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

On 9/12/2011 at 11:50 PM, aladdin said:

In both Judaim and Islam, the Creator is not creation. Where did the Christians got these ideas from that the Creator is a Creation too?

From Hindusim?

BTW, the concept of Trinity is from Hinduism.

Not just Hinduism, but also from polytheistic religions of Babylon, Egypt, Greece, Rome, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2011 at 9:33 AM, Rasul said:

According to Christian belief Jesus is 100% man and 100% God but acording to Bible

"God is not a Man" (NIV Bible, Numbers 23:19)

So if God is not a man; Then how can Jesus be 100% man and 100% God?

That's lousy mathematics, yet they say it's a mystery of the church. The doctrine of the incarnation is exactly one of the reasons why I left Christianity in the first place. Now I'm here with you guys in Shia Islam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that Christians had to even debate on the nature of Jesus proves that they confused. The fact that even in early Christianity there was no unity upon the nature of Christ causes even more problems. You have centuries upon centuries of Christians debating and discussing the "christology" and you have the development and the progression of this "christology" evident even within the present day NT gospels. 

 

There are clear issues with Jesus being a divine being.  The OT has many passages describing the nature of God and its clear he isn't a human being. The fact that these Christians turned Jesus alayhisalam into the "son of God" and "God" (naoozubillah) not only makes a mockery of (sane) logic but also clashes with the entire teaching of the OT. 

Edited by Abu Shareef

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Masihi

The christology of the Church was set pretty much early on, the Church had to define beliefs, debate, and defend them from heresy which forced the Church into making creeds which are meant to stop heresy from happening. The early Church or the “Porto Orthodox Church, (call them what you like I call them the early Orthodox Church) was unanimous in the belief that Jesus was crucified and that he rose after three days, and that he was the divine Word of God and a Son to the Father. According to the early Church Fathers such as Irenaeus they got their belief from people who knew the Apostles themselves or from the Apostles directly which is why it’s called the apostolic age. Both of these things directly contradict Islam’s claim that the early followers of Jesus were Muslims, pretty much no early sects which somehow maintained belief in Islam resembled present day Islam neither did any of the Gnostic sects or the Judaizers resemble Islam or Muslims in any shape or form. The New Testament is consistent with present day Christian theology and the christology of Christianity is directly derived from the Holy scriptures which are in turn derived from Apostolic tradition. Christians had to debate Christology to defend the faith inherited from the Apostles from heresy, to state that Christians we’re simply making up stuff as they went along is pretty ludicrous considering how big the Christian world had become and how easy it was for the Christian communities in history to notice innovations in the faith unlike Islam. Debating theological issues doesn’t indicate the theology of the faith developed, in Islam the theology of the uncreated Qur'an was debated and invented pretty late, Muslims couldn’t decide whether it should be uncreated or created. Since Islam has pretty much no early source to go back to, in Christianity the apostolic faith was firmly established and the scriptures were written to complement it, in Islam we have the Qur'an which is a book of anonymous authorship and compilation and then we have no way to get back to the early Islamic community since we have nothing they wrote still with us, unlike in Christianity, I have Paul writing 25 years after Christ’s death by crucifiction writing about his resurrection and Paul not knowing Jesus personally of course got this information from the original disciples according to his claim in 1 Corinthians 15. I have people who knew the Apostles personally writing information that confirms the information in the New Testament less then a century after most of it was written such as the Apostolic Fathers. In Islam we have a deafening silence for over 300 years before the Muslims reorganized their traditions which most probably were circulating with various titles attached to them in chains that had to be reorganized by Hadith collectors hundreds of years after the fact and we don’t have a Hadith copy still with us before it’s collection so how much was changed in the process is impossible to know. Let’s view some of the christological options of the early Church Fathers and see how much they resemble present day Christianity:

 

Polycarp (70-155/160).  Bishop of Smyrna.  Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty . . . I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?).  He was a Christian apologist and martyr.

