Apostle Paul and Jesus’ divinity: lost in translation?

[Northwest]

(The following is not copied from an external source such as a blog: I wrote it myself here.)

Up until recently, I had long supposed that the Apostle Paul was primarily responsible for the deviation of Jewish Christianity, for its corruption by Hellenism (paganism). I had contended that Paul transformed Jewish Christianity into a Hellenistic mystery-cult that divinised Jesus. Nevertheless, I continued to research and reevaluate my sources. I have now tentatively come to the conclusion that perhaps it was the later Church rather than Paul who was responsible for the corruption of Christianity. In this the fault may have lain in the translation of original sources, and the accretion of spurious interpretations thereof. The problem is that the latter-day Church projected its own circumstances onto those of Paul and his contemporaries, in turn misleading generations of Christians. In the following exposition I am going to use a combination of research and logic to illustrate my contention that Paul may have been skewered by his followers, who acted much later in time than the Apostle and his proselytes did.

According to Raymond E. Brown’s The Gospel according to John X–XII (New York: Doubleday, 1979, 2nd ed.), the identifier “God” is not used of Jesus to any real degree, if at all, in the New Testament (p. 24), and to the extent that it appears is primarily functional rather than an ontological designation (p. 408). Even when Jesus is said to bear the Divine Name, in reality he is consecrated by God and so makes Him known, being His Messianic agent (pp. 536–7), and indeed in Jewish thought the agent and sender were regarded as one in agency or purpose, even if the Sender were God Himself. So when Jesus says that he and the Father are one, he is speaking in terms of agency or purpose, rather than presupposing ontological equality. In relation to this, the Law was said to spiritually prepare men for the requirements of the Messianic advent, to instil in their very being the spiritual character that would one day become necessary (p. CXV). So in this sense Jesus’ advent does not abolish the Law, but rather fulfils its purpose.

In his Christology in the Making (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989, 2nd ed.), James D. G. Dunn explains that even the Gospel of John, with its concept of the Logos (Word), does not presuppose the personal preexistence of Christ, but actually describes a transition from an impersonal personification to a human existence, so that the Logos conceptualises God’s eternal Divine Plan becoming realised—that is, enfleshed or Incarnate—in the birth and life of Jesus (p. 243). This echoes the Qur’ān’s conception of Jesus as embodying God’s Word or Divine Plan being actualised in human, concrete terms; indeed, the human Jesus, as in the New Testament, comes into personal existence by God’s utterance, “Be!”—hence the virginal conception in the womb of Mary via Gabriel’s transmission of spirit. So in neither the New Testament nor the Qur’ān is the Divine Word or Logos characterised as a separate “Person” from God or as anything more than a personification in primeval time. It is clearly an impersonal utterance and/or Plan.

Now I am going to return to Paul and his alleged deification of Jesus. Evidence to this effect is often said to be contained in Philippians 2:6–11, the so-called “Christ-hymn.” These verses are often said to describe Christ’s process of kenosis or self-negation, by which he supposedly takes on human nature yet retains his Divine essence. In other words, his spirit is alleged to be uncreated or eternal in nature, that is, God Himself, unlike other humans’ spirits. The problem with this take, however, is that in his genuine epistles Paul does not regard Jesus as synonymous with God (the Father). Among the aforementioned vv. in Philippians 2 is v. 9, for instance, in which Paul states that God raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him. If Paul regarded Jesus as being spiritually equal to and coeternal with God the Father, why does he stress that God externally acted to resurrect Jesus, as though God and Jesus were separate in some sense? If Jesus were equal to God, wouldn’t Paul have said that Jesus, being God, raised himself from death?

In Galatians 4, vv. 4–5, Paul mentions that God sent forth Jesus. If Jesus were himself God, Paul would have simply stated that God Himself came forth, or that Jesus came on his own agency. Romans 8, v. 3 also states that God sent forth Jesus, so God is clearly the Actor, not Jesus. In 1 Corinthians 8, v. 6, Paul’s formula is one God, one Lord, the “Lord” being Jesus Christ. So Paul clearly regards Jesus as being somehow separate from God the Father, and therefore not sharing his essence, unlike in later, Trinitarian formulae. Other Pauline works, authored by men other than Paul but inspired by him, unequivocally include statements to the effect that the man Jesus Christ mediates between God and men (1 Timothy 2, v. 5). Again, if Jesus and God were regarded by Paul and his early followers as synonymous, other phraseology would have been used. Taken together, the internal evidence seems to indicate that neither Paul nor his immediate associates equated Jesus with God the Father, but regarded the former as human.

[Ashvazdanghe]

Hi Anyway Paul has initiated deviation in Christanity which his inheritors have completed his task which at first Paul limited choice because early Christians have been from Jews who has turned into Christians due that  they have been aware of religious rullings of Jews so therefore Paul has initiated deviation by small changes in Jewish rullings which when in later cenuries his devaition in name of Christianity has become a strong branch so therefore his inheritors could do serious innovations & deviations in Christanity according first deviations of Paul.

[Son of Placid]

On 12/5/2022 at 10:47 AM, Northwest said:

Up until recently, I had long supposed that the Apostle Paul was primarily responsible for the deviation of Jewish Christianity,

Paul was the catalyst in the first split of the church.
James was the leader in the church of Jerusalem, many Jews had turned to Christianity while Paul was off preaching to the Gentiles.
The problem arose when the Jews figured that all Christians should become Jews first. 
Paul came to James and said, you gotta do something.
It was James and his group of elders that made the decision that Gentiles could be saved without having to go through all the old Jewish rules. Paul wasn't even in the council. He waited outside for the ruling.

I've never come across anywhere that Paul called Jesus God. That didn't happen for another 300 some years. Big commotion caused by Arius. We don't have much on him, he mysteriously died shortly after being allowed back in to the council of Nicaea and all his notes were burned. The first council of Nicaea was all about compiling a Bible but the big argument was about Jesus being God. The duality of God? It was another 400 years or so before another council decided on a trinity. 

There is nothing in the Bible that states Father, son, and holy spirit are all one. Jesus always called God His Father, which was usually followed by, who is in heaven. Paul called him the "firstborn" of all creation which leads us back to Lagos. 

The concept of Lagos is interesting. In the first two books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, "The Word" was quite active. More so than just a thought or a book.

Jesus did make the statement, "Before Abraham was, I am." which goes back to Moses and the burning bush where Moses asked for a name. This was considered blasphemy because it would seem Jesus was saying He was the "I AM" God, but there is another fallacy in Christianity and that is the teaching that all names mentioned in the OT mean the one and only Almighty God. At the burning bush the first introduced was the Angel of the Lord. Then Jehovah, then Elohim. That would be 3 entities.

I seem to have lost my Hebrew translator so I can't give reference.
Jehovah is translated as Almighty God in all context. Elohim is a term used in plural, and can be God, goddess, gods, goddesses, all the way down to kings and rulers. The words, I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of... the word used was Elohim, not Jehovah. 
In other places the term Lord God is translated from Jehovah Elohim, (God of gods). This being the case it is quite possible that God Almighty did not personally spend 40 years running His people around a desert. This also makes it quite possible that the spirit of "Lagos" was reborn in the body of Jesus. The beginning of Lagos is still undetermined in my mind. It could possibly go back to the third verse of Genesis when God said "Let there be light", prior to the sun being created. Certainly not a point I could argue but... 
This would explain how Jesus was able to talk as a baby, as noted in the Quran. It would also explain Jesus shaping clay into a bird and it flying off. If the spirit that indwelled Jesus was there at creation, He would understand the process.
Of course that messes with the beliefs of Christianity and Islam.


 

[Leslie P]

On 12/5/2022 at 5:47 PM, Northwest said:

(The following is not copied from an external source such as a blog: I wrote it myself here.)

<snip>

Taken together, the internal evidence seems to indicate that neither Paul nor his immediate associates equated Jesus with God the Father, but regarded the former as human.

This is a very interesting and well researched piece. I particularly agree with your statement “So in this sense Jesus’ advent does not abolish the Law, but rather fulfils its purpose”, which is a correct reading of what Paul has to say about the Torah.

A few thoughts tentatively offered:

Firstly, Paul is very clear that he sees Jesus as God.

When he says the name of Jesus is the name before which every knee shall now (Rom 14:11; Phil 2:10-11) he is directly referencing Isaiah 45:23 clearly about God.

When Paul talks about “one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” in the passage you mention 1 Cor 8, he is using the Shema, the strongest statement of God's oneness in Judaism, and putting Jesus right in the middle of it.

He also uses a number of references to Jesus as Kyrios/YHWH (eg Rom 10:13)

Secondly, if John describes the person Jesus as the Logos in human form, we must surely have a personification of the Logos?

Finally, the idea that if God the Father raised Jesus, then Jesus can't have been God; and that describing Jesus as a man rules out divinity; I feel that's a little simplistic. The earliest, Jewish, church had a long tradition of appearances from God such as the men/God who appeared to Abraham (Genesis 18), the Burning Bush (Exodus 3) and the Pillar of Cloud and Fire (Exodus 13). They were very comfortable saying that God can appear to humanity in a way that can be seen etc, and can do more than one thing at once. Jesus was another in this sequence.

[Northwest]

57 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Firstly, Paul is very clear that he sees Jesus as God.

@Leslie P

In the sense that Jesus the Messiah represents God, then yes. In Judaism God and His Representative(s) are one in purpose, in addition to sharing the same basic character (though not essence), and per the New Testament Jesus is the climax of Israel’s and man’s history, in a sense embodying the fulfilment of the Divine Plan, which is eternal, being in God’s mind “from the beginning”. The Gospel of John and the Qur’ān make the same point about Jesus being the/a Divine Logos or Word in this sense. Jesus in Paul’s mind is thus God representing Himself to His creation through His Messianic agent. That doesn’t mean that Paul would have viewed Jesus as sharing God’s essence.

57 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

When he says the name of Jesus is the name before which every knee shall now (Rom 14:11; Phil 2:10-11) he is directly referencing Isaiah 45:23 clearly about God.

But this only refers to Jesus’ being resurrected. Paul doesn’t make a similar statement about the pre-Resurrection Jesus. Given that Jesus in the NT, more than any other figure, represents God and the Divine Plan “made flesh”, Paul’s referring to Isaiah 43:23 doesn’t imply that he saw the pre-Resurrection Jesus as divine in any sense. As I previously mentioned, Paul is referring primarily to Jesus’ functional rather than ontological identity. Jesus identifies his mission totally with the Father’s and so is “one” with God.

57 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

When Paul talks about “one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live” in the passage you mention 1 Cor 8, he is using the Shema, the strongest statement of God's oneness in Judaism, and putting Jesus right in the middle of it.

This doesn’t negate the fact that God and Jesus are clearly described as being distinct and separate, with God as Creator being on one side and Jesus the Messiah, the dependent, on the other. Arguably the same passage can also be translated as “with whom in mind all things came/we live.” God the Father is the Author and Creator of all things, yet Jesus the Messiah is the Beginning/First and End/Last of creation, that is, the ultimate objective, given that Jesus fully represents God’s character and is to be emulated by his followers. In Judaism the name, identity, and character of the Messiah is said to have been with God since before the universe was created.

57 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

He also uses a number of references to Jesus as Kyrios/YHWH (eg Rom 10:13)

The term Kyrios has also been used many times in the Septuagint to refer to human lords/superiors as well as angelic and Divine. It is not intrinsic to God Himself.

57 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Secondly, if John describes the person Jesus as the Logos in human form, we must surely have a personification of the Logos?

Certainly. But a personification does not imply Divine nature. Jesus is also Wisdom personified in the NT, but is nowhere explicitly equated with God (the Father).

57 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Finally, the idea that if God the Father raised Jesus, then Jesus can't have been God; and that describing Jesus as a man rules out divinity; I feel that's a little simplistic.

How so? Nowhere does Paul say that God raised Himself or that Jesus, being God, raised himself from the dead. He could have clearly said so had he believed Jesus to share the Divine essence. Even if Paul were a Trinitarian, which he wasn’t, he would have recognised that Jesus shared God the Father’s Divine nature and so was able to raise himself from the dead. Obviously Jesus’ human nature would not have been able to raise itself from the dead. Yet if Jesus was a hypostatic, dual-natured being, in part sharing God’s Divine nature, he should have been referred to as having raised himself from the dead. Instead Paul refers to God’s externally raising Jesus. God’s on one side (Divine) and Jesus on the other (human). There simply is no other way to account for this.

57 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

The earliest, Jewish, church had a long tradition of appearances from God such as the men/God who appeared to Abraham (Genesis 18), the Burning Bush (Exodus 3) and the Pillar of Cloud and Fire (Exodus 13). They were very comfortable saying that God can appear to humanity in a way that can be seen etc, and can do more than one thing at once. Jesus was another in this sequence.

Those were angelic theophanies and even in the NT are equated with God’s Plan for Israel. In this sense the theophanies foretold the Messianic advent of Jesus.

