PDA

View Full Version : jesus as the "SON of god?"



greenshirt
12-31-2009, 08:37 PM
hello

ive read the bible a few times because i was once a practicing christian. as i embraced islam i still continued to read the bible and one thing has stuck out to me that i still dont have an answer to.

though i think the trinity is silly, i do not think the bible denies the trinity. though i think the crucifixion and resurrection are silly, i also dont deny that these are both clearly mentioned in the bible.

however something that has startled me, is this.

if you read the 4 gospels alone, you will see that the term "son of god" is rarely used. looking into manuscript history as well, it is also noted that many of the times we see "son of god", they were not in the original manuscripts. a site that shows this while also providing manuscript proof would be http://www.bible-researcher.com/guide.html.

the term "son of man" however, is used in the gospels quite a lot. however, outside of the gospels, it is rarely used. i think it is used once in acts, and a few times in Revelation, but that is it. paul never used this term, though it is used in the gospels over 80 times!

so personally, i think that maybe this whole "son of god" concept was adapted by paul, and added to the gospels. however, i think "son of man" was initially the big "saying" per se, but was rarely used outside of the gospels in the NT. i think the whole "son of god" thing was added but not originally said by jesus.

but im not trying to argue this with you guys, because you guys see paul as an inspired man, as a "prophet." therefore you see his work as authentic and he clearly stated many times that jesus was the "son of god."

what i am asking though, is why dont you christians emphasize jesus as the son of man so much?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
01-01-2010, 02:22 AM
because there wouldn't be much of a religion left when all of it centers upon god's death to 'atone' for the Christian love of sin!

:w:
Reply

mkh4JC
01-01-2010, 03:54 AM
Well, let's look in the book of Daniel and see how the term Son of man is used.

'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man (Jesus) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days (the Father), and they brought him near before him.

And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom which shall not be destroyed.' Daniel 7: 13-14.

The thing is, Jesus is both the Son of man and the Son of God. Son of man refers to his humanity, and Son of God refers to his divinity.
Reply

جوري
01-01-2010, 04:03 AM
why does god need to be human? shouldn't he be familiar with what he created?
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Supreme
01-01-2010, 01:07 PM
I don't think many Christians believe Paul is a prophet. Rather, he was an inspired convert who devoted his life to the early church. From my understanding, 'Son of man' was a phrase used by Jesus to highlight His humility and humbleness.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-05-2010, 10:17 PM
Originally Posted by greenshirt
what i am asking though, is why dont you christians emphasize jesus as the son of man so much?

I think what you are experiencing in terms of the emphasis on speaking of Jesus more as "the son of God" than as "the son of Man" (both of which are clearly biblical attributions regarding Jesus) has more to do with the context in which you are presently living than the whole of Christendom. The very early church fathers often did write and speak about Jesus as the "son of Man." This is a messianic figure of speech and the Messiahship of Jesus is very much an important part of the Christian understanding of who Jesus is -- we just tend to use the Greek term for it (Christ) more than the Jewish term (Messiah), but they mean the same thing. The emphasis on the teaching of Jesus as "the son of God" you rightly connect with Paul -- though Paul only uses the term 4 times in 13 letters, and the larger emphasis is found in the Gospel of John where it is used of Jesus 6 times in one book and John states that his whole purpose in writing his gospel is to present Jesus as the Son of God.

In responding to what he saw as the failings of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther used the writings of Paul to articulate much of his reproof of what he perceived to be errors present in the church in his day. As a result the theology articulated by other Reformation era theologians followed suit and was strongly Pauline in character. As you said, Paul does not once use the term "son of Man" in reference to Jesus. This makes sense when you realize that Paul was taking his message not to the Jewish Christians, but to the Greek Christians of his day. For Greeks, the concept of a Jewish Messianic figure didn't really mean much. Now, as I read Paul, I find that he was himself Jewish through and through. But he did not feel that one had to be a "good Jew" in order to be a good Christian, and thus he didn't push the Messiahship of Jesus as strongly as say does the Gospel of Matthew which was written for Jewish Christians, nor did he use the "son of Man" language the way Luke did who was pointing to Jesus as sharing in our common humanity. When Paul speaks of that aspect of Jesus, he uses terms such as "the second Adam." But as a result of the writings of the Reformation theologians, much of Protestanism, the people who make the biggest squeek, even if we aren't the biggest portion, in the western Christian world tend to use Pauline language more than the language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke when talking about the work of Jesus. But while you hear the term "son of God" more than you hear the term "son of Man," be assure that both are very important to us, and contrary to what some on this forum think, we don't see them as set one in opposition to the other, for Jesus is both, and I think even Paul would agree with that.

BTW, I think it is also worth noting that while Paul never uses the term Son of Man, that both terms "son of Man" and "son of God" are found in all four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, plus every New Testament book that uses the phrase "son of Man" also uses the phrase "son of God" to refer to Jesus. Even excluding Paul's writings, the same cannot be said in reverse. To my way of thinking, that would tend to make the phrase "son of God" be the more normative way of speaking of Jesus if I were to be forced to choose between the two phrases -- which we are not so forced.
Reply

greenshirt
01-09-2010, 12:27 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I think what you are experiencing in terms of the emphasis on speaking of Jesus more as "the son of God" than as "the son of Man" (both of which are clearly biblical attributions regarding Jesus) has more to do with the context in which you are presently living than the whole of Christendom. The very early church fathers often did write and speak about Jesus as the "son of Man." This is a messianic figure of speech and the Messiahship of Jesus is very much an important part of the Christian understanding of who Jesus is -- we just tend to use the Greek term for it (Christ) more than the Jewish term (Messiah), but they mean the same thing. The emphasis on the teaching of Jesus as "the son of God" you rightly connect with Paul -- though Paul only uses the term 4 times in 13 letters, and the larger emphasis is found in the Gospel of John where it is used of Jesus 6 times in one bood and John states that his whole purpose in writing his gospel is to present Jesus as the Son of God.

In responding to what he saw as the failings of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther used the writings of Paul to articulate much of his reproof of what he perceived to be errors present in the church in his day. As a result the theology articulated by other Reformation era theologians followed suit and was strongly Pauline in character. As you said, Paul does not once use the term "son of Man" in reference to Jesus. This makes sense when you realize that Paul was taking his message not to the Jewish Christians, but to the Greek Christians of his day. For Greeks, the concept of a Jewish Messianic figure didn't really mean much. Now, as I read Paul, I find that he was himself Jewish through and through. But he did not feel that one had to be a "good Jew" in order to be a good Christian, and thus he didn't push the Messiahship of Jesus as strongly as say does the Gospel of Matthew which was written for Jewish Christians, nor did he use the "son of Man" language the Luke did who was pointing to the Jesus as sharing in our common humanity. When Paul speaks of that aspect of Jesus, he uses terms as as "the second Adam." But as a result of the writings of the Reformation theologians, much of Protestanism, the people who make the biggest squeek, even if we aren't the biggest portion, in the western Christian world tend to use Pauline language more than the language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke when talking about the work of Jesus. But while you hear the term "son of God" more than you hear the term "son of Man," be assure that both are very important to us, and contrary to what some on this forum think, we don't see them as set one in opposition to the other, for Jesus is both, and I think even Paul would agree with that.

BTW, I think it is also worth noting that while Paul never uses the term Son of Man, that both terms "son of Man" and "son of God" are found in all four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, plus every New Testament book that uses the phrase "son of Man" also uses the phrase "son of God" to refer to Jesus. Even excluding Paul's writings, the same cannot be said in reverse. To my way of thinking, that would tend to make the phrase "son of God" be the more normative way of speaking of Jesus if I were to be forced to choose between the two phrases -- which we are not so forced.
very great answer, and i must say you were on point with answering my question! makes a lot of sense now. thanks :)
Reply

The_Prince
01-09-2010, 01:01 AM
Originally Posted by Supreme
I don't think many Christians believe Paul is a prophet. Rather, he was an inspired convert who devoted his life to the early church. From my understanding, 'Son of man' was a phrase used by Jesus to highlight His humility and humbleness.
the reason why Jesus and Gospel writers used the term Son of Man was not to highlight his humanity or humbleness, it was to highlight and identify him with the Son of Man in the OT, who was the Messiah, a major figure to these people, who was going to usher in an age of peace, the kingdom of God. Hence when he is called Son of Man, he is being called the Messiah, the one they have been waiting for, and alas he has arrived!

Son of Man= Identification of a Person!
Reply

Predator
01-10-2010, 08:03 AM
Son of God in hebrew literally means servant of God and with that definition Jesus would be a servant of God (thus agreeing with Islam) and not a biological son which sounds like a Pagan theory

http://www.answering-christianity.co...ranslation.htm
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-13-2010, 06:00 AM
Originally Posted by Airforce
Son of God in hebrew literally means servant of God and with that definition Jesus would be a servant of God (thus agreeing with Islam) and not a biological son which sounds like a Pagan theory

http://www.answering-christianity.co...ranslation.htm
The term "son of God" as used in the Christian scriptures and other Christian writing has no biological meaning whatsoever.

Indeed you are correct that the Jewish roots of the phrase carry forth some of the connotations of servanthood, and some pagan ideas might be present in that for even Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is called an ebed of Yahweh and the translation of that Hebrew word (ebed) into Greek (pais) is sometimes rendered servant and sometimes child. Early on in the Old Testament one can see the development of two different strains of usage for the word ebed in Jewish tradition. There was one strain in which the special role of the ebed is found in that of a King (like David or Nebuchadnezzar) who saves God's people from their enemies. The other tradition was the prophetic role of someone (such as Elijah or Moses) who is the messenger of God and by proclaiming God's word sets historical forces in motion.