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117).  Bishop of Antioch.  He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.  For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190).  As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John.  He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the Earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: . . . one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and Earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the Prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in Earth, and things under the Earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all . . . '" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215).  African apologist and theologian.  He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind.  They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254).  Alexandrian theologian.  Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority . . . There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, I.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification . . . " (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

 

In the Old Testament we see that God is Multi-personal we have God and his Angel of the Lord that Joshua bowed down and worshipped:

 

"Neither," he replied, "but as commander of the army of the LORD I have now come." Then Joshua fell facedown to the ground in reverence, and asked him, "What message does my Lord have for his servant?"
 

Joshua 5:14

 

in the book of revelation the angel John saw refused to be bowed down to in reverence due to being a creature, which means the Angel of the Lord we constantly Old Testament isn’t a creature, there were also Jews that had a trinitarian multi-personal view of God belfre and around the time of Christianity such as Philo of Alexandria, this view was eventually squashed out by rabbinical Judaism. God appeared on Earth multiple times in the Old Testament so did this Angel of the Lord who is also worshipped as a deity in the Old Testament, so to say that God can’t become his own perfect creation which he created in his image is ludicrous. Even in Islam you say the Word of God was revealed as the Qur'an to Mohammed through Jibreel so it entered our World, so how is it contrary to “sane logic” to say that the Word of God was revealed through perfect humanity in the person of Jesus Christ. Humanity was created in the image of God, God wasn’t created in the image of humanity, so why can’t the creater become his perfect creation and live among them if you believe the Qur'an did the same thing in Islam, so if the Word of God can do so why can’t God?

Finally I’ll let Saint of John Damascus take care of the rest:

 

[The Muslims] call us Hetaeriasts, or Associators, because, they say, we introduce an associate with God by declaring Christ to the Son of God and God. We say to them in rejoinder: ‘The Prophets and the Scriptures have delivered this to us, and you, as you persistently maintain, accept the Prophets. So, if we wrongly declare Christ to be the Son of God, it is they who taught this and handed it on to us.’ But some of them say that it is by misinterpretation that we have represented the Prophets as saying such things, while others say that the Hebrews hated us and deceived us by writing in the name of the Prophets so that we might be lost. And again we say to them: ‘As long as you say that Christ is the Word of God and Spirit, why do you accuse us of being Hetaeriasts? For the word, and the spirit, is inseparable from that in which it naturally has existence. Therefore, if the Word of God is in God, then it is obvious that He is God. If, however, He is outside of God, then, according to you, God is without word and without spirit. Consequently, by avoiding the introduction of an associate with God you have mutilated Him. It would be far better for you to say that He has an associate than to mutilate Him, as if you were dealing with a stone or a piece of wood or some other inanimate object. Thus, you speak untruly when you call us Hetaeriasts; we retort by calling you Mutilators of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure it's correct to say “even in early Christianity there was no unity upon the nature of Christ”. One of the very striking things about Paul's writing is that he had tremendous arguments with those trying to keep the Early Church following Torah, but no problems at all with the things he was saying about Jesus' relationship to God.

The disagreements came in later centuries when people foolishly started trying to define the indescribable God.

In Judaism they had plenty of examples to draw on of God's actual presence in the world. The Pillar of Fire and Cloud, the Presence in the Tabernacle, the Burning Bush etc. Paul and the Early Church said that Jesus was another occurrence of the Presence of God.

So to the OP- God was present in the Burning Bush (Exodus 3), but was more than the Burning Bush. God was present in Jesus, but was more than Jesus.

I hope this helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Leslie P said:

So to the OP- God was present in the Burning Bush (Exodus 3), but was more than the Burning Bush. God was present in Jesus, but was more than Jesus.

 

So, you meant to say that God was contained by the fire, and God was contained by the Jesus ? Do you say that fire and Jesus were so strong to contain God within themselves ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2011 at 12:33 PM, Rasul said:

According to Christian belief Jesus is 100% man and 100% God but acording to Bible

"God is not a Man" (NIV Bible, Numbers 23:19)

So if God is not a man; Then how can Jesus be 100% man and 100% God?

Are objects in the mirror not 100% mirror and 100% not the mirror?

That is how.  I am just answering the question even though I am not a Christian. But I am assuming you truly want an answer and you are truly trying to understand their point of view. I will know how correct I am about this.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2011 at 12:12 AM, Son of Placid said:

Nice hat, do you use it when a Christian asks you why you worship a black stone?

