The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea

[NoName55]

:sl:

For meanings of difficult words or terms click on any word where mouse pointer changes to a pointing hand

Different schools of thought were developed by the 4th century. In Antioch, literal interpretation of Scripture was emphasized, putting the writings in a historical context. Arius (a native of Libya) argued that the Father alone is true God, and Jesus was not God. Since Jesus was created by God, there would be a time when Jesus did not exist and Arius used Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28 (the Father is greater than I) as his proof text.

In Alexandria, Egypt, allegorical (mystical) interpretation was taught and Alexandrians could then spiritualise the text so they could make excuses, reject reason and explain away any unwanted literal reference by claiming it was allegorical.
They relied on the Gnostic John 1:1 written by a Greek around 100 CE. Much of their philosophy was based mainly on Plato and Egyptian paganism.

Alexander of Alexandria issued a statement that Christ was homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Son and Father and thus Jesus was also the Father or God come to earth as a man.
Arius thought that was dangerously close to heresy and plain stupid, so he said that the Father alone is true God more in line with reason and the content of the Bible. This controversy was tearing the church apart, so Constantine issued an invitation to settle this dispute at the Council of Nicaea. And the rest is history

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea to settle the dispute over Arianism. He was the Emperor of Rome (who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun, Contrary to popular myth, Constantine was a pagan till his very last breath and was baptized on his deathbed by Eusubius, Bishop of Nicomedia) presided over this council.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica

"In his theological interpretation of the idea of God, Arius was interested in maintaining a formal understanding of the oneness of God. In defence of the oneness of God, he was obliged to dispute the sameness of essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, as stressed by the theologians of the Neoplatonic influenced Alexandrian school. From the outset, the controversy between both parties took place upon the common basis of the Napoleonic concept of substance, which was foreign to the New Testament itself. It is no wonder that the continuation of the dispute on the basis of the metaphysics of substance likewise led to concepts that have no foundation in the New Testament--such as the question of the sameness of essence (homoousia) or similarity of essence (homoiousia) of the divine persons."

It was 325 A.D. at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius (using Mafia tactics) in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshiper and only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the alleged sudden adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after.

[Grace Seeker]

You are correct as to the content of Arius' view and the views of others such as Alexander and Athanasius (though I consider the reference to mafia tactics to be untrue and an ad hominem argument). But as to which of them most align with the Bible, as to Christ's nature I provide the following passage which speaks for itself:

Philippians 2
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature God,

Also, John 1:1 and the rest of John were written before the turn of the first century by John the disciple. This is attested to by Polycarp who was himself a disciple of John. Further John was decidely anti-gnostic. There is certainly a Greek influence in the language, but the though process is still very Aramaic.

Arius was not the only bishop who thought as he did, I believe there were two others out of over 300 bishops.


You are perfectly welcome to say that we got it wrong, just don't tell me that this is something created at Nicea. The doctrine was never formally stated till then, true. But the thoughts and beliefs that it expressed have been part of Christian teaching since the day of Pentecost.

[Amadeus85]

We catholics believe that God works in this Church.Thats why we believe that Church exists for 2000 years and still remains the biggest christian denomination.We also believe that thanks to God's power Catholic Church is one and not divided. We also believe that thanks to God's power, catholics managed to reject false gnosticism and false beliefs like Arianism.

[NoName55]

edit :zip:

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

[Jayda]

:sl:

For meanings of difficult words or terms click on any word where mouse pointer changes to a pointing hand

Different schools of thought were developed by the 4th century. In Antioch, literal interpretation of Scripture was emphasized, putting the writings in a historical context. Arius (a native of Libya) argued that the Father alone is true God, and Jesus was not God. Since Jesus was created by God, there would be a time when Jesus did not exist and Arius used Proverbs 8:22 and John 14:28 (the Father is greater than I) as his proof text.

In Alexandria, Egypt, allegorical (mystical) interpretation was taught and Alexandrians could then spiritualise the text so they could make excuses, reject reason and explain away any unwanted literal reference by claiming it was allegorical.
They relied on the Gnostic John 1:1 written by a Greek around 100 CE. Much of their philosophy was based mainly on Plato and Egyptian paganism.

Alexander of Alexandria issued a statement that Christ was homoousios (same substance) to describe the relationship between Son and Father and thus Jesus was also the Father or God come to earth as a man.
Arius thought that was dangerously close to heresy and plain stupid, so he said that the Father alone is true God more in line with reason and the content of the Bible. This controversy was tearing the church apart, so Constantine issued an invitation to settle this dispute at the Council of Nicaea. And the rest is history

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea to settle the dispute over Arianism. He was the Emperor of Rome (who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun, Contrary to popular myth, Constantine was a pagan till his very last breath and was baptized on his deathbed by Eusubius, Bishop of Nicomedia) presided over this council.

From Encyclopaedia Britannica
It was 325 A.D. at Nicaea that the doctrine of the Trinity was rammed through by Athanasius (using Mafia tactics) in a Council that was overseen by the Emperor Constantine who, ironically enough thought of himself as God-incarnate. (Constantine was a Sun Worshiper and only made an official conversion to "Christianity" on his deathbed). Roman coins of the period still portrayed the image of the sun God despite the alleged sudden adoption/conversion of Christianity. Many of those present at the Council of Nicaea were opposed the doctrine of the Trinity, siding with Arius. Even after the Nicene Creed, the Trinity was still hotly debated for decades and centuries after.

hola

you forgot to mention three really important facts: all of the fathers and arius believed God in trinity (that God is triune), they disagreed about the origins of the persons; second constantine was an arian; finally that the trinitarians were persecuted by the empire for the next 100 years, including athanasius who was jailed and tortured.

que Dios te bendiga

[NoName55]

hola

you forgot to mention three really important facts: all of the fathers and arius believed God in trinity (that God is triune), they disagreed about the origins of the persons; second constantine was an arian; finally that the trinitarians were persecuted by the empire for the next 100 years, including athanasius who was jailed and tortured.

que Dios te bendiga

I stopped replying to this thread for lack of realtime moderation (i.e not keeping it between one Christian and one Muslim) I admitted defeat saying: Lakum deenukum waliya deen... To you be your Way, and to me mine.

read all about The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He created @ http://www.sullivan-county.com/identity/trinity.htm

The Update>> The Nicene Creed and the Trinity, another look

[barney]

I still dont understand how the living flesh of the creator of the universe only figured out he was supposed to start preaching when he was 27.

"Hey Jesus! Mate! long time no see, what ya up to these days?"

"Hi, Zeke, yeah long time...ahh not much, did a bit of carpentry helping my Dad out, but next year i'm taking a break and becoming the omnipresent,omnipotent creator of everything from the begining until infinity, and none shall enter paradise till they love me more than their family and all mankind"

" Hey , congrats! I've been mainly fishing since i left school, still , nice to see someone doing well for themselves"

[Whatsthepoint]

We also believe that thanks to God's power Catholic Church is one and not divided.

Lol.:D
If the catholic church remained undivided no other christian church/denomination would exist. Well, there are literrally thousands.
I guess you were trying to say that the Roman Catholic church of today is not divided...well, it is.

[Whatsthepoint]

I still dont understand how the living flesh of the creator of the universe only figured out he was supposed to start preaching when he was 27.

"Hey Jesus! Mate! long time no see, what ya up to these days?"

"Hi, Zeke, yeah long time...ahh not much, did a bit of carpentry helping my Dad out, but next year i'm taking a break and becoming the omnipresent,omnipotent creator of everything from the begining until infinity, and none shall enter paradise till they love me more than their family and all mankind"

" Hey , congrats! I've been mainly fishing since i left school, still , nice to see someone doing well for themselves"

My guess is that Jesus studied jewish striptures in order to "fulfill" the prophecies about the messiah.

Matthew 2,23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

I'm not a native English speaker but it sounds to me he moved there for the sake of the prophecy..

[barney]

Darned sight easier just to pop out of the ether fully grown and in multiple places to spread the message to all mankind with perfection, rather than spending half a lifetime building chairs and knocking out bookcases, to suddenly up sticks and stand around mumbeling a few contridicatary, ambiguous, parables, before getting the established Church so worked up that they have you topped.

[جوري]

what did he gain out of it? I am not christian but I am always interested into what you believe motive is behind such observations.. fact is you have to satify all facets to come up with worthy thesis and one if them is what would a poor man gain by fulfilling prophecies for a refractory bunch who were known to kill and or maim their messengers to the point where none were spared, not even Moses and so testifies the old testament...

[barney]

C'mon PA!
You are being followed about by a massive crowd of people, being presented with gifts, everyone wants to know you, worship you and be your freind. You become a Superstar Celebrity in a time where the only celebs were Celebs by birthright (Kings & Emperors). You go down in history as GOD!

Your a smart Banana, dont tell me you cant see that he stood to get something out of it!
Wealth, love, Fame, Free food, free lodging, free transport, bodygaurds, power......

Or you can deliver a few flatpack shelves to the locals and be a nobody.

[Whatsthepoint]

what did he gain out of it? I am not christian but I am always interested into what you believe motive is behind such observations.. fact is you have to satify all facets to come up with worthy thesis and one if them is what would a poor man gain by fulfilling prophecies for a refractory bunch who were known to kill and or maim their messengers to the point where none were spared, not even Moses and so testifies the old testament...

I don't know. People do all sorts of stuff. Perhaps he wanted fame, money, women. Perhaps he really believed he was the messia and felt he needed to fullfil the prophecies. He might have been doing it subconsciously.
And year 30 Judea was different form the old testament. There were many so called prophets, lots of freedom fighters...one of them was Jesus.

[barney]

I don't know. People do all sorts of stuff. Perhaps he wanted fame, money, women. Perhaps he really believed he was the messia and felt he needed to fullfil the prophecies. He might have been doing it subconsciously.
And year 30 Judea was different form the old testament. There were many so called prophets, lots of freedom fighters...one of them was Jesus.

