Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Rasul

Jesus 100% Man And 100% God?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Sorry I didn't make myself clear.

As an aside I mentioned the similarity in the names not the personalities.

Brahman is "The Absolute Reality", it is the name of the Supreme.

Brahma is the name of Brahman in his aspect of Creator.

Brahman and Allah are names of the same Absolute.

Now we can move on.

Thank you for clarifying that....it seems that people forget that there are different languages throughout the world. In french God is Dieu, Spanish Dios, English God.....and so on. It reminds me of something I once heard some stupid rednecks saying how Ayrabs, terrorists, and people in EYE-RAK have a different God named Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for clarifying that....it seems that people forget that there are different languages throughout the world. In french God is Dieu, Spanish Dios, English God.....and so on. It reminds me of something I once heard some stupid rednecks saying how Ayrabs, terrorists, and people in EYE-RAK have a different God named Allah.

Excellent, couldn't have said it any better. I was saying the same too.

In Semitic languages, word are made out of three letters root. From these three letters root, without changing their position about 250 words are made by inserting vowels, and about 150 words are retained.

Now lets us look at three letters root, RHM. The root RHM means, "womb" where the life begins. Now, lets us put wovels into it, so see what different words can we make. The first one is RaHMa, which means, "Mercy". Another one is RaHMan, which means, "unconditional Mercy". Another one is, "RaHiM, which means, "eternal Mercy".

Thus, we have Rahma, Rahman and Rahim.

Compare this to BRahma, BRahman and BRahim.

The very first verse of the Holy Quran:

In the name of al elah (Allah), the Rahman, the Rahim.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excellent, couldn't have said it any better. I was saying the same too.

In Semitic languages, word are made out of three letters root. From these three letters root, without changing their position about 250 words are made by inserting vowels, and about 150 words are retained.

Now lets us look at three letters root, RHM. The root RHM means, "womb" where the life begins. Now, lets us put wovels into it, so see what different words can we make. The first one is RaHMa, which means, "Mercy". Another one is RaHMan, which means, "unconditional Mercy". Another one is, "RaHiM, which means, "eternal Mercy".

Thus, we have Rahma, Rahman and Rahim.

Compare this to BRahma, BRahman and BRahim.

The very first verse of the Holy Quran:

In the name of al elah (Allah), the Rahman, the Rahim.

Nice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Placid:

I am not going to respond to all of your usual epic length post.

You said: "The Scripture says that ‘Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ --- so everybody living in a body of flesh and blood has to go through physical death before being resurrected in a Spiritual body. We know that ‘Divinity’ can’t die, so the physical body of flesh and blood was not Divinity".

You later said: "then to appear, as desired, on Earth for 40 days to both individuals and groups of believers --- before ascending in bodily form, in the sight of the Apostles."

It appears to me that you have a contradiction here. Please clear this up in 30 words or less and if you can't don't bother.

I Jesus’ time very few people could read and write and those who could were in the hierarchy of power and the priesthood. So your story spread by word of mouth and distorted every time it was told. This story was not "a headline story" because there were no such things at that time, news spread by rumor not writings because relatively no one could read.

Josephus was not there and his account of Masada intimates he was in the fortress but every one died there so he wasn't.

You said in conclusion "Then you don’t believe there is a heaven for the ‘saved from earth’ to go to, is that right?

That is pretty much correct. What you call heaven I believe is a state of being of the soul, not a place populated with souls in new bodies. having a body would be a burden and cannot be a part of a perfect state of being. Besides what would these bodies stand on?

I don't begrudge you your faith but respect other faiths and acknowledge that you don't have any exclusivity on the truth that is why religion is called religious faith. What I have stated here is my belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abraham, who is a human being, is a nabi and the first rasool. Ab Raham is two words. Ab, abb, abba, baba and so forth means, "father" in Semitic languages. Thus, he is considered the father to the nations.

002.124 And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers."

From abb we get abbot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the creator was created who created the creator? Is it just like an endless chain of events?....Also where and how did the very first creation begin?....It had to start somewhere...or is there another creator that was always there? Sorry if this was confusing LOL.....now please elaborate.