My apoligies to the real Muslims on the site.

These so called teenage Muslims here do not represent the Prophet (S) primarily because they are discourteous and insulting.  They have a lot more growing up to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2011 at 2:02 PM, MysticKnight said:

The loophole out of it.

God is a trinity, hence not a man

Jesus is not God, but 1/3 of God.

Ofcourse the Father is God, Jesus is God, the holy spirit is God.

It's called a contradiction. You can't be 100% human and 100% God...it's a contradiction.

The whole trinity is a contradiction of idenity

Where all three are distinct, part of a whole, are each other, and each is the whole at the same time.

It makes zero sense. But whom says people don't stick to contradictions. Call it a divine mystery, we can't understand God, and we are fallible minds and we need faith to understand, not logic, etc, and you get justification.

Nothing wrong with contradictions.

 

This life is a contradiction, but it is also not a contradiction.  This is why it both a contradiction and not a contradiction.  

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We Christians believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. It tells us Jesus said...

30 I and the Father are one."
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?
35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came-and Scripture cannot be broken-
36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;
38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."
39 Again they sought to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.
40 He went away again across the Jordan to the place where John had been baptizing at first, and there he remained.
41 And many came to him. And they said, "John did no sign, but everything that John said about this man was true." - John 10:30-41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

bismillah and salams,

I was thinking about this one night a few weeks ago and had some thoughts about the divine and human nature of Christ, I'm not sure of the strength of this reasoning and present it here that someone might make some comments:

 

If Jesus were fully God then he would necessarily have to exist and he would exist eternally.

If Jesus were fully man, then he would be contingent as human nature essentially lacks necessity.

If Jesus were fully God and fully man, he would exist necessarily and eternally as God but also exist contingently in his human nature.

Seemingly absurd.

Additionally, if Jesus Christ were fully God, then he is immutable.

If Jesus Christ were immutable then there would be no change to his essence.

Jesus Christ would exist eternally as man and God then.

But a subsequent conclusion from this would be that human nature is also necessary (if Jesus Christ has always existed and necessarily existed and existed immutably, then he never acquired human nature). However human nature doesn't seem to be necessary, it additionally has the qualities of contingency (generation and corruption).

Again, this seems to be absurd.

I am not sure about the validity of the above reasoning though. It's probably likely it might be the rediscovery of the wheel as well, someone else likely has already thought it and formulated it. Perhaps someone can comment on it and/or refer me to where this discussion has already been had.

 

Thanks and salams

Iltimas-e Dua

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 10:02 PM, Flying_Eagle said:

So, you meant to say that God was contained by the fire, and God was contained by the Jesus ? Do you say that fire and Jesus were so strong to contain God within themselves ?

Not really. 'Be present in' and 'be contained in' are not the same thing.

The sense in the Koranic version (Surah 20) is a bit less defined than the OT one, but the idea that God was present and communicating with humans with a different type of presence to that normally experienced is certainly not dissimilar.

God was speaking directly to Moses, using words that could be heard through sound, in both Surah 20 and Exodus. Moses was replying with hearable words. Yet God would be more and beyond that presence in that time and place.

In the same way, if Jesus was talking with you, it would be the presence of God speaking directly with you. Yet God would be more and beyond that presence in that time and place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ibn Al-Ja'abi said:

bismillah and salams,

I was thinking about this one night a few weeks ago and had some thoughts about the divine and human nature of Christ, I'm not sure of the strength of this reasoning and present it here that someone might make some comments:

 

If Jesus were fully God then he would necessarily have to exist and he would exist eternally.

<snip>

I am not sure about the validity of the above reasoning though. It's probably likely it might be the rediscovery of the wheel as well, someone else likely has already thought it and formulated it. Perhaps someone can comment on it and/or refer me to where this discussion has already been had.

 

Thanks and salams

Iltimas-e Dua

Some interesting ideas there.

I think before a contradiction can be seen, there is much, much more term definition needed; in particular the sense in which a human can be contingent needs further clarifying.

However I don't think we need go there yet.

If I write 2 + 2 = 4 on paper, the statement is necessarily true, but the writing of it is not. That is to say, the content is necessary, but the 'wrapper' of writing is contingent. I wouldn't say that is a guide to how it works with Jesus as God, but it illustrates that something can be necessary in one sense but contingent in another.