[Leslie P]

22 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Leslie P

 

Thanks for the reply. It's clearly something you've thought about deeply!

Quote

In the sense that Jesus the Messiah represents God, then yes. In Judaism God and His

...<snip>...That doesn’t mean that Paul would have viewed Jesus as sharing God’s essence.

I think it's a case of both...and... Jesus was God's plan to sort out the sin/death problem, and He was only able to do this because He was God.

Quote

But this only...<snip>...so is “one” with God.

I don't understand how Jesus could be not-God before His resurrection, and God after. One doesn't simply become God in the Jewish tradition. Of course, becoming posthumously divine is something that happened to Roman emperors courtesy of their successors.

Further, the Name of Jesus is a fairly clear tag to the person, not the mission. Paul is explicitly saying that Jesus is the same as the person in the OT identified as God.

Quote

This doesn’t negate...<snip>.... In Judaism the name, identity, and character of the Messiah is said to have been with God since before the universe was created.

Again, it's a case of both...and... Jesus is both God and separate from God the Father. The Pillar of Cloud and Fire was an appearance of God, but not all that God was. The presence of God in the First Temple was God, but God was also in Heaven. (Think Venn diagram. I hate God analogies.)

Quote

The term Kyrios has also been used many times in the Septuagint to refer to human lords/superiors as well as angelic and Divine. It is not intrinsic to God Himself

True, kyrios as a word does have non-Divine meanings, but in the context of Romans 10:13 it's clearly intended as a Divine referent.

Quote

God the Father is the Author and Creator of all things

According to Genesis, God created all things. According to John, Jesus created all things.

Quote

Arguably the same passage can also be translated as “with whom in mind all things came/we live.”

This doesn't alter that Jesus is placed in the Shema, a place where only God can be.

Quote

Jesus is also Wisdom personified in the NT

But Wisdom is the personification of God (eg Proverbs 1), hence if you agree that Jesus is identified with Wisdom...

Quote

Yet if Jesus was a hypostatic, dual-natured being, in part sharing God’s Divine nature, he should have been referred to as having raised himself from the dead. Instead Paul refers to God’s externally raising Jesus. God’s on one side (Divine) and Jesus on the other (human). There simply is no other way to account for this.

Both...and... again. Jesus as a human couldn't resurrect Himself, but had He only been human He would not have been able to carry out His mission and inaugurate the Kingdom of God.

Quote

Those were angelic theophanies and even in the NT are equated with God’s Plan for Israel. In this sense the theophanies foretold the Messianic advent of Jesus

I'm pretty sure they were God theophanies; the intellectual sponge that is Wikipedia explains more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theophany#Judaism

This God appearance sequence was the theological framework which allowed the Jewish Early Church to consider identifying Jesus as God.

Edited December 22, 2022 by Leslie P

[Son of Placid]

1 hour ago, Leslie P said:

Paul is explicitly saying that Jesus is the same as the person in the OT identified as God.

I agree with Paul , although I can't prove he was talking about the one Jehovah.
Isaiah 45 is a bit confusing when translated into English because the word "God" is used for all terms other than LORD, aka El.
Strong's concordance of Biblical Hebrew gives different descriptions to each name mentioned.

Isaiah 45:21 Declare ye, and bring them near, yea, let them take counsel together: Who hath announced this from ancient time, and declared it of old? Have not I the LORD, (Yah-weh)? And there is no God, (Elohim), else beside Me, a just God, (El), and a Saviour; there is none beside Me.

Deuteronomy 32:17 English says; They sacrificed unto devils, not to God, (Eloha); to gods, (Elohim), whom they knew not, to new [gods] that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.
If Deuteronomy can make such a distinction, we can't possibly believe Elohim means Jehovah every time we see it.
See what I mean?

[Northwest]

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

I think it's a case of both...and... Jesus was God's plan to sort out the sin/death problem, and He was only able to do this because He was God.

@Leslie P

This is only a supposition. Saintly figures such as Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were also viewed in Judaism as sharing in the Divine nature after death, in the sense that they were viewed as exemplary men who became better than the angels, like righteous men in general—those who would have a share in the World to Come, that is, the heavenly Jerusalem or Paradise. The Messiah, of course, would be the penultimate righteous human, who would both fulfil and embody the Divine Law, and perhaps also serve as a kind of Teacher of righteousness, as in rabbinic and Samaritan conceptions. Hence the convergence of various offices in the person of the Messiah: Prophet, Priest, and King, in effect unifying the various expectations, functions, and experiences of Israel’s history. After all, figures such as Moses were also able to do that which was seen as “superhuman” despite not being God. The Messiah would simply be First among equals in this respect.

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

I don't understand how Jesus could be not-God before His resurrection, and God after. One doesn't simply become God in the Jewish tradition. Of course, becoming posthumously divine is something that happened to Roman emperors courtesy of their successors.

Exactly. My point is that Paul viewed Jesus as having been given an exalted status by God after his resurrection. Also, Paul and the Jewish Christians were interpreting Jesus’ role in light of Psalm 110:1, in which the Messiah is somehow given a share in the Divine status, by being seated at God the Father’s right hand. Obviously the Jews knew that a living mortal could not be afforded this status, but a resurrected and exalted Messiah who through his followers, the Church militant, “rules in the midst” of his enemies (v. 2) could conceivably fit the designation. In this sense Jesus fulfils Jewish eschatological expectation before the End-Times, hence the “already/not-yet” dynamic in Christian history. He and his loyal followers, his true “brethren,” have conquered, but the full victory is yet to be manifest, in this world and the Next. After all, the Messiah’s followers share his identity, so they are said to do as Jesus does, being able to judge even angels and so on, for righteous men, in Judaism (=Jewish Christianity) as well as Islam, are said to be better than the angels, so how much more so the Messiah!

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Further, the Name of Jesus is a fairly clear tag to the person, not the mission. Paul is explicitly saying that Jesus is the same as the person in the OT identified as God.

In the OT names have very much to do with function. Jesus is called “Emmanuel” or “God (is) with us” because he represents God in human terms, being the very “Incarnation” or personification of the Divine Plan, of God’s impersonal “Word,” Wisdom, or Logos. This is the sense that also exists in the Gospel of John and the Qur’ān. Of course, the fact that he was a created “Son of God,” like forefather Adam, only adds to this aptness. Similarly, the figure in Isaiah 9:6 is named “God is the Wonderful Counsellor” or “the Messenger/Angel of great counsel,” yet clearly identifies with human nature, either as an individual or collective figure. After all, the “one like a son of man/human being” in Daniel 7:13 is well known to represent righteous Israel collectively, but so could also be identified with righteous Israel’s First among equals, the Messiah.

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Again, it's a case of both...and... Jesus is both God and separate from God the Father. The Pillar of Cloud and Fire was an appearance of God, but not all that God was. The presence of God in the First Temple was God, but God was also in Heaven. (Think Venn diagram. I hate God analogies.)

Again, in the OT God is frequently present through intermediaries, whether angelic or human or otherwise. The fiery Pillar, the Burning Bush, the three men who appeared to Abraham, etc. were angelic agents and/or theophanies, yet angels represent the Divine presence and/or message. Similarly, human prophets/messengers (also “angels” in the Septuagint, “angel” meaning “messenger”) represent God’s presence by speaking His Word. Also, the human prophets/messengers are empowered by God’s Holy Spirit, but do not share in the Divine essence. Likewise the earthly Temple is but a shadow of the celestial “Temple,” though it serves as an earthly link to the Divine and therefore a dwelling-place of the Shekinah, the Divine presence. The Shekinah is present wherever the righteous are.

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

True, kyrios as a word does have non-Divine meanings, but in the context of Romans 10:13 it's clearly intended as a Divine referent.

Arguably the use of Kyrios in that context, in reference to Jesus’ being given the Divine Name, intends to contrast Jesus with the deified Roman emperors who underwent secular apotheosis. Jesus, who was crucified by the Romans, is thus exalted or “deified” by God after his resurrection, in a direct affront to the worldly claim of the Romans who assigned divine status to their deceased emperors. In context the use of Kyrios has a clear political component, in light of Jesus’ being the crucified and exalted Messiah.

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

According to Genesis, God created all things. According to John, Jesus created all things.

Uh, no. John does not claim that Jesus created all things, but that the Divine Word did. Obviously God’s Word could not exist in primeval time as a personal entity beside God, but only as an impersonal “It” that shares God’s very Being, His Divine essence, and is His mind, so to speak. “It” had no separate existence, but was God Himself, just like Wisdom. Many NT translations incorrectly ascribe a “he/him” to the pre-Incarnate Word. In fact, as I mentioned in the very beginning of this thread, only after the “enfleshment” of the Word does John refer to it as a person, as Jesus the Messiah. Before that the Word was clearly impersonal. Logically it would be so; otherwise the Word would be a second “god” or “person” beside God.

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

But Wisdom is the personification of God (eg Proverbs 1), hence if you agree that Jesus is identified with Wisdom...

The problem with your argument is that Wisdom (cf. Proverbs 8) was/is never presented as a distinct person, but as a personification of God’s power(s). It is “she”: for the Hebrew grammar is feminine. So Jesus is being identified with a nonperson, a personified stand-in for God’s power(s), not God Himself. He is identified with God’s power, with the Wisdom of His Divine Plan.

14 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Both...and... again. Jesus as a human couldn't resurrect Himself, but had He only been human He would not have been able to carry out His mission and inaugurate the Kingdom of God.

To me this is sufficient proof that he wasn’t God. According to Trinitarian formulae, Jesus embodies two natures, one Divine and the other human, yet both natures are united. Jesus is thus called hypostatic. A hypostatic Man would thus be Divine and equal with God. So the fact that Jesus was not able to raise himself disproves the Trinitarian contention that Jesus shared God’s nature. Therefore, he wasn’t God. The fact that Paul, like the rest of the NT’s authors/redactors, indicates that God raised Jesus further bolsters this contention.

[Leslie P]

Many thanks for your reply. As always, very thoughtful and informed.

There are things here I very reluctantly need to leave to return to, since I'd like to focus a bit.

Firstly, in the Isaiah version, the One before whom every knee shall bow is clearly God, both in the immediate context and the whole passage.

Secondly, the full quote from Phil 2 is “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” Now there is no way you can substitute 'function' for name in this and it make sense.

Thirdly, even if a name can reference a function, bowing the knee at a function makes little sense. Bowing the knee at a person is the usual and obvious meaning.

The fiery/cloudy Pillar was not an angel, it was God. “By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Similarly with the others I've mentioned “The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground”. The nature of the Burning bush is debatable, but that God spoke from it is not.

This isn't controversial...

I realise my earlier reply on dual nature was rather inadequate. Jesus “ made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Phil 2). This means that he did not have the full set of 'God functions'. In other words, there were things God the Father could do that Jesus the human couldn't. Another example would be knowing the time of the the destruction of the Temple (Matt 24:36). This doesn't mean He wasn't God, but had voluntarily limited His powers by becoming human.

See you after Xmas- have a good one!

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Leslie P said:

This doesn't mean He wasn't God, but had voluntarily limited His powers by becoming human.

Hi if he has limited his power by becoming human so whole of world from earth to sky would be in chaos  which because of his limitation so then he  couldn't mangae his creations which it has not been mentioned even in bible or Injil also as I know until know everyone even Christians have believed that prophet Abrham (عليه السلام) has seen archangles in form of humans which it's first time that I have seen this claim about seeing god in at last three men from you which in similar seeing god in bush is wrong because it's another type of limitation of god & bouding hi in his creation.

 

[Leslie P]

Thanks for the reply.

Quote

if he has limited his power by becoming human so whole of world from earth to sky would be in chaos

This is only true if God can only do one thing at a time. But that's not so- as the Pillar of Cloud and Fire, He was in one place, but was also running the rest of the universe at the same time. Similarly, as Jesus He can save humanity and separately run the universe.

God as three men appearing to Abraham is in Genesis 18. It's not one of the best known stories for some reason.

Judaism is very clear that God spoke to Moses directly from the Burning Bush. Rather than it being a limitation on God to do that, it's a limitation on God to say He can't do that.

We need to be very careful before we say God can't do something.

The disciples learned about God from Jesus. We should do the same.

[Son of Placid]

3 hours ago, Leslie P said:

The disciples learned about God from Jesus. We should do the same.

Jesus taught about the Father. Note the times Jesus called God the Father, and note how often it is followed by; Who is in Heaven.
Note that Jesus now sits at the right hand of God. Jesus doesn't take the throne, His seat is on the right hand of the throne.
What did the Disciples learn?
Matthew recorded Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Mark was there, heard it as well and wrote in 14:62; And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
Luke, 22:69 "...But from now on the Son of Man shall be seated at the right hand of the power of God.”
John 20 records the words of Jesus just after resurrection, Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
Paul said; Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.
Paul also said; Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.
Actually Paul said it a lot, every book, every letter.

All disciples learned God the Father is in Heaven has a throne, Jesus sits beside.

