborn (adopted) by the heavenly Father – through Christ (the work of the eternal Son). A son with the right to the Father’s inheritance, as the believer lives in conformity with the Father’s purpose.

So if Jesus is the first-created, He is actually a hyiós of God and not prōtótokos which is the word used in both Colossians & John. I cannot find anything to dispute here about the choice of words Paul & John have used. They wrote what they bear witness to, Servant.

Yes indeed. But we Catholics are not speculating. We know that the doctrines of Catholicism are infallible, which are preserved since the days of the First Apostles. What you are trying to prove here is that Catholic doctrines are fallible using the “I’m speculating” basket, just because Jesus did not explain Himself using the words you wish to hear.

I will be charitable here …

A word for word in the wrong places will be like this:

“I am the true vine, and My Father is the vinedresser.” - John 15:1
Does that mean Jesus is a vegetable?

"Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life” - John 6:35
Does that mean Jesus is a loaf of bread?

Since you require word for word verification, using the same standards you set I humbly seek your perspective on this passage:

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” - John 20:28

First and foremost, I wish to apologise if it was ever hinted by me that you lack reason, Guy, my apologies. I never intended to say that and I will work harder to ensure that my words cannot possibly be misconstrued in such a way. My apologies again friend

In John 5:19-25 Jesus is addressing humanity. He is providing an epistemological statement of realities for the lay people with finite minds to understand that, to them, there is no difference between Jesus and God. The Son provides, the Son judges, the Son has honour (all very true and Baha’is would be the first to acknowledge this). They are one and the same in an epistemological sense. But ontologically, the full reality, and distinction is given by the words: “The Son can do nothing of His own accord” (John 5:19)

Think about it Guy. How can a definitive statement be made that Jesus is God when Jesus, absolutely, and unequivocally says that He cannot do anything of His own accord?

At very best, the teaching needs to explore alternative explanations.

In regards to the “first-born” etc, and thank you for your research into the Greek, it was very enlightening indeed, my emphasis is not necessarily on the words “first-born” but rather the words “first-born OF” with more emphasis on the OF.

When we are OF something, we are not that something. We cannot equate the two when the word “OF” is used.

I also question your approach to imply that my understanding of this phrase is better suited to the word “hyios”…I most certainly am not implying a son by birth or adoption. Not sure where we go from here in this regard

If by quoting John 5:26 you are interpreting this as BOTH the Father and Son existing independently, not requiring sustenance from anyone or anything, then we have a very serious polytheism issue, which is heavily contradicted by what is stated in John 5:19.

Please also have a look at some of the works of Thomas Aquinas, who basically stated that the names of Father, Son and Holy Spirit signify the procession or emanation of the Divine. This act of procession is comparable to how an idea is conceived in the intellect; and this came forth from God as the Word. So when something “proceeds” from something, the lesser proceeds from the greater. If Jesus has anything greater than Him, then He automatically cannot be God.

I will address your request for my understanding of Thomas’s words in my next post

.

 

[Servant19]

I have to concede in some ways with those comparisons you just made, Servant. You have made a strong argument to reason your case that Christians may have got it wrong concerning His second coming, but just didn’t want to say it casually.

However, (I seek the forgiveness of any Jews who may read this paragraph) the Jews did not have the scriptural evidences of the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ which the Church and the New Testament have. And that itself hinges upon everything both faiths believe in.

The better question will be why am I journeying to be a Catholic and not to be a Baha’i?

And that too, Servant… the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ is what hinges upon my reasoning. I was hoping someone could prove me wrong about Jesus physical resurrection, but there’s no one yet who could give me any grounds from the Bible to have any doubts.

GuyNextDoor

Thankyou again for your thoughts.

Again, I would ask that the physical resurrection of Jesus meant nothing at all to Peter when He declared that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

I would therefore put forward the argument that we should all be like Peter and pray to the Lord to guide us in the same manner that Peter was guided without the need to rely on a physical resurrection.

Paul too, never witnessed the resurrection, and, with Peter were the most pre-eminent Apostles, and neither required a physical resurrection to ensure their eternal embrace with their Lord…

God bless you.



.

 

[Servant19]

Since you require word for word verification, using the same standards you set I humbly seek your perspective on this passage:

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” - John 20:28

In regards to this Guy, I am open minded really to what the possible meanings may be.