By the way I am not looking for the Muslim perspective....this questions is directed at satyaban

Edited by ImAli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the creator was created who created the creator? Is it just like an endless chain of events?....Also where and how did the very first creation begin?....It had to start somewhere...or is there another creator that was always there? Sorry if this was confusing LOL.....now please elaborate.

According to trinitarian beliefs, the divine identity of Jesus was not created. He is the human incarnation of the second person of the Trinity (the Son), who is eternal and co-equal with the other persons of the Trinity (the Father and the Holy Spirit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abraham, who is a human being, is a nabi and the first rasool. Ab Raham is two words. Ab, abb, abba, baba and so forth means, "father" in Semitic languages. Thus, he is considered the father to the nations.

From abb we get abbot.

I know he was a man. All I said was that the names are similar. Some have the Jews were exposed to the Sanskrit word twisted it and Brahman became Abraham but I don't and furthermore I don't bother with those kinds of things. I have no interest in on religion trying to make a claim on another's scripture as is done here with the Vedas. I mentioned that possibility about Jesus to Placid or Son of only to expose what they don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know he was a man. All I said was that the names are similar. Some have the Jews were exposed to the Sanskrit word twisted it and Brahman became Abraham but I don't and furthermore I don't bother with those kinds of things. I have no interest in on religion trying to make a claim on another's scripture as is done here with the Vedas. I mentioned that possibility about Jesus to Placid or Son of only to expose what they don't know.

I don't think there is similarity between the two names. Brahman is one word, where as Abraham is two words. In Arabic, it is Ibrahim and not Abraham and in Hebrew it is Avraham and not Abraham. The first word is Ib/Av, which means father and the second word is rahim/raham.

I don't see any connection with Brahman, maybe I am not looking far enough.

According to trinitarian beliefs, the divine identity of Jesus was not created. He is the human incarnation of the second person of the Trinity (the Son), who is eternal and co-equal with the other persons of the Trinity (the Father and the Holy Spirit).

What do you mean co-equal?

By that do you mean Three Gods?

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean co-equal?

By that do you mean Three Gods?

Co-eqal as in no one person of the Trinity is greater than the other, even though they have seperate roles. And they claim that there are not three gods, but one God. So there is one God, made up of three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with each one of those persons themselves being God (so God is more of state of being than a person). Whether any of this makes sense is another issue. It doesn't even make sense to many Christians, most of which would't be able to explain the Trinity in a non-heretical way if their life depended on it. Even those who have spent years studying the doctrine don't always think it makes sense, and in the end many Christians will end up telling you that it is a mystery and that's why it can't be fully understood.

Here is an example of a non-Trinitarian Christian who has spent years studying this issue, and still doesn't think it makes any sense:

And here is a Trinitarian Christian (although not a completely mainstream one), who gets himself into a complete mess while talking about it:

Edited by Haider Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Satyaban,

Quote from Post 74:

You later said: "then to appear, as desired, on Earth for 40 days to both individuals and groups of believers --- before ascending in bodily form, in the sight of the Apostles."

It appears to me that you have a contradiction here. Please clear this up in 30 words or less and if you can't don't bother.

(A few more than 30) --- After Jesus rose from the dead He was in a ‘transitional’ body so that He could be seen, and He appeared different times to the disciples.

--- As in this gathering when He suddenly appeared, --- in Luke 24:

36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.”

37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit.

38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts?

39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

--- The ‘transitional’ body had --- ‘flesh and bones,’ --- but not flesh and blood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ He is telling them that I am a human like you, in flesh and bones. You think that he will tell them to bring a knive so that he can cut himself and show them that he bleed like them, like a human being. I believe, you are nitpicking above.

You are just clutching straws above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^ He is telling them that I am a human like you, in flesh and bones. You think that he will tell them to bring a knive so that he can cut himself and show them that he bleed like them, like a human being. I believe, you are nitpicking above.

You are just clutching straws above.

Read it for yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read it for yourself.

When someone makes a cliam that I am human like you, I am flesh and bones like you, it can be verified by others. They can feel and touch the flesh and bones.