It's a Lottery really, out of every prophet a percentage strike lucky and be beleived. It happens to this day, and we send em straight to the nearest Mental Health Institution under Section. Ron Hubbard is the best recent case, though Dave Koresh would have gone if he lived. In the old days , failed prophets got stoned before they managed to build a Critical mass of followers.

[جوري]

C'mon PA!
You are being followed about by a massive crowd of people, being presented with gifts, everyone wants to know you, worship you and be your freind. You become a Superstar Celebrity in a time where the only celebs were Celebs by birthright (Kings & Emperors). You go down in history as GOD!

Your a smart Banana, dont tell me you cant see that he stood to get something out of it!
Wealth, love, Fame, Free food, free lodging, free transport, bodygaurds, power......

I'd love to believe that if it were true... but it isn't.. in fact the exact opposite of that... people in general are comfortable in their old ways and don't like change... what did the Confuscists do to the Daoists once that school of thought emerged? yes eunuchated them!.. seems like a heavy price to pay to go down in history. .. getting back to Jesus.. this here what you just wrote doesn't reconcile with him...I am not going to look at it from the christian perspective but from the Islamic one. He was only sent to the lost sheep of Bani Israel so I am not sure what fame you are talking about.. church of nicea is a far cry from the Jesus we know islamically speaking, the jews to whom he was sent, were known as a refractory bunch, he didn't have gifts, in fact he is self-professed as having the earth for his bed and the sky for cover.. no one wanted to know him or be his friend save for the lepers.. seems like a sad existence for 32 or 33 short yrs on earth... in order for someone to enjoy such a wide popularity, he would have had to bring something extraordinary for his time.. 'miracle like' I can't speak for how what he stood for and what is has deranged over time.. But I am not seeing any of the things you've proposed at all in his character or actually in the character of any other messengers of Abrahamic lineage...

[barney]

He was cheered into jerusalam by crowds streching miles, lining his way with palm fronds. He had people washing his feet constantly, and when he washed other's feet, they told him he was wrong to do it.
He was clothed and fed and lodged and given transport and treated like a King. A king of the Jews.

I wont debate if he got a kick out of being God. it would be farcical to claim to know his motives, I'm just putting up the most obvious ones to me.

It's living life in the fast lane, and you need enough people to beleive so that any dissenters are quickly silenced or know to keep stum if they value their heads.
Fail at that, and you end up in the ground with the other failed prophets, Succeed and ultimate power over mankind on earth is yours. It's why so many tried, Jesus was a brilliant Orater and had the Cult of Personality.

[جوري]

what ever tickles your fancy barn.. I am not going to sit here and discuss chapter and verse and their purpose.. it is the same old talk.. trying to convince an atheist of the intricacies of life which they rebuff with a reference from dawkin or a mockery to Behe with no real substance... you have a head on your shoulder, I imagine you can reason your way through life..
as we say in arabic

3a'lak fi rasak t'eraf khlasak..


cheers

[barney]

Im not atheist! I never quote Dawkins as i think he's a bit of a fanatic.

Now i have to fret over what 3a'lak fi rasak t'eraf khlasak means all night.

but yeah, each to his/ her own. and as we say in Yorkshire, "tha's nowt s'queer uz folk"

[جوري]

Im not atheist! I never quote Dawkins as i think he's a bit of a fanatic.

Indeed I used it as a simile 'a resemblance between things of different kinds'

Now i have to fret over what 3a'lak fi rasak t'eraf khlasak means all night.

I already translated that.. 'If you have a sharp mind in your skull you'll reason your way out of a hole' -- eh roughly

but yeah, each to his/ her own. and as we say in Yorkshire, "tha's nowt s'queer uz folk

See, that is why I am an advocate of learning something new per day!
Though I can't say this was it for me ;D


cheers

[Grace Seeker]

Is there any thing the two of you don't fight over?


As to what Jesus had to gain....

If one accepts the Biblical record -- and even if you don't, that appears to be what everyone is working from at the moment, so I shall as well -- then Jesus was already offered money, power and fame at the very beginning by the devil and he turned it all down. His own preaching emphasized the fact that you cannot serve both God and money, and that if you were to be one of his followers you had no guarantees except that it would end in a cross. During his earthly ministry he was known as one who had no place to lay his head. It sounds like Jesus' earthly prospects would have been a lot brighter if he had taken pretty much any other route than the one he did, I'm willing to assume that he did for some unearthly (i.e. Godlly) reason.


As to why not start earlier? One might also ask, why not start later? The scriptures talk about it "being his time" or "in the fullness of time". Again, I'm going to assume that this timing was in the Father's hands.

I've already addressed the question as to why not come fully formed "popping in out of the ether" I think one of you said. If you're not willing to accept these answers it appears you're just asking questions to hear yourself talk, and I'm wasting my time in taking you seriously enough to answer them.

[barney]

I was going to start a thread about kittens, but diddnt because it would inevitably decend into pages and pages of cut and paste quotations from scripture and You-tube vids of beheadings.
:)

I must have missed the "popping out of the ether" post, sorry.
I would hazard a guess that it involved free will to beleive or disbeleive though.

[جوري]

Don't do it man..

[Grace Seeker]

I must have missed the "popping out of the ether" post, sorry.

You can read it here: http://www.islamicboard.com/858236-post430.html. It was in answer to basically the same question you asked in another thread.

[barney]

Ahh thanks Graceseeker. I hadnt seen it before.

Whilst I understand where you are going with the arguement, I gotta say I was doing my standard Aggy screwing my face up and biting my lip whilst squinting that this was a reason why Jesus hopped onto the Soapbox at 27 or 28 after a promising start in Carpentry.

My Mum always says, God knoweth every hair on your head. (Yup, she actualy says Knoweth). Now whilst i'm not a literalist to the point that I expect God to have some personal interest in hairdressing, I do take this to mean that he can see what is in our hearts, what we are doing, what we are thinking and what our Humanity is. (I'm not going to wander down the Bibilic bits where God asks Adam & Eve where they are as they hide from him in Eden. (My particular answer to that would be .."Shhhh, Eve, after he finds us , we can do the counting, God can hide")

As our creator and Knower of EVERYTHING, God dosnt need to spend time as a Human to say, Oooh! This is what it's like eh? Cool! Note To Self: On mark two humans , dont make Teeth with nerves He is hopefully already painfully aware of something as simple as our Humanity. (Although he did keep wiping out tens of thousands of people randomly for Human frailtys such as complaining).

Nope on balance, if my Mate Jeff came up to me and told me he was suddenly the actual incarnation-in-flesh of the supreme power, I would have a bit of trouble beleiving him.
As regards the miracles: Added in later for flavour. A rule for a big lie is tell it often and tell it officially.

BTW, I'm not trying to convert you Grace, just giving you my take on things.
Cheers.

[Imam]

as to Christ's nature I provide the following passage which speaks for itself:
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
.

Seeker, what did Jesus,according to that passage , in his human (incarnate) state, empty himself?

We have only two choices:

1- that at the time of the Incarnation, God emptied himself of his divine attributes so that he could become a man. And in becoming a man in the very real sense, And so there is the transformation from deity to humanity because he set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation; the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God.
.

2-or his transformation from deity to humanity never set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.His human nature was fully human, and his divine nature always and everywhere was fully divine.(fully man and fully God).

If so then


How could you have a being who is perfect and not perfect simultaneously?

Luke 18:19, Jesus responded: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God..


How could a being be infinite and finite at the same time?

Jesus (who is supposed to be always and everywhere was fully divine) cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).

How could a being be both ignorant of some facts and omniscient?

Jesus said"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations.



how could a being prayed to himself and there would have been no need for him to pray at all?
"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


how could a being send spirit to his own spirit?

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

Luke 23:46

If Jesus and God were "one substance" then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus.


How could one substance has two wills?

And "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
John 5:30
If Jesus and God were one substance then this ONE substance must only have ONE will.

How could a being of one substance forsake itself?

Jesus cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).


Plainly put it,If Jesus lacks a quality possessed by God or vice versa,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.or as you wish to call him(fully man and fully God).

Unless you are able to repeal the law of contradiction, Seeker, you are entangled in a hopeless quest for a phantasy.

[NoName55]

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read:

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official...The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)

Saul failed to mention three others that also reject the Trinity along with Jews and Muslims; Unitarians, Deists, and Jehovah's Witnesses. And only three groups today believe in the Trinity; Christians, Gnostics, and Hindus. The Hindu Trinity really isn't related to the other two, but among Christians and Gnostics, it's nearly identical, and both are related to the Gospel of John. We shall explore why, where the belief comes from, and how it ended up as the main focus of Christianity.

....

[Grace Seeker]

As our creator and Knower of EVERYTHING, God dosnt need to spend time as a Human to say, Oooh! This is what it's like eh? Cool! Note To Self: On mark two humans , dont make Teeth with nerves He is hopefully already painfully aware of something as simple as our Humanity. (Although he did keep wiping out tens of thousands of people randomly for Human frailtys such as complaining).

I never said that God was wanting to say that "this is what it's like eh?", as if he didn't understand humanity.

I said that the Christian message is that God came to reconcile the world to himself. For this reason he entered into humanity. Watching one of those Discover channel shows where they show how things are done, they commented on the importance when building a suspension bridge to anchor the cables solidly at both ends. Well, in reconciling the world to himself, God was basically building a bridge between himself and humanity. That connection had been there in the beginning at our creation, but sin had marred us to the point that the connection no longer existed. To reestablish that connection would take a perfect human being. Now perhaps you suspect that all persons are born perfect. I know that our Muslim brothers and sisters view infants this way. But the Bible does not. It presents ever person (even infants) as a fallen creature stained in our common humanity by the reality of sin. Jesus would enter the world sinless, and yet still share in our humanity. He would live a perfect life and offer it to the father as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. It sort of a bloody concept, and a lot of people turn away simply because of it, but that is what we are talking about. Neither you nor I would ever accomplish this task, if we could, then Jesus wouldn't have had to come. But we can't and so either God had to let us slip away or he had to reclaim us. The sacrifice was necessary in the justice of God. Again, some people don't want to have anything to do with a God that practices that type of justice, but again, that is the God described in the Bible. So, God enters humanity to offer himself on its behalf. And in entering humanity, he came as a child, because that's how real humans enter the world.