There are a few things to consider:

1. This could very well be a physical resurrection, however a physical body cannot inherit the Kingdom. This puts Jesus not in a good light from my understanding…
2. This could have been a very powerful vision, and visions at that time were incredibly real and powerful. There are a few instances where visions were so real that real reactions and interactions took place.
3. The resurrection of Jesus is not related, in terms of a physical transformation, to the resurrection of the dead at the End of Days.

Thanks for reading

.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Servant19;12327754]This is one of your misunderstandings dear Gabriel.

I never said they “co-exist”, they are “co-eternal”…this is not polytheism

I have not misunderstood you or your sources you provided.

You may not have intended to say “co-exist” but your sources from Bahai sure do, to which do you hold to your own view or Bahai’s view, so that no confusion is made from Servant19 no “co-exist” and Bahai’s teaching that they do “co-exist”?

Here is a quote from your Bahai source llink which explains it well as you stated;

ii. As the divine entity is eternal, the divine attributes are coexistent, coeternal'[15] and co-equal’[16] with and to Him.

A sun is not a sun unless it has rays from the moment it comes into existence. The rays do not exist without the sun and the sun, by definition, loses its identity if it does not have rays. The rays are created, but are co-eternal and possess the attribute of “eternality”…

What you describe here from the metaphor of sun, has two different characteristics, The Sun itself is not the sun ray because the sun ray loses it’s identity.

Secondly the sun ray, according to your Servant19, is created from the sun that do not co-exist but are co-eternal? An oxymoron in the making.

What the Catholic Saints relate to as the substance of the sun, the sun ray possesses the same substance as the sun, both sun and sun ray are of the same substance sun. St. Basil, Justin Martyr are very clear here on the substance of the sun and sun ray are the same. Just as we Catholics have always professed Jesus is consubstantial with the Father.

In Essence the Sun ray proceeds from the Sun to accomplish or give it’s light to darkness. Just as the Son proceeds from the Father, to do the will of the Father. Once the sun ray or the Son of the Father accomplishes or fulfills for that which the Father sends the Son to fulfill the will of the Father.

Your sun ray loses it’s identity all together, thus your Jesus did nothing and never fulfilled anything, because it lost its light and identity to the sun.

Whereby in Christian theology, the Sun Ray or the Son proceeding from the Father is sent to die by giving it’s light to all who believe. Yet the Sun Ray is of the same substance (Essence) as the Sun, the Essence of the Sun and Sun Ray is eternal existence. It can give life and take life.

Peace be with you

 

[eddie_too]

I hope someone can provide the bahai creed that servant19 claims exists.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

First and foremost, I wish to apologise if it was ever hinted by me that you lack reason, Guy, my apologies. I never intended to say that and I will work harder to ensure that my words cannot possibly be misconstrued in such a way. My apologies again friend

No apology is needed here. Anyone may err by crossing boundaries unintentionally, myself included.

In John 5:19-25 Jesus is addressing humanity. He is providing an epistemological statement of realities for the lay people with finite minds to understand that, to them, there is no difference between Jesus and God. The Son provides, the Son judges, the Son has honour (all very true and Baha’is would be the first to acknowledge this). They are one and the same in an epistemological sense. But ontologically, the full reality, and distinction is given by the words: “The Son can do nothing of His own accord” (John 5:19)

Think about it Guy. How can a definitive statement be made that Jesus is God when Jesus, absolutely, and unequivocally says that He cannot do anything of His own accord?

If by quoting John 5:26 you are interpreting this as BOTH the Father and Son existing independently, not requiring sustenance from anyone or anything, then we have a very serious polytheism issue, which is heavily contradicted by what is stated in John 5:19.

You are still quoting out of context Servant. Lets put it back into its context from top to bottom. It is only fair isn’t it?

In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. - John 5:17-18

All that you have quoted followed after the above passage, when the statement He made to the Jews caused them to want to kill Him. “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” Jesus has made Himself equal to God with that statement.

Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. - John 5:17-29

“…the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.” This only reaffirms further that the Father & the Son is of one Divine Essence. The moment Jesus was incarnated into the flesh, he was to suffer more than any human being in order to atone for the sins of all mankind. He had given up His free will to exercise His divine attributes the moment He is in the flesh. So yes by being human, He must conform to the will of the Father and suffer like any human being, else His Death and Resurrection is in vain.

Here’s food for thought:

Can a mere human subjected to sin, sacrifice himself for the numerous sins of one man, much less the countless sins of all mankind?

Can a mere man subjected to time, sacrifice himself for the sins of the whole world since the beginning of time til the end of time?

Only God (who is eternal) born into the flesh of Man, Who suffered as a Man, died & raised to atone for the sins of the world can satisfy God’s Justice, else we are implying that God is unrighteous and have decided to abolish His own Laws.

“So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit.” - 1 Cor 15:45

God is Spirit.

We probably have to be content that you are understanding the passage the way it is because your mind is searching for areas where Jesus suggesting He is not God, instead of searching the bible for the verses that says He is.

In regards to the “first-born” etc, and thank you for your research into the Greek, it was very enlightening indeed, my emphasis is not necessarily on the words “first-born” but rather the words “first-born OF” with more emphasis on the OF.

When we are OF something, we are not that something. We cannot equate the two when the word “OF” is used.

I can only offer you this:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm

The Holy Trinity is a Mystery that no man can even hope to try to dismantle, understand and explain in its fullness.

GuyNextDoor

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Again, I would ask that the physical resurrection of Jesus meant nothing at all to Peter when He declared that Jesus was the Son of the Living God.

I would therefore put forward the argument that we should all be like Peter and pray to the Lord to guide us in the same manner that Peter was guided without the need to rely on a physical resurrection.

Paul too, never witnessed the resurrection, and, with Peter were the most pre-eminent Apostles, and…

Jesus said the Father revealed who Jesus is to Peter. Paul had a vision of the Lord, thus I beg to differ because while it may not be relevant to you, Servant but it is very relevant to us Christians.

… neither required a physical resurrection to ensure their eternal embrace with their Lord…

That’s not the position of Christianity but Baha’i. How did you arrive at that assumption, Servant?

GuyNextDoor;12331016:

Since you require word for word verification, using the same standards you set I humbly seek your perspective on this passage:

Then He said to Thomas, “Reach here with your finger, and see My hands; and reach here your hand and put it into My side; and do not be unbelieving, but believing.” 28Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

- John 20:28

In regards to this Guy, I am open minded really to what the possible meanings may be.

There are a few things to consider: …

1. This could very well be a physical resurrection, however a physical body cannot inherit the Kingdom. This puts Jesus not in a good light from my understanding.

Let us follow the same standard we have been using all along with Jesus’ words. There is really no other way around that passage unless Thomas did not respond at all but he did. I will just forgo the 2nd and 3rd possibilities for now. Lets fast forward.

Why do you feel that a physical body cannot inherit the Kingdom? How did you come to that conclusion, Servant?

GuyNextDoor

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Servant19;12327723]It seems there are a few misunderstandings …

Maybe you would benefit from reading the following thorough exploration on the subject. Its only a few pages long, but is quite comprehensive

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

God bless

Your Bahai source states the following;

"In fact, Abdu'l-Bahá says that the essential names and attributes of God are identical with His Essence…’ and sets forth a concise, rational explanation of His statement:

ii. `If the attributes are not identical with the Essence, there must also be a multiplicity of preexistences’;"

Abdu just repeated what I previously commented to you, which you referred as; that I did not understand. That if you have the Sun co-eternal with the sun ray, when the sun ray is not the sun, then you have two distinct eternal entities co-existing, which is clearly polytheism.

I disagree with Abdu although, because the Characterization of God or His Attributes do not define God’s Essence, thus the Attributes of God are not identical with God’s Essence. No one cannot define God’s Essence because God’s Essence does not come down to us in attributes or names.

I repeat here, God’s Essence does not come down to us in any form of Attributes or Names.

The Son is not an attribute of God, nor a reflection of God. The Son = Jesus is God.

Only God’s true Presence in the distinct persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Trinity comes down to us in procession, which Trinity gives name to this divine revelation of the divine economy.