But, when someone makes a claim that I am human like you, I am flesh and blood like you, it cannot be verified by others, without a knive and cutting that someone. They can feel and touch the flesh, but they have to cut the one making the claim and make him bleed to verify the blood statment is true or not.

Co-eqal as in no one person of the Trinity is greater than the other, even though they have seperate roles. And they claim that there are not three gods, but one God. So there is one God, made up of three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with each one of those persons themselves being God (so God is more of state of being than a person).

So, God the Son requires approval from God the Father to perform miracles?

BTW, YHWH is not the name of God. It is four constant without vowels. If you put the vowels into YHWH, it becomes "Ya' HuWaH" which means, "O' He".

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haider Husayn

Do you believe God is with you all the time,

What a silly question. The Holy Quran says:

050.016 It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.

I have already quoted you the above verse from the Holy Quran.

do you believe God is limited by time and space, or do you believe God is without time and space?

God is the Creator of Everything, including Time and Space, so how can God be be limited to Time and Space?

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing silly about my questions and they were intended for Haider Husayn.

It is my belief that God is in evrything.

"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.

I don't stop with man. Anyway if you believe God is everywhere then accepting God that God was in Jesus and being a holy ghost should not be a difficult concept to understand or atleast not impossible. Do you deny anything is possible with God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.

What does this mean "we"? There is one god and we is plural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing silly about my questions and they were intended for Haider Husayn.

It is my belief that God is in evrything.

"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.

I don't stop with man. Anyway if you believe God is everywhere then accepting God that God was in Jesus and being a holy ghost should not be a difficult concept to understand or atleast not impossible. Do you deny anything is possible with God?

Yes, I deny anything is possible with God. God cannot cause Himself to no longer exist for example. God cannot become something other than God.

The issue with Jesus isn't so much that God was in him (although I don't believe that either), it is that Jesus is claimed to be God. Jesus was supposed to be 100% God and 100% man, and this is nonsense. Christians all believe the Holy Spirit dwells within them, so clearly that would not be enough to make Jesus special.

"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.

What does this mean "we"? There is one god and we is plural.

It is the plural of majesty. Like how a king or a queen will say 'we' instead of 'I'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing silly about my questions and they were intended for Haider Husayn.

It is my belief that God is in evrything.

"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.

I don't stop with man. Anyway if you believe God is everywhere then accepting God that God was in Jesus and being a holy ghost should not be a difficult concept to understand or atleast not impossible. Do you deny anything is possible with God?

Haider Husayn is given you an excellent reply above, so that I cannot add much to that. However, when the Holy Spirit is mentioned in the Holy Quran, it is meant to be the Angel Gabreil, and not God.

In Islam, God doesn't have multiple personalities.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain how a person who is 100% God can not know something, unless being omniscient isn't part of their definition of being God?

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. (Matthew 24:36, NIV)

Note that this implies that not only the Son doesn't know the Hour, but also the Holy Spirit.

Because Jesus was also human, he was subject to certain restrictions that don't apply to his Father. For instance, He could only be in one place at a time, He could feel pain, and He had to consume food to live.

He also didn't have access to all human knowledge. That was a necessary part of his humanity.

That God could appear in human form, to be present with humanity, was what the early disciples concluded had happened. Being God, and being human, they decided, are not mutually exclusive. Let's be quite clear, it was a massive step for First Century Jews to make. It was events that drove them to that conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't know where Jesus was for about twenty years so it is historically thinkable that he could have travelled anywhere to anywhere in his know world and the writters of the gospel as well. St Thomas traveled a long way didn't he? There is a whole lot of speculation on who wrote the books and what is truely gospel. Have you read the Gospel of St. Thomas?. If not you should.

There's a lot of different points here, so, by way of brief commentary:

It is extremely unlikely as an adult Jesus travelled far from Nazareth. We certainly have no believable evidence He did. If he had, the Gospels would have mentioned it. Probably the local town of Sepphoris was as far as He got.

Thomas may have travelled much further, although the evidence is far from conclusive.

I have read the Gospel of Thomas. I can't say I was impressed. It wasn't written by the disciple Thomas. Although debates exist about exactly where it came from, I side with those who place it as a second century gnostic work, and unreliable as a source of information.