But though the phrase ebed (meaning variously either "servant" or "child", depending on context) of Yahweh existed in the Hebrew scriptures, the use of its corresponding Greek translation (pais theos) in Greek-speaking Jewish literature was rare outside of scripture itself. The more common expression being doulos (meaning "servant" or "slave"). So, when in the New Testament the Gospel writers speak of Jesus not as the doulos of God but as the pais, they are setting Jesus apart as somehow different from others with regard to his connection with God. There is something unique about Jesus. Certainly Jesus is unique compared to other people of his day. And if he were to be understood as being on order with King David or the great prophets Elijah and Moses, that would be enough. But Jesus is presented as in relationship with God in even more unique ways than these great characters of Israel's history. For Jesus is also refered to not only as the pais theos (i.e. child/servant of God) but also as the hyios tou theo (son of God). The concept of hyios differs from pais in that it carries with it not biology, but status as an heir. And Jesus is presented as this hyios (son/heir) of God. Indeed it was making confession of Jesus as the son (hyios) of God that were the very first creeds of the Christian faith before any New Testament gospels or epistles were ever written.

Curiously, Jesus never uses the full title to designate himself, but he frequently does refer to himself as "the Son" (hyios) and further the phrase "Son of God" is the Gospels writer's favorite designation for Jesus. Especially important times for this is when Jesus is called "my Son" by the heavenly voice at his baptism (Mark 1:11) and at the transfiguration (Mark 9:7), even demons recognize him to be "the son of God" (Mark 5:7), and the high priest questions Jesus as to whether he is "the son of the Blessed One" (Mark 14:61) --a question which, in its context, can only refer to Yahweh-- to which Jesus responds "I Am."

Whereas there are times when references to Jesus as "the Son of God", and nearly all those which refer to him as "the Son of Man" are Messianic references, these that I have highlighted do not fit that category. The Gospel writers are saying something beyond a statement that Jesus is the Messiah or a servant of God. These are claims of divinity made on Jesus' behalf by those who have written the Gospels. And of that group of gospel writers, the one who was most certainly an actual disciple of Jesus, John, makes this claim central to the whole purpose of his gospel stating it was written "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).
Reply

tango92
01-13-2010, 07:07 AM
Originally Posted by Supreme
I don't think many Christians believe Paul is a prophet. Rather, he was an inspired convert who devoted his life to the early church. From my understanding, 'Son of man' was a phrase used by Jesus to highlight His humility and humbleness.
My god cannot be humbled before anybody. glory be to Allah. how can you assign such limitation to him?
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-13-2010, 03:33 PM
Originally Posted by tango92
My god cannot be humbled before anybody. glory be to Allah. how can you assign such limitation to him?

How does being humble limit him? I really don't understand the question.
Reply

جوري
01-13-2010, 06:25 PM
to be 'humble' is to be low or inferior in station or quality.. not befitting of a creator. There is nothing difficult to about that, although you are certainly free to believe that god dies or is humbled etc.


all the best
Reply

Ramadhan
01-14-2010, 05:19 AM
Jesus clearly said:

Mark 12:29: "the Lord our God, the lord is One".

Matthew: 26:39: "He went a little farther and fell on His face and prayed"
Interestingly, How Jesus pbuh prayed is very similar to how muslims currently pray, ie. with sujood/prostration.
And how current christians pray? singing and dancing of course.

Matthew 4:10 "You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him only you shall serve"

John 14:28 reads-- " You heard that I said to you,I am going away and i am coming back to you. If you loved me , you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father,BECAUSE THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I AM"

Mark 13:32: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

John 5:19: "Most truly I say to you, the son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative but only what he beholds the father doing."

Matthew 19:17. "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

John 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me

Jesus pbuh also said:

Blind belief is dangerous and destructive!. Bible tells us to prove things.
(I Thessalonians 5:21): “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

The teachings of the Church contradict the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that is the cause of the confusion. If a sincere christian who wants to follow Jesus, asks priests about trinity, the answer that he gets is "It is a Mystery, not explained by Jesus clearly", at that time again those forget that Jesus said,

"I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)).
There was no mystery in the message of Jesus, nothing secret. Will you accept the priests' so called "mystery of trinity" and forget clear commandments of Jesus? Trinity or divinity of Jesus to be anywhere close to basis of christian faith would have to be there in bible in clear words in any even one book of bible, with Jesus saying I am God, worship me, which is not. Doesn't it mean something to you.

The trinity is a doctrine from about the year 325 AD, It has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy (most probably added to christianity by humans to make it more acceptable to worshippers of more than one God). It is not in the bible unless you really, really stretch it to fit.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia - 1967, VOL. XIV, PAGE 299:

The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY. But it is precisely this formulation that first claimed to title "The Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING SUCH A MENTALITY OR PERSPECTIVE.

Indeed! He had already prophesied that people will worship him uselessly and will believe in doctrines not made by God but by men. (Matthew 15:9):
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”


Men make all doctrines of modern Christianity: the Trinity, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin and Atonement.


You should not accept the word “son” literally . Word "son" was used in bible for general human beings and other prophets also. "we all are the children of father in heavens" indicates that word "son" was used in different meaning of love and care.

Mathew: 5:9. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.”

Exodus 4:22.
“And thou (Moses) shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”

The belief that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is gurarenteed for believers of Jesus, and now actions do not have to fall in line with our faith, is not what Jesus preached clearly. It contradicts with interpretations and additions done by scribes/ historians centuries after Jesus:

Matt 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

There is no guranteed heaven for anyone, this life is a test, whether you pass and enter heaven or fail,.

Jesus said, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)


Jesus, Moses, Mohammad (p.b.u.h), they all worshiped the same God, the God of Ibrahim. All prophets taught "surrendering one's will to God" that is the meaning of word "Islam". Word "christianity" did not exist at the time of Christ, but you will find Jesus teachings to be "surrender your will to God" in bible many times.

JAMES 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


Mohammad (peace be upon him) was also a messenger of God, who never claimed to be God, the same way Jesus or Moses never claimed to be God, nor did they ever say worship me. Bible confirms the coming of another true prophet as:

"The Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you."
[Bible - John 14:26]


If only the genuine followers of Jesus, who truly love him, read the Bible in context, and study the Qur’an, they will definitely reach the conclusion that GOD IS ONE, without any partners; and Jesus (pbuh) the son of Mary (pbuh) is a messenger of GOD!

Muslims love Jesus, they believe in his miraculous birth with the will of God without a father or sexual act (the way Adam was born without a mother and father), , they believe in miracles that Jesus performed with permission of God, muslims faith demands them to believe Jesus was a great prophet of God and belief in the original message of Jesus the massaya.

Muslims feel closer to the sincere Christians than to the Jews, or the idol worshippers and the atheists.

The Qur’an clearly says in Surah.5:v 82: “Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who are muslims (to be) the Jews and the idolators. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe; those who say: Lo! We are Christians. This is because there are among them priests and monks (i.e. persons entirely devoted to the service of God, as are the muslims) and because they are not proud.”

Qur’an, revealed to the Prophet Muhammed some 600 years after Jesus, (pbut) corrects the errors that crept (knowingly or unknowingly) into the message that Jesus brought. This book should prove to be a very valuable asset to both Muslims and Christians


The Holy Qur’an warns in Surah 5:73& 74: “They do blaspheme who say, Allah is Christ the son of Mary. But said Christ: O’ Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever joins other gods with Allah- Allah will forbid him the garden, (i.e. paradise) and the fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong doers, be no one to help”. “Surely they are disbelievers, those who say: Allah is one of the three in a Trinity: But there is none who has the right to be worshiped but one God (i.e. Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them”.

Decide whether you love Jesus and want to follow his clear words and be saved, or love other human beings who gave different meaning to his original words.


From:
www.sultan.org/books/muslimchristianialogue.pdf
Reply

Predator
01-14-2010, 12:06 PM
When you ask the bulk of Christians , how many SONS has God got , they would say one and will quote the below verse .

John 3:16 " For God so loveth the world ,that he gave his only begotten SON, so who shall believe in him shall not perish but shall have ever lasting life "
I would say they dont read their Bible properly because if you read the bible clearly you would find that God has got sons by the tons in the bible

"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS
OF GOD." ROMANS 8:14
Reply

mkh4JC
01-14-2010, 08:17 PM
Originally Posted by Airforce
When you ask the bulk of Christians , how many SONS has God got , they would say one and will quote the below verse .


I would say they dont read their Bible properly because if you read the bible clearly you would find that God has got sons by the tons in the bible
Well, you misunderstand. Jesus is the Son (capital) of God, existing from eternity to eternity with the Father. Those who are in Christ and accept him are then adopted into the family of God and they become sons of God.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-14-2010, 10:33 PM
Originally Posted by Airforce
When you ask the bulk of Christians , how many SONS has God got , they would say one and will quote the below verse .[John 3:16)

I would say they dont read their Bible properly because if you read the bible clearly you would find that God has got sons by the tons in the bible

I would say that just as to properly underrstand th Qur'an Muslims insist you need to read it in Arabic, not English; so to properly understand the Bible you will do better to read it in its original languages. The phrase "only begotten" is translated from a term monogene that is used just a few other times in scripture and one of those is to refer to Isaac as the monogene of Abraham. Now, clearly Isaac was NOT the only begotten son of Abraham, for he had an older brother Ishmael. (I suspect you've heard of him. :statisfie ) And the author of that account was clearly well enough versed on Jewish history to be aware of that ascpect of Abraham's story. So, I suggest that a proper understanding of the compound word monogene is must be more than simply a derivation from the meaning of each of the terms independently combined together. Rather, I prefer the idea of it setting apart the individual as being the "uniquely generated" of God. And even Muslims must admit that this is true for Jesus was indeed uniquely generated given that he was born of a virgin, though I think it means far more than just that with regard to Jesus.



naidamar, I don't get your point at all. Are you responding to a previous post or just making your own independent declarative presentation?
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-14-2010, 10:38 PM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
to be 'humble' is to be low or inferior in station or quality.. not befitting of a creator. There is nothing difficult to about that, although you are certainly free to believe that god dies or is humbled etc.


all the best
I disagree that being humble has anything to do with being inferior in station or quality. It is an attitude, not a position. History is rife with the stories of people who were humble kings and others who were arrogant, haughty peasants.
Reply

جوري
01-14-2010, 11:17 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I disagree that being humble has anything to do with being inferior in station or quality. It is an attitude, not a position. History is rife with the stories of people who were humble kings and others who were arrogant, haughty peasants.
Greetings,

That is the dictionary definition, so there is nothing to disagree with as it isn't a statement of my making. Also I don't see how God can have an 'attitude' whatever that attitude maybe as feelings and beliefs are a human value and not a divine one!

all the best..
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-15-2010, 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
Greetings,

That is the dictionary definition, so there is nothing to disagree with as it isn't a statement of my making. Also I don't see how God can have an 'attitude' whatever that attitude maybe as feelings and beliefs are a human value and not a divine one!

all the best..

