23 Aug 12
Originally posted by galveston75So you cited a link that you do not actually agree with and you did not see fit to mention that it was information about a religion that is completely different from yours? Interesting.
Not at all. Would you like non bahai links that describe the word "manifestation" in the same light?
You might want to provide a link to an authoritative lexicographical source that claims the meaning of the word "manifestation" is the same as the meaning of the word"representative".
23 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75In the Bahá'í Faith, God is described as a single, imperishable God, the creator of all things, including all the creatures and forces in the universe. The connection between God and the world is that of the creator to his creation. God is understood to be independent of his creation, and that creation is dependent and contingent on God. God, however, is not seen to be incarnated into this world and is not seen to be part of creation as he cannot be divided and does not descend to the condition of his creatures. Instead, in the Bahá'í understanding, the world of creation emanates from God, in that all things have been realized by him and have attained to existence. The Bahá'í concept of the intermediary between God and humanity is expressed in the term Manifestation of God, which are a series of personages, such as Jesus and Bahá'u'lláh, who reflect the attributes of the divine into the human world for the progress and advancement of human morals and civilization. In expressing God's intent, these Manifestations are seen to establish religion in the world. The Manifestations of God are also not seen as an incarnation of God, but are instead understood to be like a perfect mirror reflecting the attributes of God onto this material world.
Not at all. Would you like non bahai links that describe the word "manifestation" in the same light?
The Incarnation of Christ is a central Christian doctrine that God became flesh, assumed a human nature, and became a man in the form of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the second person of the Trinity. This foundational Christian position holds that the divine nature of the Son of God was perfectly united with human nature in one divine Person, Jesus, making him both truly God and truly man. The theological term for this is hypostatic union: the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Son, became flesh when he was miraculously conceived in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Biblical passages traditionally referenced in connection with the doctrine of the Incarnation include John 1:14 and Colossians 2:9.
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFHow's this for you? Take your time and get the point being discussed here....
So you cited a link that you do not actually agree with and you did not see fit to mention that it was information about a religion that is completely different from yours? Interesting.
You might want to provide a link to an authoritative lexicographical source that claims the meaning of the word "manifestation" is the same as the meaning of the word"representative".
Why called “the Word.”
The name (or, perhaps, title) “the Word” (Joh 1:1) apparently identifies the function that God’s firstborn Son performed after other intelligent creatures were formed. A similar expression is found at Exodus 4:16, where Jehovah says to Moses concerning his brother Aaron: “And he must speak for you to the people; and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve as God to him.”
As spokesman for God’s chief representative on earth, Aaron served as “a mouth” for Moses. Likewise with the Word, or Logos, who became Jesus Christ. Jehovah evidently used his Son to convey information and instructions to others of his family of spirit sons, even as he used that Son to deliver his message to humans on earth. Showing that he was God’s Word, or Spokesman, Jesus said to his Jewish listeners: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me. If anyone desires to do His will, he will know concerning the teaching whether it is from God or I speak of my own originality.”—Joh 7:16, 17; compare Joh 12:50; 18:37.
Doubtless on many occasions during his prehuman existence as the Word, Jesus acted as Jehovah’s Spokesman to persons on earth. While certain texts refer to Jehovah as though directly speaking to humans, other texts make clear that he did so through an angelic representative. (Compare Ex 3:2-4 with Ac 7:30, 35; also Ge 16:7-11, 13; 22:1, 11, 12, 15-18.)
Reasonably, in the majority of such cases God spoke through the Word. He likely did so in Eden, for on two of the three occasions where mention is made of God’s speaking there, the record specifically shows someone was with Him, undoubtedly his Son. (Ge 1:26-30; 2:16, 17; 3:8-19, 22) The angel who guided Israel through the wilderness and whose voice the Israelites were strictly to obey because ‘Jehovah’s name was within him,’ may therefore have been God’s Son, the Word.—Ex 23:20-23; compare Jos 5:13-15.
This does not mean that the Word is the only angelic representative through whom Jehovah has spoken. The inspired statements at Acts 7:53, Galatians 3:19, and Hebrews 2:2, 3 make clear that the Law covenant was transmitted to Moses by angelic sons of God other than his Firstborn.
Jesus continues to bear the name “The Word of God” since his return to heavenly glory.—Re 19:13, 16.