Hope this is helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Jesus was also human, he was subject to certain restrictions that don't apply to his Father.

And what about the Holy Spirit? He isn't human, but he doesn't know either.

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Additionally, Jesus didn't say he didn't know the when the Hour was, he said the Son doesn't know. Doesn't this imply that even in heaven the Son wouldn't know?

For instance, He could only be in one place at a time, He could feel pain, and He had to consume food to live.

He also didn't have access to all human knowledge. That was a necessary part of his humanity.

This is why it doesn't make sense to say someone is 100% man and 100% God. If you said 50% man and 50% God, then it would make more sense. To say a being that is 100% God is limited is contradictory, and is just some formulation that was gradually formulated in order to hold a bunch of contradicatory Biblical verses and doctrines together.

That God could appear in human form, to be present with humanity, was what the early disciples concluded had happened. Being God, and being human, they decided, are not mutually exclusive. Let's be quite clear, it was a massive step for First Century Jews to make. It was events that drove them to that conclusion.

I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that early disciples concluded Jesus was God. In fact, given the very human portrayal of Jesus given in the synoptic Gospels, I find that rather hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Were good explanation; but were in the Bible it says that; one should not take some "words" or "verses"( passages) literally? if it is true so it must be written somewhere in Bible. So where????

There's plenty of knowledge not in the Bible, and no-one would claim otherwise!

How to read a passage depends on its genre. If I turn on the TV, and I see aliens blowing up London, my reaction will vary depending on the genre. If it's a science fiction film, I might watch it. If it's BBC News 24, it's time to panic.

The Bible works in the same way. Jesus told parables. I don't think http://en.wikipedia....cked_Husbandmen this scene ever happened literally. But it's a very powerful teaching tool.

Based presumably on the teachings of Islam?; "Jews believe that God is one and indivisible" as muslims

This is Monotheism!

Hear, O Israel: The Eternal is our God, the Eternal is one. (Deuteronomy 6:4)

Never forget that Christians believe that God is One, as well.

To Christians, the Bible is true word of God. The NT says that, Jesus is ONLY begotten son of God, and the OT says that, David is begotten son of God. An apparent contradiction as ONLY means ONE, not two or three. The NIV had taken the concept of Divinity of Jesus and put it under the footnotes, including the term, "begotten". There was a massive uproar. I am not sure if NIV put it back in the main body of the text, or it is still delegated to the footnotes.

The Hindu religion is earlier than Judaism, as Judaism believe that Abraham was the first Prophet, unlike Islam which believe that Adam was the first Prophet.

The Hindus believe in ONE GOD, and they have concept of TRI-MURTI, which the Christians made it into TRINITY.

The Zoroastrianism is earlier than Hinduism, and they have a concept of "Virgin Birth" too. Nowhere, in the OT, it is mentioned that a "virgin" will give birth ....... When the TaNaKh was translated to OT by the Christians, they intensionally mistranslated and inserted the word, "virgin".

The term “Son of God” is used in the Bible broadly to mean someone who follows God. The phrase “Son of God” is a literal, but seriously misleading, translation. Hence David can be called "Son of God" as well as Jesus.

By the time the Gospels were written, used of Jesus, it started to have developed divine connotations.

The newer translation “One and only Son of God” applied to Jesus certainly does carry that idea. (This used to be translated as “Only begotten Son of God”. The difference is invisible.)

Luke doesn't mention the “virgin” passage, and given his independence in the nativity stories, can't have got it from a mistranslation as you indicate.

And also what Satyaban said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It was We Who created man, and We know what dark suggestions his soul makes to him: for We are nearer to him than (his) jugular vein.

What does this mean "we"? There is one god and we is plural.

The "We" is a literary device that indicates authority or power. I have also seen it in the Bible but I don't believed it is used anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of different points here, so, by way of brief commentary:

It is extremely unlikely as an adult Jesus travelled far from Nazareth. We certainly have no believable evidence He did. If he had, the Gospels would have mentioned it. Probably the local town of Sepphoris was as far as He got.

Thomas may have travelled much further, although the evidence is far from conclusive.