David also knew.
Psalm 110 starts; The Lord says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”
 

[Leslie P]

Three things I can add which I hope will be useful:

Even if someone thinks the Gospels are no more than biased historical documents, Jesus must have started the whole 'I am somehow God' thing, because there is no way a C1 Jewish group would have gone down that road by themselves.

Modern Christians place far more emphasis on the God side of Jesus, whereas the Early Church were more balanced and thought a lot more about the human side. This can lead to confusion when talking to e.g. Muslims about what the Bible says about Jesus.

Jesus must have done something very, very special to get the things written about him that the disciples did. If someone denies the resurrection, what could it be?

[Northwest]

On 12/23/2022 at 6:44 PM, Leslie P said:

Firstly, in the Isaiah version, the One before whom every knee shall bow is clearly God, both in the immediate context and the whole passage.

Secondly, the full quote from Phil 2 is “Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” Now there is no way you can substitute 'function' for name in this and it make sense.

Thirdly, even if a name can reference a function, bowing the knee at a function makes little sense. Bowing the knee at a person is the usual and obvious meaning.

@Leslie P

In any event, it seems rather clear that Divine status was bestowed upon Jesus from Above, and only after his resurrection. Paul himself clearly says that Jesus was included as part of the Shema and received the title Kyrios in its Divine sense only after the resurrection. This wouldn’t have been possible if Jesus were equal with God beforehand, especially if he were personally, primevally preexistent. Paul describes Jesus undergoing a kind of “Jewish” apotheosis. I freely admit that it is rather strange in a Jewish context, but it is also rather unintelligible from a contemporary pagan perspective, because the surrounding Jewish context is too “alien” to a pagan; it also rather clearly indicates that Paul did not think that Jesus was identical with God. He didn’t possess or bestow Divine status upon himself, but received it from the Father after resurrection.

On 12/23/2022 at 6:44 PM, Leslie P said:

The fiery/cloudy Pillar was not an angel, it was God. “By day the Lord went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. Similarly with the others I've mentioned “The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground”.

Based on Jewish exegesis, I believe it was the Angel of the LORD, most probably Gabriel, the Angel of Divine revelation. In context the Angel and God’s presence are regarded as synonymous, especially in terms of mission. Angelic messengers in general, as I mentioned, are essentially stand-ins for God. So in this case the term “God” is likely being used to denote an especially important Angelic personage, like Gabriel, perhaps. After all, Gabriel in particular is the very Angel of Divine revelation, in Jewish, Christian, and Islamic tradition, even if in this case his name wasn’t explicitly mentioned. Given that Divine revelation is also fittingly associated with the Divine Word, it is also appropriate that it is Gabriel who enables Mary to conceive Jesus, the Incarnate Word or Divine Plan made manifest. The connection seems rather straightforward.

On 12/23/2022 at 6:44 PM, Leslie P said:

The nature of the Burning bush is debatable, but that God spoke from it is not.

This isn't controversial...

Again, this was almost certainly another case in which God’s Angelic Representative, most likely of high rank, appeared to Moses in a particular guise and “spoke”/conveyed God’s command. Given the “revelatory” nature of the situation, Gabriel or a similarly high-ranking angel might well have been involved in this case, too. Divine revelation is very closely associated with the Divine Word/Plan of God Himself, so it is not surprising that the Angelic Messenger would essentially be equated with the Divine presence, that is, God Himself, despite technically not being equal with God.

On 12/23/2022 at 6:44 PM, Leslie P said:

I realise my earlier reply on dual nature was rather inadequate. Jesus “ made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (Phil 2). This means that he did not have the full set of 'God functions'. In other words, there were things God the Father could do that Jesus the human couldn't. Another example would be knowing the time of the the destruction of the Temple (Matt 24:36). This doesn't mean He wasn't God, but had voluntarily limited His powers by becoming human.

Again, according to Trinitarian doctrine, Jesus himself is one Person, hypostatic, with Divine and human natures acting in unison, being unified. So if Jesus were part of a Divine Trinity, Paul should have said that Jesus, being God, raised himself from the dead: for even if Jesus were not the same “Person” as the Father, he would have still shared the same Divine essence. Even if Jesus, upon taking flesh, decided to voluntarily “limit” his Divine power, he would have still been able to revert his decision on his own. There would never be a moment in which Jesus could not do something that the Father could; otherwise, his Divine power would have been nullified. This, of course, is distinctly different from being able to voluntarily exercise restraint in exercising/showing one’s Divine status.

1 hour ago, Leslie P said:

Modern Christians place far more emphasis on the God side of Jesus, whereas the Early Church were more balanced and thought a lot more about the human side. This can lead to confusion when talking to e.g. Muslims about what the Bible says about Jesus.

Personal disclosure: I am not (formally) a Muslim as of today, but I strongly object to canned “missionary“ apologetics and circular reasoning, be it of any religious or secular viewpoint, of which this appears to be yet another exemplar. Talking down to potential converts never wins friends and if anything comes off as paternalistic and insulting, as though people who do not share your creedal viewpoint are somehow less than properly informed. Thinking outside one’s “box” can be very scary, but sometimes it is very necessary. Forgive me if I am wrong.

By the way, I made several points about the Gospel of John, Jewish saints, etc. in my previous post that for some reason you did not address:

I hope you had a very Merry Christmas!

Edited December 27, 2022 by Northwest

[Northwest]

On 12/6/2022 at 11:33 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi Anyway Paul has initiated deviation in Christanity which his inheritors have completed his task which at first Paul limited choice because early Christians have been from Jews who has turned into Christians due that  they have been aware of religious rullings of Jews so therefore Paul has initiated deviation by small changes in Jewish rullings

@Ashvazdanghe

I am more than a little confused here. Muslims frequently criticise Jews for not believing in Jesus’ Messianic status and Prophethood, while also critiquing subsequent generations of Christians for altering Jesus‘ mission and identity. However, the Qur’ān also praises Christians for being humbler and more receptive to the Truth than the Jews (and pagans). Also, the Qur’ān, like the New Testament, does concede that the Jews in general rejected Jesus’ claim(s) to authority. Yet at the same time the Jews’ legalistic ritual observance of the Torah is far closer to that of Islam than Christianity. Like Judaism, Islam holds that obedience to the Divine Law is a means to purification and perfection, whereas Paul was more skeptical about the Law’s, as opposed to faith’s, ability to ameliorate human tendency to sin. Since Orthodox Jews have always followed the minutiae of the Law (e.g., diet, circumcision, etc.) better than Christians, and have been closer to orthodox Muslims in doing so, why would the Jews end up being more arrogant than Christians? Wouldn’t following the rituals of the Law make one more humble rather than less?

On 12/6/2022 at 11:33 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

which when in later cenuries his devaition in name of Christianity has become a strong branch so therefore his inheritors could do serious innovations & deviations in Christanity according first deviations of Paul.

To be fair to @Leslie P: I do still wonder how “deviations” could have entered Jewish Christianity at such an early date. For example, both the genuine letters of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews seem to have been composed before the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in 70 CE. For example, Hebrews 10:1–2 imply that the Temple is still in operation, as sacrifices have not yet been discontinued, as of the time of writing (v. 2: “...would they not have ceased to be offered?”). Also, according to Simon Gathercole’s work The Preexistent Son (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 36–40), the preponderance of manuscripts for Jude indicate that v. 5 refers to “Jesus” rather than “the LORD” saving the Israelites in Egypt, even though the author of Jude was apparently Palestinian rather than Hellenistic in background (p. 41). So the relatively “exalted” views of Jesus, including possible hints of preexistence, that are present in Paul, Hebrews, and Jude, if not other NT texts, must have developed at a relatively early date.

Of course, some of this depends on how one dates Jesus’ life. It is interesting to note that Islamic narrations do not really mention Romans, Herod, or Pontius Pilate at all in connection with Jesus’ life. Even if Jesus were not really crucified, omission of this type seems strange if one accepts that Jesus lived during the timeframe that is mentioned in the Gospels. Another complicating factor is the fact that the earliest Christians themselves seem to have had no clear consensus as to Jesus’ lifespan. Some sources placed his “death” under Emperor Claudius (41–54 CE) rather than Tiberius, for instance, and attribute his execution to Herod rather than Pilate. Strangely, the primitive, Torah-observant Jewish Christians, per Epiphanius, apparently believed that Jesus lived under Alexander Jannaeus (103–76 BCE)—more than a century before the Gospels’ own timeframe for Jesus’ life! The Babylonian Talmud’s derogatory references to Jesus, moreover, seem to confirm this dating.

(For the details, I relied on Richard Carrier’s On the Historicity of Jesus [Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2014, pp. 281–9]. I do not necessarily agree with his skeptical outlook—for various reasons he goes on to deny that Jesus’ historical existence as a man can be conclusively proven—but his book is very well sourced and touches on many valid historical matters. It is rather strange that both Jesus’ earliest followers and his biggest detractors seem to have dated his life a century or more earlier than the canonical Gospels did.)

Admittedly, it is rather bizarre that Paul in particular a) on the one hand seems to imply that Jesus may have been personally preexistent “in the form/outward appearance of God,” especially in Philippians 2:6–11—though, as I stated early on, there are reasons to dispute this, as the “form/appearance” could refer to certain Jewish tendencies that anthropomorphised God, positing that Adam (=Jesus) was literally a physical copy of God Himself; yet b) on the other hand, according to the textual evidence, rather clearly seems to indicate that he did not view Jesus as equal to God, insofar as Jesus apparently did not share the Divine Name/status, hence essence, prior to his resurrection. So Paul somehow may believe that Jesus 1) had some kind of “preexistent,” celestial status yet 2) was not equal with God while on Earth (after all, the Father raised him) and 3) did not become “God,” that is, receive the Divine Name from the Father, until his resurrection. It’s all a rather messy puzzle.

Also, I have noticed that a lot of the anti-Trinitarian literature, at least in the West, comes from German “higher/historical criticism,” which not only tended to reject Jesus’ Divine status, but also tended toward atheism and/or agnosticism on matters of religion. So, even though I too am skeptical of Trinitarianism, I find it strange that Muslims’ and Jews’ views on the Trinity are being promoted by atheists and agnostics in the West. (I myself am currently a Deist, but could not enter in that option on my profile.) Therefore, at least some of the attempts to diminish Jesus’ Divine status seem to be driven by some anti-religious groups rather than disinterested parties. Here in the West I also note that the domestic Establishment, which is socially liberal, tends to be much more hostile toward Christianity than toward either Islam (well, at least Sunni Islam) or Judaism. So if the anti-Trinitarian perspective is right, why is the anti-religious Establishment in the West more anti-Christian than anything else?*

*For instance, there has long been a concerted effort among liberals to reduce Jesus to “just a man,” yet these same groups frequently complain about “Islamophobia” (read: opposition to mass migration from Muslim, mainly Sunni, lands) and “antisemitism” (read: anti-Zionism). Again, I am not a proponent of Trinitarianism, but if the anti-Trinitarians were entirely correct I would expect the anti-religious forces in the West to spend much more time defending rather than denigrating Christianity, or at least spend as much time criticising Islam and/or Judaism, given that these forces in general tend to oppose facts on so many issues, not least feminism, LGBTQ+I nonsense, and so on. Instead, I see these forces spending most of their time criticising Christianity, indigenous Hinduism, indigenous Buddhism, etc., while tending to favour Islam and/or Judaism, as well as pseudo-Jewish Zionism.

Edited December 27, 2022 by Northwest

[Leslie P]

On 12/27/2022 at 3:56 PM, Northwest said:

@Leslie P

In any event, it seems rather clear that...<snip>...

I hope you had a very Merry Christmas!

Thank you for your reply, and I hope you had a good Christmas!

Quote

Based on Jewish exegesis...The connection seems rather straightforward.

It is widely accepted that these appearances were of God, not of a minion angel. Here's the Wikipedia link again and here's a Britannica link . Here is a view from Judaism. Again, that the Pillar, three men, Presence in the Temple etc are appearances of God is not controversial.

Quote

In context the Angel and God’s presence are regarded as synonymous, especially in terms of mission. Angelic messengers in general, as I mentioned, are essentially stand-ins for God.

I'm a little puzzled. Are you saying that the Angel is the same as God, or different?

Quote

Again, this was almost certainly another case in which God’s Angelic Representative, ... equal with God.

The text says it was God's voice, and it has always been read that it was God's voice. I don't see any case for saying it was an angel here.

Quote

Again, according to Trinitarian doctrine, ...<snip>... would have been nullified. This, of course, is distinctly different from being able to voluntarily exercise restraint in exercising/showing one’s Divine status.

I don't see that at all. Why could Jesus not voluntarily renounce any possibility of self-instigated return to full God-powers, amongst the other God things he renounced? You seem to be assuming things about God's nature, and Jesus' nature, that I don't think can be assumed.

Nicene Trinitarianism is a poor tool for discussing God's nature. The Early Church kept it basic, which is the way ahead.

Quote

Personal disclosure: I am not... Forgive me if I am wrong.