Further, it is not the case that the presence of God is immutable in all senses. The Pillar of Cloud became the Pillar of Fire, and back again, in the OT. Both were different in appearance to the presence in the Tabernacle and the Burning Bush.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/4/2019 at 8:03 PM, eThErEaL said:

Are objects in the mirror not 100% mirror and 100% not the mirror?

That is how.  I am just answering the question even though I am not a Christian. But I am assuming you truly want an answer and you are truly trying to understand their point of view. I will know how correct I am about this.

Okay that is a dumb comparison (no offense) an Object isn’t in the mirror, but it’s reflection is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see this thread is back up. I posted a bunch but don't think any of it was on topic. 

I think I mentioned I'm not a trinitarian, but that's not how I started. Trinity from birth..."Fellowship" Baptist. I was part of a youth Bible study group. First they taught me how to study, then they told me what I should believe. My questions became deeper than their answers. Their insistence became my resistance. Next was pressure to become a member of the church. I was mid leadership in the Christian service brigade, (Boy scouts). Turning 18 meant I would have to be moved to a higher leadership level, which required I be a member of the church. I quickly found out neither were true according to the CSB HQ. Interrogation followed, (by a Lieutenant Colonel/Deacon/CSB brass), and it was suggested I was going to the wrong church. I took that advise.

Trinity was part of the contention. It's the first and foremost doctrine, to deny it is "blasphemy". It is my opinion that the reason most Christians can't explain it is because they can't really grasp it but because it's such a biggy they try not to question their doubts. I don't believe God will condemn them for it, they just want to be among the believers.

Before you even get to the New testament;

The theme of Christianity seems to be to lump all names, and or anything sounding God-like into one God, but that is tremendously problematic. Jehovah, (DEDI, Hebrew translit), "The existing one" The proper name for the one true Almighty God according to Strong's interpretation. Elohim, (plural), Rulers, judges, divine ones, God, goddess, the (true) God, also according to Strong's interpretation. 

When you see Jehovah Elohim, it basically means the God of gods. There are more poetic names, like The Mighty one of Jacob, but getting down to why two names could have such obvious differences yet mean one and the same was beyond me. The concept of one and the same didn't match the black on white.

People believe the ten commandments were made for everyone, but they start out with; “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage..." Then goes on to say, You will have no other "Elohim" before me.  Amplifies the point by saying no graven images of gods,etc. and the reason; "I am a jealous God"

The thing of it is, both Christians and Muslims are so stuck on the concept of one God that they can't see the obvious references to lesser (gods?) in the OT. So now what?
"God" led the Israelites with a cloud by day and a pillar of fire at night for 40 years, why? Why would "God" come down from Heaven, (that of which He's never left according to Jesus), and squeeze Himself into a cloud to lead a bunch of rebellious chosen ones around a desert? It doesn't even sound very all knowing. No sooner did Moses get the tablets off the mountain but the Israelites had smelted their gold into a calf. Obvious polygamists. They believed in more than one God. Who were these gods? More study...

There was one "Elohim" called "The word of the Lord". Jews say the word is simply the written word, but "The Word of the LORD" came to many Prophets, often, with and without form, and actions a book just can't do. It's hard to say how many "Elohim" there were/are depending on it including archangels, messengers, Prophets, or not. The word of the LORD, The Angel of the LORD, The Lord of hosts, there's more. How many names, and how many are reference to one or more entity? 
The relationship of Jesus to God starts in the Gospel according to John, who introduced The Word as a God. God, θεον, the Word, θεος. (Who was in the beginning with God). This also depends on how you view the beginning. There's no indication The Word existed before the beginning, There was God, and the Spirit of God. The first possibility was when God said "Let there be light". After the heavens and Earth, the light was the first creation, also prior to the creation of the sun. Then John goes on to say the Word became flesh, which would mean indwelled a human body. This human was introduced as Jesus. To triangulate the relationship, Jesus said "I am the light of the world" 