The dictionary I checked had multiple definitions for the word "humble":
1 : not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive
2 : reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission <a humble apology>
3 a : ranking low in a hierarchy or scale : insignificant, unpretentious b : not costly or luxurious <a humble contraption

(Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary)
Using the primary (instead of the terciary) definition, if Allah is not proud or haughty, nor arrogant or assertive, then by definition Allah would be humble.

As to your point that God cannot have an attitude, feeling or belief for they are human values and not divine, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. My scriptures do speak of God possessing these things. Though it appears that at least once even the Quran speaks of Allah having an attitude (that of being pleased):
Al-Fath, Chapter #48, Verse #18
Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave the Bai'ah (pledge) to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) under the tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down As-Sakinah (calmness and tranquillity) upon them, and He rewarded them with a near victory.
(as translated by Moshin Khan)
Reply

جوري
01-15-2010, 01:11 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
The dictionary I checked had multiple definitions for the word "humble":
Try another dictionary like this:

Adjective: humble (humbler,humblest) húm-bul
  1. Low or inferior in station or quality
    "a humble cottage";
    - low, lowly, modest, small
  2. Marked by meekness or modesty; not arrogant or prideful
    "a humble apology"; "essentially humble...and self-effacing, he achieved the highest formal honours and distinctions"
  3. Used of unskilled work (especially domestic work)
    - menial, lowly
  4. Of low birth or station
    "of humble (or lowly) birth";
    - base [archaic], baseborn, lowly

Verb: humble húm-bul
  1. Cause to be unpretentious
    "This experience will humble him"
  2. Cause to feel shame; hurt the pride of
    "He humbled his colleague by criticising him in front of the boss";
    - humiliate, mortify, chagrin, abase

http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/HUMBLE


Using the primary (instead of the terciary) definition, if Allah is not proud or haughty, nor arrogant or assertive, then by definition Allah would be humble.
We can't define God, god isn't human.. such qualities of lowliness, humility, death etc. are human qualities, and not befitting of the creator!

As to your point that God cannot have an attitude, feeling or belief for they are human values and not divine, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. My scriptures do speak of God possessing these things. Though it appears that at least once even the Quran speaks of Allah having an attitude (that of being pleased):
Unlike with Christianity, that isn't a literal attribute.. I think God created us to outgrow the concrete thinker's stage once we pass age 8


Question and Answer Details Name of Questioner Hooker - Netherlands Title: Understanding God's Attributes Date 29/Dec/2009 Question I am reading about Islam. I came across some verses form the Quran that say that your God has hands and eyes. How should such attributes be understood? Topic Islamic Creed, Interfaith Issues Name of Counselor Ahmad Saad Answer Salam, Hooker.

Thank you very much for your question, and for your interest in learning about Islam and its beliefs.

Of course, God is the focus of the Islamic faith. Muslims believe not only in the existence of One True God, but also that He is the source of all good; and He is perfect. Muslims believe that God is the Creator, Sustainer, and Cherisher of this universe and everything in it.

He is not like anything of creation, otherwise, He would not be the Creator of creation. God is not part of creation; and therefore, He is different from it. The Quran, which Muslims believe is the word of God, confirms this fact as it goes,

[…there is nothing whatever like unto Him.] (Ash-Shura 42:11)

Because God is the Creator of the whole universe and everything in it, we cannot grasp Him with our minds, or conceptualize Him in our limited brains, or find His truth with our senses.

One of the great scholars of Islam, Imam Abu Hamid Al-Ghazali says:

It is a well known thing that there are two ways of knowledge; description or actual witnessing. When it comes to the first one, we will find that it is a defective way i.e. it does not give us an actual or real conceptualization of the thing being described. Notwithstanding the fact that description is a limited way to know things, it is still fruitful and beneficial when it comes to things that are beyond our senses.

The second way of knowledge, which is witnessing, is more accurate to a degree in realizing things. When it comes to God, the second way is impossible as no one has witnessed God because witnessing Him means things He is far above like dimension, being contained in a place and judged by a distance; all of which are impossible to Him.

Therefore, we cannot depend on the second way; rather, we should try the first way which is description of God i.e. His Divine Perfect Attributes rather than His Entity.

It is because of this that Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

"Reflect upon the blessings of God, but not His Entity." (Al-Tabarani)

As explained earlier, we will get to know when we try to think about His Entity because it is above our minds. One of the attributes of God is "difference from creation", and because of this attribute, we should shun any idea that may lead us to anthropomorphism (that is, the attribution of human beings to God).

If any text in the Quran or the Hadith apparently gave any words that may lead us to go down this path, we should understand it in one of two ways:

1. To submit the understanding of the whole text completely to God as part of the test of our faith. In this way, we should bear in mind that He is trying to make things clearer to us in a language we can understand without any link between the words and the way things are in reality with Him.

2. To try to understand the text within the rules of Arabic language that speak about figure of speech, that is, the text may be understood as figurative speech.
For instance, "hand" is a figurative symbol of power, so when the Quran speaks about God having a hand, it may mean, God's Power as the hand in the figurative Arabic language is a symbol of power. Of course this last one can be done by erudite scholars who are qualified to deal with such texts.

These are the two ways that can be used in these cases, to save our limited minds from falling into the abyss of exhaustion without getting to any destination.

Imam Ibrahim Al-Laqani said in his well-known poem known as Jawharatut Tawhid (The Pearl of Divine Oneness):

Every text that would appear to imply similitude,
Interpret it or consign, and always affirm transcendence.

It is narrated that Abu Bakr Al-Siddiq, the Prophet's closest Companion, used to say,

"Failing to realize, is in itself realization."

He means, that failing to realize the reality of Allah, is itself a realization that He is Allah; the Creator and the Cherisher, as it proves to us how limited we are and how magnificent He is.

Finally, I would like to quote a translation from a very well-known text in Islamic belief according to the mainstream interpretation, Imam Al-Dardir's Al-Kharidah Al-Bahiyyah (The Radiant Pearl) who states:

Thus, He is the Majestic, the Beautiful, the Master,
The Pure, the Holy, and the Most High Lord.

I hope this answers your question. Please keep in touch.

Salam.

Useful links:

Is God Bound by Time and Space?

God: Spiritual or Corporeal?

God and the Laws of Nature

Why Can't We See God?

Where Is God?


Read more: http://www.readingislam.com/servlet/...#ixzz0cdgOgorB


All the best
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-15-2010, 01:41 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
We can't define God, god isn't human.. such qualities of lowliness, humility, death etc. are human qualities, and not befitting of the creator!
I don't want to define God either. We cannot. He defines himself. But we can describe him. Both Islam and Christianity do this. We talk about traits (attributes) that he possesses. And among some of those attributes are attitudes and emotions. You might see this as restricted to humans and not present in (nor befitting) God; I respectfully disagree.

Anger is an emotion. There are several hadith that clearly say "Allah will be angry." Now maybe you differentiate between God having attitude and God having emotions, I don't know. But it really isn't the point.

In researching what you said previously, I realized that you are right with regard to the basic way Allah is presented. This is one of the major differences between the Islamic understanding of Allah and the Christian undestanding of God. In Islam it seems that Allah stands apart from his creation and while he may be "Ar-Ra'uf, The Compassionate, The One with extreme Mercy" or "Al-Wadood, The Loving", even described as oft-forgiving, he does not actually feel anything toward his creation. In Christianity, we believe that God actually and literally feels love toward his creation and that it is this love which motivates his relationship with creation.


As always, all the best, and thank-you for the interchange of ideas.
Reply

Ramadhan
01-15-2010, 02:54 AM
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

John 3:16

The above is the King James "translation" of John 3:16. If we were to open up the Revised Standard Version of the Bible on this exact same verse we would find it now translated as

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, ...."

What is going on here? The RSV is the work of thirty two Biblical Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations. They produced the RSV in an effort to correct the "many" and "serious" errors they had found in the King James Bible. So why have they scrapped the word "begotten" from this cornerstone of Christian preaching? The reason is because they have decided to be honest with us when translating this verse.

The Greek term for "begotten" in ancient Greek is "gennao" {ghen-nah'-o} as found for example in Matthew 1:2. In the verses under consideration, however, the word used was not "gennao" but "monogenes" {mon-og-en-ace'}.

"Monogenes" is a Greek word which conveys the meaning "unique" and not "begotten." Thus, the true translation of this verse is "His unique son."

Some of the more honest translations of the Bibles, such as the New Testament by Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith (published in 1923) have indeed given the same translation as that of the RSV. However, such "tell it as it is" Bibles were not generally met with a lot of enthusiasm since they forced the reader to face the fact that much of what the translators of the KJV have "translated" for them was not in fact part of the Bible.

We have already seen in previous sections that the Bible bears witness that God has "sons" by the tons. So what does the Bible mean by "only son" or "unique son" when referring to Jesus? It means what the Bible has told us and the Qur'an has confirmed for us, namely, that Jesus was "unique" in that he was born of a human mother without a father. God merely said to him "Be!" and he was.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-15-2010, 03:05 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
The Greek term for "begotten" in ancient Greek is "gennao" {ghen-nah'-o} as found for example in Matthew 1:2. In the verses under consideration, however, the word used was not "gennao" but "monogenes" {mon-og-en-ace'}.

"Monogenes" is a Greek word which conveys the meaning "unique" and not "begotten." Thus, the true translation of this verse is "His unique son."

It's nice when we can basically agree on something. See my above post: #17.
Reply

جوري
01-15-2010, 04:20 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't want to define God either. We cannot. He defines himself. But we can describe him. Both Islam and Christianity do this. We talk about traits (attributes) that he possesses. And among some of those attributes are attitudes and emotions. You might see this as restricted to humans and not present in (nor befitting) God; I respectfully disagree.
God hasn't defined himself as a man forsaken or a humbled one for that matter!..