I apologise for any offence, which was completely unintended. There was no missionary content to what I said, and I am not here to win converts, which won't happen anyway.

In fact, it was an attack on contemporary Christianity, which tends to bypass Jesus' humanity in a way the Early Church did not. As a result, conversations between Christians and Muslims tend to focus on statements made about Jesus' humanity in the NT, which can be unfamiliar because Jesus' humanity is much less discussed in church circles.

Quote

By the way, I made several points about the Gospel of John, Jewish saints, etc. in my previous post that for some reason you did not address:

I am trying not to answer every point, which is very difficult for me, but I feel in the past I've allowed myself too many tangents. However since you've asked about these:

Quote

“Saintly figures such as Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were also viewed in Judaism as sharing in the Divine nature after death, in the sense that they were viewed as exemplary men who became better than the angels, “

That's not sharing in the Divine nature.

In your last post you seemed AFAICS to think that one needed full Divine powers to have the Divine nature. You seem to be using Divine nature in two ways here and elsewhere- (1) God or not (2) having a weak version of one of God's properties.

Quote

Uh, no. John does not claim ... beside God.

I can't see the 'obvious' at all. It pre-supposes the nature of God is a particular way. God is transcendent, and we need to be very wary of insisting that his Nature must be a particular way. The traditional Christian model would be a perfectly good model of 'alongside God' in response to what John has written- in fact it was designed to be that!

Paul is in the same place as John putting Jesus in the middle of the Shema, and putting him as the subject of Isaiah 45. Both of them knew exactly what they were saying.

[Northwest]

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

It is widely accepted that these appearances were of God, not of a minion angel. Here's the Wikipedia link again and here's a Britannica link . Here is a view from Judaism. Again, that the Pillar, three men, Presence in the Temple etc are appearances of God is not controversial.

@Leslie P

I am sorry, but you are incorrect. Regarding the Burning Bush, here is an excerpt from Exodus 3:2:

Quote

2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Source

Furthermore, Exodus 14:19 refers to the pillar of cloud as the manifestation of the Angel of the LORD:

Quote

¹⁹ And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them:

Source

Regarding the three angels who appeared to Abraham, the following source is quite instructive:

Quote

The question relates to this incident in Genesis 18: 18 ¹ And the Lord appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. So we see three angels appearing one of whom is what is called “the LORD”, as distinct from “the angel of the LORD” used 53 times in the Old Testament. Exodus 33:20-23, John1:18 and 1 Timothy 6:16 – among other verses – make it clear that no man can see God and live, and that no man has ever seen God, so the LORD here is an angel. ...

The LORD here is Yahweh, the covenant name for God rendered by Lord in the New Testament. So basically the angel here is being called ‘God’. This is not common in the Old Testament but does happen occasionally in encounters with angels. In Exodus 3:2–6 “the angel of Yahweh” (מלאך יהוה) appears to Moses in the burning bush, but then the text switches and “Yahweh” (יהוה) says to Moses: “I am the God of your father”. ...

It is what is sometimes called theophanies (from the Greek phanerosis, manifestation, appearance), so literally the old term “God manifestation”, or in more natural English, “manifestation of God”. In Genesis 18 this theophany means an angel showing God rather than simply an angel delivering a message in a role equivalent to a messenger. Angels are only one way in which God may appear in the Old Testament – other incidents include the burning bush (though this is stated to be an angel), the pillar of fire and the pillar of cloud. ...

The three angels are not in any way related to the idea of a Trinity, and the second and third angels which go off to destroy Sodom do not manifest God in the same direct first-person way as the first.

Source

Furthermore, the early Church Fathers did not see the theophanies as the Second Person of the Trinity:

Quote

In the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907) Hugh Pope writes: "The earlier Fathers, going by the letter of the text in the Septuagint, maintained that it was God Himself who appeared as the Giver of the Law to Moses. It was not unnatural then for Tertullian [...] to regard such manifestations in the light of preludes to the Incarnation, and most of the Eastern Fathers followed the same line of thought." Pope quotes the view of Theodoret that the angel was probably Christ, "the Only-begotten Son, the Angel of great Counsel", and contrasts Theodoret's view with the view of the Latin Fathers Jerome, Augustine, and Gregory the Great that it was no more than an angel, a view that, he says, "was destined to live in the Church...".

Source

The fact that Tertullian regarded the theophanies as “preludes” rather than manifestations of Christ confirms this.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

I'm a little puzzled. Are you saying that the Angel is the same as God, or different?

Functionally the Angel is the same as God, but ontologically is distinct. Moses only saw God’s backside, not His Face.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

The text says it was God's voice, and it has always been read that it was God's voice. I don't see any case for saying it was an angel here.

My point is that the angelic messenger spoke God’s voice. The references make clear that only angels were involved.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

I don't see that at all. Why could Jesus not voluntarily renounce any possibility of self-instigated return to full God-powers, amongst the other God things he renounced? You seem to be assuming things about God's nature, and Jesus' nature, that I don't think can be assumed.

So God can handicap Himself by renouncing “any possibility of self-instigated return to full God-powers”? So if God were to decide to do so, Who would replace Him at the helm of the universe? In this case you are equating God with a person who voluntarily castrates himself, that is, becomes impotent. So God can “cancel” Himself yet remain God? In Buddhism the soul extinguishes itself and becomes one with the universe. You seem to be turning the God of the Old Testament into a Divine Bodhi Who nullifies Himself yet is able to return from nothingness.

I’m sorry, but I must be blunt: you would be declared clinically insane if you were to apply the same sort of reasoning to any other context save theology. Only theology allows such sophistry. To assert that God can effectively “kill” (nullify) Himself and then “resurrect” out of self-imposed nothingness is literally the height of nonsense, as in illogic. In order to deprive Himself of His powers, He would have to die; otherwise He would have to end His internal unity, in which case He would no longer be the God of monotheism. A unitary God is either All or Nothing.

In other words, if God were to deprive Himself of one or more of His powers, He would no longer be God. He would either split up or no longer exist.

For your sanity, I would recommend elementary logic and empirical science. In this case I am in good company, because you disagree with what the Bible and the ancient Church actually say.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Nicene Trinitarianism is a poor tool for discussing God's nature. The Early Church kept it basic, which is the way ahead.

Yes, but it also incorporated and understood basic logic, which seems to be lacking here.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

I apologise for any offence, which was completely unintended. There was no missionary content to what I said, and I am not here to win converts, which won't happen anyway.

That isn’t always so clear with many “evangelists.” I’ve had my own experiences with them.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

In fact, it was an attack on contemporary Christianity, which tends to bypass Jesus' humanity in a way the Early Church did not. As a result, conversations between Christians and Muslims tend to focus on statements made about Jesus' humanity in the NT, which can be unfamiliar because Jesus' humanity is much less discussed in church circles.

This is a fair statement.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

In your last post you seemed AFAICS to think that one needed full Divine powers to have the Divine nature. You seem to be using Divine nature in two ways here and elsewhere- (1) God or not (2) having a weak version of one of God's properties.

If one believes that God is One and undivided in His essence, as Christianity does, then He must possess all His faculties at all times.

45 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

I can't see the 'obvious' at all. It pre-supposes the nature of God is a particular way. God is transcendent, and we need to be very wary of insisting that his Nature must be a particular way.

But you are already doing so, in your own way. We are both discussing God’s nature, which involves particular notions and claims.

I apologise if I come across as “heated,” but I don’t mind disagreement at all. I only dislike illogic and an insistence on illogic.

[Leslie P]

OK, thanks for your reply.

I think in your emotion, definitely you are missing my point with the nature of God. God is unknowable, and we get clues from His nature when we look at Jesus. That is what the Early Church did. If it happens that understanding His nature is difficult, so be it. I would expect nothing less, frankly.

'Angel of God' is a disputed topic. Earlier you quote Dunn's Christology as guiding your thinking. From P150: “For it is clear enough to understand even from a cursory study of the passages in question that 'the angel of Yahweh' is simply a way of speaking about Yahweh himself'“ (italics original). Exactly what role and nature the angel of Yahweh plays in the various scenarios is debated as you say, but as Dunn and others point out, the rest of the scene in each case is peppered with unambiguous God references, making God's involvement certain, hence the unambiguous content of the summary links provided earlier.

Those with a copy to hand could check the whole of 20.1 for more details and expansion.

I would like to return to the OP question, if we may. I think it was left with Paul putting Jesus at the heart of the Shema, and as the subject of Isaiah 45. Contrast the way it's covered with that of Torah observance.

Paul feels no need to explain, justify or defend himself on Jesus' Godhood. Nothing is recorded in letters, Acts etc of there being any problem with what he's written. Dropping Torah observance creates huge problems, which gets opposed throughout at every turn. Putting Jesus at the heart of the Godhead generates no issues.

This seems to show that Paul's high Christology was widely accepted during the Pauline era.

[Leslie P]

Back in the New Year

[Northwest]

4 hours ago, Leslie P said:

OK, thanks for your reply.

I think in your emotion, definitely you are missing my point with the nature of God. God is unknowable, and we get clues from His nature when we look at Jesus. That is what the Early Church did. If it happens that understanding His nature is difficult, so be it. I would expect nothing less, frankly.

@Leslie P

You seem defensive. Of course the fullness of the Creator in and of Himself cannot be fully comprehended by mortals. One merely derives clues about God’s nature from the actions of His Representatives, His creatures and creations (slaves). This by no means implies that any of His slaves are equal with their Divine Master, Sovereign of the universe. I cited/quoted numerous sources in which the relationship between the Creator and the theophany is explicated. I also fully explained why it is logically impossible for the Creator to relinquish His latent powers at any given moment: He is One, Unitary, so the loss, however temporary, of any of His powers would spell His own demise, or His splitting up into multiple entities (polytheism). Since you didn’t really address any of this, I am starting to suspect that you might be trolling, though I hope that is not the case.

Please tell me: which deep-state agency or third force, if any, is employing you to skilfully evade logic and avoid addressing the actual evidence at hand? Show your hand.

4 hours ago, Leslie P said:

'Angel of God' is a disputed topic. Earlier you quote Dunn's Christology as guiding your thinking. From P150: “For it is clear enough to understand even from a cursory study of the passages in question that 'the angel of Yahweh' is simply a way of speaking about Yahweh himself'“ (italics original). Exactly what role and nature the angel of Yahweh plays in the various scenarios is debated as you say,

So after all this you are still unable to decisively refute my point, which doesn’t bode well for your apologetic. At best you can only call the matter “disputed,” yet somehow that becomes decisive for your contention that a) the Angel and God are the same, or are equal with the preexistent Christ, which further lends support to the notion that b) Jesus and the Father share the Divine essence, being God. I am sorry, but this is bad logic, being unsubstantiated. It is neither proven nor self-evident.

4 hours ago, Leslie P said:

but as Dunn and others point out, the rest of the scene in each case is peppered with unambiguous God references, making God's involvement certain, hence the unambiguous content of the summary links provided earlier.

Of course God the Father is intimately involved with His creation in ways that no one can imagine, not even His angels, His Prophets, or His Anointed One. (Not even the Messiah, who is Son of Man, or the highest-ranking archangel knows the hour of the Day of Judgment, for instance. ) The mere reality of Divine Providence, which is immanent and self-evident, does absolutely nothing to support your assertion that the Angel and God/Christ were one and the same. At best it only supports the very truism that I mentioned: that God’s agency is through His creation, be it angelic, animal, or human. So far your “reasoning” runs as follows:

• The role and nature of the Angel of the LORD is disputed (half-true);
• God’s involvement in the theophany is self-evident (true);
• Therefore, the Angel of the LORD = God (the Father?) = pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ (false)

This isn’t reasoning, but evasion.

4 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Paul feels no need to explain, justify or defend himself on Jesus' Godhood. Nothing is recorded in letters, Acts etc of there being any problem with what he's written. Dropping Torah observance creates huge problems, which gets opposed throughout at every turn. Putting Jesus at the heart of the Godhead generates no issues.

Please define Godhood/Godhead.

I do not wish to be acrimonious, but at this point I am skeptical as to whether you are really interested in debate. If so, let us respectfully agree to disagree. Have a Happy New Year!

[Abu Hadi]

On 12/26/2022 at 9:56 AM, Leslie P said:

Thanks for the reply.

This is only true if God can only do one thing at a time. But that's not so- as the Pillar of Cloud and Fire, He was in one place, but was also running the rest of the universe at the same time. Similarly, as Jesus He can save humanity and separately run the universe.

God as three men appearing to Abraham is in Genesis 18. It's not one of the best known stories for some reason.

Judaism is very clear that God spoke to Moses directly from the Burning Bush. Rather than it being a limitation on God to do that, it's a limitation on God to say He can't do that.

We need to be very careful before we say God can't do something.

The disciples learned about God from Jesus. We should do the same.

This is the main problem with having discussions with Trinitarian Christians. If you throw all the rules that human beings agree upon, i.e. basic logic, then you could say anything is possible, or nothing is possible, or something else, or.. or.... and then what does that mean ? 