The persons of the Trinity is God. A Person essence cannot be an attribute of Himself, when God is. If an attribute is the Essence of a creature, then the color green becomes a Lizard.

cont;

Quote from your Bahai source;
If God is inaccessible in His Essence, if He transcends His creatures and is sanctified from any other reality, what is the relation binding His creatures to Him?

Abdu'l-Bahá says: The dependence of the creatures upon God is a dependence of emanation – that is to say, creatures emanate from God; they do not manifest Him.’[19]

Creation as emanation – as the Bahá’í texts explain it – implies the following fundamental points:

ii. creatures do not manifest God’s Essence, from which they emanate; but they mirror forth its active attributes;

iii. creatures have their existence in different degrees.

Servant19, you have Jesus as “First Emanation” from God. If you are correct then you and the Bahai have Jesus as a creature of God, who has First Emanated from God. Bahai then has Jesus the creature first emanation of God, becomes just a mirror of some different degree of other emanating factors of God attributed to God, that only mirror active attributes of God?

Thus far both you and the Bahai views are holding Jesus the Son of God, came to be from things that were not ( first emanation from God) and that Jesus was from another substance other than that of the Father.

If this is your Jesus?, then your Bahai has intellectualized the ancient condemned heresy of Arianism?

This is what defeated such a heretical Arian view of Jesus in 325 a.d “The Son of God is BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, of the SAME SUBSTANCE (Homoousis) as the Father”. This we profess in the Creed today unchanged.

If you have your Jesus a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son?, then your view of Jesus enters the condemned heretical view of Nestorianism.

There are other heresies which your view of Jesus borders, Yet Arianism defines your Jesus and Nestorian heresy comes the closest to your view’s as presented from your sources and commentary.

I yield the last word to you on this subject, so as to move on thank you.

And may the Peace of God be with you

 

[Servant19]

Your Bahai source states the following;

Abdu just repeated what I previously commented to you, which you referred as; that I did not understand. That if you have the Sun co-eternal with the sun ray, when the sun ray is not the sun, then you have two distinct eternal entities co-existing, which is clearly polytheism.

I disagree with Abdu although, because the Characterization of God or His Attributes do not define God’s Essence, thus the Attributes of God are not identical with God’s Essence. No one cannot define God’s Essence because God’s Essence does not come down to us in attributes or names.

I repeat here, God’s Essence does not come down to us in any form of Attributes or Names.

The Son is not an attribute of God, nor a reflection of God. The Son = Jesus is God.

Only God’s true Presence in the distinct persons Father, Son and Holy Spirit in Trinity comes down to us in procession, which Trinity gives name to this divine revelation of the divine economy.

The persons of the Trinity is God. A Person essence cannot be an attribute of Himself, when God is. If an attribute is the Essence of a creature, then the color green becomes a Lizard.

cont;

Servant19, you have Jesus as “First Emanation” from God. If you are correct then you and the Bahai have Jesus as a creature of God, who has First Emanated from God. Bahai then has Jesus the creature first emanation of God, becomes just a mirror of some different degree of other emanating factors of God attributed to God, that only mirror active attributes of God?

Thus far both you and the Bahai views are holding Jesus the Son of God, came to be from things that were not ( first emanation from God) and that Jesus was from another substance other than that of the Father.

If this is your Jesus?, then your Bahai has intellectualized the ancient condemned heresy of Arianism?

This is what defeated such a heretical Arian view of Jesus in 325 a.d “The Son of God is BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, of the SAME SUBSTANCE (Homoousis) as the Father”. This we profess in the Creed today unchanged.

If you have your Jesus a human person joined to the divine person of God’s Son?, then your view of Jesus enters the condemned heretical view of Nestorianism.

There are other heresies which your view of Jesus borders, Yet Arianism defines your Jesus and Nestorian heresy comes the closest to your view’s as presented from your sources and commentary.

I yield the last word to you on this subject, so as to move on thank you.

And may the Peace of God be with you

Hi Gabriel,

I feel assured now that you have not read the linked document with precision and clarity

I did not read past your first paragraphs indicating a perceived contradiction about the attributes of God.

Please, we cannot have a dialogue about the contents of a document if one person is not reading it properly.

Let me give you hint
Essential attributes are not the same as active attributes.

.

 

[Servant19]

.