I have read the Gospel of Thomas. I can't say I was impressed. It wasn't written by the disciple Thomas. Although debates exist about exactly where it came from, I side with those who place it as a second century gnostic work, and unreliable as a source of information.

Hope this is helpful.

Your doubt about Jesus traveling is based on no evidence whatsoever except what you prefer. Perhaps Jesus was in occultation until he was thirtythree. We do know he was a single young man and certainly could have traveled as others did. It is not the case that your gospels didn't include it because it never happened it is a case that no one knows what happened in those missing years.

You don't know who wrote the gospels in the bible either, what was chosen to include in the Bible was as political as what is chosen to be in a nation's Constitution. You may not be able to choose what you believe but it is just that a belief.

Yes, I deny anything is possible with God. God cannot cause Himself to no longer exist for example. God cannot become something other than God.

The issue with Jesus isn't so much that God was in him (although I don't believe that either), it is that Jesus is claimed to be God. Jesus was supposed to be 100% God and 100% man, and this is nonsense. Christians all believe the Holy Spirit dwells within them, so clearly that would not be enough to make Jesus special.

It is the plural of majesty. Like how a king or a queen will say 'we' instead of 'I'.

So you don't believe God is closer than your jugular vein. God can not closer than my jugular vein, your jugular vein and everyone else's at the same time can he? That is just not possible but if it was that aspect could not be called a "holy ghost" either could it?

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The term “Son of God” is used in the Bible broadly to mean someone who follows God. The phrase “Son of God” is a literal, but seriously misleading, translation. Hence David can be called "Son of God" as well as Jesus.

By the time the Gospels were written, used of Jesus, it started to have developed divine connotations.

The newer translation “One and only Son of God” applied to Jesus certainly does carry that idea. (This used to be translated as “Only begotten Son of God”. The difference is invisible.)

Luke doesn't mention the “virgin” passage, and given his independence in the nativity stories, can't have got it from a mistranslation as you indicate.

You seems not to know your Bible very well.

1. No where anyone has been called son(s) of God or Son(s) of God in the Old Testament.

2. David is called the Begotten Son of God, and not Son of God.

3. There are no capital letters in Hebrew, there is no such thing as Son(s).

4. However, you can mistranslate the Hebrew and call Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God, Son with a capital "S".

Luke doesn't mention the “virgin” passage, and given his independence in the nativity stories, can't have got it from a mistranslation as you indicate.

So, basically you agree that Isaiah didn't predict the coming of Jesus. There is no mention of "virgin giving birth" in Isaiah and no predictions of Jesus in Isaiah.

So you don't believe God is closer than your jugular vein. God can not closer than my jugular vein, your jugular vein and everyone else's at the same time can he? That is just not possible but if it was that aspect could not be called a "holy ghost" either could it?

Muslims are very, very monotheistic and there in none like unto HIM. Thus, He is not two, three, four, five, God at same time a Ghost and so forth. If He has a body and what kind of body has He and so forth. That He is begotten or He beget. Or, He is a creation and so forth. He is beyond of our comprehension.

I will quote you the very first sermon of Imam Ali from Najul Balagha

Praise is due to Allah whose worth cannot be described by speakers, whose bounties cannot be counted by calculators and whose claim (to obedience) cannot be satisfied by those who attempt to do so, whom the height of intellectual courage cannot appreciate, and the divings of understanding cannot reach; He for whose description no limit has been laid down, no eulogy exists, no time is ordained and no duration is fixed. He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks.

The foremost in religion is the acknowledgement of Him, the perfection of acknowledging Him is to testify Him, the perfection of testifying Him is to believe in His Oneness, the perfection of believing in His Oneness is to regard Him Pure, and the perfection of His purity is to deny Him attributes, because every attribute is a proof that it is different from that to which it is attributed and everything to which something is attributed is different from the attribute. Thus whoever attaches attributes to Allah recognises His like, and who recognises His like regards Him two; and who regards Him two recognises parts for Him; and who recognises parts for Him mistook Him; and who mistook Him pointed at Him; and who pointed at Him admitted limitations for Him; and who admitted limitations for Him numbered Him.

