In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'deity'.
Found 2 results
(The following is not copied from an external source such as a blog: I wrote it myself here.) Up until recently, I had long supposed that the Apostle Paul was primarily responsible for the deviation of Jewish Christianity, for its corruption by Hellenism (paganism). I had contended that Paul transformed Jewish Christianity into a Hellenistic mystery-cult that divinised Jesus. Nevertheless, I continued to research and reevaluate my sources. I have now tentatively come to the conclusion that perhaps it was the later Church rather than Paul who was responsible for the corruption of Christianity. In this the fault may have lain in the translation of original sources, and the accretion of spurious interpretations thereof. The problem is that the latter-day Church projected its own circumstances onto those of Paul and his contemporaries, in turn misleading generations of Christians. In the following exposition I am going to use a combination of research and logic to illustrate my contention that Paul may have been skewered by his followers, who acted much later in time than the Apostle and his proselytes did. According to Raymond E. Brown’s The Gospel according to John X–XII (New York: Doubleday, 1979, 2nd ed.), the identifier “God” is not used of Jesus to any real degree, if at all, in the New Testament (p. 24), and to the extent that it appears is primarily functional rather than an ontological designation (p. 408). Even when Jesus is said to bear the Divine Name, in reality he is consecrated by God and so makes Him known, being His Messianic agent (pp. 536–7), and indeed in Jewish thought the agent and sender were regarded as one in agency or purpose, even if the Sender were God Himself. So when Jesus says that he and the Father are one, he is speaking in terms of agency or purpose, rather than presupposing ontological equality. In relation to this, the Law was said to spiritually prepare men for the requirements of the Messianic advent, to instil in their very being the spiritual character that would one day become necessary (p. CXV). So in this sense Jesus’ advent does not abolish the Law, but rather fulfils its purpose. In his Christology in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989, 2nd ed.), James D. G. Dunn explains that even the Gospel of John, with its concept of the Logos (Word), does not presuppose the personal preexistence of Christ, but actually describes a transition from an impersonal personification to a human existence, so that the Logos conceptualises God’s eternal Divine Plan becoming realised—that is, enfleshed or Incarnate—in the birth and life of Jesus (p. 243). This echoes the Qur’ān’s conception of Jesus as embodying God’s Word or Divine Plan being actualised in human, concrete terms; indeed, the human Jesus, as in the New Testament, comes into personal existence by God’s utterance, “Be!”—hence the virginal conception in the womb of Mary via Gabriel’s transmission of spirit. So in neither the New Testament nor the Qur’ān is the Divine Word or Logos characterised as a separate “Person” from God or as anything more than a personification in primeval time. It is clearly an impersonal utterance and/or Plan. Now I am going to return to Paul and his alleged deification of Jesus. Evidence to this effect is often said to be contained in Philippians 2:6–11, the so-called “Christ-hymn.” These verses are often said to describe Christ’s process of kenosis or self-negation, by which he supposedly takes on human nature yet retains his Divine essence. In other words, his spirit is alleged to be uncreated or eternal in nature, that is, God Himself, unlike other humans’ spirits. The problem with this take, however, is that in his genuine epistles Paul does not regard Jesus as synonymous with God (the Father). Among the aforementioned vv. in Philippians 2 is v. 9, for instance, in which Paul states that God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him. If Paul regarded Jesus as being spiritually equal to and coeternal with God the Father, why does he stress that God externally acted to resurrect Jesus, as though God and Jesus were separate in some sense? If Jesus were equal to God, wouldn’t Paul have said that Jesus, being God, raised himself from death? In Galatians 4, vv. 4–5, Paul mentions that God sent forth Jesus. If Jesus were himself God, Paul would have simply stated that God Himself came forth, or that Jesus came on his own agency. Romans 8, v. 3 also states that God sent forth Jesus, so God is clearly the Actor, not Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 8, v. 6, Paul’s formula is one God, one Lord, the “Lord” being Jesus Christ. So Paul clearly regards Jesus as being somehow separate from God the Father, and therefore not sharing his essence, unlike in later, Trinitarian formulae. Other Pauline works, authored by men other than Paul but inspired by him, unequivocally include statements to the effect that the man Jesus Christ mediates between God and men (1 Timothy 2, v. 5). Again, if Jesus and God were regarded by Paul and his early followers as synonymous, other phraseology would have been used. Taken together, the internal evidence seems to indicate that neither Paul nor his immediate associates equated Jesus with God the Father, but regarded the former as human.