Have a lovely weekend guys. I will be away so we can resume our exploration from Monday

God bless

.

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Have a lovely weekend guys. I will be away so we can resume our exploration from Monday

You too. We will resume where we paused after that.

GuyNextDoor

 

[GuyNextDoor]

When we are OF something, we are not that something. We cannot equate the two when the word “OF” is used.

Now that I have more time, let me attempt to address your concerns which led to where we are now. The argument here was if Jesus is God, why did He say His Father is greater than He? Lets have a look at what the Greek Manuscripts and see what it says. There is no one who would ever dispute the Greek Manuscripts because it captures the very essence of what the authors were writing about.

When the Holy Catholic Church teaches about the Holy Trinity, She is teaching of one eternal God existing in three distinct, yet inseparable Persons. It is not impossible for one Person of the Godhead to be greater to a certain degree than the other members. It does not however means that one Person of the Godhead is greater in nature or essence than the other.

The word “greater” in Greek found in John 14:28 is μεῖζον (meízōn): “…for the Father is greater (μεῖζον; meízōn) than I.” - John 14:28

μεῖζον (meízōn): in greater degree, authority and/or position.

The same μεῖζον is used here in:* “Truly, truly, I say to you, a slave is not greater (μεῖζον; meízōn) than his master, nor is one who is sent greater (μεῖζον; meízōn) than the one who sent him.”* - John 13:16

A slave is not greater in position or authority than his master, but it does not mean the slave is not the same nature and essence as his master. Both are still human here.

μείζονα (meízōna): more; greater in numbers, quantity and/or amount.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do, he will do also; and greater (μείζονα; meízōna) works than these he will do; because I go to the Father…” - John 14:12

So here we see how the words “greater” (μεῖζον; meízōn) and (μείζονα; meízōna) are being used in the Greek Manuscripts from these two passages. None of them speaks of a comparison being greater in nature or essence.

The word we need to look for to define greater in nature or essence is μείζων (meizón), in order to prove the case that Jesus is not True God from True God:

μείζων (meizón): stronger, larger, elder, greater(-est); surpassing others — either in nature and power, as God

It did not appear where its misunderstood to be, Servant.

GuyNextDoor

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Instead of getting so wrapped up with the word “of”, please open your heart to these verses if you really wish to know more about the Trinity, where Jesus claimed to be God or He was proclaimed by others to be God from the biblical sources:

For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. - Isaiah 9:6

Even Isaiah prophesied about Jesus being God with a capital “G” and that His Name is also the Everlasting Father. Unless Jesus is God, His Name with that meaning would be idolatrous. Isaiah did not end there neither did Matthew, who was one of the First Apostles.

"Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel." - Isaiah 7:14

“Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which is translated, “God with us.” - Matthew 1:23

Clear as day why Christians believe Jesus is God. If “God with us” is His Name, surely God the Father is also included which was written in Isaiah 9:6 above. Even Matthew who received the teachings from the mouth of Jesus proclaimed it.

Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father, and we will be satisfied.” Jesus replied, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?" - John 14:8-9

Thus saith Jehovah, the King of Israel, and his Redeemer, Jehovah of hosts: I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God. - Isaiah 44:6

The Name here used in this verse from Isaiah is Jehovah, God: He declared He is the First and the Last. Jesus in Revelation reaffirms that:

When I saw him, I fell at his feet as though dead. But he laid his right hand on me, saying, “Fear not, I am the first and the last, and the living one. I died, and behold I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of Death and Hades.” - Revelation 1:17-18

Here we see that Jesus is using the exact same words “The Alpha and the Omega” as the verses in Isaiah. He is saying I am God, I am Jehovah, the First and the Last. We cannot reconcile that any other way unless superficially, we intend to dispute that it was God the Father who spoke and died in His eternal Essence and not Jesus.

“I and the Father are One” - John 10:30

And that was why the Jews wanted to kill Him. Again He was saying that the Father and Him are equal & One in Essence.

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

Unless I am told that Thomas swore in front of Jesus… this verses cannot be interpreted in any other way. As if that’s not enough, there’s more.