Whoever said in what is He, held that He is contained; and whoever said on what is He held He is not on something else. He is a Being but not through phenomenon of coming into being. He exists but not from non-existence. He is with everything but not in physical nearness. He is different from everything but not in physical separation. He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments. He sees even when there is none to be looked at from among His creation. He is only One, such that there is none with whom He may keep company or whom He may miss in his absence.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Haider,

Quote from Post 93:

And what about the Holy Spirit? He isn't human, but he doesn't know either.

But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

Response: --- Another verse you might consider was stated by Jesus just before His ascension, in Acts 1:

4. And being assembled together with them, He commanded them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the Promise of the Father, “which,” He said, “you have heard from Me;

5 for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

6 Therefore, when they had come together, they asked Him, saying, “Lord, will You at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?”

7 And He said to them, “It is not for you to know times or seasons WHICH THE FATHER HAS PUT IN HIS OWN AUTHORITY.

8 But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”

--- Here, Jesus said, --- the ‘times or seasons which the Father has put in His own authority.’

There are two or three things to consider. As we have said before, certain promises of God are conditional, depending on the actions of the recipients.

--- Like in the days of Jonah and Ninevah. --- God said He would destroy them, they repented, then God relented, --- as a result of their actions.

I believe it is possible that the reason ‘nobody knows the day or the hour’ is because God the Father has set the certain ‘time’ for when conditions are right. --- --- And there are other verses that say, ‘when all things are fulfilled.’

When plans were made for a ‘shuttle launch’ they did everything precisely to be sure all was right. --- However, --- If weather conditions were unfavorable, the launch would be rescheduled, for a few days later, or perhaps a month later, when conditions were again right.

If the ‘Signs’ to be recognized before Jesus’ return depends on the condition or actions of the nations, --- then the exact date may not be fixed, but God will have His formula 'to be fulfilled,' --- ‘then the end shall come.’

Placid

Edited by placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aladdin:

I am not talking about God being different parts. I am talking about God not being bound by time and space but being everywhere. I don't know how you cannot accept this.

Salam,

I can accept that God is everywhere. Remember, I mentioned earlier that He is even in gutters, septic tanks, bathrooms, hell and so forth. But in what shape and form, I am not aware of. Quran tells us that Allah is Samad. No translation is available, but some say it is mass (solid and not ghost).

The Wahhabis attribute body to Allah, which is ridiculous. Some Shia believe that we are all in Allah, and that includes nature, time, space and everything.

Rabbi is two words, just like Elohi, Eloi and Eli. The lowest meaning is "my teacher". The highest meaning is "my sustainer, my cherisher, my nourisher, my nurturer and so forth". So, Allah is Rabbi to everything including the bricks, stones and so forth. And, the mothers are rabbi to their pups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aladdin;

I do remember what you said "He is even in gutters, septic tanks, bathrooms, hell and so forth.", Didn't you collect a bit of criticism for your choice of words?

Regarding form I believe God to be formless thus he is transcendent of time and space.

Edited by satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aladdin;

I do remember what you said "He is even in gutters, septic tanks, bathrooms, hell and so forth.", Didn't you collect a bit of criticism for your choice of words?

Regarding form I believe God to be formless thus he is transcendent of time and space.

Salam brother,

That is another good way to put it. It is very difficult to explain that how God is in all the places (spaces) and at all the times, as it is beyond our imaginations and explanations.

Edited by aladdin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam brother,

That is another good way to put it. It is very difficult to explain that how God is in all the places (spaces) and at all the times, as it is beyond our imaginations and explanations.

Man you got that right. I think there is much we agree on very much but semantics get in the way big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what about the Holy Spirit? He isn't human, but he doesn't know either. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Additionally, Jesus didn't say he didn't know the when the Hour was, he said the Son doesn't know. Doesn't this imply that even in heaven the Son wouldn't know?

“The Son” is Jesus talking of Himself. Exactly what “The Son” know and the Holy Spirit know at any given time can only be a matter of guesswork.