Anger is an emotion. There are several hadith that clearly say "Allah will be angry." Now maybe you differentiate between God having attitude and God having emotions, I don't know. But it really isn't the point.
See the very last question/answer of my last post. Reiterating it, isn't going to change what I have already clarified!
In researching what you said previously, I realized that you are right with regard to the basic way Allah is presented. This is one of the major differences between the Islamic understanding of Allah and the Christian undestanding of God. In Islam it seems that Allah stands apart from his creation and while he may be "Ar-Ra'uf, The Compassionate, The One with extreme Mercy" or "Al-Wadood, The Loving", even described as oft-forgiving, he does not actually feel anything toward his creation. In Christianity, we believe that God actually and literally feels love toward his creation and that it is this love which motivates his relationship with creation.
You can delude yourself that god has a hippocampus, amygdala and a frontal lobe and putting a spin on the terms.. but we have no purpose to worship a man who forsake himself or whose greatest attributes are are confined by such limited human emotions!


all the best


As always, all the best, and thank-you for the interchange of ideas.[/QUOTE]
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-15-2010, 08:05 AM
Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
but we have no purpose to worship a man who forsake himself or whose greatest attributes are are confined by such limited human emotions!
I know. And 'tis a pity, but I guess as Muslims you are doing the best that you can.
Reply

جوري
01-15-2010, 04:38 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I know. And 'tis a pity, but I guess as Muslims you are doing the best that you can.
It can only be a pity depending on your perspective... I think there is no greater pity, than to waste your life in vain and find out it was all for nothing:

18:103 Say: "Shall we tell you who are the greatest losers in whatever they may do?

104 "[It is] they whose labour has gone astray in [the pursuit of no more than] this world's life, and who none the less think that they are doing good works:

105 it is they who have chosen to deny their Sustainer's messages and the truth that they are destined to meet Him." Hence, all their [good] deeds come to nought, and no weight shall We assign to them on Resurrection Day.104

106 That will be their recompense - [their] hell - for having denied the truth and made My messages and My apostles a target of their mockery.
Reply

Ramadhan
01-15-2010, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I don't want to define God either. We cannot.
Wow. this is really something.

Aren't you among those who defined that God needed to come down to earth and to atone with blood to be able to forgive the original sins of mankind?
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-19-2010, 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Wow. this is really something.

Aren't you among those who defined that God needed to come down to earth and to atone with blood to be able to forgive the original sins of mankind?
Describing what God does or even his nature is something that we can do because of what he has revealed to us about himself. But we do not define God, God defines himself and then reveals that to us.

What you and I basically disagree on is the best source for that revelation. And because of that we may have vastly different concepts of how God has defined himself and what he does or does not do.
Reply

Predator
01-21-2010, 07:44 PM


Reply

ccc
03-29-2010, 04:41 PM
MAN, then, was thus snared by the assault of the arch-fiend, and broke his Creator's command, and was stripped of grace and put off his confidence with God, and covered himself with the asperities of a toilsome life (for this is the meaning of the fig-leaves(1)); and was clothed about with death, that is, mortality and the grossness of flesh (for this is what the garment of skins signifies); and was banished from Paradise by God's just judgment, and condemned to death, and made subject to corruption. Yet, notwithstanding all this, in His pity, God, Who gave him his being, and Who in His graciousness bestowed on him a life of happiness, did not disregard man(2). But He first trained him in many ways and called him back, by groans and trembling, by the deluge of water, and the utter destruction of almost the whole race(3), by confusion and diversity of tongues(4), by the rule(5) of angels(6), by the burning of cities(7), by figurative manifestations of God, by wars and victories and defeats, by signs and wonders, by manifold faculties, by the law and the prophets: for by all these means God earnestly strove to emancipate man from the wide-spread and enslaving bonds of sin, which had made life such a mass of iniquity, and to effect man's return to a life of happiness. For it was sin that brought death like a wild and savage beast into the world s to the ruin of the human life. But it behoved the Redeemer to be without sin, and not made liable through sin to death, and further, that His nature should be strengthened and renewed, and trained by labour and taught the way of virtue which leads away from corruption to the life eternal and, in the end, is revealed the mighty ocean of love to man that is about Him(9). For the very Creator and Lord Himself undertakes a struggle(1) in behalf of the work of His own hands, and learns by toil to become Master. And since the enemy snares man by the hope of Godhead, he himself is snared in turn by the screen of flesh, and so are shown at once the goodness and wisdom, the justice and might of God. God's goodness is revealed in that He did not disregard(2) the frailty of His own handiwork, but was moved with compassion for him in his fall, and stretched forth His hand to him: and His justice in that when man was overcome He did not make another victorious over the tyrant, nor did He snatch man by might from death, but in His goodness and justice He made him, who had become through his sins the slave of death, himself once more conqueror and rescued like by like, most difficult though it seemed: and His wisdom is seen in His devising the most fitting solution of the difficulty(3). For by the good pleasure of our God and Father, the Only-begotten Son and Word of God and God, Who is in the bosom of the God and Father(4), of like essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who was before the ages, Who is without beginning and was in the beginning, Who is in the presence of the God and Father, and is God and made in the form of God(5), bent the heavens and descended to earth: that is to say, He humbled without humiliation His lofty station which yet could not be humbled, and condescends to His servants(6), with a condescension ineffable and incomprehensible: (for that is what the descent signifies). And God being perfect becomes perfect man, and brings to perfection the newest of all new things(7), the only new thing under the Sun, through which the boundless might of God is manifested. For what greater thing is there, than that God should become Man? And the Word became flesh without being changed, of the Holy Spirit, and Mary the holy and ever-virgin one, the mother of God. And He acts as mediator between God and man, He the only lover of man conceived in the Virgin's chaste womb without will(8) or desire, or any connection with man or pleasurable generation, but through the Holy Spirit and the first offspring of Adam. And He becomes obedient to the Father Who is like unto us, and finds a remedy for our disobedience in what He had assumed from us, and became a pattern of obedience to us without which it is not possible to obtain salvation(8).

CHAPTER II.

Concerning the manner in which the Word(9) was conceived, and concerning His divine incarnation.

The angel of the Lord was sent to the holy Virgin, who was descended from David's line(1). Far it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah, of which tribe no one turned his attention to the altar(2), as the divine apostle said: but about this we will speak more accurately later. And bearing glad tidings to her, he said, Hail thou highly favoured one, the Lord is with thee(3). And she was troubled at his word, and the angel said to her, Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found favour with God, and shalt bring forth a Son and shalt call His name Jesus(4); for He shall save His people from their sins(5). Hence it comes that Jesus has the interpretation Saviour. And when she asked in her perplexity, How can this be, seeing I know not a man(6)? the angel again answered her, The Holy Spirit shall came upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee(7) shall be called the Son of God(8). And she said to him, Behold the handmaid of the Lord: be it unto me according to Thy word(9).
So then, after the assent of the holy Virgin, the Holy Spirit descended on her, according to the word of the Lord which the angel spoke, purifying her(1), and granting her power to receive the divinity of the Word, and likewise power to bring forth(2). And then was she overshadowed(3) by the enhypostatic Wisdom and Power of the most high God, the Son of God Who is of like essence with the Father as of Divine seed, and from her holy and most pure blood He formed flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, the first-fruits of our compound nature(4): not by procreation but by creation through the Holy Spirit: not developing the fashion of the body by gradual additions but perfecting it at once, He Himself, the very Word of God, standing to the flesh in the relation of subsistence. For the divine Word was not made one with flesh that had an independent pre-existence(5), but taking up His abode in the womb of the holy Virgin, He unreservedly in His own subsistence took upon Himself through the pure blood of the eternal Virgin a body of flesh animated with the spirit of reason and thought, thus assuming to Himself the first-fruits of man's compound nature, Himself, the Word, having become a subsistence in the flesh. So that(6) He is at once flesh, and at the same time flesh of God the Word, and likewise flesh animated, possessing both reason and thought(7). Wherefore we speak not of man as having become God, but of God as having become Man(8). For being by nature perfect God, He naturally became likewise perfect Man: and did not change His nature nor make the dispensation(9) an empty show, but became, without confusion or change or division, one in subsistence with the flesh, which was conceived of the holy Virgin, and animated with reason and thought, and had found existence in Him, while He did not change the nature of His divinity into the essence of flesh, nor the essence of flesh into the nature of His divinity, and did not make one compound nature out of His divine nature and the human nature He had assumed(1).

CHAPTER III.

Concerning Christ's two natures, in apposition to those who hold that He has only one(2).