Many things Jesus said didn't seem to make sense, coming from a human, but from The Word, who was intimate with God, the statements make perfect sense. How could any human say, "Before Abraham was, I AM" unless He was there. This leads back to the burning bush, that of which Christians assume was only God Almighty talking to Moses. The first mention is the mountain of Elohim, The next mentioned is the Angel of the Lord, Then Jehovah saw Moses turn to see, then Elohim called Moses closer. Elohim said I am the "Elohim" of thy father, of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Then Jehovah spoke. The only way it makes sense is if The Word was the "Elohim" speaking. In the same manner, Jesus could only know to take clay and form a bird if He knew how Adam, et al, were created. Jesus often mentioned that He did not have the power God had. He continually referred to God as the Father, normally followed by, "Who is in Heaven" A clear division.
Paul greeted his people by saying Grace and peace be unto you from God, our Father, and The Lord Jesus Christ. Always the same division. 

In the end the revelation of John says Jesus will sit at the right hand of God. If Jesus was God, would He not be seated in the one and only throne?

The interesting thing was the first council of Nicaea was a major argument about the duality of God, Jesus and God. Arius opposed, got kicked out, let back in, then died mysteriously, so the debate ended with two forms of one God. The trinity must have been a belief that was prevalent around Muhammad in his time, but it didn't become a doctrine until the second council in 787. Almost 800 years to impose a doctrine that doesn't match the black and white. 

I write too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Not really. 'Be present in' and 'be contained in' are not the same thing.

The sense in the Koranic version (Surah 20) is a bit less defined than the OT one, but the idea that God was present and communicating with humans with a different type of presence to that normally experienced is certainly not dissimilar.

God was speaking directly to Moses, using words that could be heard through sound, in both Surah 20 and Exodus. Moses was replying with hearable words. Yet God would be more and beyond that presence in that time and place.

In the same way, if Jesus was talking with you, it would be the presence of God speaking directly with you. Yet God would be more and beyond that presence in that time and place.

As a Muslim, we believe that God is more present than Jesus himself. And, we believe that God is more present than we are. We believe that our cognitive abilities and actions are only because Allah (عزّ وجلّ) is ordering us to do so, if Allah (عزّ وجلّ) wishes, I will die without even blinking. 

We do not say that God was present in fire, rather we say that God conversed to Hazrat Moses (عليه السلام) through fire. or Allah (عزّ وجلّ) talked to Moses (عليه السلام) through trees. and When we said God talked, we do not say that it is His original voice, no one has heard his original voice, voice itself is a medium, if Allah (عزّ وجلّ) wants, He puts messages into hearts of his beloved ones and they understand it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I see this thread is back up. I posted a bunch but don't think any of it was on topic. 

I think I mentioned I'm not a trinitarian, but that's not how I started. Trinity from birth..."Fellowship" Baptist. I was part of a youth Bible study group.

<snip>

but it didn't become a doctrine until the second council in 787. Almost 800 years to impose a doctrine that doesn't match the black and white. 

I write too much.

There's a lot of detail here, and space permits picking up only some of the most important.

It's not just Christians who think the Burning Bush is God/Moses speaking all the way through, it's Jews as well; the context and vocabulary used don't allow any alternative.

Jesus making a bird fly is not in the Bible.

As a human, clearly Jesus did not possess all the powers of God. However he was still the presence of God. Water can float a liner, but my glass of water can't. They're both water.

The 'division' isn't- in fact when Paul talks about 'God our Father and Jesus Christ' he's bracketing them together as one. In the same way, a birthday card might be signed, “Greetings from Placid and all the family”.

On the right hand thing- you're heavily reading too much into a symbolic image. The right hand of God thing is a reference to Psalm 110/Daniel 7 etc where the Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of God. Jesus was the Messiah That's all it's about.

By Nicea the whole thinking had got overcomplicated. The simpler descriptions of the first Christians of Jesus as a Presence of God are to be preferred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Flying_Eagle said:

we believe that God is more present than we are.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. It may need unpacking.

When we said God talked, we do not say that it is His original voice, no one has heard his original voice, voice itself is a medium, if Allah wants, He puts messages into hearts of his beloved ones and they understand it.