This is why it doesn't make sense to say someone is 100% man and 100% God. If you said 50% man and 50% God, then it would make more sense. To say a being that is 100% God is limited is contradictory, and is just some formulation that was gradually formulated in order to hold a bunch of contradicatory Biblical verses and doctrines together.

It makes perfect sense, given that the two are not mutually exclusive. I can't see why you think they should be. In the Old Testament, the Burning Bush and the Pillar of Fire/Cloud were all God in material form. Early Christianity simply applied that sort of 'God immanent' idea to a human they had once known. (See e.g. Surah 28:30 for immanence in Islam)

I don't think there is any conclusive evidence that early disciples concluded Jesus was God. In fact, given the very human portrayal of Jesus given in the synoptic Gospels, I find that rather hard to believe.

Let me repeat. The two are not mutually exclusive. Clearly the disciples knew first hand that Jesus was human, and the Jesus they knew and loved as a human is obvious from the Gospels. That's why the humanity is there.

But events forced them to go further.

Jesus spoke of himself as the son of the owner, destined to be killed by illegal tenants (see link in post 94).

Paul- the best witness to the earliest Christianity makes his belief in Jesus' divinity crystal clear. And we know that disciples including Peter worked very closely with Paul- something they could not have even considered unless they agreed with his views on Christ's divine nature.

The whole narrative of the Gospels is the story of God's return to His people- and His rejection (e.g. parable of the Talents).

John's Gospel could hardly be clearer on Jesus' divinity.

And so on. And so on.

Every shred of evidence we have points to- the disciples, after reflection on events, concluding that Jesus was also God as a human.

No where anyone has been called son(s) of God or Son(s) of God in the Old Testament.

I might start here:

http://www.biblegate...3A2&version=NIV

although it's found elsewhere.

David is called the Begotten Son of God, and not Son of God.

This appears to directly contradict what you said in point 1. I can agree with the first part of what I think you're saying, while being a little unclear about what point you're making in the second.

There are no capital letters in Hebrew, there is no such thing as Son(s).

Again, rather unsure what the point you're making is.

However, you can mistranslate the Hebrew and call Jesus, the Only Begotten Son of God, Son with a capital "S".

The Hebrew part of the Bible (OT) doesn't mention Jesus because it's written before Him. The part of the Bible which does (NT) is in Greek. My use of capital letters isn't part of any argument I'm making. Once again, the thrust of your argument escapes me.

So, basically you agree that Isaiah didn't predict the coming of Jesus. There is no mention of "virgin giving birth" in Isaiah and no predictions of Jesus in Isaiah.

I can hardly agree with that. You can hardly move in the second part of Isaiah without meeting a passage relevant to Jesus. Try for a start

http://www.biblegate...053&version=NIV

Muslims are very, very monotheistic and there in none like unto HIM. Thus, He is not two, three, four, five, God at same time a Ghost and so forth. If He has a body and what kind of body has He and so forth. That He is begotten or He beget. Or, He is a creation and so forth. He is beyond of our comprehension.

I will quote you the very first sermon of Imam Ali from Najul Balagha

Interesting- and I would agree with a lot of it.

To return to a theme of my previous post, I'm not sure how “He acts but without connotation of movements and instruments.“ can be squared with Surah 28:30 “And when he reached it, he was called from the right side of the valley in the blessed field, from the tree: O Moses! Lo! I, even I, am Allah, the Lord of the Worlds;“

You seems not to know your Bible very well.

I usually avoid this sort of comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Son” is Jesus talking of Himself. Exactly what “The Son” know and the Holy Spirit know at any given time can only be a matter of guesswork.

How is it guesswork? Jesus says only the Father knows when the day of Judgements will be. How does that not imply that neither the Son (who explictly rules himself out), nor the Holy Spirit know when it will be? Do you think they perhaps didn't know at the time Jesus said it, but then found out later on?

Unless you believe in either a God who isn't omniscient, or one who is mutable, then you have a clear contradiction between the claim that the Son and the Holy Spirit are both God yet did not know when the Hour will be at the time Jesus made his statement.

It's seems rather straightforward to me.

The premise is that God is omniscient. You claim that Jesus is 100% God. But Jesus doesn't know something. Therefore Jesus isn't omniscient, and therefore can't be God.