If God manifested Himself as anything finite and tangible, that could mean only two things

1) The thing being manifest is not God, but a sign of God (like many other things were and are)

2) God is finite and limited, and not limitless and all powerful. 

Lets take another example. If you say x = infinity, and x is in this box, then x does not equal infinity (because the box is larger than infinity and contains it, which is impossible). Infinity is the largest value that exists. That is why we call it infinity. It is a logical and mathematical term. All human beings agree on that (except apparently those who believe in the concept of Trinity. They have their own definition of infinity which they can't define, so it isn't a definition but speculation)

If a man, a cloud, a pillar of fire IS God Then

God is not infinite, omniscient, All Power, eternal, etc. You believe in a limited god, like the Romans did when they said Zeus is god, Apollo is god, Athena is a goddess, etc. OR

you are using a definition of these terms which noone understands. In that case, it meets the definition of nonsense. Like if i say I believe that ad;lkcjvpboivmvmapoie (random letters typed on my keyboard which have no meaning). 

We muslims believe that God spoke to Moses thru a burning bush (this historical event is also in the Quran) but the bush was not God. God used the bush as a medium to speak to Moses. God can use anything as a vehicle, or a channel to speak to the people or to an individual person. That does not mean that object is God. If you call someone on your phone, does that phone become you ? Of course not. You are you and the phone is the phone. You are using the phone to convey a message to someone or to listen to them. It is a device, that's all. 

God can do anything, that is true. That doesn't mean that just because you (or a group of people) say God did this... that means God in fact did it. 

If God did do what you say, i.e. manifested himself 'in the flesh', you would not be able to understand what that was, nor would you be able to talk about it. That is a limitation in us, not a limitation in God. Our minds can only comprehend (directly) things that are limited and finite, like us. That is why Prophets were sent, to convey a message from God to us, because we could not handle (with our limited and feeble minds) to speak to God directly or to hear a message from Him directly (not thru a medium). Again, our limitation, not God's. God knows how limited and feeble we are, so He doesn't overburden us with this responsibility. God is Merciful and the source of all Mercy and Kindness. 

There is a passage in the Quran regarding Moses when he was receiving the 10 commandments. He brought some of the leaders of Israel up to the mountain with him, and he said 'Some of these leaders have asked to see You (God) with their own eyes'. God told Moses, 'They cannot bear to see me, but look at this mountain, if it is still standing then tell them that they will see Me'. So God manifested His Glory to the mountain, and the mountain instantly vanished and turned to dust. Moses and all the leaders of Israel instantly died. Then God brought them back to life and then they saw that the mountain had turned to dust, so they knew that they could never see God with their own eyes. 

This is how Muslims understand God. 

 

Edited December 30, 2022 by Abu Hadi

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/27/2022 at 8:14 PM, Northwest said:

I am more than a little confused here. Muslims frequently criticise Jews for not believing in Jesus’ Messianic status and Prophethood, while also critiquing subsequent generations of Christians for altering Jesus‘ mission and identity. However, the Qur’ān also praises Christians for being humbler and more receptive to the Truth than the Jews (and pagans). Also, the Qur’ān, like the New Testament, does concede that the Jews in general rejected Jesus’ claim(s) to authority. Yet at the same time the Jews’ legalistic ritual observance of the Torah is far closer to that of Islam than Christianity. Like Judaism, Islam holds that obedience to the Divine Law is a means to purification and perfection, whereas Paul was more skeptical about the Law’s, as opposed to faith’s, ability to ameliorate human tendency to sin. Since Orthodox Jews have always followed the minutiae of the Law (e.g., diet, circumcision, etc.) better than Christians, and have been closer to orthodox Muslims in doing so, why would the Jews end up being more arrogant than Christians? Wouldn’t following the rituals of the Law make one more humble rather than less?

Hi it's mostly about their attitude toward muslims & islam which although Jews  legalistic rituals is more closer to islam than Christanity but on the other hand majority of them except few ones of them always have been enemy of Muslims & Islam through denying truth & planning for destruction or at least coruption of Islam by nay means which they have which they have tried to stop people from accepting Islam which means stopping people from following path of  Allah/God which even  some of them have acceppted Islam publicly but they have been denying it in their private  meeting in order to humilate islam & destroy it from within  which also their Judaism highly attached to their tribalism which only a few of them have been introduced as good people which they always have been a tiny minority between them but on the other hand some of Christians have been sincere about their belief although all of deviations in their religions which if they have accepted islam so then they have became loayal muslims but on the hand if they have not accepted Islam so then they have not followed procedure of Jews which even now all of anti islam activities by so called christian groups always have been inspired by Zionists likewise oppositon of evamgelist or Antifa & etc which all of these anti Islam groups hvae been backed by Zionists .

Quote

Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who believe (to be) the Jews and the idolaters. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe (to be) those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud. (82)

https://tanzil.net/#5:82

What is the Quranic perspective about the People of the Book?

question

The Quran says in verse 110 of Surah Aal-e Imran: "Among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors (fasiq)." Are most of the People of the Book transgressors? What is the viewpoint of the Holy Quran about the People of the Book?

Concise answer

The Quran, like many other eloquent speeches, have organized its words on the basis of their audience's needs. In this connection, the personality, conducts, belief etc.

 The Holy Quran has addressed the People of the Book in the same manner. Hence, the verses regarding them have different literatures depending on the type of the audience and the occasion in which the verses have been revealed.

 

Detailed Answer

Quote

Since Orthodox Jews have always followed the minutiae of the Law (e.g., diet, circumcision, etc.) better than Christians, and have been closer to orthodox Muslims in doing so, why would the Jews end up being more arrogant than Christians?

1. There is no doubt that Islam abrogated all the religions before it. The issue of abrogation is one of Muslims' main beliefs as evidenced and substantiated by explicit proofs. And if there are some verses lauding and praising the People of the Book and treating them with grace, it is not in any way a sign of the superiority or merit of their religion over Islam. The graceful words of the Quran are for some reasons which are in no way dichotomous with the fact that the religion of Islam is true and that it has abrogated the religions before it.

2. Islam's opinion about the people of the Book is very different from its view regarding the pagans and polytheists...............only some of the People of the Book have been considered as equal to polytheists because of their anomalous conducts and beliefs.

3. Most of the verses of the Quran concerning Jews, Christians and Sabians refer to those who lived in the time of the Holy Prophet (S). That is why, those rules do not apply to all the People of the Book at all time;

It should therefore be noted that it cannot be deciphered from the verse in question that most of the People of the Book including those in our time are transgressors or evil-livers. In fact, it can be inferred that most of the People of the Book  who lived in the time of the Holy Prophet (S) and confronted him were as such.  Now, in order for us to draw out Quran's general attitude towards the People of the Book, we must look at all the Quranic arguments and reasons and pass our judgment based on them.

4. In most cases, the Quran has drawn attention to things common between Muslims and the People of the Book[1] commanding them to take notice of the commonalities.

 

The Quran's perspective can be studied within two approaches:

On 12/27/2022 at 8:14 PM, Northwest said:

To be fair to @Leslie P: I do still wonder how “deviations” could have entered Jewish Christianity at such an early date. For example, both the genuine letters of Paul and the Epistle to the Hebrews seem to have been composed before the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem in 70 CE. For example, Hebrews 10:1–2 imply that the Temple is still in operation, as sacrifices have not yet been discontinued, as of the time of writing (v. 2: “...would they not have ceased to be offered?”). Also, according to Simon Gathercole’s work The Preexistent Son (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006, pp. 36–40), the preponderance of manuscripts for Jude indicate that v. 5 refers to “Jesus” rather than “the LORD” saving the Israelites in Egypt, even though the author of Jude was apparently Palestinian rather than Hellenistic in background (p. 41). So the relatively “exalted” views of Jesus, including possible hints of preexistence, that are present in Paul, Hebrews, and Jude, if not other NT texts, must have developed at a relatively early date.

Deviation has  been enterd to Judaism since prophet Mose/Musa (عليه السلام) has left Jews alone in order  to  receive ten commandents which they Jews has denied prophet Aaron/Harun (عليه السلام)  as his reperesentative so then they have worshipped the golden calf which also corrupted rabbis have turned their temple to a center of spreading deviations likewise authorizing usury & benfitting from sacrifices in their favor .

 

Negative Approach to the People of the Book

 

 

Quote

It condemns and reproaches some of the People of the Book owing, largely, to their conducts and behaviors like their stubbornness and enmity towards the Prophet of Allah,[2] opposition and enmity to Islam after knowing it,[3] alteration of the heavenly Book[4] etc. As well, most of them have been reproached due to their beliefs such as associating humans with the One God (monotheism) [5]and so forth.

 

The Holy Quran's Positive Approach to the People of the Book

Unlike Torah, the Holy Quran maintains a positive perspective towards the opponents. It does not condemn them simply because they are not Muslims. Of course, there are certain conditions in this approach which we shall mention as under:

1. The Holy Quran has made much effort to spread humane morals and attitude among human beings. That is why there are many a number of verses in the Quran relating to moral issues. Hence, the Quran praises most of the people who are adherent to humane morals. The People of the Book are not an exception.

Quote

2. Although the Quran considers Islam as a religion that abrogated the religions before it, it gives an opportunity to the People of the Book talking to them with a reconciliatory and compromising tone allowing them to pay jizya[7], live freely and stay on their religion in the territory of Islam.[8] This is a positive approach on the part of the Quran to the People of the Book.

 

3. The Quran, sometimes, praises and commends the People of the Book due to their proper actions, monotheistic behaviors and acts of worship. It says:
"Not all of them are alike: Of the People of the Book are a portion that stand (For the right): They rehearse the Signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration. * They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right, and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten (in emulation) in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous. * Of the good that they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for Allah knoweth well those that do right."[9]

Quote

"There is a party of them keeping to the moderate course". [10]

"Surely those who disbelieve from among the followers of the Book and the polytheists shall be in the fire of hell, abiding therein; they are the worst of men."[11]

4. There are also other verses which have praised and lauded the People of the Book in such a way that it sounds as if some of them will attain salvation. For instance, the Quran says:
"Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve."[12]

 

Quote

Conclusion and Reconciliation among the Verses
If we look carefully into the foregoing verses, it will become clear that the Quran's perspective towards the People of the Book is varied:
Those who became acquainted with the reality of Islam and refrained from embracing it are amongst those who are definitely reproached by the Quran. As to the reason of rejection, it can be their carnal desires, power mongering, wealth or something else. They are reproached irrespective of whether they adhered to human values or did not.  Then there are the People of the Book who have understood the reality of Islam but they have behaved in such a way that they have trampled human morals tarnishing tawhid (belief in One God) consciously and dealing with Islam with enmity, hurting the Prophet and believers and so forth. Even those who lived before the advent of Islam and did not act properly have been reprimanded and condemned because they were the ones who tampered with the Holy Scripture, killed prophets and so on. They are also treated in the same way.
But those who did not misbehave are looked at with respect. The truth is that the Quran seeks to get others also acquainted with Islam and to help them embrace Islam since it is in their best interest.[14] However, insofar as they do not show enmity to Islam, they are respected and the Quran praises them. Among them are good people with good moral characteristics, even though they are not acquainted with Islam but Islam still looks at them with respect. They adhere to human rules throughout their lives, they believe in God and their lives are characterized by godly manners. They are the ones who believe in the Day of Judgment and resurrection. Now with this criterion obtained from the Quran, we can also judge about the People of the Book in the present time as well and can say which ones are worthy of respect and which ones are worthy of condemnation and reproach.

 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa21775

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/27/2022 at 8:14 PM, Northwest said:

Also, I have noticed that a lot of the anti-Trinitarian literature, at least in the West, comes from German “higher/historical criticism,” which not only tended to reject Jesus’ Divine status, but also tended toward atheism and/or agnosticism on matters of religion. So, even though I too am skeptical of Trinitarianism, I find it strange that Muslims’ and Jews’ views on the Trinity are being promoted by atheists and agnostics in the West. (I myself am currently a Deist, but could not enter in that option on my profile.) Therefore, at least some of the attempts to diminish Jesus’ Divine status seem to be driven by some anti-religious groups rather than disinterested parties. Here in the West I also note that the domestic Establishment, which is socially liberal, tends to be much more hostile toward Christianity than toward either Islam (well, at least Sunni Islam) or Judaism. So if the anti-Trinitarian perspective is right, why is the anti-religious Establishment in the West more anti-Christian than anything else?*

It's not strange which they are two main gropus which majority of Atheists & Agnostics have found loopholes in Christanity & Judaism which in Christanity it has started by having issue about Trinity which they have found best reliable source &logic for refuting Trinity in Islamic sources in similar fashion which in any debate liewise debates between Christians & muslims or shias vs Wahabists so then people rely on most relaible & logical source which both sides have access to it also both sides use it as common ground bewtween themselves which majority of  Atheists & Agnostics find logic & fact in Islamic sources although majority of them don't accept Islam because of some reasons likewise they see Islam as a backward & barbaric religion due to negative propganda about it so they don't see any difference between it & Christanity which only few of them after passing time in phase of being Atheist & Agnostic so then mov to new phase by finding unbiased truth about islam by furher curisity & research which from these few frontiers only few of them reach to shia Islam after passing phase of following majority in Islam & keeping their research & curisity & motivaion for going beyond stereotypes.