The text as I read it wasn't clear on that point, but it doesn't matter- the key thing is there was a direct conversation between God and Moses. That is to say, Moses experienced the Presence of God in a different, more direct way than usual. Holding a conversation with Jesus would also have been experiencing a different, more direct way of talking to God.

Although I am intrigued to know- what do you mean by “God conversed to Hazrat Moses through fire”?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think most Christians would go along with that.

 

It would be worth making this clear: Christianity believes in One God in exactly the same way as Judaism and Islam do.

No ifs, no buts, no qualifications. We believe there is only One God. End of.

Where there might be a difference is that we don't see the same sorts of restrictions being on God that Islam does.

Can God be present in some unusual sense in a Pillar of Fire? Yes. Can He be present in some unusual sense in a Tabernacle? Yes. In a Burning Bush? Yes. (Judaism has the same answers.)

Can God be present in an unusual sense in a person? In the same sort of way, yes.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 5:01 PM, Leslie P said:

It's not just Christians who think the Burning Bush is God/Moses speaking all the way through, it's Jews as well; the context and vocabulary used don't allow any alternative.

The context is full of alternatives. The constant use of Elohim instead of Jehovah speaks volumes. Elohim did all the talking. 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:01 PM, Leslie P said:

Jesus making a bird fly is not in the Bible.

It is in the Qur'an and this is a Muslim site. 
 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:01 PM, Leslie P said:

As a human, clearly Jesus did not possess all the powers of God. However he was still the presence of God.

That is my point, but water is a bad example. There is a limited amount of water on the planet, even less in a glass. You cannot call the water in a glass 100% ocean. 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:01 PM, Leslie P said:

The 'division' isn't- in fact when Paul talks about 'God our Father and Jesus Christ' he's bracketing them together as one. In the same way, a birthday card might be signed, “Greetings from Placid and all the family”.

Actually, every translation except the N.I.V. uses the word "and". The NIV uses a comma. I equate the NIV to the Saheeh international version of the Qur'an. To say Placid and family is to include many members, none of which are Placid. 

 

On 8/6/2019 at 5:01 PM, Leslie P said:

On the right hand thing- you're heavily reading too much into a symbolic image. The right hand of God thing is a reference to Psalm 110/Daniel 7 etc where the Messiah is invited to sit at the right hand of God. Jesus was the Messiah That's all it's about.

Maybe I'm not reading enough into it. Of course it's symbolic, but there is an obvious separation between the throne God metaphorically sits on, and sitting on the right hand of the throne. Drivers seat passenger seat...  Also interesting, in the cases where mentioned "Sit at my right hand" follows; "The Lord said unto my Lord..." It would seem David's Lord had a Lord. I'm not sure how to get around that and stay honest.

It comes down to, why did God create angels, Archangels, why is there a hierarchy among angels? Did God create them to do His Earthly bidding, or are they just a cheering section while He does everything Himself? I'm not trying to make light of the situation, and I know how much pressure the "blasphemy" doctrine puts on Christians to never question. I'm not handing out answers, just research Christians are afraid to touch.

I would have felt a deep separation from God if this was blasphemy, (believing God had equals), but I haven't. I've been blessed with a healthy retirement, sore but healthy. An acreage appeared for sale at a price I could afford, I've learned more about land, weeds, and the natural balance. I have gardens and fruit trees, berries...This year I was blessed with a swarm of strong honey bees that I was able to move in to a hive. I am literally living in a land of milk and honey. With all the blood work and tests, my doctor hasn't noticed how many "old man" prescriptions I haven't filled. I am thankful every day. It didn't come without work, both physically and spiritually  needed to be cleaned, but now it's a safe place for anyone who needs to sit by a fire, look at stars, see nature close up, and find peace. There is a peace that passes all understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

On 8/8/2019 at 11:05 PM, Son of Placid said:


The context is full of alternatives. The constant use of Elohim instead of Jehovah speaks volumes. Elohim did all the talking.

Elohim is one of the Hebrew names for God. In the context of the Burning Bush it is universally (Jews and Christians) recognised that it refers to the One God of Israel (see this and this as examples of the Jewish view ). Elohim and Jehovah are two different Names for the same One God.

Quote

It is in the Qur'an and this is a Muslim site.

But we are both Christians and therefore we surely won't be using the Qur'an as the foundation for belief?
 