For the two natures were united with each other without change or alteration, neither the divine nature departing from its native simplicity, nor yet the human being either changed into the nature of God or reduced to non-existence, nor one compound nature being produced out of the two. For the compound nature(3) cannot be of the same essence as either of the natures out of which it is compounded, as made one thing out of others: for example, the body is composed of the four elements, but is not of the same essence as fire or air, or water or earth, nor does it keep these names. If, therefore, after the union, Christ's nature was, as the heretics hold, a compound unity, He had changed from a simple into a compound nature(4), and is not of the same essence as the Father Whose nature is simple, nor as the mother, who is not a compound of divinity and humanity. Nor will He then be in divinity and humanity: nor will He be called either God or Man, but simply Christ: and the word Christ will be the name not of the subsistence, but of what in their view is the one nature.
We, however, do not give it as our view that Christ's nature is compound, nor yet that He is one thing made of other things and differing from them as man is made of sold and body, or as the body is made of the four elements, but hold(5) that, though He is constituted of these different parts He is yet the same(6). For we confess that He alike in His divinity and in His humanity both is and is said to be perfect God, the same Being, and that He consists of two natures, and exists in two natures(7). Further, by the word "Christ" we understand the name of the subsistence, not in the sense of one kind, but as signifying the existence of two natures. For in His own person He anointed Himself; as God anointing His body with His own divinity, and as Man being anointed. For He is Himself both God and Man. And the anointing is the divinity of His humanity. For if Christ, being of one compound nature, is of like essence to the Father, then the Father also must be compound and of like essence with the flesh, which is absurd and extremely blasphemous(8).
How, indeed, could one and the same nature come to embrace opposing and essential differences? For how is it possible that the same nature should be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?
But if those who declare that Christ has only one nature should say also that that nature is a simple one, they must admit either that He is God pure and simple, and thus reduce the incarnation to a mere pretence, or that He is only man, according to Nestorius. And how then about His being "perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity"? And when can Christ be said to be of two natures, if they hold that He is of one composite nature after the union? For it is surely clear to every one that before the union Christ's nature was one.
But this is what leads the heretics(9) astray, viz., that they look upon nature and subsistence as the same thing(1). For when we speak of the nature of men as one(2), observe that in saying this we are not looking to the question of soul and body. For when we compare together the soul and the body it cannot be said that they are of one nature. But since there are very many subsistences of men, and yet all have the same kind of nature(3): for all are composed of soul and body, and all have part in the nature of the soul, and possess the essence of the body, and the common form: we speak of the one nature of these very many and different subsistences; while each subsistence, to wit, has two natures, and fulfils itself in two natures, namely, soul and body.
But(4) a common form cannot be admitted in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. For neither was there ever, nor is there, nor will there ever be another Christ constituted of deity and humanity, and existing in deity and humanity at once perfect God and perfect man. And thus in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we cannot speak of one nature made up of divinity and humanity, as we do in the case of the individual made up of soul and body(5). For in the latter case we have to do with an individual, but Christ is not an individual. For there is no predicable form of Christlihood, so to speak, that He possesses. And therefore we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture(6), or commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by Eutyches(7) and Severus, and all that impious company: and not in a personal or relative manner, or as a matter of dignity or agreement in will, or equality in honour, or identity in name, or good pleasure, as Nestorius, hated of God, said, and Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and their diabolical tribe: but by synthesis; that is, in subsistence, without change or confusion or alteration or difference or separation, and we confess that in two perfect natures there is but one subsistence of the Son of God incarnate(8); holding that there is one and the same subsistence belonging to His divinity and His humanity, and granting that the two natures are preserved in Him after the union, but we do not hold that each is separate and by itself, but that they are united to each other in one compound subsistence. For we look upon the union as essential, that is, as true and not imaginary. We say that it is essential(9), moreover, not in the sense of two natures resulting in one compound nature, but in the sense of a true union of them in one compound subsistence of the Son of God, and we hold that their essential difference is preserved. For the created remaineth created, and the uncreated, uncreated: the mortal remaineth mortal; the immortal, immortal: the circumscribed, circumscribed: the uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed: the visible, visible: the invisible, invisible. "The one part is all glorious with wonders: while the other is the victim of insults(1)."
Moreover, the Word appropriates to Himself the attributes of humanity: for all that pertains to His holy flesh is His: and He imparts to the flesh His own attributes by way of communication(2) in virtue of the interpenetration of the parts(3) one with another, and the oneness according to subsistence, and inasmuch as He Who lived and acted both as God and as man, taking to Himself either form and holding intercourse with the other form, was one and the same(4). Hence it is that the Lord of Glory is said to have been crucified(5), although His divine nature never endured the Cross, and that the Son of Man is allowed to have been in heaven before the Passion, as the Lord Himself said(6). For the Lord of Glory is one and the same with Him Who is in nature and in truth the Son of Man, that is, Who became man, and both His wonders and His sufferings are known to us, although His wonders were worked in His divine capacity, and His sufferings endured as man. For we know that, just as is His one subsistence, so is the essential difference of the nature preserved. For how could difference be preserved if the very things that differ from one another are not preserved? For difference is the difference between things that differ. In so far as Christ's natures differ from one another, that is, in the matter of essence, we hold that Christ unites in Himself two extremes: in respect of His divinity He is connected with the Father and the Spirit, while in respect of His humanity He is connected with His mother and all mankind. And in so far as His natures are united, we hold that He differs from the Father and the Spirit on the one hand, and from the mother and the rest of mankind on the other. For the natures are united in His subsistence, having one compound subsistence, in which He differs from the Father and the Spirit, and also from the mother and us.
Reply

جوري
04-03-2010, 06:49 PM
love the compact shove throat piece..

how it can easily unravel using the same book:

Acts 2:22 (New International Version)


22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know
Reply

CosmicPathos
04-03-2010, 07:13 PM
Originally Posted by greenshirt
hello

ive read the bible a few times because i was once a practicing christian. as i embraced islam i still continued to read the bible and one thing has stuck out to me that i still dont have an answer to.

though i think the trinity is silly, i do not think the bible denies the trinity. though i think the crucifixion and resurrection are silly, i also dont deny that these are both clearly mentioned in the bible.

however something that has startled me, is this.

if you read the 4 gospels alone, you will see that the term "son of god" is rarely used. looking into manuscript history as well, it is also noted that many of the times we see "son of god", they were not in the original manuscripts. a site that shows this while also providing manuscript proof would be http://www.bible-researcher.com/guide.html.

the term "son of man" however, is used in the gospels quite a lot. however, outside of the gospels, it is rarely used. i think it is used once in acts, and a few times in Revelation, but that is it. paul never used this term, though it is used in the gospels over 80 times!

so personally, i think that maybe this whole "son of god" concept was adapted by paul, and added to the gospels. however, i think "son of man" was initially the big "saying" per se, but was rarely used outside of the gospels in the NT. i think the whole "son of god" thing was added but not originally said by jesus.

but im not trying to argue this with you guys, because you guys see paul as an inspired man, as a "prophet." therefore you see his work as authentic and he clearly stated many times that jesus was the "son of god."

what i am asking though, is why dont you christians emphasize jesus as the son of man so much?
just wanted to get this off my chest, that avatar in your profile is magnificent and enthralling.
Reply

ccc
04-03-2010, 08:27 PM
When thou didst descend to death, O Life Immortal, Thou didst slay hell with the splendor of Thy Godhead! And when from the depths Thou didst raise the dead, all the powers of heaven cried out: O Giver of Life! Christ our God! Glory to Thee!
Hell became afraid, O Almighty Savior, seeing the miracle of Thy Resurrection from the tomb! The dead arose! Creation, with Adam, beheld this and rejoiced with Thee! And the world, O my Savior, praises Thee forever!
Let the heavens rejoice! Let the earth be glad! For the Lord has shown strength with His arm! He has trampled down death by death! He has become the first born of the dead! He has delivered us from the depths of hell, and has granted the world great mercy!
My Savior and Redeemer as God rose from the tomb and delivered the earthborn from their chains. He has shattered the gates of hell, and as Master, he has risen on the third day!
Thou didst descend into hell, O my Savior, shattering its gates as almighty; resurrecting the dead as Creator, and destroying the sting of death. Thou hast delivered Adam from the curse, O Lover of Man, and we all cry to Thee: “O Lord, save us!
The angelic powers were at Thy tomb; the guards became as dead men. Mary stood by Thy grave, seeking Thy most pure Body. Thou didst capture hell, not being tempted by it. Thou didst come to the Virgin, granting life. O Lord who didst rise from the dead, glory to Thee!
The dominion of death can no longer hold men captive, for Christ descended, shattering and destroying its powers! Hell is bound, while the prophets rejoice and cry: The Savior has come to those in faith! Enter, you faithful, into the Resurrection!
Come receive the light from the unwinding light and glorify the resurrected Lord!
Christ is risen!
Christ is Risen from the death trampling death by death, He has bestowed life to those in the tomb!
Reply

ccc
04-03-2010, 08:29 PM
This day is the Pascha, this day Christ is risen from the death, and in this joy and communion there is the most what somebody can share.
Reply

جوري
04-03-2010, 08:31 PM
excuse me, but what is the relevance of these bulky and cumbersome posts to the subject matter or the points that folks raise? Are you happy pasting or simply trying to convince yourself of something? or enjoy having a private soliloquy in an open fashion? surely you see what you post as spam for even if someone were to strain long enough to read and sort through it, one finds that it has no relations to the subject matter but as some sort of pathological echolalia!

all the best
Reply

revert2007
04-04-2010, 06:21 PM
10 reasons why Jesus pbuh is not God

Evidence from OT and NT Jesus pbuh is not God

I encourage everyone to watch these two videos.
Reply

Supreme
04-04-2010, 06:55 PM
Originally Posted by revert2007
Thanks for the second one (I'd already seen the first one, paraded around Youtube by my Muslims friends on the site). It is interesting, nay, fascinating stuff.
Reply

revert2007
04-04-2010, 08:31 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Thanks for the second one (I'd already seen the first one, paraded around Youtube by my Muslims friends on the site). It is interesting, nay, fascinating stuff.
Your welcome :).
There are many other verses I would like to put them in such video but unfortunately I don't have that much of time.In sha Allah soon :)
Reply

freethinking
04-07-2010, 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
Jesus clearly said:

Mark 12:29: "the Lord our God, the lord is One".

Matthew: 26:39: "He went a little farther and fell on His face and prayed"
Interestingly, How Jesus pbuh prayed is very similar to how muslims currently pray, ie. with sujood/prostration.
And how current christians pray? singing and dancing of course.

Matthew 4:10 "You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him only you shall serve"

John 14:28 reads-- " You heard that I said to you,I am going away and i am coming back to you. If you loved me , you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father,BECAUSE THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I AM"

Mark 13:32: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."

John 5:19: "Most truly I say to you, the son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative but only what he beholds the father doing."

Matthew 19:17. "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."

John 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me

Jesus pbuh also said:

Blind belief is dangerous and destructive!. Bible tells us to prove things.
(I Thessalonians 5:21): “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

The teachings of the Church contradict the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that is the cause of the confusion. If a sincere christian who wants to follow Jesus, asks priests about trinity, the answer that he gets is "It is a Mystery, not explained by Jesus clearly", at that time again those forget that Jesus said,

"I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)).
There was no mystery in the message of Jesus, nothing secret. Will you accept the priests' so called "mystery of trinity" and forget clear commandments of Jesus? Trinity or divinity of Jesus to be anywhere close to basis of christian faith would have to be there in bible in clear words in any even one book of bible, with Jesus saying I am God, worship me, which is not. Doesn't it mean something to you.