It's little wonder that Muslims and atheist reject this idea. About the only people that could ever accept it are Christians, and if you do accept it, there would be nothing to stop you from becoming a Christian.

[Imam]

The sacrifice was necessary in the justice of God. Again, some people don't want to have anything to do with a God that practices that type of justice, but again, that is the God described in the Bible. So, God enters humanity to offer himself on its behalf. And in entering humanity, he came as a child, because that's how real humans enter the world.

It's little wonder that Muslims and atheist reject this idea. About the only people that could ever accept it are Christians, and if you do accept it, there would be nothing to stop you from becoming a Christian.

You made several errors,seeker

1-Muslims basically reject such idea due to the fact,that the source (NT)from which christians quote such idea is proved to be mostly (non-inspired)

all you know about the so called blood atonment comes from Scripture. The validity of such idea depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of Scripture.

A non-inspired book isn't enough for Muslims ,Jews(whom you skipped from the list) and atheists to buy the idea of (Jesus atoned us through blood)...


2- Not true that Christian the only people that could ever accept it


"The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general. The gods Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, and others, had all suffered for mankind; and thus the Servant of Yahweh was also conceived as having to be wounded for' men's transgressions. But as I say, this conception had passed into the background in the days of Jesus" (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)



Quote (Kersey Graves: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors)

THERE were various practices in vogue amongst the orientalists, which originated with the design of appeasing the anger and propitiating the favor of a presumed to be irascible deity. Most of these practices consisted in some kind of sacrifice or destructive offering called the "atonement." But here let it be observed, that the doctrine of atonement for sin, by sacrifice, was unfolded by degrees, and that the crucifixion of a God was not the first practical exhibition of it. On the contrary, it appears to have commenced with the most valueless or cheapest species of property then known. And from this starting-point ascended gradually, so as finally to embody the most costly commodities; and did not stop here, but reached forward till it laid its murderous hands on human beings, and immolated them upon its bloody altars. And finally, to cap the climax, it assumed the effrontery to drag a God off the throne of heaven, to stretch its blood-thirsty spirit, as evinced by Paul's declaration, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin." Rather a bloody doctrine, and one which our humanity rejects with instinctive horror.

This idea obviously was suggested by observing that their earthly rulers always smiled, and became less rigorous in their laws, and milder in their treatment of their subjects, when they made them presents of some valuable or desirable commodity. They soon learned that such offerings had the effect to cheek their cruel and bloody mode of governing the people; so that when their houses were shaken down, or swallowed up by earthquakes, the trees riven by lightning, and prostrated by storms, and their cattle swept away by floods, the thought arose in their minds at once, that perhaps his wrath could be abated by the same expedient as that which had served in the case of their mundane lords -- that of making presents of property.

And when drag a God off the throne of heaven , or voluntairy came down , and was put to death on the cross as an atonement for sin, such was the value of the victim, such the magnitude of the offering, that it "atoned" for all sin, past, present and future, for all the human race.

We cherish no such conception. We cannot for a moment harbor a blasphemous doctrine, which represents the Universal Father as being a bloody-minded and murderous being, instead of a being of infinite love, infinite wisdom, and infinite in all the moral virtues. Such a character would be a deep-dyed stigma upon any human being. And no person actuated by a strict sense of justice would accept salvation upon any such terms as that prescribed by the Christian atonement.
The doctrine of the atonement also involves the infinite absurdity of God punishing himself to appease his own wrath.
But we find, upon further investigation, that the assumed debt is not paid -- after all.

When a debt is paid, it is canceled, and dismissed from memory, and nothing more said about it. But in this case the sinner is told he must still suffer the penalty for every sin he commits, notwithstanding Christ died to atone for and cancel that sin.

Where, then, is the virtue of the atonement? Like other doctrines of the orthodox creed, it is at war with reason and common sense, and every principle of sound morality, and will be marked by coming ages as a relic of barbarism.

[Grace Seeker]

Seeker, what did Jesus,according to that passage , in his human (incarnate) state, empty himself?

We have only two choices:

1- that at the time of the Incarnation, God emptied himself of his divine attributes so that he could become a man. And in becoming a man in the very real sense, And so there is the transformation from deity to humanity because he set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation; the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God.
.

2-or his transformation from deity to humanity never set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.His human nature was fully human, and his divine nature always and everywhere was fully divine.(fully man and fully God).

Yes, God the Son did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus. Jesus' power to do miracles did not come from his divine attributes but came from the Father. His knowledge came to him as revealed from the Father. But I reject that this meant that he ceased to be God. And I certainly reject the idea that this means that God ceased to exist also. First off, God the Father still retained all of his omniscience. And because God has given human kind free will, we know that he actually limits his omnipotence, never fully exercising it over people's personal choices.

Second, though God the Son emptied himself of these divine attributes he was, as you said, always fully human and fully divine. But it does not follow that he was both perfect and imperfect in the way you speak of it. What was perfect in regard to Jesus was that he was in fact born without sin and lived a sinless life. (Am I right that Muslims believe something similar with regard to not only Jesus, but all of the prophets of Islam? An idea that Christians hold is true only of Jesus.)

Luke 18:19, Jesus responded: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God.

I never understood why this verse is so appealing to Muslims? First, Jesus does not state that either that he is not good nor that he is not God in this passage. He simply turns the question back on the one who puts it to him. This man is a teacher of the law. He should know these things. How very unusual for him to add the adjective "good", rather than just addressing Jesus as "teacher".

One way to interpret this passage is to suggest that Jesus is questioning the man to see if he has suddenly come to the realization that Jesus is in fact God. Take a look at how Jesus on other questions had similar conversations with his disciples. They are talking about all the rumors over who he is, so he asks them, "And who do you say that I am?". Very similar to how Jesus turns this question back on the teacher of the law.

How could a being be infinite and finite at the same time?

Are you an infinite being or a finite one?

Let me suggest the following paradox: Because I am finite flesh I might say, "I will not live forever." However, that statement is not true of my soul; my soul is created to live for eternity. On the other hand, because I am infinite soul I might also say, "I will never die." Yet, such a statement is not true of my present body. Thus, though they seem contradictory statements, both statements can be made by and would be true with regard to any person: "I will not live forever," and "I will never die." (I understand this is one thing that Christians and Muslims agree on that we are in fact eternal beings who will either live forever in paradise with God or in hell apart from him.)

So, if a finite flesh and an infinite soul can yet be one man, why should it seem strange to you that man and God can be one Christ?

Jesus (who is supposed to be always and everywhere was fully divine) cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).

I've addressed this several times, but perhaps you have not been part of those threads.

First you have to realize that what Jesus was doing was quoting a psalm, Psalm 22. That psalm begins with this plaintive cry. I said it begins there, and it explores the death of those emotions. And each time it comes back to affirm that God is faithful, and present, and can be trusted to save us. It concludes with a great affirmation of God who not only rescues his appointed one, but tells how he is lifted up. I believe the cross is indeed an enactment of this psalm being played out in the life of Jesus. You have to read through to the end of the psalm to see this. Just because Jesus in his agony did not quote the whole Psalm does not mean that the rest of it is irrelevant.

All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it. [i.e. he has won our redemption.]
(Pslam 22:29-31)

In addition, Christians believe that on the cross Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself. He wasn't truly abandoned by God, as I have discussed above, but he did feel the weight of a burden that he would never have felt before. Scripture tells us that the wage of sin is death. Not just physical death, but spiritual death, a separation from the presence of God in our lives. We only have Jesus' words on the cross to go on, following the resurrection Jesus never comments on this, but I do not hold it impossible that for this moment in time Jesus actually felt, for the first time in his entire life, separation from God his Father. I don't suppose we will ever know the facts of that moment.

How could a being be both ignorant of some facts and omniscient?

He couldn't. But see above. I'm not the one claiming that Jesus was omniscient.

Jesus said"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations.

Again, see above.

how could a being prayed to himself and there would have been no need for him to pray at all?
"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

Why do you find this strange? Remember, Christians understand that God exists in Trinity. I expect there to be communication between the 3 persons of the one eternal being who is God continuously. Both prior to Christ's birth, during his earthly life, and now in heaven.

how could a being send spirit to his own spirit?

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Or perhaps you don't understand the verse?

Recall at Jesus' baptism how the Holy Ghost came upon him, not that the Holy Spirit was only physically located in Jesus. I believe that what the disciples saw was more for their benefit than some new experience in Jesus' life. But at Jesus' death there no longer existed the hypostatic union between the two natures. Just as when we die, our soul departs our body at the moment of death, so too would Jesus' divine nature (which of course is Spirit) no longer be present in the body (though it would reanimate it in the resurrection). To say that Jesus gave up the ghost, just sounds like a colloquial way of speaking meaning, "he died". We speak this way today all the time, why would you expect it to have been any different in Jesus' day?

If Jesus and God were "one substance" then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus.


How could one substance has two wills?

And "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
John 5:30
If Jesus and God were one substance then this ONE substance must only have ONE will.

How could a being of one substance forsake itself?

Jesus cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).

These all seem to be repeats of the points or questions you posited above.

Plainly put it,If Jesus lacks a quality possessed by God or vice versa,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.or as you wish to call him(fully man and fully God).

I think you vastly underestimate the greatness of God in this regard. He is quite capable of still being God and fully present in heaven, sovereign over the universe AND STILL AT THE SAME TIME limit himself in respect to his physical manifestation on the earth among us.

Unless you are able to repeal the law of contradiction, Seeker, you are entangled in a hopeless quest for a phantasy.

These laws of contradiction that you speak of are not something that even applies in this instance because there is nothing contradictory about God being bigger than our human minds can encompass. When you and I say that God is omnipotent and an atheist challenges with: Is God so powerful that he can make a rock so big that he cannot move it?, there is no contradiction present in that question. I don't see your questions any differently.