Quote

Actually, every translation except the N.I.V. uses the word "and". The NIV uses a comma. I equate the NIV to the Saheeh international version of the Qur'an. To say Placid and family is to include many members, none of which are Placid.



I'm not sure which NIV you're using, but it seems to have 'and' in there. I should also add that Christians generally don't regard the NIV as 'Saheeh', and certainly wouldn't use that translation as the basis for belief against all the others. The Greek has 'kai' in there which means 'and'.

A card 'from Placid and family' implies that Placid is a member of the family being referred to as sending the card.
 

Quote

Maybe I'm not reading enough into it. Of course it's symbolic, but there is an obvious separation between the throne God metaphorically sits on, and sitting on the right hand of the throne. Drivers seat passenger seat...

I could say that First Century Jewish apocalyptic language doesn't function that way, that the metaphor is about the two different roles of God rather than number of seats needing to be put out, but that would lead to a lengthy piece on how it does function. So let me help you out with a clearer, non-metaphorical example of the separation you seem to think is there. At Jesus' baptism, a voice spoke to Jesus. If the voice was God, you would surely say, how could Jesus be God?

The One God is not limited to one place. So if God can be present in the Burning Bush, He can also be elsewhere at the same time, doing other things. If God was present in Jesus, He can also be present in a Voice talking to Jesus. We mustn't try to say what God can't do!

Quote

Also interesting, in the cases where mentioned "Sit at my right hand" follows; "The Lord said unto my Lord..." It would seem David's Lord had a Lord. I'm not sure how to get around that and stay honest.

The expression 'Lord said to my Lord' (Matthew 22:44 ref Psalm 110) used is capable of multiple interpretations. Many commentaries say it points clearly to the divinity of Jesus. I would say it is part of a package which does that, but not directly. I think Jesus was asking a dense, challenging question to His opponents, to which He knew the answer, but where the time to reveal the answer had yet to come. The whole Psalm quoted is about the Messiah; the nature of the Messiah was not at that stage a question being asked.

 

Quote

I know how much pressure the "blasphemy" doctrine puts on Christians to never question. I'm not handing out answers, just research Christians are afraid to touch.

I'm comfortable discussing these issues. It's important that this happens.

Edited by Leslie P
correct link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 9:50 AM, Leslie P said:

Elohim is one of the Hebrew names for God. In the context of the Burning Bush it is universally (Jews and Christians) recognised that it refers to the One God of Israel (see this and this as examples of the Jewish view ). Elohim and Jehovah are two different Names for the same One God.

The trinitarian view is to lump all references into one God. 

According to Strong's...

Jehovah = "the existing One"  1) the proper name of the one true God  1a) unpronounced except with the vowel pointings of H136

Elohim = 1) (plural) 1a) rulers, judges 1b) divine ones 1c) angels 1d) gods 
2) (plural intensive-singular meaning) 2a) God, goddess 2b) godlike one 2c) works or special possessions of God 2d) the (true) God 2e) God

The First Century Jewish apocalyptic language included many gods and the Israelites were no strangers. That's why Moses felt he needed to establish a name he could take back to the people. Moses was continually battling nations with other gods. They weren't pretend gods, they were powerful gods...except in the presence of God Almighty. 

The Ten Commandments start with "I am the Lord, thy God, ("Jehovah, Elohim", Literally God of gods) ... Thou shalt have no other gods, (Elohim), before me. 

My Baptist upbringing told me that meant anything you put before God, (possessions, purpose, or pride), because there are no other gods, but it clearly says Elohim.

You can see where the conflict is between what I was taught and what the word says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Elohim can have a variety of meanings, depending on the context. The same is true of the word divine:

“Was Jesus divine?”

“That dessert was divine!”

“Buy Divine chocolate, available in the United Kingdom and US, because it's Fairtrade which helps the poor.”

In the context of the Burning Bush, the context is unmistakeable and uncontroversial. It means the One God of Israel. At the time of writing this, it is the quoted example for this meaning on Wikipedia.

The general gist of the word is to do with power. A good explanation is

here

Thus one can talk of 'powers' and the One God using the same word Elohim. No conflict.