The trinity is a doctrine from about the year 325 AD, It has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy (most probably added to christianity by humans to make it more acceptable to worshippers of more than one God). It is not in the bible unless you really, really stretch it to fit.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia - 1967, VOL. XIV, PAGE 299:

The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY. But it is precisely this formulation that first claimed to title "The Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING SUCH A MENTALITY OR PERSPECTIVE.

Indeed! He had already prophesied that people will worship him uselessly and will believe in doctrines not made by God but by men. (Matthew 15:9):
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”


Men make all doctrines of modern Christianity: the Trinity, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin and Atonement.


You should not accept the word “son” literally . Word "son" was used in bible for general human beings and other prophets also. "we all are the children of father in heavens" indicates that word "son" was used in different meaning of love and care.

Mathew: 5:9. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.”

Exodus 4:22.
“And thou (Moses) shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”

The belief that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is gurarenteed for believers of Jesus, and now actions do not have to fall in line with our faith, is not what Jesus preached clearly. It contradicts with interpretations and additions done by scribes/ historians centuries after Jesus:

Matt 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

There is no guranteed heaven for anyone, this life is a test, whether you pass and enter heaven or fail,.

Jesus said, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)


Jesus, Moses, Mohammad (p.b.u.h), they all worshiped the same God, the God of Ibrahim. All prophets taught "surrendering one's will to God" that is the meaning of word "Islam". Word "christianity" did not exist at the time of Christ, but you will find Jesus teachings to be "surrender your will to God" in bible many times.

JAMES 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.


Mohammad (peace be upon him) was also a messenger of God, who never claimed to be God, the same way Jesus or Moses never claimed to be God, nor did they ever say worship me. Bible confirms the coming of another true prophet as:

"The Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you."
[Bible - John 14:26]


If only the genuine followers of Jesus, who truly love him, read the Bible in context, and study the Qur’an, they will definitely reach the conclusion that GOD IS ONE, without any partners; and Jesus (pbuh) the son of Mary (pbuh) is a messenger of GOD!

Muslims love Jesus, they believe in his miraculous birth with the will of God without a father or sexual act (the way Adam was born without a mother and father), , they believe in miracles that Jesus performed with permission of God, muslims faith demands them to believe Jesus was a great prophet of God and belief in the original message of Jesus the massaya.

Muslims feel closer to the sincere Christians than to the Jews, or the idol worshippers and the atheists.

The Qur’an clearly says in Surah.5:v 82: “Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who are muslims (to be) the Jews and the idolators. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe; those who say: Lo! We are Christians. This is because there are among them priests and monks (i.e. persons entirely devoted to the service of God, as are the muslims) and because they are not proud.”

Qur’an, revealed to the Prophet Muhammed some 600 years after Jesus, (pbut) corrects the errors that crept (knowingly or unknowingly) into the message that Jesus brought. This book should prove to be a very valuable asset to both Muslims and Christians


The Holy Qur’an warns in Surah 5:73& 74: “They do blaspheme who say, Allah is Christ the son of Mary. But said Christ: O’ Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever joins other gods with Allah- Allah will forbid him the garden, (i.e. paradise) and the fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong doers, be no one to help”. “Surely they are disbelievers, those who say: Allah is one of the three in a Trinity: But there is none who has the right to be worshiped but one God (i.e. Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them”.

Decide whether you love Jesus and want to follow his clear words and be saved, or love other human beings who gave different meaning to his original words.


From:
www.sultan.org/books/muslimchristianialogue.pdf
With the greatest of respect Jesus is indded the only begotton Son of God and not as some belive through a sexual act. God can and does do anything and can do anything, God is awsome and amazing and created all that is in this universe and beyound God is the Supreme supernatural being and therefore capable of anything! In the beginning when man takes the forbidden fruit note how he God says 2 behold he has become like US! Not like ME! What does this imply? Here are further scriptural references that point to a majestic almighty powerful Trinity ( no the third is not the human mary as some think but God's Glorious Holy spirit): Consider these OT and NT SCRIPTURES:
Jews say that the Shema (pronounced Shmah), "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord"1 contradicts the Christian doctrine that Jesus is God. In addition, there are a number of other verses that proclaim that God is one (see God is One). However, the triunity of God is taught throughout the Old Testament, including the Shema! How can a statement of oneness imply plurality? The word translated "one" from the Hebrew is echad, which demonstrates compound unity of oneness. Specific examples of how echad demonstrates compound unity are found below:

  • For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one [echad] flesh. (Genesis 2:24)
  • Now the whole earth used the same [echad] language and the same [echad] words. (Genesis 11:1)
  • And the LORD said, "Behold, they are one [echad] people, and they all have the same [echad] language. And this is what they began to do, and now nothing which they purpose to do will be impossible for them. (Genesis 11:6)
  • Then we will give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves. We'll settle among you and become one [echad] people with you. (Genesis 34:16)
  • Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the LORD and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one [echad] voice, and said, "All the words which the LORD has spoken we will do!" (Exodus 24:3)
  • Then they came to the valley of Eshcol and from there cut down a branch with a single [echad] cluster of grapes; and they carried it on a pole between two men, with some of the pomegranates and the figs. (Numbers 13:23)
  • The whole [echad] assembly numbered 42,360, (Ezra 2:64)
  • They will be my people, and I will be their God. I will give them singleness [echad] of heart and action, so that they will always fear me for their own good and the good of their children after them. (Jeremiah 32:38-39)

These are a few of the many examples of how echad is used to show the unity of oneness. How would the Hebrew be different if God had wanted to express absolute oneness? There is another Hebrew word, yachid, that is used to express the idea of absolute oneness. Examples of it are shown below:

  • And He said, "Take now your son, your only [yachid] son, whom you love, Isaac, and go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I will tell you." (Genesis 22:2)
  • And he said, "Do not stretch out your hand against the lad, and do nothing to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, from Me." (Genesis 22:12)
  • and said, "By Myself I have sworn, declares the LORD, because you have done this thing, and have not withheld your son, your only [yachid] son, (Genesis 22:16)
  • When Jephthah came to his house at Mizpah, behold, his daughter was coming out to meet him with tambourines and with dancing. Now she was his one and only [yachid] child; besides her he had neither son nor daughter. (Judges 11:34)
  • Deliver my soul from the sword, My only [yachid] life from the power of the dog. (Psalm 22:20)
  • Turn to me and be gracious to me, For I am lonely [yachid] and afflicted. (Psalm 25:16)
  • Lord, how long wilt Thou look on? Rescue my soul from their ravages, My only [yachid] life from the lions. (Psalm 35:17)
  • God makes a home for the lonely [yachid]; He leads out the prisoners into prosperity, only the rebellious dwell in a parched land. (Psalm 68:6)
  • When I was a son to my father, Tender and the only [yachid] son in the sight of my mother, (Proverbs 4:3)
  • O daughter of my people, put on sackcloth And roll in ashes; Mourn as for an only [yachid] son, A lamentation most bitter. For suddenly the destroyer Will come upon us. (Jeremiah 6:26)
  • "Then I shall turn your festivals into mourning And all your songs into lamentation; And I will bring sackcloth on everyone's loins And baldness on every head. And I will make it like a time of mourning for an only [yachid] son, And the end of it will be like a bitter day. (Amos 8:10)
  • "And I [YHVH]2 will pour out on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and of supplication, so that they will look on Me whom they have pierced; and they will mourn for Him, as one mourns for an only [yachid] son, and they will weep bitterly over Him, like the bitter weeping over a first-born. (Zechariah 12:10)

Of course, the last verse is a famous messianic prophecy proclaiming how the Messiah would be killed (see Jesus Christ - Messiah of the Rabbinical Writers). If the Shema had intended to express absolute oneness, it would have used the Hebrew word yachid instead of echad. However, the word yachid is never used in reference to God (Elohim)!
The Hebrew word translated "God" is the word El or Elohim. Elohim is the plural form of El. The plural form is used 2607 of the 2845 times the word "God" is used in the Old Testament. Not only is the word for God usually used in the plural form, but several verses refer to God as "Us":

  • Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Genesis 1:26)
  • Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he stretch out his hand, and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"-- (Genesis 3:22)
  • "Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." (Genesis 11:7)
  • Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?" Then I said, "Here am I. Send me!" (Isaiah 6:8)

An example of how the Hebrew word Elohim is used in the plural is that it is translated "gods" (referring to idols) 235 times in the Old Testament. It is exactly the same word that is translated "God," referring to the Almighty. An example is given below:
"I am the LORD your God [Elohim], who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. "You shall have no other gods [Elohim] before Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)
Not only is the plurality of God found in the Old Testament, but the members of the triunity are also defined. Several Old Testament verses tell us that God is our Father:

  • "Do you thus repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is not He your Father who has bought you? He has made you and established you. (Deuteronomy 32:6)
  • "He will cry to Me, 'Thou art my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.' (Psalm 89:26)
  • For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. (Isaiah 9:6)
  • For Thou art our Father, though Abraham does not know us, And Israel does not recognize us. Thou, O LORD, art our Father, Our Redeemer from of old is Thy name. (Isaiah 63:16)
  • But now, O LORD, Thou art our Father, We are the clay, and Thou our potter; And all of us are the work of Thy hand. (Isaiah 64:8)
  • "Have you not just now called to Me, 'My Father, Thou art the friend of my youth? (Jeremiah 3:4)
  • "Then I said, 'How I would set you among My sons, And give you a pleasant land, The most beautiful inheritance of the nations!' And I said, 'You shall call Me, My Father, And not turn away from following Me.' (Jeremiah 3:19)

The Son is also found in the Old Testament:

  • "I will surely tell of the decree of the LORD: He said to Me, 'Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee. (Psalm 2:7)
  • Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled. How blessed are all who take refuge in Him! (Psalm 2:12)
  • Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His Son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)
  • "I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. "And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations, and men of every language Might serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. (Daniel 7:13-14)