But I will tell to you that not all Christians agree with my assessment regarding Christ's emptying of himself in Philippians 2:6. I encourage you to read some dissenting opinions in these other websites: New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia and Kenosis.info. For myself I like this stanza from one of my favorite hymns:

HE LEFT HIS FATHER'S THRONE ABOVE,
SO FREE, SO INFINITE HIS GRACE;
EMPTIED HIMSELF OF ALL BUT LOVE
AND BLED FOR ADAM'S HELPLESS RACE:

[barney]

who wants to bet that the quote above will be deleted as soon as it is reported as offensive by Trinitarians and seen by staff? (guessing from past experience)

Oh NoName, If only the world revolved around the injustice of your deleted posts and the sickening Kuffarphillic behaviour of the mods. Cant they understand that all you are doing is fighting for the truth, whilst the dastardly Mods seem to unabashedly promote shirk , whilst censoring truth.

Grrrr!

Graceseeker. Your saying "Yeah, I know this is freaking nuts, and I dont expect anyone to beleive it, because it sounds pretty fruity to me, but it's still the truth."
Cripes. The muslims are starting to make sense to me at the moment in comparison to the 3 in 1 washes whiter than your usual Deity, or your money back, and I was raised by a Decon of a Christian baptist church.

At the end of the day, you are saying, "this is my beleif and this is my faith. I suppose I have to respect that. But I'm a person of the earth and using my (God-given) mind to analyse what youve said. IMO, its chaos.

I wish you the best and i'm happy you find solace and comfort in your faith.
Regards

[Grace Seeker]

Graceseeker. Your saying "Yeah, I know this is freaking nuts, and I dont expect anyone to beleive it, because it sounds pretty fruity to me, but it's still the truth."

Not quite, but if that is how you hear me, then that is how you hear me. I am willing to admit that what I believe can test the limits of credulity to many people. I base those beliefs on a book that I am willing to trust as being an faithful account of what took place regarding the death and resurrection of a certain man known as Jesus. That alone is a pretty incredible story. If you don't accept that there is no reason to try to convince anyone of any of the rest of the theology about a 3-in-1 god, a hypostatic union, a kenosis theory or anything else. It all pretty much crumbles if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead. For if he isn't, then he isn't even the Christ, he's just a dead Galilean Jew and that's the end of the story.

But, if he is risen, then the rest of it is totally believable. The question is can we believe the witness of those who claim that it happened? I do. You apparently do not. That pretty much is both the beginning and the end of it right there. The rest of the discussion only makes any sense if you are trying to understand the nature of a crucified and resurrected Christ. If you don't buy into that, then there is no nature to try to understand, just reject the whole story as irrelevant. If you do buy into that, then one has to begin to explain some of the other things said about him as well.

I wish you the best and i'm happy you find solace and comfort in your faith.
Regards

Muchos gracias. I wish you peace and joy, may you find it both in the present and for all that follows.

[Keltoi]

Grace Seeker brought up a good point. Unless one accepts Christ was crucified and rose from the dead, and unless one accepts the reasons for this, the other theological questions are simply filler. To believing Christians like myself and Grace Seeker, who accept Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, the larger theological questions fall right into place. That doesn't mean we understand every nuance of God's will and plan, but those larger theological questions are much easier to come to grips with.

[Imam]

Yes, God the Son did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus.

simple correction:

you should have written,in order to make sense for the reader

(Yes, God the father did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus).

under the line of Trinitarians' reasoning Jesus is said to be the manifestation of God the father.....

what you wrote refutes totally the concept of the Trinity....

If The Son was mere a human without divine attributes then he obviously lacks qualities possessed by God,and If a being whatever you wish to call(God the son-Moses-seeker etc...) lacks a a quality possessed by God,,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.

seeker,if you will consult a basic logic book you will learn the simplicity of your error.

God the Father still retained all of his omniscience.

then, it logically follows that Jesus still retained all of his omniscience,otherwise he doesn't deserve the title of God...If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then, it logically follows that Jesus is identical to the Father. You say, "The Father is not the Son." Oh, yes he is! Under your line of reasoning, he has to be.Here, again, your muddle is exposed. If two things are the same in material , then they are identical. If they differ in any respect, whatever, then they are neither the same nor identical.

Second, though God the Son emptied himself of these divine attributes he was, as you said, always fully human and fully divine. What was perfect in regard to Jesus was that he was in fact born without sin and lived a sinless life.

Seeker, your position continues to deteriorate apace....

If God the father empitied God the Son of the divine attributes , then, it logically follows that he was only fully human..

How do you expect from a being to be emptied by another being from the divine attributes ,still to be called Divine or share him the same nature?!!!


the claim that he never sinned is a myth

A sample from the NT proved himself sinful :

while he advised

"...But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire" (NIV)

yet,He refers to the Pharisees as "you fools,"In Matthew 23:13-36, Jesus refers to them as "blind fools," extortionists, sons of serpents, a brood of vipers


also

His Transferring demons into about 2,000 pigs: Mark 5:8-14, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:27-39 describe an incident in which Jesus exorcised a man who had been tormented by about 2,000 demons. Jesus sent the demons into a nearby herd of pigs. Mark 5:13 states: "...And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

In this case, the sin was to destroy intentionaly the livelihood of the farmers who owned the pigs.

ask anyone on earth whether such act is a sin or not,and you'll have always the same answer....


But

Still that is not the crux of the matter,our matter is clear

Is Jesus of the same material of God?

for the sake of argument, even if Jesus was sinless

A sinless flesh that is empitied of the divine attributes,can by no mean considered to be God .





we have just known that his flesh was under the control of another being (the father)

His power to do miracles came from the Father.

His knowledge came to him as revealed from the Father.

his morality and how he should act and to avoid sin (if true)revealed to him from the Father too .

WE EXPECT INCARNATED GOD TO BE SINLESS BUT WE EXPECT HIM NOT TO LACK THE OTHER ATTIBUTES OF HIS DIVINITY AS WELL..

in other words What he gains by being sinless,he loses for his lack of omniscience.

Again,if you will consult a basic logic book you will learn that A sinless flesh that is empitied of the divine attributes can by no mean considered a divine being or has any kind of unity with the nature of God.

I never understood why this verse is so appealing to Muslims? First, Jesus does not state that either that he is not good nor that he is not God in this passage. He simply turns the question back on the one who puts it to him.

with all due respect,that is indeed,a laughable explanation

Imagine ,once Bill Gates sent a PC engineer to a small village in the Amazon that full of people who have problems with their PC's ,one day a man asked him

"proficient engineer, what shall I do to have a pc without trouble?"
("And the engineer said unto him, Why callest
thou me proficient? there is none proficient but one, that is Bill Gates")

It would be absured if someone claims that the engineer turns the question back on the one who puts it to him,claiming that the engineer whom sent Bill Gates is Bill Gates himself.

surely Jesus doesn't neccesarily mean that he is not good,he just mean his,our goodness is not equal to those that God has...

Are you an infinite being or a finite one?
if a finite flesh and an infinite soul can yet be one man, why should it seem strange to you that man and God can be one Christ?

well done, you provided us with another refutation to the trinity....

If the unity of a finite flesh and an infinite soul can produce a God,then under such line of reasoning we are all Gods,and of the same material of God !!!

Otherwise, God may united the flesh of Jesus with a first class soul and united our flesh with a second class soul?

the unity of a finite flesh and an infinite soul can produce any creature including Jesus,Hitler,me and you without claiming we are of the same material of God the almighty......

TO BE CONTINUED

[Imam]

First you have to realize that what Jesus was doing was quoting a psalm, Psalm 22. It concludes with a great affirmation of God who not only rescues his appointed one, but tells how he is lifted up. I believe the cross is indeed an enactment of this psalm being played out in the life of Jesus. You have to read through to the end of the psalm to see this.

In fact,the one who needs to read Psalm IN CONTEXT ,will be you ,seeker !

the cross and Jesus are indeed, nothing but imposment on the Old Testmant ,including psalm .

here the Psalm22 in context:


1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?

2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.)
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.

5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.

16 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me; like a lion [they are at] my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.

20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.

21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save [d] me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.

23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows.

26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,

28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.

30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.

31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.


The overall theme of Psalms 22 depicts the plight of the Jew who, as an individual, prays for an end to Israel’s long exile from its land and from the Temple in Jerusalem. A reading of this psalm in the original Hebrew or in a correct translation reveals that its author describes his own pain, anguish, and longing during those times when he was a fugitive from his enemies. Consequently, this is an historical rather than a messianic psalm. When he refers to himself as a worm (Ps 22:7[6]), a helpless creature, whose only salvation can come from G-d, it becomes abundantly clear that the author does not consider himself to be someone who can provide salvation, and certainly not one who is divine!.
The author speaks of the powerful empires that have constantly tried to conquer , Israel. He utilizes a series of metaphorical references to what he endured (Ps 22:12-22[11-21]); this is similar to Isaiah's use of a series of metaphorical references to describe what King Hezekiah experienced during his illness (Is 38:12-14). His use of animal motifs of lions, dogs, and bulls/bison, to describe his adversaries is not unique to this psalm; he employs similar metaphors on many other occasions (e.g., Ps 17:11,12, 35:17, 59:2-7,15). http://www.messiahtruth.com/psa22.html


For the sake of argument,let's assume that the text really talks about a future servant to God who will cry in vain to God for help by day and night,who wish God Be not far from him,and to Deliver his soul from the sword,,And God has not hidden his face from him, but has listened to his cry for help.....

How many future servants could have such experience(fulfillment if you wish)?!!!

Let's go further, satisfying the christians and ignoring verse 24 ( has listened to his cry for help)
,and assume that such servant prayed to be saved but finally got nailed to the cross ........
Obviously, only one person in the history of the world has had their hands and feet pierced.?!!! such passage could belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many.
(This is a prime example of how you need to first believe in Jesus blindly before you understand the text)

Not one of the prophecies (including psalm) clearly pertains to Jesus. The entire messianic structure is built on conjecture, speculation, and interpolation.

"There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way--not one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible, and whenever you find the words: 'That it might be fulfilled' and 'which was spoken' turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT--not the slightest" (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 277).