“You are My witnesses,” says the Lord, “And My servant [Jesus] whom I have chosen, That you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He. Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me. I, even I, am the Lord, and besides Me there is no Savior.” - Isaiah 43:10-11

God has spoken. Everything that the opponents of the Holy Catholic Church kept questioning is answered in this passage. Jehovah said He is Jesus. He said before Him, there was no other God created and after Him, there shall also be no other God created. He has been telling us that our Lord Jesus and He is One. He Himself is the Savior. And the Bible kept proclaiming while Jesus kept saying it again and again that He is God and God is Him.

As you put it, it is actually quite simple to understand if we believe the Bible speaks the Truth and then we will find everything within layered one on top of the other, without contradiction. The only contradiction is Man. It only becomes difficult for people to understand Scriptures when they are determined to prove that it is filled with contradictions. All sorts of man-made views enter the picture after that about the Catholic faith.

I will also appreciate your sources for the “non-physical” Resurrection of our Lord Jesus when you return, Servant.

Peace be with you.

GuyNextDoor

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Many of the Early Church Fathers describe Jesus teaching the “Father is greater than the Son” by the revealed procession in the divine economy of the Trinity.

The Father proceeds from no one. The Father sends and eternally begets the Son.

The Father gives everything the Father has to the Son except the begetting, because the Son does not beget another.

The Son does everything the Father is doing, thus the Son sends the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The Father Loves the Son and the Son Loves the Father

The Father Wills, it pleases the Son to do the Will of His Father.

The Father is greater than the Son is the sending and begetting of the Son not made.

From this divine economy of the Trinity reveals the Father is greater than the Son in procession.

It is important to grasp here, that this divine economic procession is an eternal procession outside of space and time.

The eternal begetting and sending from the Father, if I can describe it in human terms to reflect this eternal procession, is the same as God who breathes and speaks His life in Trinity.

The Eternal procession or Eternal breathing (metaphor) of God sends (breathes) life (Holy Spirit the Lord the give of Life) and begets His only begotten Son, When God speaks His Word God the Father who does not proceed from no one, begets His only begotten Son. This God breathes and God Speaks reveals God lives. Here we still remain in the realm of eternity in God’s Essence eternally Existing breathing sending life, and speaking begets a Son to fulfill the Will of the Father.

This eternal procession of God who breathes and speaks His Word or eternally begets the Son. Is revealed in space and time in the presence of the Holy Trinity of persons, when the Voice = Father is heard, the Word = the only Begotten Son of the Father is sent out and the Holy Spirit perfects and makes divine revelation known or He is the Lord and giver of Life. When the presence of God is made known in the Trinity of persons, the Essence of God is veiled in each person when each person is God in revelation, because the Essence of God does not come down to us.

In short the Father is greater than the Son because God breathes and speaks and lives.

When the Father is God, who speaks His Word begets the Son who in the beginning was with God and the Word is God and all life and creation came through Him and the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among the human race = Emmanuel.

When God the Father breathes life who is life, sends the Spirit who is the Lord the giver of Life.

God and the Holy Spirit is God in presence in space and time who gives life in Him, with Him, through Him and from Him to what came to be from the Word who is God revealed in the fullness of time Jesus the Logos, Word of God incarnate.

Trinity is One God and no other eternally Pure Essence in being Existing. This Eternal Essence of God is undivided and never separated in the persons of the Trinity.

Sorry Guy, I got lost in thought, did not mean to be long winded here;

Peace be with you

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Sorry Guy, I got lost in thought, did not mean to be long winded here;

Peace be with you

No problem at all Gabriel. I am thankful for the detailed post on that topic. The knowledge from it brings me to a higher level of understanding the Holy Trinity than before. Not that I can ever grasp the Holy Trinity in all its entirety but its easier to contemplate on that topic now.

Always appreciate a good constructive post!

Peace be with you.

GuyNextDoor

 

[Servant19]

Your Bahai source states the following;

"In fact, Abdu'l-Bahá says that the essential names and attributes of God are identical with His Essence…’ and sets forth a concise, rational explanation of His statement:

This is where my understanding seems to differ to yours dear Gabriel .

The passage you have quoted is talking about the “essential” attributes of God being identical with the Essence of God. If they were not identical with the essence, then there would be 2 Gods. So, the passage quoted is trying to PROVE that the essential attributes are identical with God’s essence, otherwise there would be multiplicity of pre-existences, which is polytheism.