The third member of the triunity of God, The Holy Spirit, is also found extensively in the Old Testament:
Genesis 1:2 1 Samuel 11:6 Psalm 106:33 Ezekiel 3:24 Genesis 6:3 1 Samuel 16:13 Psalm 139:7 Ezekiel 8:3 Exodus 31:3 1 Samuel 16:14 Psalm 143:10 Ezekiel 11:1 Exodus 35:31 1 Samuel 19:20 Isaiah 11:2 Ezekiel 11:5 Numbers 11:17 1 Samuel 19:23 Isaiah 30:1 Ezekiel 11:24 Numbers 11:25 2 Samuel 23:2 Isaiah 32:15 Ezekiel 36:27 Numbers 11:26 1 Kings 18:12 Isaiah 34:16 Ezekiel 37:1 Numbers 11:29 1 Kings 22:24 Isaiah 40:13 Ezekiel 37:14 Numbers 24:2 2 Kings 2:16 Isaiah 42:1 Ezekiel 39:29 Numbers 27:18 1 Chronicles 12:18 Isaiah 44:3 Ezekiel 43:5 Judges 3:10 2 Chronicles 15:1 Isaiah 48:16 Joel 2:28 Judges 6:34 2 Chronicles 18:23 Isaiah 59:21 Joel 2:29 Judges 11:29 2 Chronicles 20:14 Isaiah 61:1 Micah 2:7 Judges 13:25 2 Chronicles 24:20 Isaiah 63:10 Micah 3:8 Judges 14:6 Nehemiah 9:20 Isaiah 63:11 Haggai 2:5 Judges 14:19 Nehemiah 9:30 Isaiah 63:14 Zechariah 4:6 Judges 15:14 Job 33:4 Ezekiel 2:2 Zechariah 7:12 1 Samuel 10:6 Psalm 51:11 Ezekiel 3:12 Zechariah 12:10 1 Samuel 10:10 Psalm 104:30 Ezekiel 3:14 Malachi 2:15
Finally, there are a number of verses in the Old Testament in which the triunity of God is directly expressed:

  • Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His Son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)
  • Then a shoot will spring from the stem of Jesse, And a branch from his roots will bear fruit. And the Spirit of the LORD will rest on Him, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, The spirit of counsel and strength, The spirit of knowledge and the fear of the LORD. (Isaiah 11:1-2)
  • "Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations. (Isaiah 42:1)
  • "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." (Isaiah 48:16)
  • The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, Because the LORD has anointed Me To bring good news to the afflicted; He has sent Me to bind up the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to captives, And freedom to prisoners; (Isaiah 61:1)
  • In all their affliction He was afflicted, And the angel of His presence saved them; In His love and in His mercy He redeemed them; And He lifted them and carried them all the days of old. But they rebelled And grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore, He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them. (Isaiah 63:9-10)

Some of the verses above include all members of the triunity (Isaiah 42:1, Isaiah 48:16, and Isaiah 61:1). Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons. How can God simultaneously exist as both singular and plural? It is a logical impossibility if God were restricted to the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time of our physical universe. However, the attributes of God, given by the Bible, provide a reasonable explanation of how this paradox can be resolved. For more information, see The Extradimensional Nature of God.


Peace and Blessings to you
Reply

aadil77
04-07-2010, 10:01 PM
god doesn't haven no son nor needs one, don't know whats wrong people for belittling god to a human with the need for children

Reply

Supreme
04-07-2010, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
god doesn't haven no son nor needs one, don't know whats wrong people for belittling god to a human with the need for children
God doesn't need creation. He doesn't need humanity. He doesn't need a religion for people to worship Him. He doesn't need non believers. He doesn't need people praying to Him, remembering Him, reading about Him. God doesn't need anything. I don't bother to question what God needs; God clearly does not need anything. Indeed, the very essence of questioning what God needs is foolish and actually a waste of time. What is better is thinking about what God has already established; He doesn't need anything, He doesn't need humanity or books about Him or a Son, but He clearly want these things. (well, in Christianity, anyway.)
Reply

marwen
04-07-2010, 10:19 PM
Originally Posted by freethinking
Therefore, the Old Testament does reveal the Christian concept of the Godhead, with God being one God, consisting of three persons. How can God simultaneously exist as both singular and plural? It is a logical impossibility if God were restricted to the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time of our physical universe. However, the attributes of God, given by the Bible, provide a reasonable explanation of how this paradox can be resolved.
You mean it's just one God who have three forms (if I can say that) ?
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-07-2010, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by marwen
You mean it's just one God who have three forms (if I can say that) ?
Yes and no. Certainly you are correct in saying that it is just one God. The part that has me hedging my answer is because you said "who have three forms". If you mean three different manifestations, then actually no. If you mean who is three different substances, then an even bigger NO! But if you mean who is three different personas (and here I hestitate to use the English term "person" because most English speakers think of that as three different individuals, which we most certainly do not mean), then YES.
Reply

aadil77
04-07-2010, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
God doesn't need creation. He doesn't need humanity. He doesn't need a religion for people to worship Him. He doesn't need non believers. He doesn't need people praying to Him, remembering Him, reading about Him. God doesn't need anything. I don't bother to question what God needs; God clearly does not need anything. Indeed, the very essence of questioning what God needs is foolish and actually a waste of time. What is better is thinking about what God has already established; He doesn't need anything, He doesn't need humanity or books about Him or a Son, but He clearly want these things. (well, in Christianity, anyway.)
True, god is free of needs, but what we need to understand is the qualities of god, Allah, he is one, alone, self sufficient and free of partners, from these qualities you can work out that he would not take up a son as it would be against His Majesticness
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-07-2010, 10:27 PM
Originally Posted by aadil77
True, god is free of needs, but what we need to understand is the qualities of god, Allah, he is one, alone, self sufficient and free of partners...
Surprise, I actually agree with you (or at least as far as I quoted I do). But, to say that Jesus is God the Son is not -- to the Christian way of thinking -- to say that God has partners nor even that God has taken up a Son.

Now, that's the short form, something I'm seldom gifted with. You can only guess if you ask me to expand on what we do mean how many pages it might take to do that.
Reply

marwen
04-07-2010, 11:04 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yes and no. Certainly you are correct in saying that it is just one God. The part that has me hedging my answer is because you said "who have three forms". If you mean three different manifestations, then actually no. If you mean who is three different substances, then an even bigger NO! But if you mean who is three different personas (and here I hestitate to use the English term "person" because most English speakers think of that as three different individuals, which we most certainly do not mean), then YES.
Thanks Grace Seeker for you response. Ok I'm not sure I totally understood that, but I'm certain you know what you're saying, I'm just having difficulties to understand this christian conception of God, which,I think, is for you much easier to aprehend.

let me try to understand the third (the right) explanation you made :
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
...But if you mean who is three different personas (and here I hestitate to use the English term "person" because most English speakers think of that as three different individuals, which we most certainly do not mean), then YES.
The term personas means : roles if I understood correctly the latin definition. I think it's a term used also in theater to refer the different roles played by one actor. So do you mean the three "forms" (The Father, The Son, The Holy spirit) are three different roles/aspects of one God. Sorry to bother you again. There is some notions that are evidences for christian brothers but not really clear enough for me.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-07-2010, 11:56 PM
Originally Posted by marwen
The term personas means : roles if I understood correctly the latin definition. I think it's a term used also in theater to refer the different roles played by one actor. So do you mean the three "forms" (The Father, The Son, The Holy spirit) are three different roles/aspects of one God. Sorry to bother you again. There is some notions that are evidences for christian brothers but not really clear enough for me.
That's pretty close. And in truth, if you are that close, that is closer than 98% of Christian laity would understand (I'm afraid most lay Christians are probably modalistic in their thinking). If you want to get closer, go behind the Latin drama terms to think of Greek plays -- how one actor might present different personas to the audience by simply changing the mask that he held up. He isn't necessarily changing the character he is playing, but the way in which the character interacts with the audience. Since you seem to be a bit of a linguist, you might like to consider that the Greek terms used in the original description of what those who first articulated the concept of "God in three persons" held that the three personas were homoousios -- [i]homo]/i] meaning "same" and ousios meaning "substance" -- so that it was saying that while the personas of Father, Son, and Spirit were distinct from each other, that they were still of just one substance. And I don't mean of similar substance meaning like one another (which would indeed mean three different gods), but of the one same substance (by which they meant to categorically state there really was just one God) even if that was confusing and illogical to human ways of thinking.

The other caution I always like to ask of deeper thinkers who are looking for understanding (as you appear to be) versus those who just like to find ammo for future arguments, is to remember that the discussion of the three-in-one God was not meant to define who or what God is, but to be descriptive of what they already understood to be true with regard to how they saw God manifesting himself in the scriptures.
Reply

Ramadhan
04-08-2010, 04:23 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If you want to get closer, go behind the Latin drama terms to think of Greek plays -- how one actor might present different personas to the audience by simply changing the mask that he held up. He isn't necessarily changing the character he is playing, but the way in which the character interacts with the audience. Since you seem to be a bit of a linguist, you might like to consider that the Greek terms used in the original description of what those who first articulated the concept of "God in three persons" held that the three personas were homoousios -- [i]homo]/i] meaning "same" and ousios meaning "substance" -- so that it was saying that while the personas of Father, Son, and Spirit were distinct from each other, that they were still of just one substance. And I don't mean of similar substance meaning like one another (which would indeed mean three different gods), but of the one same substance (by which they meant to categorically state there really was just one God) even if that was confusing and illogical to human ways of thinking.
sounds to me the idea of a 3-in-1 god is taken from Greek mythology/tragedy drama.
Maybe it was indeed created to appeal to the latin masses
Reply

Ramadhan
04-08-2010, 04:30 AM
Originally Posted by freethinking
With the greatest of respect Jesus is indded the only begotton Son of God and not as some belive through a sexual act. God can and does do anything and can do anything, God is awsome and amazing and created all that is in this universe and beyound God is the Supreme supernatural being and therefore capable of anything! In the beginning when man takes the forbidden fruit note how he God says 2 behold he has become like US! Not like ME! What does this imply? Here are further scriptural references that point to a majestic almighty powerful Trinity ( no the third is not the human mary as some think but God's Glorious Holy spirit): Consider these OT and NT SCRIPTURES:


..truncated...