[Grace Seeker]

simple correction:

you should have written,in order to make sense for the reader

(Yes, God the father did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus).

under the line of Trinitarians' reasoning Jesus is said to be the manifestation of God the father.....

what you wrote refutes totally the concept of the Trinity....

No. I spoke correctly. You just misunderstand what we mean when we speak of the Trinity. There are three persons, but only one God. Now, when speaking of one of the three persons, because the three persons are one being it may be true on most occassions to think is as if one is speaking of any other of the three persons. Yet, no one person of the God-head actually becomes a different person. The Son is not the Father who is not the same as the Spirit. There are still yet three distinct person, even as there is just one God be he known in the person of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Spirit.


And again, I believe you misunderstand what I have said with respect to the Psalm. I did not say that the Psalm was a prophecy. I said that Jesus was referring to this Psalm. That he saw himself in that same situation as the psalmist, calling on the Lord God in his anguish and trusting in God's eternal purposes to be with him no matter what, so that even as he felt forsaken, he knew in fact that he was not. I see Jesus as making a life application of that psalm to his own life. And in that I see an incredible truth that even in our deepest and darkest moments, when I feel most lost and alone, that I am not, the God is still with me. I see that in Jesus' quoting of this Psalm, and I see it in many other places in the Psalms, in Jesus' life, and throughout scripture.

[al-muslimah]

Jesus(as) is the slave of Allah and his prophet and messenger not his SON.How can Mary(as) be called avirgin if he had a father.sigh....

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus(as) is the slave of Allah and his prophet and messenger not his SON.How can Mary(as) be called avirgin if he had a father.sigh....

A virgin is one who has never had sex. Mary never had sex with anyone prior to the birth of Jesus. God is not Jesus' biological father. God existed in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) from before the beginning of the world, even before the creation of Adam.

[Imam]

No. I spoke correctly. You just misunderstand what we mean when we speak of the Trinity. There are three persons, but only one God. Now, when speaking of one of the three persons, because the three persons are one being it may be true on most occassions to think is as if one is speaking of any other of the three persons. Yet, no one person of the God-head actually becomes a different person. The Son is not the Father who is not the same as the Spirit. There are still yet three distinct person, even as there is just one God be he known in the person of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Spirit.

If you keep using these terms, so you are obligated to provide definitions of "being" and "person" and a distinction between the two. Without a doubletalk, what are the differences? in fact, there are no differences

"Being" and "person" have no distinction and are merely elements of a ruse employed by christians. Because they can come up with two different words, they, therefore, claim they have two different entities.

If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then how can God be a being. It must be a quality such as Godhood or Godhead. But it is not a separate being per se.
Christians call this three persons within one being but fail to admit that one of the beings is separate from the other three beings. Thus, there are not 3 persons within one being but 3 separate beings distinct from a fourth being which has a separate and distinct identity. On the other hand, whenever expediency dictates, Christians dissolve the beingness or personhood of God and turn him into nothing more than a general term, a rubric, into which the other 3 beings are absorbed, much like the words "mankind" or "dogkind" and use words like "Godhead" or "Godhood." Your argument is as,that Robert is a separate and distinct human; John is a separate and distinct human; therefore, "human" is a separate and distinct being.
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy

I did not say that the Psalm was a prophecy.

If the Psalm is not a prophecy ,why the Christians including the inspired ones (John 19:23-24),Matthew (27:34) bother us with the claim (this was to fulfill the Scripture)?!!!

I said that Jesus was referring to this Psalm. That he saw himself in that same situation as the psalmist,I see Jesus as making a life application of that psalm to his own life.

In fact Jesus saw himself in the wrong place .....

Jesus is free to quote the Psalm or any other books from the Old Testament ,as long as his quotes makes sense to his claims and could be applied to his case...


1- The Jesus who cried "my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?
needed to know
“For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” (Psalms 37:28)
Psalm 46:1 "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble."

2- The Jesus who cried "my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? needed to know,and supposed to be God incarnate, he can't speak of being forsaken by himself at all, let alone at the culmination of his plan for human salvation.Why was Jesus afraid, since events were allegedly moving as he desired?

3- "Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help" (Psalm 22:11). This indicates that if there were someone to help, he (Jesus) would gladly agree to be saved, which would have meant his death occurred against his will. How then can Christians say he willed it?

4- The The afflicted one in Psalm, God has listened to his cry for help,whereas
Jesus is not..

Psalm24 but has listened to his cry for help.

Matthew34At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" 35When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying, "Behold, He is calling for Elijah." Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down." (AC)And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

[Grace Seeker]

If you keep using these terms, so you are obligated to provide definitions of "being" and "person" and a distinction between the two. Without a doubletalk, what are the differences? in fact, there are no differences

"Being" and "person" have no distinction and are merely elements of a ruse employed by christians. Because they can come up with two different words, they, therefore, claim they have two different entities.

First Christians didn't make up these words, Greeks did. And then Christians who spoke Greek adopted them to explain what they had experienced regarding Jesus. These Christians knew that there is just one God. They also knew that the person they knew as Jesus was God. They had to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable things. The word "person" and the word "being" may in the way you use them be synonymous, but they were not to the Greeks who first employed them to speak about God and chose them to describe him as being of one substance, yet three persons.

And to say that God is a being is not to say that he is not God. If you don't like my terms, fine. But they are my terms which I use to speak about what I know and have experienced. You are free to use different terms, but whatever terms you use, I will continue to insist that Jesus is in fact God come in the flesh, incarnate, to dwell among us, for Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. And I believe him to be the very same God who created the world and still reigns over it. Not a different God or an alternate God, but the very same God. Attacking my language does not disprove this, it only proves that I have poor language skills.

And using the Qu'ran to call the Bible false doesn't prove anything either, accept that your prejudices are to trust a 7th century document over a 1st century document when it comes to telling about events that took place in the 1st century. If logic is going to be questioned, that is the sort of logic that I find questionable.

[Imam]

I will continue to insist that Jesus is in fact God come in the flesh, incarnate, to dwell among us, for Jesus is Immanuel, God with us.

Jesus is Immanuel?!!!!!

according to who?!

the writer of
Matthew 1:23 or the writer of Isaiah 7:14?

no doubt Jesus is Immanuel,according to the writer of Matthew,while there is not the slightest possible reference to Jesus in Isaiah :7,

The Immanuel of Isaiah :7 ,which Matthew misquoted ,is said ,in a crystal clear language that before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings(Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel ) whom Ahaz dread will be laid waste.

13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The girl will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."



The Immanuel of Matthew 1:23,is one Immanuel of his own imagination .....


but it is your choice to believe those who twist, distort, and concoct OT verses for purposes of indoctrination.

And using the Qu'ran to call the Bible false doesn't prove anything either, accept that your prejudices are to trust a 7th century document .

Seeker,there we go again to the game THE OLDER IS THE BETTER ..


we , muslims play another game (THE PROVED TO BE DIVINE,INERRANT,MIRACELOUS IS TO BE ACCEPTED)

Now I see why you want to change the topic.....your logic will help you no more with the Trinity, but no wonder ...
you are not the first and will not be the last ,to fail proving,reasoning the Trinity either with proof text or logic....

so I consider our discussion with the original topic of the thread to be over,and let's see if other christian friends have something different to add....

[Keltoi]

Jesus is Immanuel?!!!!!

according to who?!

the writer of
Matthew 1:23 or the writer of Isaiah 7:14?

no doubt Jesus is Immanuel,according to the writer of Matthew,while there is not the slightest possible reference to Jesus in Isaiah :7,

The Immanuel of Isaiah :7 ,which Matthew misquoted ,is said ,in a crystal clear language that before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings(Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel ) whom Ahaz dread will be laid waste.

13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The girl will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."



The Immanuel of Matthew 1:23,is one Immanuel of his own imagination .....


but it is your choice to believe those who twist, distort, and concoct OT verses for purposes of indoctrination.




Seeker,there we go again to the game THE OLDER IS THE BETTER ..


we , muslims play another game (THE PROVED TO BE DIVINE,INERRANT,MIRACELOUS IS TO BE ACCEPTED)

Now I see why you want to change the topic.....your logic will help you no more with the Trinity, but no wonder ...
you are not the first and will not be the last ,to fail proving,reasoning the Trinity either with proof text or logic....

so I consider our discussion with the original topic of the thread to be over,and let's see if other christian friends have something different to add....

The Messianic prophecies are complicated, as most prophecies are. When Christians state that Christ fulfilled Messianic prophecy, they rely on much more than that one particular verse. Here is a list of conditions of which Christ did indeed fulfull.

He is born of a virgin and shall be named Immanuel:
He is the Son of God:
He is from the seed of Abraham:
He is from the tribe of Judah:
He is from the family line of Jesse:
He is from the House of David:
He is born at Bethlehem:
He is to be proceeded by a messenger(John the Baptist)
His ministry is begin in Galilee
He will heal the blind, the deaf, and the lame
He will teach in parables
He is to enter Jerusalem on a donkey
He is to presented as the Messiah on a certain day
He will be the rejected cornerstone
He is to be betrayed by a friend
He is to be sold for thirty pieces of silver
The money is to be thrown in the House of the Lord
He is to be silent before his accusers
He is to crushed for our transgressions
His hands and feet are to be pierced
He is to be killed with the transgressors
He is to make intercession with the transgressors
He is to be rejected by his own people
He is to be hated without cause
His friends are to watch from a distance
His garments are to be parted and cast lots for
He is to suffer thirst
He is to be offered gall and vinegar
His is to commit his spirit to God
His bones are not to be broken
His side is to be pierced
Darkness is to come over the land
He is to be buried in a rich man's grave


All of these conditions can be found in Isaiah, Psalms, Genesis, Zachariah, Jeremiah, and Amos in the OT.

The Gospels clearly tell us that Christ indeed fulfilled these conditions.

[Imam]

The Messianic prophecies are complicated, as most prophecies are. When Christians state that Christ fulfilled Messianic prophecy, they rely on much more than that one particular verse. Here is a list of conditions of which Christ did indeed fulfull.