DEFINITION AND MEANING OF ILLAH (DEITY)
Fahad Sani posted a topic in Shia/Sunni Dialogueبسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Assalam o Alaikum, Wa Rehmatullah, Wa Barakatuhu. The most important, the most fundamental belief of Islam and the thing that causes one to enter Islam is belief in Tawheed (Oneness of Allah). "La ilaha illALLAH", There is no deity (khuda, god) except Allah. But what is meaning of "illah"? what are the things or characteristics that make someone "illah". Have you ever pondered over this thing? Answer is given by Allah in Quran, Surah Naml ayah 59 to 64. If someone's belief in Tawheed is correct as per teachings of Quran and Sunnah, then his/her other beliefs and customs/practices will also be correct or will have only a little problem. On the other hand if belief in Tawheed becomes wrong in any manner, then all other beliefs and customs will also have some problems. Because its the foundation of Islam, all other things come after this. For example consider the Jews and Christians, their main problem is their belief in Tawheed. Similarly there are many muslims (from both shia & sunni) who have some problems in their Tawheed. Read carefully. Surah Naml, Chapter 27, Verses 59-64, Translation: Sahih International. - An-Naml: Verse 59 قُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ وَسَلَامٌ عَلَىٰ عِبَادِهِ الَّذِينَ اصْطَفَىٰ ۗ آللَّهُ خَيْرٌ أَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ Say, [O Muhammad], "Praise be to Allah , and peace upon His servants whom He has chosen. Is Allah better or what they associate with Him?" - An-Naml: Verse 60 أَمَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَأَنْزَلَ لَكُمْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ مَاءً فَأَنْبَتْنَا بِهِ حَدَائِقَ ذَاتَ بَهْجَةٍ مَا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَنْ تُنْبِتُوا شَجَرَهَا ۗ أَإِلَٰهٌ مَعَ اللَّهِ ۚ بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ يَعْدِلُونَ [More precisely], is He [not best] who created the heavens and the earth and sent down for you rain from the sky, causing to grow thereby gardens of joyful beauty which you could not [otherwise] have grown the trees thereof? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but they are a people who ascribe equals [to Him]. - An-Naml: Verse 61 أَمَّنْ جَعَلَ الْأَرْضَ قَرَارًا وَجَعَلَ خِلَالَهَا أَنْهَارًا وَجَعَلَ لَهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ حَاجِزًا ۗ أَإِلَٰهٌ مَعَ اللَّهِ ۚ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ Is He [not best] who made the earth a stable ground and placed within it rivers and made for it firmly set mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier? Is there a deity with Allah ? [No], but most of them do not know. - An-Naml: Verse 62 أَمَّنْ يُجِيبُ الْمُضْطَرَّ إِذَا دَعَاهُ وَيَكْشِفُ السُّوءَ وَيَجْعَلُكُمْ خُلَفَاءَ الْأَرْضِ ۗ أَإِلَٰهٌ مَعَ اللَّهِ ۚ قَلِيلًا مَا تَذَكَّرُونَ Is He [not best] who responds to the desperate one when he calls upon Him and removes evil and makes you inheritors of the earth? Is there a deity with Allah ? Little do you remember. - An-Naml: Verse 63 أَمَّنْ يَهْدِيكُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَمَنْ يُرْسِلُ الرِّيَاحَ بُشْرًا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ ۗ أَإِلَٰهٌ مَعَ اللَّهِ ۚ تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ Is He [not best] who guides you through the darknesses of the land and sea and who sends the winds as good tidings before His mercy? Is there a deity with Allah ? High is Allah above whatever they associate with Him. - An-Naml: Verse 64 أَمَّنْ يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَمَنْ يَرْزُقُكُمْ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ ۗ أَإِلَٰهٌ مَعَ اللَّهِ ۚ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ صَادِقِينَ Is He [not best] who begins creation and then repeats it and who provides for you from the heaven and earth? Is there a deity with Allah ? Say, "Produce your proof, if you should be truthful." If anyone apply/consider any of the above things/attributes as taught by Allah, for anyone except HIM then its like he/she has considered or taken that person/thing as an "illah" (deity). Thus he/she has commited shirk (i.e ascribed partners to Allah). Shirk is the only unforgivable sin, see Surah Nisa 48 and 116, except for those who repent, correct way of repentance is in Surah Nahl 119. It is the most important and basic obligation muslims owe to themselves, that to know and understand the meaning of shirk, its seriousness and its different types, so that our Tawheed become firm and complete. CAUTION: Beware of those among both the shias and sunnies who attribute such things to Ahlebait and other pious servants of Allah. Jazak Allah Khairan.
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.