IT #2 page 53.
23 Aug 12
2 edits
Originally posted by galveston75It is you who is missing my point. I am asking for a source that backs your apparent claim that the meaning of the word "manifestation" is the same as the meaning of the word "representative". The words are not synonymous and it would seem you want/need to use them interchangeably. Do you see my point?
How's this for you? Take your time and get the point being discussed here....
IT #2 page 53.
This is not an authoritative lexicographical source.
23 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75From your reference:
How's this for you? Take your time and get the point being discussed here....
Why called “the Word.”
The name (or, perhaps, title) “the Word” (Joh 1:1) apparently identifies the function that God’s firstborn Son performed after other intelligent creatures were formed. A similar expression is found at Exodus 4 ...[text shortened]... he name “The Word of God” since his return to heavenly glory.—Re 19:13, 16.
IT #2 page 53.
The angel who guided Israel through the wilderness and whose voice the Israelites were strictly to obey because ‘Jehovah’s name was within him,’ may therefore have been God’s Son, the Word.—Ex 23:20-23; compare Jos 5:13-15.
See also Exodus 3 were the Angel of the Lord appears to Moses in the Burning bush and tells Moses that He is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then He gives Moses the name to call Him.
Jesus later refers to this incident when speaking to the Pharisees when Jesus says, "Before Abraham I AM."
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFAre you claiming the God being manifested in the flesh is not the same as God being represented in the flesh?
It is you who is missing my point. I am asking for a source that backs your apparent claim that the meaning of the word "manifestation" is the same as the meaning of the word "representative". The words are not synonymous and it would seem you want/need to use them interchangeably. Do you see my point?
[b]IT #2 page 53.
This is not an authoritative lexicographical source.[/b]
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI am claiming that galveston75 is incorrectly using two different words interchangeably in order to make his doctrinal point. "Manifestation" and "representative" are not synonyms.
Are you claiming the God being manifested in the flesh is not the same as God being represented in the flesh?
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
23 Aug 12
I am a Christian, not a Jehovah Witness...I believe Jesus is the Son of God and not God. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. He is the one I answer to, because God highly exalted Him to this position. I am commanded to obey the Son who is the head of the church. Jesus is our model. If I want to know what God is like, I need to look no further than Christ.
"1 Cor 15:25-28
For He(Jesus) must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death. 27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He(God) who put all things under Him(Jesus) is excepted. 28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
NKJV"
23 Aug 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFOkay. Here is a link that explains who Christ is from a slightly different point of view and does not like the use of the word "person" because he seems to think it is a pagan idea or something.
I am claiming that galveston75 is incorrectly using two different words interchangeably in order to make his doctrinal point. "Manifestation" and "representative" are not synonyms.
http://therefinersfire.org/who_is_he.htm
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThe issue I have is how galveston75's religious doctrine appears to rely [at least in part] upon using two different and separate words interchangeably.
Okay. Here is a link that explains who Christ is from a slightly different point of view and does not like the use of the word "person" because he seems to think it is a pagan idea or something.
23 Aug 12
Originally posted by checkbaiterThank you for your insight. It seems hard to understand why they think it is so but I do somewhat understand the confusion they have.
I am a Christian, not a Jehovah Witness...I believe Jesus is the Son of God and not God. Jesus is my Lord and Savior. He is the one I answer to, because God highly exalted Him to this position. I am commanded to obey the Son who is the head of the church. Jesus is our model. If I want to know what God is like, I need to look no further than Christ.
"1 C ...[text shortened]... l also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
NKJV"
If I were to walk into a room and say, "If you see me, you've seen my Father" it really wouldn't make much sence unless the ones in the room stopped and thought about it and came to the obvious conclusion that I'm like my father maybe in looks, the sound of my voice, the gestures I use, the thoughts I have, my taste in food, opinions on life, etc, etc.
That is easy for anyone to grasp as they know me and my father are not the same person. It just isn't possible that my father and myself are the same being.
But yet when ones read the Bible and Jesus stated that "he who see's me has seen the father", that same obvious understanding that they used in the first example seems to not work now.
But I also understand that it is taught to so many in so many churches that it must be right if my minister says so and there are a couple scriptures that makes it sound like it could be so, even though that teaching is clearly not in the Bible.