He is born of a virgin and shall be named Immanuel:
He is the Son of God:
He is from the seed of Abraham:
He is from the tribe of Judah:
He is from the family line of Jesse:
He is from the House of David:
He is born at Bethlehem:
He is to be proceeded by a messenger(John the Baptist)
His ministry is begin in Galilee
He will heal the blind, the deaf, and the lame
He will teach in parables
He is to enter Jerusalem on a donkey
He is to presented as the Messiah on a certain day
He will be the rejected cornerstone
He is to be betrayed by a friend
He is to be sold for thirty pieces of silver
The money is to be thrown in the House of the Lord
He is to be silent before his accusers
He is to crushed for our transgressions
His hands and feet are to be pierced
He is to be killed with the transgressors
He is to make intercession with the transgressors
He is to be rejected by his own people
He is to be hated without cause
His friends are to watch from a distance
His garments are to be parted and cast lots for
He is to suffer thirst
He is to be offered gall and vinegar
His is to commit his spirit to God
His bones are not to be broken
His side is to be pierced
Darkness is to come over the land
He is to be buried in a rich man's grave


All of these conditions can be found in Isaiah, Psalms, Genesis, Zachariah, Jeremiah, and Amos in the OT.

The Gospels clearly tell us that Christ indeed fulfilled these conditions.

Why didn't you give us the full list? It is claimed by christians that there are 800 prophecies described in the Old Testament regarding Jesus.......

and I agree with them.....as a matter of fact,nothing is easier than producing
prophecies from the old Testament as long as all what we have to do is to take a specific passage out of context and call it a prophecy...

What the New Testament writers did is typical of what I'm gonna write now:

Imagine a biased writer once wrote:

The Ancient Roman used The cesarean delivery,that it might be fulfilled,what been said by the prophet,their women with child shall be ripped up....


I think the first step for objective verification by those who ever read such claim is:

to know which book,chapter,verse contain such verse

to understand the langugae of the book itself

to read the context well



let's read the context

Hosea 13:16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

anyone reads the text will find out how the zealous writer ,deceived the reader and distorted the text ...


that is exactly the gospel writers approach,Bible "prophecies" turn out to be prophecies only because imaginative Bible writers arbitrarily declared them to be prophecies. The same can be said of their alleged fulfillments: the fulfillments are fulfillments only because obviously biased New Testament writers arbitrarily declared them to be fulfillments.

"The prophecies of the OT can be made to fit anything that may happen, or that may not happen. They will apply to the death of a king, or to the destruction of a people,--to the loss of commerce, or the discovery of a continent. Each prophecy is a jugglery of words, of figures, of symbols, so put together, so used, so interpreted, that they can mean anything, everything, or nothing." Ingersoll's Works, "Interviews," Vol. 5, p. 285.


I can refute all of your list one by one,showing you that they are either deliberately misquoting an OT passage or quoting a non-existent OT passage or quoting an OT passage while distorting the meaning intended...
but I will be stick to our thread title (The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or not)

A good idea in order to be stick to the topic and discuss the prophecies is ...... It is to show us Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah will be the same nature of God?

choose one,and post it here within its context ,and will be happy to discuss it with you..

[Grace Seeker]

A good idea in order to be stick to the topic and discuss the prophecies is ...... It is to show us Old Testament prophecy that the Messiah will be the same nature of God?

choose one,and post it here within its context ,and will be happy to discuss it with you..

As you say, the prophecies really don't have anything to do with the topic of this thread. And proving them all to be false prophecies wouldn't change anything either. We believe what we believe with regard to Jesus, not because of any prophecy -- though I hazard to guess that you can't really disprove them all, and some I would agree with you should not be considered prophecies but were interpreted that way after the fact (both points being irrelevant) -- but because of our belief in the resurrection. And subsequent to that our acceptance of the biblical statements regarding his nature:

...regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead (Romans 1:3-4)

Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
Who, being in very nature God.... (Philippians 2:5-6a)

As to whether or not he was created:

Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. (John 17:24)

Jesus here claims that God the Father loved him before the world was even created. As Judaism does not teach that people or souls are created prior to conception, then Jesus is saying that his existence is know to God before anything in the world was created. One possible understanding of this passage is that Jesus is not created.


Now some people read Colossians 1:15 and believe (falsely in my opinion) that it teaches that Jesus is a part of creation:

He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. (Colossians 1:15)

The reason that this view is not valid is because it simply does not say that Jesus is part of the creation. Just as one must understand Arabic to correctly understand the Qur'an, understanding Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic is helpful to understand the Bible. In this case the Greek word for "firstborn" is "prototokos" and is used not only here but also in several other passages of scripture. It may denote either a priority in time or supremacy in rank. In the present passage one might perhaps see both meanings, but when read in the context of the whole of the passage and the other passages the major stress seems to be on the idea of supremacy. Thus there is an analogy to the family line in which the firstborn child is accorded certain rights and privileges not shared by the other offspring. This child (who btw was not always the actual first child born, consider Isaac, Jacob and Joseph just to name a few) was his father's representative and heir, and to him the management of the household (in Christ's case, all creation) was committed to him.

Note the larger passage:

Colossians 1
15He [Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Here we are specifically told that Christ not only occupies the position as the firstborn with respect to creation but is also:
vs. 16 -- the creator of all things
vs. 17 -- the one who holds all things together
vs. 18 -- supreme with respect to everything
vs. 19 -- the one in whom the fullness of God dwells, the suggestion being that nothing of diety is lacking in Christ
vs. 20 -- the one who reconciles all things to God (i.e. we do not reconcile ourselves to God by our works, but by Christ's work -- the work of the cross)

And in my opinion, the opening chapter of John makes it especially clear that Jesus is himself the Creator:
First we are told that "Through him [the Word] all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3)
Then we are told that "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us." (John 1:14)
Then about the Word we are also told that "John [the Baptist] testifies concerning him." (John 1:15a)
Among the things that John testified concerning the Word "He cries out, saying, 'This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " (John 1:15b)
And then we are told that while John was baptizing that John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! This is the one I meant when I said, 'A man who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me'." (John 1:29-30)
So it is that John the Baptist testifies that Jesus is the one that called the Word in the Gospel of John, and the Gospel further claimes that it was through the Word that all things were made. So, that means that it was through Jesus that all things were made and that without Jesus nothing has been made that was made. Given that Muslims generally don't accept the Bible as accurate they may not accept that as true, but they must accept that this is what the Bible (and not just Paul) teaches.

[Imam]

Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. (John 17:24)

As to whether or not he was created:
Jesus here claims that God the Father loved him before the world was even created. As Judaism does not teach that people or souls are created prior to conception
.

Not only Judaism teaches that but Islam as well,
The Book of Jeremiah 1:4-5 : “ Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.


Every prophet has glory with God before the world began, since he already knew about them and so on. So this is not something special, or unique with Jesus, nor does it make him divine.

Colossians 1
19For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him

vs. 19 -- the one in whom the fullness of God dwells, the suggestion being that nothing of diety is lacking in Christ..

Haven't we agreed before,and according to the words of Paul himself, that
Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross

and you affirmed that

Yes, God the Son did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus. Jesus' power to do miracles did not come from his divine attributes but came from the Father. His knowledge came to him as revealed from the Father.

AND

I'm not the one claiming that Jesus was omniscient.

How on earth nothing of diety is lacking in Christ If he did set aside his divine attributes ?!!!!! How could jesus be omniscient and not omniscient simultaneously?

[Grace Seeker]

Haven't we agreed before,and according to the words of Paul himself, that
Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross

and you affirmed that




AND




How on earth nothing of diety is lacking in Christ If he did set aside his divine attributes ?!!!!! How could jesus be omniscient and not omniscient simultaneously?

I agree that Jesus set aside his divine attributes, his omnisciences. I do not agree that it therefore follows that Jesus cannot be God. I disagree with your logic that says that if Jesus does not exercise the power of God that he therefore is not God. Rather I still agree with scripture (not just Pauline scripture either) which proclaims him to be God even in this state in which he has emptied himself of equality with God, because he is still in nature God. Thus we recognize that Jesus had both a human and a divine nature that were comingled in his one person.

Read more closely what Paul says:
"being in very nature God" Paul affirms that Jesus does have a divine nature. He gives up his equality with God and comes to earth "in human likeness", he no longer practices omniscience nor omnipotence, but that does not mean that there is a change in who he is. He adds a humand nature, but he is still God the Son at the very same time. The logic of that may escape you, the truth of it is still nonetheless affirmed by scripture.

How on earth can nothing of diety be lacking if Christ has set aside his divine attributes? How on earth is my wife still the same person following a crippling stroke that keeps her from doing all that she was capable of doing before? A change in one's ability is not the same as a change in one's nature or character.

Not only Judaism teaches that but Islam as well,
The Book of Jeremiah 1:4-5 : “ Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, 5 ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.


Every prophet has glory with God before the world began, since he already knew about them and so on. So this is not something special, or unique with Jesus, nor does it make him divine.

No, I think that what Judaism (and Christianity) teach with regard to this is different from what Islam teachers. We do not teach that every prophet has glory with God before the world began. Only Christ was present as part of the Godhead before the world began. When God speaks regarding Jeremiah and says: "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you." This is does not require that Jeremiah existed with God before the creation of the world. All it means is that God is able to be present in Jeremiah's life from the moment of its conception in his mother's womb. If you are saying that God has control over the forming process, I would agree. But I do not agree that this implies that one exists with God in some other state before that moment in time. Such a view would be, in my opinion, reading into the text things that are not actually present.

[Imam]

We do not teach that every prophet has glory with God before the world began. Only Christ was present as part of the Godhead before the world began.

in what form he was present as part of the Godhead?

Don't say in human form,as you know the so called incarnation happened
on earth,not in heaven...

so ,he has to be in spiritual form God's own spirit

If he was God's own spirit(they both still one spiritual material) then The father glorified the father,cause the son hasn't appeared at the scene yet...

The verse
And now, Father, glorify me (Jesus) in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.' (John 17:5)

means without the Christian twisting :

What does glory mean? It means honor, praise, reputation. The Father already knew and had preordained that Jesus Christ is going to come. Therefore Jesus’ honor and glory was there with God already because God already knew about him.