I never said that the sun ray is not created. The sun ray is created by the Sun, but we should not get too caught up in what is after all, only an analogy to describe a “relationship”

The relationship goes thus…

If a sun can create sun rays that exist with it, throughout its existence from beginning to end, then God too, can have its “First Emanation” existing with Him from beginning to end, thereby having two eternal entities which are not one and the same in essence. The rays cannot do anything without the sun. If the sun moves up, the rays move up. If the sun moves down, the rays move down. (for example)

Hence, as Jesus proclaims:

"Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does." (John 5:19)

and Baha’u’llah also proclaims that He is…`but a leaf which the winds of the Will of Thy Lord… have stirred (Proclamation pg 57)

I personally think it is fairly simple to grasp.

I disagree with Abdu although, because the Characterization of God or His Attributes do not define God’s Essence, thus the Attributes of God are not identical with God’s Essence. No one cannot define God’s Essence because God’s Essence does not come down to us in attributes or names.

I repeat here, God’s Essence does not come down to us in any form of Attributes or Names.

Yes, I’m not sure what you disagree with here. The passage talks about the fact that God’s essence DOES NOT come down to creation in any form of attributes. The essential attributes emanate in the form of active attributes…

“The Bahá’í texts state moreover that we understand but a faint reflection of God’s active attributes in the world, and that we cannot understand anything at all of His essential attributes.”

…

 

[GuyNextDoor]

Welcome back, Servant. Hope you have enjoyed the weekend.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Servant19;12340248]This is where my understanding seems to differ to yours dear Gabriel .

The passage you have quoted is talking about the “essential” attributes of God being identical with the Essence of God. If they were not identical with the essence, then there would be 2 Gods. So, the passage quoted is trying to PROVE that the essential attributes are identical with God’s essence, otherwise there would be multiplicity of pre-existences, which is polytheism.

Yes I gather that from your sources. I disagreed because no one defines the Essence of God. The attributes of God is not God’s Essence.

What we learn of God’s attributes are revealed from the presence of the Trinity of Persons, the attributes in themselves are not God’s Essence.

You and your sources have the attributes of God co-existing with God co-eternal here, which divides God’s Essence as co-existing with one of God’s attributes which Bahai defines to be co-equal with God’s Essence.

Here is your source once again proving my point;

“As the divine entity is eternal, the divine attributes are coexistent, coeternal’[15] and `co-equal’[16] with and to Him.”

I never said that the sun ray is not created. The sun ray is created by the Sun,

The discussion has not graduated to the divine procession of what is begotten and what is created. What we are discussing here is the substance or the Essence of the Sun and the Substance of the Sun ray.

Your faith and source differ greatly from True Christianity. When you have confirmed that the Son (Sun ray) is created and made a creature that does not have the same substance as the Father (Sun).

In short your Jesus does not possess the same substance of His Father, which creates a creature co-existing, co-eternal that creates two distinct deities being co-equal existing.

St. Basil, Justin Martyr and many others have the Sun Ray of the Same Substance as the Sun. When translated means that Everything the Father (Sun) has, the Son (Sun ray) has in Essence = Substance undivided One is being God.

You can’t disagree with me here, because you just confirmed my commentary and your belief’s differ from Christianity here, when Bahai divides God’s Essence co-existing with a different Essence that is not the same co-eternally which reveals polytheism.

If a sun can create sun rays that exist with it, throughout its existence from beginning to end, then God too, can have its “First Emanation” existing with Him from beginning to end, **thereby having two eternal entities **which are not one and the same in essence.

In conclusion Bahai teaches a different Jesus who is created by God and is a creature made by God and Bahai’s Jesus does not have the same substance or Essence of God. Bahai’s Jesus has a created Essence that co-exist with God’s Essence.

When Christianity has Jesus consubstantial with the Father as we Catholics profess the Son of God is begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father.

I think we are clear in our understanding of Jesus divinity is God and Bahais’ Jesus is not God, but shares a different essence from God who co-exist with God in co-eternal.

I am concluded on this subject Servant 19, of the substance of the Father and the Son and our great differences of who Jesus really is. Unless you care to disagree or make any corrections, I yield to you.

peace be with you