[Northwest]

On 12/30/2022 at 5:32 PM, Abu Hadi said:

This is the main problem with having discussions with Trinitarian Christians. If you throw all the rules that human beings agree upon, i.e. basic logic, then you could say anything is possible, or nothing is possible, or something else, or... or.... and then what does that mean ? 

you are using a definition of these terms which no one understands. In that case, it meets the definition of nonsense. Like if i say I believe that ad;lkcjvpboivmvmapoie (random letters typed on my keyboard which have no meaning).

@Abu Hadi

What I do not understand is why these Trinitarians enjoy discarding basic logic. Whenever confronted on religious matters, they obstinately cling to that which they surely know is illogical, that is, beyond human understanding. If their beliefs were based on logic, I could understand their rationale, but surely they know that their belief in the Trinity is not based on logic, but on a subjective, mystical understanding. Maybe some of them believe that God, being Spirit, can become “Incarnate” because some fallen angels or jinn supposedly mated with human women and produced hybridised offspring.

While most angels are made of light, the human spirit and jinn share a fiery nature, and in fact Iblis/Lucifer is said to have been one of the seraphim, an angelic order whose serpent-like members were of a fiery substance, unlike most angels. Some of the angels who reportedly questioned God’s creation of Adam were tested by being sent to Earth and given a human nature. They failed to restrain themselves, mated with the daughters of Cain, and yielded giants, equivalent to the Titans of mythology, who were so enormous that they consumed everything, given their twin-spirited nature:

Quote

And the Merciful One and the Lover of mercy answered them on behalf of ADAM, and said unto them, "You have I created out of fire and air with the one intent [that ye should] praise [Me]. Him have I created of twice as many elements as you—of dust and water, and of wind and fire; and he became [a being] of flesh and blood. And in him are ten thoughts (or, p. 186 intentions), five good, and five bad. And if his heart inciteth him to good, he walketh with good intent; and if the Devil seduceth him, he walketh with him on an evil path. As for you, ye have no other object in your minds but praise of Me, with the exception of that arrogant one who produced evil, and became an evil being, and was driven forth from your assembly. And now, why do ye magnify yourselves over ADAM? If ye were as he is, and I had created you of water and dust, ye would have been flesh and blood, and ye would have transgressed My commandment more than he hath done, and denied My word." And the angels said unto Him, "Praise be unto Thee, O Lord! Far be it from us! We will not transgress Thy commandment, and we will not oppose Thy word; for we are spiritual beings for life, and he is a creature of dust [doomed] to folly. And now try us well, and put us to the test so that Thou mayest know whether we are able to keep Thy word."

And when they had vaunted themselves in this manner God, the Lover of men, said unto them, "If now ye go astray so far as this in transgressing My word, the wrong will be upon your own heads, [for] JAHANNAM (or, hell), and fire, and sulphur, and fervent heat, and whirlwind shall be your habitation until the Great Day: ye shall be kept in chains which can neither be loosened nor broken for ever. But if ye keep truly My word, and ye do My commandment, ye shall sit upon My right hand and upon My left. For everyone who hath conquered is mighty, and he who is conquered shall be overpowered. Now SATAN hath no power whatsoever, for he hath only what he maketh to germinate in the mind; and he cannot grasp firmly, and he cannot perform anything, and he cannot beat, and he cannot drag, and he cannot seize, and he cannot fight; he can only make thoughts to germinate silently in the mind. And him who is caught by the evil mind he prepareth for p. 187 destruction; and if [a man] hath conquered the evil mind he findeth grace and hath a reward which is everlasting. And to you, according to what ye wish, there shall be upon you the mind of a man and the body of a man. But take good heed to yourselves that ye transgress not My word and break not My commandment; and defile not ye yourselves with eating, or drinking, or fornication, or with any other thing whatsoever; and transgress ye not My word."

And straightway there were given unto them with His word flesh, and blood, and a heart of the children of men. And they were content to leave the height of heaven, and they came down to earth, to the folly of the dancing of the children of CAIN with all their work of the artisan, which they had made in the folly of their fornication, and to their singings, which they accompanied with the tambourine, and the flutes, and the pipes, and much shouting, and loud cries of joy and noisy songs. And their daughters were there, and they enjoyed the orgies without shame, for they scented themselves for the men who pleased them, and they lost the balance in their minds. And the men did not restrain themselves for a moment, but they took to wife from among the women those whom they had chosen, and committed sin with them. For God hath no resting-place in the hearts of the arrogant and those who revile, but He abideth in the hearts of the humble and those who are sincere. …

And straightway God was wroth with them, and He bound them in the terror of SHEÔL until the day of redemption, as the Apostle saith, "He treated His angels with severity. He spared them not, but made them to dwell in a state of judgement, and they were fettered until the Great Day." The word of God conquered, Who had fashioned ADAM in His likeness (or, form), and those who had reviled and made a laughingstock of ADAM were conquered. And the daughters of CAIN with whom the angels had companied conceived, but they were unable to bring forth their children, and they died. And of the children who were in their wombs some died, and some came forth; having split open the bellies of their mothers they came forth by their navels. And when they were grown up and reached man's estate they became giants, whose height reached unto the clouds; and for their sakes and the sakes of sinners the wrath of God became quiet, and He said, "My spirit shall only rest on them for one hundred and twenty years, and I will destroy them with the waters of the Flood," them and all sinners who have not believed the word of God. And to those who believed the word of their fathers, and did His Will, no injury came from the waters of the Flood, but He delivered them, saying, "If thou believest My word thou canst save thyself from the Flood."

Source

^ As you can see, the above is similar to the narrative in the Qur’ān, in that Satan (Iblis) is the one who rejected God’s creation of Adam, while the (other?) angels feared that Adam and his descendants would create bloodshed and/or spread corruption. In response to the latter, God gave them a human body and nature, so that they would understand man’s weaknesses and so be less likely to question God’s judgment. These angels failed to pass the test by mating with human women, an action that produced supernatural “demigods,” on account of which they were cast into Hellfire.

Since God is also Spirit, perhaps the Trinitarians who believe in the fall of the angels think that the Divine essence can also join with human nature. I am guessing.

Edited December 31, 2022 by Northwest

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/26/2022 at 6:26 PM, Leslie P said:

God as three men appearing to Abraham is in Genesis 18. It's not one of the best known stories for some reason.

Judaism is very clear that God spoke to Moses directly from the Burning Bush. Rather than it being a limitation on God to do that, it's a limitation on God to say He can't do that.

We need to be very careful before we say God can't do something.

Hi brother @Abu Hadihas explained everything completly  better than me anyway for addendum according to both of Jewsish & Christian resources God has appearad as one of three men which two other men has been angels which "Christians have interpreted it as asymbol of Trinity" which in similar fashion of "“You cannot see my face, for man shall not see Me and live” (Exodus 33:20) it has been mentioned nobody can see Allah/God which in similar fashion has been  mentioned about asking seeing Allah/God by prophet Musa/Moses (عليه السلام)

And when Moses came to Our appointed tryst and his Lord had spoken unto him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thy Self), that I may gaze upon Thee. He said: Thou wilt not see Me, but gaze upon the mountain! If it stand still in its place, then thou wilt see Me. And when his Lord revealed (His) glory to the mountain He sent it crashing down. And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers. (143)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.pickthall/7:143

Similarly we believe to speaking of God with prophet Moses (عليه السلام) through burning bush although we don't consider it as  physical manifestation of God in the Burning bush or land of around it which in holy Quran land of around the burning bush has introduced as holy land/valley of Tuwa.

in conclusion we don't limit Allah/God although we believe that he can do anything because limiting him to a body or burning bush is totally pardoxical because his limited creation can't hold him as limitless creator .

Quote

 Hath there come unto thee the story of Moses? (9) When he saw a fire and said unto his folk: Lo! Wait! I see a fire afar off. Peradventure I may bring you a brand therefrom or may find guidance at the fire. (10) And when he reached it, he was called by name: O Moses! (11) Lo! I, even I, am thy Lord, So take off thy shoes, for lo! thou art in the holy valley of Tuwa. (12)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.pickthall/20:12

 

Quote

Although the complexity of the context may lend itself to several interpretations, the Christian understanding of these chapters as referring to a triune god is totally unacceptable on scriptural grounds alone. Genesis 18:1 may be interpreted as Y-H-V-H speaking to Abraham prior to the arrival of the three men mentioned in verse 2. Most probably, however, verse 1 acts as an introductory remark informing the reader that Y-H-V-H spoke to Abraham, with the following verses being the details of how that encounter was accomplished. The text of Genesis 18 and 19 is not clear as to whether Y-H-V-H spoke at any time, directly to Abraham or solely through an angel, in the guise of a man, who acted as an intermediary. But these are minor problems compared to the problems involved in the Christian interpretation. The latter are of a nature that reveals the shallowness of the theological assertions of Christians concerning these two chapters.

As mentioned, Christians believe that the three men who visited Abraham are the three personalities of the so-called Trinity. But, then, which part of God would they say is Y-H-V-H who speaks to Abraham after two of the men depart (Genesis 18:22)

 

Quote

If the three angels are the three persons of the Trinity, then how could Y-H-V-H say: “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see Me and live” (Exodus 33:20)? Abraham and Sarah would have died had they gazed upon the supposed Father, Son and Holy Spirit, unless what they saw was not God but three angelic beings manifested in human form for the several purposes assigned to them. Even John exposes the error when he declares that “no man has seen God at any time” (John 1:18, 1 John 4:12).

https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/abrahams-three-visitors

Identifying the Three Men

In seeking to identify the visitors, the key clue is Genesis 19:1, which says “The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening.” Based on that verse and the account leading up to it, we can conclude that two of the three men are angels. How do we know? Because in one scene the men are heading toward Sodom and in the next scene two angels arrive in Sodom. The narrator wants us to connect the two scenes and that means we should identify at least two of the three men as angels. (Angels usually appear as men in the Bible.)

Quote

But what about the other man? Was the other visitor also an angel? Possibly.

However, because of the way the Lord is interwoven into the account—when we expect the three men to speak, the Lord speaks, and when the Lord says he’s going to do something, the men do it—some think the other visitor is the Lord.

I think that view makes the most sense of the story. If that is correct, Genesis 18 gives us one of the earliest appearances of God in the Bible. (Theophany is the technical term for an appearance of God.) And what do we learn from this early theophany?

• God appeared as a man.
• God had his feet washed and then rested (18:4).
• God ate (18:8).
• God talked with Abraham and Sarah.

Christians believe God became human in the person of Jesus, but that downward movement was not entirely new. God was descending to meet with humans long before Jesus was born.

https://www.bible-bridge.com/the-identity-of-the-three-visitors-in-genesis-18/

https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O8604/three-angels-visit-abraham-panel-unknown/

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Since God is also Spirit, perhaps the Trinitarians who believe in the fall of the angels think that the Divine essence can also join with human nature. I am guessing.

Hi it's a Christian belief which according to Muslim belief Spirit is creation of Allah/God so therefore he is not a Spirit which nobody can say how he is because every example  has done through his creations likewise the Spirit & etc not himself  

 

 

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

the human spirit and jinn share a fiery nature, and in fact Iblis/Lucifer is said to have been one of the seraphim, an angelic order whose serpent-like members were of a fiery substance, unlike most angels. Some of the angels who reportedly questioned God’s creation of Adam were tested by being sent to Earth and given a human nature. They failed to restrain themselves, mated with the daughters of Cain, and yielded giants, equivalent to the Titans of mythology, who were so enormous that they consumed everything, given their twin-spirited nature:

In Islamic sources human spirit has been mentioned as windy nature which in opposition to it "jinn" has fiery nature which "Iblis/Lucifer" is a "Jinn" which angels have questioned  God’s creation of Adam due to their previous expriences of creation other species who have been similar to prophet Adam (عليه السلام) & his offsprings with mating with daughters of Cain is just a laughable story which according to Shia sources children of prophet Adam (عليه السلام) have married with both of "nymph from heaven" so then jinns

 

 

Continuation of Adam’s ((عليه السلام)) Offspring and His Children’s Marriage from the Perspective of Traditions
1- There is a tradition saying Adam's ((عليه السلام)) children first married nymphs from heaven and then they married jinn; Imam Baqer ((عليه السلام)) says: "Adam ((عليه السلام)) had four sons. So God sent each of them a nymph from heaven. They married them and had children. Then God reclaimed these nymphs and married those children to four jinns and they had an offspring. So whatever patience there is among mankind is driven from Adam ((عليه السلام)). Whatever beauty there is among mankind is from those nymphs and whatever vices and misconduct found among mankind is from jinns." [1] This marriage has been narrated in another way i.e. a son married a nymph and another son married a jinn[2]. There is even another tradition narrated with a little difference[3].