"Son of God" is a figure of speech which have been proven to be the name given to a human being or a spirit worshiping God ( many other Prophets were labeled as for example:

(Psalms 2:7) David is the begotten Son of God.

Many others in the Bible are called God's son:
Jacob God's firstborn son (Exodus 4:22)
Solomon is God's son (2 Samuel 7:13-14)
Ephraim is God's firstborn son (Jeremiah 31:9)
Adam is the son of God (Luke 3:38)

Other Prophets were Labeled as Messiah for example {1 Samuel 15:17} Which in Hebrew means Anointed/Chosen/Prophet;

Solomon (1 Kings 1:39)
David (1 Samuel 16:13)
Jewish priests (Leviticus 4)

Yea but Jesus (as) performed miracles! Well other Prophets Preformed similar Miracles as Jesus ;

Ezekiel raised many from the dead (Ezekiel 37:1-9)
Joshua stopped the sun and moon for one whole day (Joshua 10:12-13)
Elisha raised the dead, resurrected himself, healed a leper, fed a hundred people with twenty barley loaves and a few ears of corn, and healed a blind man: (2 Kings 4:35, 13:21, 5:14, 4:44, and 6:11)
Elijah raised the dead (1 Kings 17:22 and 14.)

Ok, but Jesus was part of the Trinity since he was one with the Holy Ghost ! But other Prophets were filled with the Holy Ghost:

Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:67)

Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost (Luke 1:41)
Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 4:8)

Paul, filled with the Holy Ghost (Acts 13:9)
But althrough the Bible Jesus (as) was called LORD. Many other Prophets were called Lord for example;

Abraham (Genesis 18:12)
Esau (Genesis 32:4)
Joseph (Genesis 44:20)
David (1 Samuel 25:24)
Anymore? Today if you see a man washing his face, arms, legs, earls, mouth, hair and elbows before goin to pray, you would say this is a Muslim. Well guess what? Jesus taught to rinse before Praying as Muslims do {John 13:10}

But now if you would see a man bowed down head on the floor praying for God, you would say, "look at that Muslim!"... Jesus bowed down in Submission on the Ground to God as Muslims do:

"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt"

{Matthew 26:39}

Moses(as):"And Moses bowed to the ground and worshiped" (Exodus 34:8)

Moses(as) & Aaron (as):"Then Moses and Aaron went away from the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting and fell on their faces..." (Numbers 20:6)

Abraham (as):"then Abram fell on his face" (Genesis 17:3)

Abraham's servant: "When Abraham's servant heard their words, he bowed himself to the ground before the Lord" (Genesis 24:52)

Joshua(as):"And Joshua fell on his face to the earth and worshiped." (Joshua 5:14)

Ezra and the people: "Then they bowed their heads and worshiped the lord with their faces to the ground." (Nehemiah 8:6)
Reply

Supreme
04-08-2010, 10:12 AM
Originally Posted by naidamar
sounds to me the idea of a 3-in-1 god is taken from Greek mythology/tragedy drama.
Maybe it was indeed created to appeal to the latin masses
Perhaps, but the idea that God conveyed Himself the way He did simply to appease humanity is quite an alien concept in Christianity.
Reply

freethinking
04-08-2010, 11:10 AM
We who believe are all God's children and therefore God is our Father but only Jeus existed before this universe was created and came to earth to do his Fathers will to save us all as the lamb of God by going like a lamb to sacrifice his human life to cleanse our sins by the grace of His Blood.
Contrast this with Abrahms willingness to sacrifice his son and when God saw Abrahms heart he stopped him but did give his son.
Our Lord is truely Awesome.
No man at such a young age (33 when he was crucified with only a 3 year ministry in the most unfavourable environment), has had such a lasting and profound impact as our Saviour for over two thousand years.

I also believe the Holy spirit is God the Ftahers holy spirit but the Holy Spirit does come to us whenever we ask the Father in Jesus name and is also known throughout the Bible as the comforter, wisdom provider of peace and guidance but it is God's holy spirit and the deliverer of messages from God through the angels and also directly to us. The Trinity is a mystery for us in this universe, which I belive when we are raised to heaven we will understand better in the next eternity and beyond.

Consider also that the last book of the Bible is "The REVELATION OF JESUS CHRIST" In which it is stated we shall take our place in heaven with God and JESUS WILL BE SEATED AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER

Glory be to God
Reply

Ramadhan
04-08-2010, 03:14 PM
Originally Posted by Supreme
Perhaps, but the idea that God conveyed Himself the way He did simply to appease humanity is quite an alien concept in Christianity.

the fact remains that the concept of 3-in-1 god had much higher appeal to the latin masses who were used to the greek and roman gods than the idea of One Absolute God.
So have you ever thought that early christian leaders "tweaked" Jesus pbuh teachings to make christianity more popular, which culminated in the Nicea Council in the 4rd century?
The idea of christian leaders tweaking Jesus pbuh teachings shouldnt sound so alien to current christians. Even now, churches leaders keep changing christianity, for example, give blessings to homosexual acts and/or relationships, etc.
Reply

Supreme
04-08-2010, 04:01 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
the fact remains that the concept of 3-in-1 god had much higher appeal to the latin masses who were used to the greek and roman gods than the idea of One Absolute God.
So have you ever thought that early christian leaders "tweaked" Jesus pbuh teachings to make christianity more popular, which culminated in the Nicea Council in the 4rd century?
Not really. Christianity was already a fast growing religion before it started to appeal to the 'Latin masses'- and rather than change the teachings of Christianity to make it more popular, the emperors simply enforced it on the Empire, as evidenced by Emperor Theodosius outlawing paganism. It makes sense, really. Why bother to change the teachings of a religion when you have the power to force people to convert anyway? There simply is no point.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-08-2010, 10:24 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
"Son of God" is a figure of speech which have been proven to be the name given to a human being or a spirit worshiping God ( many other Prophets were labeled as for example:
Indeed. All the more reason to be careful to see what is meant by the figure and how it is being used by the writer. In the case of the author of the Gospel of John, we note that he uses the term μονογενη (monogene) or μονογενους (monogenous) as an adjective to better describe the figure. Such a term is used a grand total of 9 times in scripture.

Luke uses it three times , and does so in the normal way to speak of a person's only child. But the majority of occassions are in Johannian writings (5 times). It is also used one in Hebrews, where it is definitely used in a different, and I believe telling, way.

John 1:14 "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only (μονογενους) who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (NIV)
John 1:18"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only (μονογενη), who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (NIV )
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only (μονογενη) Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (NIV)
John 3:18 "Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only (μονογενους) Son." (NIV)
1 John 4:9 "This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only (μονογενη) Son into the world that we might live through him." (NIV)
Hebrews 11:17 "By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only (μονογενη) son." (NIV)

The reason that I believe Hebrews is telling is because it reports Isaac as the μονογενη of Abraham. Now, when recall Abraham's story, we know that Abraham had more than one son. He had two well-known sons: Isaac and Ishmael. And if the author of Hebrews had also been aware of 1 Chronicles 1:32, then he would have known about more sons: Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah (by Abraham's concubine Keturah and Sheba and Dedan (by Jokshan). So, most certainly Isaac was not Abraham's "one and only" son nor, as the KJV phrases it) his only begotten son. I want to suggest that Isaac was however the one and only son of the promise that God made with Abraham when he promised him that he would have a son through his wife Sarah. Isaac was unique in that way. And I think that the terms μονογενη (monogene) and μονογενους (monogenous) are best understood not as referring to some biological truth, but as an adjective describing uniqueness.

And thus, while it may be true that say that God has many sons (and many daughters for that matter), Jesus is unique among them. Jesus is unique in that God sent him "that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16). Jesus is unique because "that we might live through him" (1 John 4:9). Jesus is unique because he is the μονογενους "who came from the Father, full of grace and truth" (John 1:14).

Jesus is unique because there is none like him. These things are true of no one else on earth. There is none like Jesus for Jesus is "the Word [who] became flesh and made his dwelling among us" (John 1:14). In his Revelation (19:13) John tells us that Jesus' name is "the Word of God". And regarding this word, previously mentioned in the John 1 pericope, we have already learned "the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning (John 1:1-2). That would indeed make Jesus unique for of no one else does scripture affirmed that he was God. And yet this passage does so twice. For it not only does so in John 1:1, but again -- this Word not only comes in the flesh, but John testifies that he has seen his glory, and it is the glory of the "One and Only" (John 1:14) and then we are told the identify of that "One and Only" a second time, it is "God the One and Only" (John 1:18). God, "who is at the Father's side" (John 1:18), has made him (the Word) known.
Reply

Grace Seeker
04-08-2010, 10:31 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
So have you ever thought that early christian leaders "tweaked" Jesus pbuh teachings to make christianity more popular, which culminated in the Nicea Council in the 4rd century?
Actually, I do believe that there was some "tweaking" going on. But not to appeal to the Gentile world, rather to be sure that it was soundly anchored in the Hebrew scriptures. Reading Paul, the evidence suggests that Paul clearly wanted to articulate Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. And he wanted to show the Gentile world that they needed this Messiah, that they didn't even know anything about, because salvation was of the Jews -- Jesus words (John 4:22) and Paul's modus operandi (Romans 1:16).
Reply

جوري
04-11-2010, 05:24 PM
Originally Posted by naidamar
the fact remains that the concept of 3-in-1 god had much higher appeal to the latin masses who were used to the greek and roman gods than the idea of One Absolute God.
.
Not only that but folks of old wanted a god that they can see it captured their provincial minds better and better still I'd say ..naturally they didn't think that in the future that concept will be completely ludicrous, the same way when they re-wrote the bible and didn't know how to repopulate a ****ed town so they fixed so that the only righteous man ended up sleeping with his two daughters..
the only way for any of it to remain viable is only through the concept of antiquity and nothing else, even if their forefathers weren't any wiser than they are, in fact even less so!

:w:
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2012, 09:35 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 11:18 PM
  4. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-05-2012, 03:25 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-22-2006, 12:52 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!