I disagree with your logic that says that if Jesus does not exercise the power of God that he therefore is not God.

I'm not using my logic,I just tried to apply what any basic logic book would say....

If we apply the Christian argument with logic then:

-The father is God(has a divine nature).
-Jesus is God (has a divine nature).

-The father never set aside his divine attributes, his omnisciences.
-Jesus set aside his divine attributes, his omnisciences.

-It logically follows
that we have two Gods ,one never stopped for a moment to exercise his power ,another God does not exercise his power for a period of
time.


If Jesus was the same nature (divine) as God then you can't have it both ways,they have to stuck to their omnisciences,or to leave it all together...

If one say,
God did practice his power the whole last April,without a moment for a pause.

Jesus did practice his power the whole last April except 5 days.

then Jesus still God

that is according to the Christian twisted logic.......

How on earth can nothing of deity be lacking if Christ has set aside his divine attributes? How on earth is my wife still the same person following a crippling stroke that keeps her from doing all that she was capable of doing before? A change in one's ability is not the same as a change in one's nature or character.

Is that what you call logic?!!!

-My wife did all her duties the whole last April long,without any stop.
-My wife did all her duties the whole last April except 5 days, following a crippling stroke that keeps her from doing all that she was capable of doing before.

If you married to one wife ,then it makes no sense if you utter both sentences ....

only in case of having Two wives ,your words will have meaning,sense..

[Grace Seeker]

Clearly I am not making sense to you. I am sorry that I am not a better communicator. I don't have the time to spend on this discussion right now that you deserve, for you ask very good and important question. I believe they are questions that the church has answered before. Not today and not tomorrow, but I will try to find another way to express this to you if what you truly seek is to understand Christian thought regarding these things.

If what you seek is for me to "prove" might point of view to you, I think you know that you are not likely to accept any such proof from me, for the Qur'an clearly tells you something different. Likewise, if you are trying to counter with some sort of "proof" that will help me to see the error of my ways and become a Muslim, that isn't going to happen either. But as long as the desire is to better understand the other I do not consider the conversation a waste of time and will return to it, probably sometime after Christmas, if you will do the favor of reminding me.

[Whatsthepoint]

If a god can't "ungod" himself, it is not a god.

And I finally get it why there are three of them - Suppose Jesus had gone solo and un-godded himself - who would have given him his powers back? No one - there'd be no god and the whole universe would collapse into utter nothingness. However, there were two more...!

[Grace Seeker]

If a god can't "ungod" himself, it is not a god.

And I finally get it why there are three of them - Suppose Jesus had gone solo and un-godded himself - who would have given him his powers back? No one - there'd be no god and the whole universe would collapse into utter nothingness. However, there were two more...!

Well, not exactly, as I suppose Jesus could have resumed "his powers" as easily as one resumes using a cell phone that has been set to silent. But, even though it isn't the terminology I would have used, I do like the point you made in your first sentence.

[Imam]

If a god can't "ungod" himself, it is not a god.

And I finally get it why there are three of them - Suppose Jesus had gone solo and un-godded himself - who would have given him his powers back? No one - there'd be no god and the whole universe would collapse into utter nothingness. However, there were two more...!

Finally ,you got it !!!

It seems you skipped the previous posts here,our discussion wasn't whether God can ungod himself or not...

let's pause and think, my friend,
you wrote (Suppose Jesus had gone solo and un-godded himself)

simple correction: He has to un-god himself first,and then go but not solo ,he has to take the ungodded father hand in hand as long as they are one material.........!!!!!
John 14:10 says, "I am in the Father, and the Father is in me.." So, if Jesus been ungodded for a period of time, then the Father must have been ungodded simultaneously. and as you said correctly, who would have given him(them) his(their) powers back? No one - there'd be no god and the whole universe would collapse into utter nothingness.

That simple logical correction highlights quite well the incongruity of the problem.Clearly, logic and reason have nothing to do with understanding the Trinity.,It is a concept that defies logic and must be taken on faith alone.


That is why Many christians don't even attempt a rational defense. They merely assert that, although opposed to sensible thought, it's true, nevertheless. "It's a mystery." That's the common refrain.

On page 25 in Essential Christianity apologist Walter Martin says, "No man can fully explain the Trinity, though in every age scholars have propounded theories and advanced hypotheses to explore this mysterious Biblical teaching. But despite the worthy efforts of these scholars, the Trinity is still largely incomprehensible to the mind of man."


"When we shall have done away with the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three;It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticism that three are one, and one is three; yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one;...." (Jefferson's Works, Vol. 6, p. 192 by H.A. Washington).


"No historical fact is better established, than that the doctrine of one God, pure and uncompounded, was that of the early ages of Christianity;.... The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousand and thousands of martyrs.... In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea? He who thinks he does, only deceives himself. He proves, also, that man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most montrous,... With such persons, gullability, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck." (Jefferson's Works, Vol. 7, p. 269-70 by H.A. Washington).

[Grace Seeker]

President Jefferson was wrong. He also was a diest, not a Christian.

[Keltoi]

President Jefferson was wrong. He also was a diest, not a Christian.

Yes, and one must also remember what era of history this was written. The popular philosophy in this age was human reason, which is why there seemed to be so many diests all over the place. Personally, I don't believe Jefferson was a diest at all, but more likely an athiest who didn't find it politically expedient to admit it. Not taking anything away from Jefferson's contribution to American politics of course, he just isn't the man one wants to look to for Christian theology.

[Imam]

President Jefferson was wrong. He also was a diest, not a Christian.

That is the best ,seeker could ever offers!!!

Have a nice Christmas in advance Seeker :D

[Grace Seeker]

Remember I do not post to argue, to prove you wrong or myself right. I post to help those who genuinely wish to better understand the thoughts and beliefs of Christians. And, where I am capable, sometimes explaining them. If seek to make the purpose of any discussion is to simply refute one another, then you and I have little to talk about. I will invest my time with others.


Stating that Jefferson was wrong, and citing that he was a diest should be enough to help you understand where Christians are coming from and why Jefferson's objections are not likely to be taken seriouslyl. We see the world completely different than he did. What he (and apparently you) think are incontrovertible facts that argue against various Christian doctrines, are not so difficult for us to accept at all. If you insist on observing the world through just 5 senses, as Jefferson did, you will never be able to observe the truth that there is a spiritual world that is every bit as real as the physical world as well. But if you accept the reality of a spiritual world, then my assertions regarding spiritual things, especially when I suggest that they work differently than the physical (where an object has to occupy just one space and only one space at any given point in time) will lead you to make conclusion about the character and nature of God that to those who only think in the ways of the physical world consider illogical. So, are you going to accept Jefferson's logic or God's logic. And remember, as God's ways are beyond our ways, some of what God does may still not make sense to us, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. That is why we, with limited understanding of how it is that some of the things that are true of God are true, sometimes simply need to accept the truth of the revelation as being true, but as far as our understanding of how it is true admit it remains a mystery.

Jesus did die, and did rise from the grave. After Jesus resurrection, Jesus accepted worship of himself as God. These events, which I believe did take place, tell me all I need to know regarding Jesus' divine status. Yet I also know that God said that he is just one. So, how can both of these realities be true at the same time? I don't know. But I do know that they are. The difference between us, is not that I don't understand the absurdity of saying that God exists as 3-in-1. But that in receiving this testimony, rather than accepting it and trying to understand the incomprehensible, you simply reject the experience as being true and divise alternative explanations of your own creation because you would rather change what you accept as true than change the paradigm (the little box) that you've created in which you can understand God as existing. In short, your God, however great you might say he is, is too small.

[Imam]

you simply reject the experience as being true and divise alternative explanations of your own creation because you would rather change what you accept as true than change the paradigm (the little box) that you've created in which you can understand God as existing. In short, your God, however great you might say he is, is too small.

as a matter of fact those who believe in The trinity ,are those who created the paradigm (the little box) in which they dragged the all powerful,infinite God off the throne of heaven ,putting him in the little flesh box (Jesus) , we Muslims never created such Trinitarians little box..............

while trying hopelessly to sell the Trinity,Christians keep parroting

God become incarnated as a man in order to be closer to us and give us a golden chance to understand him................

and when those who listen show them the contradiction between being God and being emptied of his omnipotence,they shift the discussion to another trick....

God's ways are beyond our ways


they forget,that such saying can be applied to the un-seen God (the father),not to his human version(the son)

yes,God's ways are beyond our ways ,not man's ways (Jesus)


Do you believe in the saying:

(the burden of proofs lies on him who alleges)?


Greek and Roman paganism was filled with the idea of ordinary men being or becoming gods. As to the idea of a "sweating, stinking, defecating" mortal who dies and then becomes a god, there are so many examples in Greco-Roman religion . This is also the case for the idea of a literal son of a God who "sweats, stinks, and defecates" and then dies, becoming a God in Heaven . Christianity would hit no greater obstacle than every other popular cult worshiping divine men.

What did jesus do according to the New Testament ,in order to proves that he is a true incarnated version of God,different from the other Greek and Roman pagan version ?

may be,cause He was called God by himself or his followers????

dozens of men been claimed to be God and been worshiped.........

The NT mentions nothing unique that Jesus ever did to establish his claims (to be God incarnated)



If a man ever claims tobe God,or been claimed to be God ,and has nothing than cheap words from his mouth or the mouth of those zealous who accompany him,then his claims will fell short with those who understand the sayings

"Prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:12
Proverb 14:15"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

The extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof.

[Grace Seeker]

What did jesus do according to the New Testament ,in order to proves that he is a true incarnated version of God,different from the other Greek and Roman pagan version ?

Jesus didn't do anything to "prove" that he was God. God doesn't have to prove who he is to us.