There is another possibility that Adam's ((عليه السلام)) children married with humans before the generation of Adam ((عليه السلام)); because according to some traditions[11] Adam ((عليه السلام)) was not the first man on earth and he was preceded by other humans. Modern scientific studies also indicate that human species have lived probably for quite a few million years while it has not been so long since Adam ((عليه السلام)) set foot on earth. Therefore it should be accepted that man was preceded by other humans who were on the verge of extinction when Adam ((عليه السلام)) was created, there is nothing wrong with this assumption that Adam's ((عليه السلام)) children may have married with humans remaining from previous species however this possibility does not much comply with the denotation of the above verse from the Quran[12].

 

How did Adam\'s offspring grow? Whom did Adam\'s ((عليه السلام)) children marry?

Quote

Then Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام)) described how Adam's ((عليه السلام)) offspring expanded and said:"When Abel was murdered by Cain, Adam ((عليه السلام)) mourned and lamented on the death of his son… And God Almighty granted him Seth ((عليه السلام)) alone without a twin sister. Seth's name is Hebatollah [A gift from God] and he is the first man to become the deputy and the successor to a prophet. After Seth ((عليه السلام)) God granted Adam ((عليه السلام)) with Japheth without a twin. When they reached puberty and God decided to expand Adam's ((عليه السلام)) offspring as you see (they have reproduced) while marriage between siblings was forbidden. Therefore God sent a nymph called Nazalah from heaven on a Thursday evening and commanded Adam ((عليه السلام)) to marry her to his son, Seth. Then next day in the evening, God sent another nymph called Monzalah and commanded Adam ((عليه السلام)) to marry her to Japheth. Once Adam ((عليه السلام)) married those two nymphs to his sons, Seth ((عليه السلام)) had a son and Japheth had a daughter. When those two reached puberty God commanded Adam ((عليه السلام)) to marry Japheth's daughter to Seth's ((عليه السلام)) son, Adam ((عليه السلام)) obeyed and made them husband and wife from whom God's prophets, messengers, elites and their offspring are[5].

 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa560

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Northwest said:

Since God is also Spirit, perhaps the Trinitarians who believe in the fall of the angels think that the Divine essence can also join with human nature. I am guessing.

Hi it's a Christian belief which according to Muslim belief Spirit is creation of Allah/God so therefore he is not a Spirit which nobody can say how he is because every example  has done through his creations likewise the Spirit & etc not himself  

 

 

13 hours ago, Northwest said:

the human spirit and jinn share a fiery nature, and in fact Iblis/Lucifer is said to have been one of the seraphim, an angelic order whose serpent-like members were of a fiery substance, unlike most angels. Some of the angels who reportedly questioned God’s creation of Adam were tested by being sent to Earth and given a human nature. They failed to restrain themselves, mated with the daughters of Cain, and yielded giants, equivalent to the Titans of mythology, who were so enormous that they consumed everything, given their twin-spirited nature:

In Islamic sources human spirit has been mentioned as windy nature which in opposition to it "jinn" has fiery nature which "Iblis/Lucifer" is a "Jinn" which angels have questioned  God’s creation of Adam due to their previous expriences of creation other species who have been similar to prophet Adam (عليه السلام) & his offsprings with mating with daughters of Cain is just a laughable story which according to Shia sources children of prophet Adam (عليه السلام) have married with both of "nymph from heaven" so then jinns

 

 

Continuation of Adam’s ((عليه السلام)) Offspring and His Children’s Marriage from the Perspective of Traditions
1- There is a tradition saying Adam's ((عليه السلام)) children first married nymphs from heaven and then they married jinn; Imam Baqer ((عليه السلام)) says: "Adam ((عليه السلام)) had four sons. So God sent each of them a nymph from heaven. They married them and had children. Then God reclaimed these nymphs and married those children to four jinns and they had an offspring. So whatever patience there is among mankind is driven from Adam ((عليه السلام)). Whatever beauty there is among mankind is from those nymphs and whatever vices and misconduct found among mankind is from jinns." [1] This marriage has been narrated in another way i.e. a son married a nymph and another son married a jinn[2]. There is even another tradition narrated with a little difference[3].

There is another possibility that Adam's ((عليه السلام)) children married with humans before the generation of Adam ((عليه السلام)); because according to some traditions[11] Adam ((عليه السلام)) was not the first man on earth and he was preceded by other humans. Modern scientific studies also indicate that human species have lived probably for quite a few million years while it has not been so long since Adam ((عليه السلام)) set foot on earth. Therefore it should be accepted that man was preceded by other humans who were on the verge of extinction when Adam ((عليه السلام)) was created, there is nothing wrong with this assumption that Adam's ((عليه السلام)) children may have married with humans remaining from previous species however this possibility does not much comply with the denotation of the above verse from the Quran[12].

 

How did Adam\'s offspring grow? Whom did Adam\'s ((عليه السلام)) children marry?

Quote

Then Imam Sadiq ((عليه السلام)) described how Adam's ((عليه السلام)) offspring expanded and said:"When Abel was murdered by Cain, Adam ((عليه السلام)) mourned and lamented on the death of his son… And God Almighty granted him Seth ((عليه السلام)) alone without a twin sister. Seth's name is Hebatollah [A gift from God] and he is the first man to become the deputy and the successor to a prophet. After Seth ((عليه السلام)) God granted Adam ((عليه السلام)) with Japheth without a twin. When they reached puberty and God decided to expand Adam's ((عليه السلام)) offspring as you see (they have reproduced) while marriage between siblings was forbidden. Therefore God sent a nymph called Nazalah from heaven on a Thursday evening and commanded Adam ((عليه السلام)) to marry her to his son, Seth. Then next day in the evening, God sent another nymph called Monzalah and commanded Adam ((عليه السلام)) to marry her to Japheth. Once Adam ((عليه السلام)) married those two nymphs to his sons, Seth ((عليه السلام)) had a son and Japheth had a daughter. When those two reached puberty God commanded Adam ((عليه السلام)) to marry Japheth's daughter to Seth's ((عليه السلام)) son, Adam ((عليه السلام)) obeyed and made them husband and wife from whom God's prophets, messengers, elites and their offspring are[5].

 

https://www.islamquest.net/en/archive/fa560

[Leslie P]

On 12/30/2022 at 4:32 PM, Abu Hadi said:

Lets take another example. If you say x = infinity, and x is in this box, then x does not equal infinity (because the box is larger than infinity and contains it, which is impossible). Infinity is the largest value that exists. That is why we call it infinity. It is a logical and mathematical term. All human beings agree on that (except apparently those who believe in the concept of Trinity. They have their own definition of infinity which they can't define, so it isn't a definition but speculation)

Thanks for the explanation and reply.

I'm not sure what you mean by the mathematical term infinity being in a box. There are different types of infinity; I assume you mean aleph zero here, but as a box is solid in the real world, it can't hold the concept 'infinity' any more than it can hold 'square' or 'factors of ten'.

Quote

This is the main problem with having discussions with Trinitarian Christians. If you throw all the rules that human beings agree upon, i.e. basic logic, then you could say anything is possible, or nothing is possible, or something else, or.. or.... and then what does that mean ? 

If God manifested Himself as anything finite and tangible, that could mean only two things

1) The thing being manifest is not God, but a sign of God (like many other things were and are)

2) God is finite and limited, and not limitless and all powerful. 

If a man, a cloud, a pillar of fire IS God Then

God is not infinite, omniscient, All Power, eternal, etc.

Not so. There is a third possibility, that God can do more than one thing at a time. This was the Jewish thinking behind e.g. Exodus 19 or the Muslim burning bush where God talks to Moses. Did God abandon the rest of the universe while He held a conversation? Hardly.

Saying that God is unable to be present as a human with very human limitations, while at the same time running the universe as normal, is itself putting unjustified limitations on God.

God had always promised the Jewish people He personally would return to Zion (Jerusalem) to bless humanity, defeat evil and death, and start up His Kingdom. God keeps His promises. The Early Church, including the disciples who had lived with Jesus and learned from Him believed that is exactly what had happened.

 

[Leslie P]

On 12/29/2022 at 8:01 PM, Northwest said:

@Leslie P

I do not wish to be acrimonious, but at this point I am skeptical as to whether you are really interested in debate. If so, let us respectfully agree to disagree. Have a Happy New Year!

This is a real pity. I think I would have a lot more to learn from you; you clearly know a lot, and I have been learning. I would love to have explored with the question of why the early church came to the conclusion Jesus is God.

However this is the third time you have been “acrimonious” towards me without any reason, so I guess you don't want to talk more; I'll give you what you want and we're done here.

 

[Northwest]

43 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Thanks for the explanation and reply.

I'm not sure what you mean by the mathematical term infinity being in a box. There are different types of infinity; I assume you mean aleph zero here, but as a box is solid in the real world, it can't hold the concept 'infinity' any more than it can hold 'square' or 'factors of ten'.

@Leslie P

This is precisely @Abu Hadi’s point. A mortal, finite being cannot be immortal and infinite simultaneously.

You said: “As a box is a solid in the real world, it can’t hold the concept ‘infinity’.” Let me rephrase: “As a human being is finite in the real world, he can’t hold the concept ‘infinity’.”

43 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Not so. There is a third possibility, that God can do more than one thing at a time. This was the Jewish thinking behind e.g. Exodus 19 or the Muslim burning bush where God talks to Moses. Did God abandon the rest of the universe while He held a conversation? Hardly.

Doing more than one thing at once is not the same as being two fundamentally different natures at once.

43 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

Saying that God is unable to be present as a human with very human limitations, while at the same time running the universe as normal, is itself putting unjustified limitations on God.

The human being is the solid box. As you mentioned, the human being can’t hold an infinite Being, God.

This is the problem with religion. It uses fear and control to make one believe in the illogical, e.g., Trinity.

43 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

God had always promised the Jewish people He personally would return to Zion (Jerusalem) to bless humanity, defeat evil and death, and start up His Kingdom. God keeps His promises. The Early Church, including the disciples who had lived with Jesus and learned from Him believed that is exactly what had happened.

...through the agency of His Anointed. You are still ignoring the main point(s) that people have raised.

53 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

This is a real pity. I think I would have a lot more to learn from you; you clearly know a lot, and I have been learning.

Oh, please stop. You have largely ignored the main objections to your arguments and gone on talking.

53 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

I would love to have explored with the question of why the early church came to the conclusion Jesus is God.

And I am still trying to understand why you illogically continue to assert that God and Jesus are equal.

53 minutes ago, Leslie P said:

However this is the third time you have been “acrimonious” towards me without any reason,

I am sure that even you know that this is false.

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Saying that God is unable to be present as a human with very human limitations, while at the same time running the universe as normal, is itself putting unjustified limitations on God.

God had always promised the Jewish people He personally would return to Zion (Jerusalem) to bless humanity, defeat evil and death, and start up His Kingdom. God keeps His promises. The Early Church, including the disciples who had lived with Jesus and learned from Him believed that is exactly what had happened.

Hi in opposition limiting God to a human with human limitation is putting  unjustified limitation on God .

This is a wrong understanding due to deviation in translations  or wrong interpratation which has described God in a human body for Jewish people so then later Christians  which this mistake has been repeated by wrong interpretation of vesrse of Quran which some groups between muslims by wrong interpretation from verses about Allah/god in Quran have considerd him as a being in human form which nowadays Wahabist & Salfists  believe to a god with curly hair which doesn't has private parts of humans which he will show his luminous leg to them in judgment day in order to they can recognize him in his humanide form which ,

Returning of jewish people to Zion(Jerusalem) & defeating evil will be done under command of prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) as prophet of God & supporter of Imam Mahdi (aj) for establishing his kingdom for all of humankind not a certain race which although of defeating evil & his kingdom so then death will be in this world which prophet Isa/Jesu (عليه السلام) so then Imam Mahdi (aj) will die in similar fashion other prophets.

 

[Son of Placid]

God is not "logical" by any means in our understanding.
Any equation with a missing factor cannot come to an accurate solution. We simply can not predict the intervention of the unseen. We also can't help but explain the unseen to ourselves so we can live with it. Many of us grew up in the "one and only gonna save you" religion...(if you jump these hurdles and dive these hoops.) All religions have a take-over policy. 

All religions consider themselves to be the only ones with the truth. All denominations, (10,000 and counting Christian denominations), consider themselves to have more truth than the rest. Reason being, If you consider another religion or denomination to have equal truth there is no point being a separate denomination. It's hard to start a new religion if the old one still works. All denominations/sects/cults/w/e, separate themselves by either interpretation or tradition or both. They all put God in their box.

Why would God ordain such division among believers? It's the believers that decide to divide. 125,000 Prophets to date all spoke the injil according to demographics. We see the differences, not the values.