 

We should note very carefully that the Christian viewpoint is NOT that Jesus is a separate God, but is the SAME God, in a different aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree with the idea that God ought to be able to present Himself through material objects. Be it a burning bush, a cloud, flesh and bone of a human being, through water or wind etc.

The flesh and bone of Jesus is flesh and bone and of course wouldn't contain God. But that wouldn't mean that God wouldn't be able to project through flesh and bone in the form of a man. 

I wonder if the Qur'an has any similar events in which God is viewed through a physical object like through fire or water, plants or animals etc.

Edited by iCenozoic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi @iCenozoic in world nothing can  contain presence of God & in Qur'an says that God/Allah talked with Prophet Musa /Moses (عليه السلام) through burning bush but when Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) asked to see him ,God said nobody can see him 

Did the story of Moses come to you, (9) when he sighted a fire, and said to his family, ‘Wait! Indeed, I descry a fire! Maybe I will bring you a brand from it, or find some guidance at the fire.’ (10) So when he came to it, he was called, ‘O Moses! (11) Indeed I am your Lord! So take off your sandals. You are indeed in the sacred valley of Tuwa. (12)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/19:96

 When Moses arrived at Our tryst and his Lord spoke to him, he said, ‘My Lord, show [Yourself] to me, that I may look at You!’ He said, ‘You shall not see Me. But look at the mountain: if it abides in its place, then you will see Me.’ So when his Lord disclosed Himself to the mountain, He levelled it, and Moses fell down swooning. When he recovered, he said, ‘Immaculate are You! I turn to You in penitence, and I am the first of the faithful.’ (143)

http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/7:143

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2019 at 9:56 AM, Abu Shareef said:

The fact that Christians had to even debate on the nature of Jesus proves that they confused. The fact that even in early Christianity there was no unity upon the nature of Christ causes even more problems. You have centuries upon centuries of Christians debating and discussing the "christology" and you have the development and the progression of this "christology" evident even within the present day NT gospels. 

 

There are clear issues with Jesus being a divine being.  The OT has many passages describing the nature of God and its clear he isn't a human being. The fact that these Christians turned Jesus alayhisalam into the "son of God" and "God" (naoozubillah) not only makes a mockery of (sane) logic but also clashes with the entire teaching of the OT. 

As if Islam has been daisies and butterflies throughout it's own history. Lol.

Conflict is inherent, internally, within religion at large because by it's very nature, it is subjective. 

Nobody ever went and put a tape measure up to God and was ever able to put God into a box. Rather, God has always been and will always be abstract by it's very nature. Hence the division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Status of Christianity in Islam” goes under spotlight in Mashhad

September 23, 2019 - 6:03 PM News Code : 977551 Source : AQRLink: 

“Status of Christianity in Islam” goes under spotlight in Mashhad

 

Astan Quds Razavi’s Foreign Pilgrims' Affairs Office has held a specialized meeting themed “The Status of Christianity in Islam” for Swiss tourists at the holy shrine of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) in Mashhad.

Speaking at the meeting, Hoj. Javad Raqavi, the deputy for research at Al-Mustafa International University, referred to the position of Jesus Christ ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) and his image in the Holy Qur'an, saying that “The religion Jesus Christ publicized is a heavenly one, which is revealed to this Prophet to guide mankind.”

He stated that Jesus was a Prophet who came to the world by a miracle, and received special Divine attention and in Islamic culture, Mary also has high ethical characteristics and she is clear of any imperfections.

“According to Surah Al-e Imran, Mary is a pure and virgin girl, whom God has praised with good words. She had a heart full of faith in God, and the Holy Prophet of Islam ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), in a letter to Najashi, mentions her with unsullied attributes,” he said.

He further noted that the Holy Qur'an describes Jesus Christ as a person miraculously born and passed away. "The Holy Qur'an introduces him as a righteous, monotheist and humble man who does not speak or claim of being of godly status, and that, he enjoyed a unique position before God."

Following the meeting, the 33 members of the group visited the sacred places and museums of Astan Quds Razavi, the body in charge of Imam Reza (عليه السلام) holy shrine.

 

https://en.abna24.com/news//“status-of-christianity-in-Islam”-goes-under-spotlight-in-mashhad_977551.html

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...