If you want to say the whole issue is complicated by Jesus also being a man, then we can apply the same argument to the Holy Spirit.

It makes perfect sense, given that the two are not mutually exclusive. I can't see why you think they should be. In the Old Testament, the Burning Bush and the Pillar of Fire/Cloud were all God in material form. Early Christianity simply applied that sort of 'God immanent' idea to a human they had once known. (See e.g. Surah 28:30 for immanence in Islam)

The two are absolutely mutually exclusive. You can't be finite and infinite at the same time. Like I said, if Jesus were part-man and part-God, then you could see how this makes sense. He would be able to do some Godly things, but not others, and some human things but not others.

The Burning Bush example is bit weak. God can choose to speak through a bush, or a human. There is no problem with that. However, the caim with Jesus was that he actually was God (100% God and 100% man to be exact). Are you saying the bush was 100% God and 100% bush? Was the bush an incarnation of one of the divine persons?

Let me repeat. The two are not mutually exclusive. Clearly the disciples knew first hand that Jesus was human, and the Jesus they knew and loved as a human is obvious from the Gospels. That's why the humanity is there.

I think you are missing the point. If you were simply to say that being divine and human at the same time were not mutually exclusive, then maybe (and I really stress the maybe), you could defend that position, but to claim that Jesus was fully, 100% God, as in you couldn't be more God than Jesus, and then to say he was also 100% man doesn't make any sense. Just list all the qualities God must have, and all the ones humans have, and you will see the contradictions.

But events forced them to go further.

Jesus spoke of himself as the son of the owner, destined to be killed by illegal tenants (see link in post 94).

Paul- the best witness to the earliest Christianity makes his belief in Jesus' divinity crystal clear. And we know that disciples including Peter worked very closely with Paul- something they could not have even considered unless they agreed with his views on Christ's divine nature.

We know how exactly? Because it says so in Acts, a book nobody can say for sure who wrote (since the author doesn't indentify himself)? Even if we take it to be Luke, he was a companion of Paul, so hardly an unbiased source. Acts also indicates that not all was rosy between the Church in Jerusalem and the version of Christianity Paul was spreading.

Additionally, many of the passages that are used to support the divinity of Jesus are from Hebrews, that even conservative Christian scholars admit we don't know who wrote, and it was unlikely to have been Paul.

The whole narrative of the Gospels is the story of God's return to His people- and His rejection (e.g. parable of the Talents).

The parable of the Prodigal Son seems to contradict the Christian understanding of atonement. Why couldn't God forgive his people as the father in the parable forgave his son?

John's Gospel could hardly be clearer on Jesus' divinity.

And so on. And so on.

I'm not going to argue that if you accept all the books of the Bible to be the word of God, then you may be forced into the mainstream Christian position. So let's assume for a fact that taking everything in the Bible to be true implies the doctrine of the Trinity, just for argument's sake. The problem is that the conlusion is absurd, which is probably why even many Christians are not happy with it. Therefore, it must be that the premise, i.e. that everything in the Bible is correct, was wrong.

So then we examine the Bible, and what do we find? A bunch of books selected by fallible men for unknown reasons, that nobody knows for sure who wrote, that contain obvious forgeries either as insertions (e.g. in the Pentateuch) or as claims of authorship (many later Pauline epistles), and all manner of other problems. The whole problem with the Trinity isn't the logic that got you to that position, it is the assumption that the Bible is to be trusted in such a literal sense. Until someone can come up for a good reason why every book in the Bible should be considered as the word of God, when most of the books don't claim to have any words from God in them, would there be any reason to believe in the Trinity.

Every shred of evidence we have points to- the disciples, after reflection on events, concluding that Jesus was also God as a human.

I don't think you have considered all the shreds of evidence, because unbiased researchers do not at all support this conclusion. It also doesn't make sense why the desciples would all have concluded that Jesus was God as a human, but then the first three authoritative accounts of his life leave that aspect out completely. Only by the time the Gospel according to John was written (many decades after Mark) do we get all this evidence for the divinity of Jesus. Can you not understand how that might seem a bit suspicious?

Edited by Haider Husayn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...