How many Prophets started a "religion"? You can always trace a religion back to a conglomerate of Scholars who decided what the God laws meant then created man made god laws to follow after the Prophet has died. There is always an instant division from the start.
10 commandments weren't enough for Rambam. He created another 613 just to make sure. Many are obsolete in todays culture.

The council of Nicaea decided Jesus was God. It wasn't easy but they did. They had to kill Arius and burn all his stuff first. It took them another 400 some years to decide on a trinity and you have no choice but to believe it.
For those who believe all trinitarians will see hellfire, most Christians do not understand the concept of the trinity, but not to believe it is blasphemy so they go along with it knowing in the back of their minds something is not quite right with it but cannot speak of their inner struggle. You'll get booted from the church, you'll be banned in Christian websites, you will never be considered a Christian again. I know first hand.

I hold high regard for the Quran but have trouble when someone said that they sat by a fire when someone said that their uncle said, that he heard that "this" actually means "that". 

All in all, I believe all religions have been corrupted by "scholars". I have been in many Christian churches. The latest was a wedding in a church with a rainbowed unicorn mascot. 

I don't think God created a hierarchy of angels because he needed a multi level cheering section while He did everything himself. "From God" is confused by those who need to put it in human terms.
What I have found is; God in all His glory is a very personal God. However He decides to deal with us, it's the personal relationship that matters. We can argue for hours, days, years about our differing doctrines but none of that matters to God. If he is beyond our imagination there are no boxes that can hold Him. 

A quote from a guy on fb.

Faith is important right now.

Not all of us have tested it, not all of us are sure.

Faith booster

Pick a small annoyance, pray about it, expect change, notice the change and you will see the unseen.

Disclaimer;

God knows you, be straight with Him.

God is not obliged to do anything if you do nothing.

God may decide the change required is your own perspective.

A new perspective can have an effect on your actions and convictions.

Ephesians 6:10-20. James 1:2-4.

God will bless.

[Abu Hadi]

I was raised in the Christian church so I am very aware that most Christians view the Trinity as a non issue until someone rejects it and then they are considered 'not a Christian' . The Trinity is very, very seldom discussed in 'polite' company amoung Christians themselves or in Church Services. I only heard about it when I went to confirmation class when I was in middle school. That is when I started to question Christianity. 

I have said this before. I only have two problems with the modern Christian doctrine. First, if u accept the Trinity as the basis of your faith despite the facts that 99% of the Bible says 'One God' no exceptions or clauses and Trinity is only mentioned once and this verse in the Bible was written hundreds of years after the death of Jesus* in a language he didn't speak then you are taking a big risk with your soul. Everything, 99% of the Bible, 100% of the Quran and also logic and reason (ie the brain that God gave u) dictate that there is only One God. Again throw all that out in favor of the Trinity and this is pure foolishness. If it turns out that there is no Trinity and only One God and everyone will find out after the die then...God would be offended by that and you don't want to offend God, since it is God alone who determines your fate for all eternity. 

Also, to say that those who don't believe in Trinity are going to hell. There is no basis in the bible or the words of Jesus for that belief yet it is taught in the Churches as if it has some Biblical basis. 

* I said 'death of Jesus' because this is what Christians believe. We(Muslims) believe Jesus didn't die, but was 'taken up' by God without dying. 

[Northwest]

@Son of Placid, @Abu Hadi: I think that the major problem with institutionalised religion is: 1) an absence of logic and 2) a liberal dosage of coercion. The institutionalised religions often force people to rely solely on specialists rather than apply independent reasoning. As a result, people like @Leslie P are only allowed to rely on the specialists’ interpretations of Scripture rather than apply their own logical capabilities. In return, the specialists tell people that if they come to the “wrong” conclusions about core doctrines, they are damned, endangering their salvation, and so on. I didn’t need a specialist or Scripture to conclude on my own that the Trinity is illogical, or that God cannot become Man: I simply ignored the fear-based coercion of the specialists, applied basic logic, and came to my own conclusion. The problem is that institutionalised religion forbids people from taking my approach. As I Deist, I firmly believe that one can believe in God without being a prisoner of organised religion. Mankind could progress far more than it has if it were to adopt a sane, logical framework with which to evaluate metaphysical claims. Organised religion must not put logic in a “box,” so to speak.

13 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

If it turns out that there is no Trinity and only One God and everyone will find out after the die then...God would be offended by that and you don't want to offend God, since it is God alone who determines your fate for all eternity.

Pascal’s wager is arguably the weakest possible defence. After all, the Trinitarians use the same reasoning to argue against the strict monotheists.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 1/5/2023 at 2:55 PM, Northwest said:

As I Deist, I firmly believe that one can believe in God without being a prisoner of organised religion. Mankind could progress far more than it has if it were to adopt a sane, logical framework with which to evaluate metaphysical claims. Organised religion must not put logic in a “box,” so to speak.

hi when you believe in God so therefore having connection with him need organizing evert aspect of your life specially way of praying which you have mistaken errors or distrtion of so called proptectors of faith from fallible humans with organised religion which for keeping it protectors of it must be infallible in order to not corrupt by worldly desires or temptations or influence of people over them in order to keep order in affairs in all aspects of life specially religious matters which true Organised religion puts logic in highest priority which except Islam specially shia Islam other religions likewise current Christianity as Paulism are unorganiazed in their core with illusion of organised religion wich comparison of Islam with Christanity in oragnization is comparing apples with oranges which majority of people fall in this trap of anlyzing Islam based on eschatology &doctrine of paulism which in oppsition to it Imam ali (عليه السلام) in his will before his martyrdom which he has mentioned prayer in organized way as pillar of religion which he has mentioned having following logic & having best relation with Allah/God through it by Improvement of mutual differences & taking care of neighbours & maintaning good relations among ourselves & bidding for good and forbidding from evil as prerquisition of accepting prayer as pilar of true organized religion to it's core .

 

Quote

I advise you (both) to fear Allah and that you should not hanker after the (pleasures of this) world even though it may run after you. Do not be sorry for anything of this world that you have been denied. Speak the truth and act (in expectation) for reward. Be an enemy of the oppressor and helper of the oppressed.

I advise you (both) and all my children and members of my family and everyone whom my writing reaches, to fear Allah, to keep your affairs in order, and to maintain good relations among yourselves for I have heard your grand-father (the Holy Prophet - p.b.u.h.a.h.p.) saying, "Improvement of mutual differences is better than general prayers and fastings."

أُوصِيكُمَا بِتَقْوَى اللهِ، وَأنْ لاَ تَبْغِيَا الدُّنْيَا وَإِنْ بَغَتْكُمَا، وَلاَ تَأْسَفَا عَلَى شَيْء مِنْهَا زُوِيَ عَنْكُمَا، وَقُولاَ بِالْحَقِّ، وَاعْمَلاَ لِلاْجْرِ، وَكُونَا لِلظَّالِمِ خَصْماً، وَلِلْمَظْلُومِ عَوْناً. أُوصِيكُمَا، وَجَمِيعَ وَلَدِي وَأَهْلِي وَمَنْ بَلَغَهُ كِتَابِي، بِتَقْوَى اللهِ، وَنَظْمِ أَمْرِكُمْ، وَصَلاَحِ ذَاتِ بَيْنِكُمْ، فَإِنِّي سَمِعْتُ جَدَّكُمَا ـ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَآلِهِ وَسَلَّمَ ـ يَقُولُ: "صَلاَحُ ذَاتِ الْبَيْنِ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ عَامَّةِ الصَّلاَةِ الصِّيَامِ".

(Fear) Allah (and) keep Allah in view in the matter of orphaus. So do not allow them to starve and they should not be ruined in your presence.

(Fear) Allah (and) keep Allah in view in the matter of your neighbours, because they were the subject of the Prophet's advice. He went on advising in their favour till we thought he would allow them a share in inheritance.

اللهَ اللهَ فِي الاْيْتَامِ، فَلاَ تُغِبُّوا أَفْوَاهَهُمْ، وَلاَ يَضِيعُوا بِحَضْرَتِكُمْ. وَاللهَ اللهَ فِي جِيرَانِكُمْ، فَإِنَّهُمْ وَصِيَّةُ نَبِيِّكُمْ، مَا زَالَ يُوصِي بِهِمْ حَتَّى ظَنَنَّا أَنَّهُ سَيُوَرِّثُهُمْ

(Fear) Allah (and) keep Allah in view in the matter of the Qur'an. No one should excel you in acting upon it. (Fear) Allah (and) keep Allah in view in the matter of prayer, because it is the pillar of your religion.

(Fear) Allah (and) keep Allah in view in the matter of your Lord's House (Ka'bah). Do not forsake it so long as you live, because if it is abandoned you will not be spared.

(Fear) Allah (and) keep Allah in view in the matter of jihad with the help of your property, lives and tongues in the way of Allah.

وَاللهَ اللهَ فِي الْقُرْآنِ، لاَ يَسْبِقْكُمْ بِالْعَمَلِ بِهِ غَيْرُكُمْ. وَاللهَ اللهَ فِي الصَّلاَةِ، فَإِنَّهَا عَمُودُ دِينِكُمْ. وَاللهَ اللهَ فِي بَيْتِ رَبِّكُمْ، لاَ تُخْلُوهُ مَا بَقِيتُمْ، فَإِنَّهُ إِنْ تُرِكَ لَمْ تُنَاظَرُوا. وَاللهَ اللهَ فِي الْجِهَادِ بِأَمْوَالِكُمْ وَأَنْفُسِكُمْ وَأَلْسِنَتِكُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللهِ.

You should keep to a respect for kinship and spending for others. Avoid turning away from one another and severing mutual relations. Do not give up bidding for good and forbidding from evil lest the mischievous gain positions over you, and then if you will pray, the prayers will not be granted.

وَعَلَيْكُمْ بِالتَّوَاصُلِ وَالتَّبَاذُلِ، وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَالتَّدَابُرَ وَالتَّقَاطُعَ. لاَ تَتْرُكُوا الاْمْرَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَالنَّهْيَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ فَيُوَلَّى عَلَيْكُمْ أَشْرَارُكُمْ، ثُمَّ تَدْعُونَ فَلاَ يُسْتَجَابُ لَكُمْ.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-2-letters-and-sayings/letter-47-will-imam-hasan-and-imam-husayn-after-he-was

 

Quote

In Letter 47 of Nahjolbalaghe, Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) introduces three important issues including the fear of God, order in affairs and peace among people. The term “order in affairs” has become synonymous in recent centuries with individual order – that is, the placement of every object in its position. But based on the evidence available in the context of the letter including sensitive situations in the period, addressees of the letter, literal and applied meanings of order at the time and other expressions used by Imam ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)), it seems that another meaning was originally meant by “order in affairs”. In a lexical study, it can be figured out that the word order had some social sense of “consistency” in earlier periods while some recent dictionaries consider an individual meaning for it in addition to the social meaning. The synthesis of different views by interpreters and some translators of Nahj al-Balagha concerning the term “order in affairs” points to the social sense of “unity and consistency”. Applications of the words “order” and “affairs” in Nahj al-Balagha and other texts highlight the sense of “consistency” for the word order as its original meaning and the senses of “work”, “diversity” and “management” for the word affairs. The views of some contemporaries about the term “order in affairs” suggest that the meaning of unity for order is the common ground. However, some have pointed to the sense of keeping up the government/ regime as the accurate meaning of affairs. Finally, it can be concluded that the term “order in affairs” in this quote from Imam Ali ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم)) suggests his emphasis on the concept of unity.

https://rctall.atu.ac.ir/article_5032.html

Quote

Your order. what does it mean? Does it mean that everything you do in life should be organized? What does it mean? It may also mean this. He didn't say, "Your works be in order." Organize your work. He said, "keeping order." That which should be disciplined is "one thing". "Order of affairs" did not say. He said: "And your order." Man understands that this order of affairs is something common to all. It seems to me that "Nazm Amrikam"«نظم امرکم»  means the establishment of the Islamic system and government. It means to deal with the issue of government and system in accordance with discipline and not be chaotic.

The Islamic world was the result of these chaos and self-calling that reached to that situation. If the Amir al-Mu'minin, peace be upon him, took over the affairs of the Islamic world and the Islamic Ummah had pledged allegiance to him on that day, and had kept that allegiance, there would have been no chaos and bitterness. The Prophet had said: "If someone became an imam and the people accepted him and he was pleased with Allah, no one has the right to oppose him." if this word  of prophet has been applied so therefore those  battles wouldn't happen ,Neither the Battle of Jamel, nor the Battle of Safin, nor the Battle of Nahrvan would happen. It is the same great misfortune that Amir al-Mu'minin, peace be upon him, mentioned in this phrase of his will that people shake the people by their will and for their own sake (kill from this side, kill from that side) and disrupt the government system and disrupt the general discipline of the country. He forbids it and orders the contrary:

«و نظم امرکم و صلاح ذات بینکم.»

https://farsi.khamenei.ir/newspart-print?nhid=247&npt=9