But though you won't accept the testimony, it is enough for me that Jesus is reported to have claimed, and accepted that accusation when others used it as a reason to try to stone him, to have said, 'I am God's Son'. (John 10:36)

And when Jesus (in John 8:58) says, "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!", every Jew in earshot knew exactly what he meant. Jesus was claiming to be the very God worshipped by the Jews in the Tanakh, the I AM who spoke to Moses in Exodus saying "I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' " (Exodus 3:14)


I don't blame Muslims for not accepting the Gospel records are being Jesus' true Injeel. To do so would bring Islam tumbling to the ground. All you have to disprove that is, I won't believe it, this I know, for the Qur'an tells me NO.

[Imam]

Jesus didn't do anything to "prove" that he was God.
.

"Prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:12
Proverb 14:15"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

The extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof.

it is enough for me that Jesus is reported to have claimed,.

as for a claim of deity ,cheap words are not enough to make his claims convincing

again The extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof.

All you have to disprove that is, I won't believe it, this I know, for the Qur'an tells me NO..

Even without the Quran ....one doesn't need the Quranic claims to be convinced that the NT is not the word of God,and been fabricated........

Examples of fabrications are abundantly evident to anyone with a reasonably critical eye....

[Grace Seeker]

And for extraodinaroy proof, we turn to the Resurrection. But again, you simply deny all testimonies to it, claiming them unreliable. It is a convenient way to avoid dealing with the natural implications of such truths.

[Imam]

And for extraodinaroy proof, we turn to the Resurrection. .

What is new extraordinary about the resurrection?

Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17, 21-22); Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquietedme, to bring me" (1Sam. 28.7, 11, 15); Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite ( 2 Kings 4:32, 34-35); a dead man being lowered into a grave revived when he touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21);the saints arose at the time of Jesus' death ( matt. 27:52-53 ); Jairus' daughter rose from the dead (Matt. 9:18, 23-25 ); the widow at Nain's son rose from the dead (Luke 7:11-15 ); and Lazarus rose from the dead ( John 11:43-44 ). All of these people ascended from death and all did so before Jesus.

you simply deny all testimonies to it, claiming them unreliable

How to accept contradictory accounts to be reliable testimonies?!!!


a sample of these contradictions

Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

Did Mary Magdalene meet Jesus at the tomb?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:1).


If the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired....

[Keltoi]

What is new extraordinary about the resurrection?

Elijah raised a child from the dead (1Kings 17:17, 21-22); Samuel said to Saul, "Why hast thou disquietedme, to bring me" (1Sam. 28.7, 11, 15); Elisha raised the dead son of a Shunammite ( 2 Kings 4:32, 34-35); a dead man being lowered into a grave revived when he touched the bones of Elisha (2 Kings 13:21);the saints arose at the time of Jesus' death ( matt. 27:52-53 ); Jairus' daughter rose from the dead (Matt. 9:18, 23-25 ); the widow at Nain's son rose from the dead (Luke 7:11-15 ); and Lazarus rose from the dead ( John 11:43-44 ). All of these people ascended from death and all did so before Jesus.





How to accept contradictory accounts to be reliable testimonies?!!!


a sample of these contradictions

Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)

At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)

Did Mary Magdalene meet Jesus at the tomb?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:1).


If the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired....

As has already mentioned time and time again, the Christian understanding of what "inspired" means and what Islam means by "inspired" are two different concepts. The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men. They did not sit down together and compare notes. They wrote their accounts from the standpoint of their own recollections and, and yes, inspiration. They were witnesses. These "contradictions" you posted actually lend more credence to the Gospel record from the Christian standpoint. No two witnesses will recall an event in exactly the same way.

What was special about Christ's Resurrection? Those you mentioned before did not resurrect eternally. They eventually died again. Christ Resurrected eternally to return to and be One with the Father.

[Grace Seeker]

What was special about Christ's Resurrection? Those you mentioned before did not resurrect eternally. They eventually died again. Christ Resurrected eternally to return to and be One with the Father.

Thank-you Keltoi. And, all of these others were raised following prayers of intercession and supplication. No one offered such prayers for Jesus. No one had hopes of him rising from the dead. No one but God! Jesus' resurrection is a direct consequence not of God interceeding for him, but the reality that God is the author of life and that life is in him because he is himself the incarnation of God.





Also, Imam, your question as to what is extraordinary about Jesus' resurrection strikes me as disingenious. My guess is that even if it was only the family pet who had passed away was to be restored to you from the dead that you would find such an event extraordinary, it certainly isn't seen as an ordinary happening by most people I know.

[Imam]

The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men.
.

realizing the fact that their holy book is full of errors, contradictions, and fallacies,Christians try continuesly to dodge a concept regarding inspiration not only defies reason but also contradict what the Bible itself tells about inspiration.....

the following quote from the NT dashes into pieces the christian dodge that The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men,and not a verbal direct inspiration ...

2 Peter 1:20".First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Can anyone imagine how it would be at all possible that someone who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" to "speak from God" could say something that contradict another writer who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" too?

If the holy spirit moved the writer of Matthew to write that Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb,
what would he write? he would write exactly what he has been inspired to write......whatever his style of writing,grammatical structure ,the reader will get the point clear (Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb)

If the same holy spirit moved the writer of John to write ,he may use another style in writing,grammatical structure etc........ but the reader will get the same point (Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb)

whoever said that John has to follow the style of Matthew letter by letter !!!!!!?
he is free to use the vocabulary he likes,but he has to to be in accordance with Matthew and other writers in the basics....


you dodge (the viewpoint of the writers) can't help John's gross contradiction with Matthew

Matthew 28:1 Mary Magdalene Did meet Jesus at the tomb
John 20:1Mary Magdalene Didn't meet Jesus at the tomb

. No two witnesses will recall an event in exactly the same way..

With all due respect.It seems you are suffering under the delusion that such writers were eye-witnesses ,while the bible itself ranks them as inspired directly,verbally from God

you still fancy yourself that Mark,Luke,Matthew;John were a group of eye-witnesses from the disciples who stayed all night long beside the tomb waiting for such group of women (Mary M.etc...) to encounter Jesus and while these women talked to Jesus etc..... the four writers including the disciples John himself(as the church claims) preferred not to participate in it for unknown reasons !!!!!

may be the four eye-witnesses beside the tomb were busy writing what they see?may be the women were more courageous and had encounter with the angels and Jesus ?

my friend,without any reasonable doubt ,their accounts are unverified hearsay ,just take a look at the introduction of the writing according to Luke and you will be sure what kind of a hearsay material your are about to read....

what was the reason for John to disagree with Matthew ?

you argue (he didn't recall this event in exactly the same way as Matthew) .

If so then it would necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit had "moved" this person to say something that was inaccurate,hence violate what the NT teach regarding inspiration

(Peter: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God..)

What was special about Christ's Resurrection? Those you mentioned before did not resurrect eternally. They eventually died again. .

My original question was why the resurrection of Jesus would be of any consequence(establishing the claims of his deity) when others rose from the dead before him.?
Paul said it's the Resurrection that counts, not the fact that Jesus never died again.
Instead of focusing on the resurrection itself you have chosen to emphasize the supposed results that emanated from that event. But that's not the issue.

but let me go further and apply your reason to other examples:

The father took the soul of Jesus off his body and let it back again to his body and the same body will stay with the soul forever...........


If so let me highlight Biblical miracles the father performed with Enoch and Elijah ,qualify them ,under your line of reasoning,to be more than Gods....

"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11) and "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" (Gen. 5:24).


the text obviously indicates that the prophets Elijah and Enoch from the very moment of their birth till forever are living and never taste physical death as Jesus.....


so which one you prefer to be God in flesh? those who never had ,and will never have physical death for a second ,or the one who stayed in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights?


actually,the whole Christian argument is without merit ,due to the fact,and in accordance with the Christian believe, that any human being has a time to die and to be resurrected by the father and stay forever without death again !!!!


In sum and substance ,while arguing , What did jesus do according to the New Testament in order to proves that he is a true incarnated version of God ,the Resurrection fells short ....................

[Grace Seeker]

realizing the fact that their holy book is full of errors, contradictions, and fallacies,Christians try continuesly to dodge a concept regarding inspiration not only defies reason but also contradict what the Bible itself tells about inspiration.....

the following quote from the NT dashes into pieces the christian dodge that The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men,and not a verbal direct inspiration ...

2 Peter 1:20".First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

Can anyone imagine how it would be at all possible that someone who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" to "speak from God" could say something that contradict another writer who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" too?

Again you show that you simply are capable of only thinking form an Islamic perspective. While there are prophecies included in the Bible, Christianity makes no claim that the entirety of the Bible is prophecy. This is not what Peter was referring to, and to apply it that way is to show one's unfamiliarity with the basic concepts of the Christian faith yet again.

With all due respect.

It's OK. You can drop the pretense. I haven't seen much evidence of respect in your posts for some time now.

It seems you are suffering under the delusion that such writers were eye-witnesses ,while the bible itself ranks them as inspired directly,verbally from God

you still fancy yourself that Mark,Luke,Matthew;John were a group of eye-witnesses from the disciples who stayed all night long beside the tomb waiting for such group of women (Mary M.etc...) to encounter Jesus and while these women talked to Jesus etc..... the four writers including the disciples John himself(as the church claims) preferred not to participate in it for unknown reasons !!!!!

Keltoi showed no such delusions in his posts. As with many other of your ideas with respect to Christian beliefs, you have read such thing into his posts that are not actually present and ignored what he has actually said. Having read many of Keltoi's posts, both past and present, he presents himself as one who is well aware that not only were the Gospel writers not themselves present at the initial finding of the empty tomb, but that Luke and Mark are not even numbered among the disciples of Jesus.

but let me go further and apply your reason to other examples:

The father took the soul of Jesus off his body and let it back again to his body and the same body will stay with the soul forever...........


If so let me highlight Biblical miracles the father performed with Enoch and Elijah ,qualify them ,under your line of reasoning,to be more than Gods....

"Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven" (2 Kings 2:11) and "Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him" (Gen. 5:24).


the text obviously indicates that the prophets Elijah and Enoch from the very moment of their birth till forever are living and never taste physical death as Jesus.....


so which one you prefer to be God in flesh? those who never had ,and will never have physical death for a second ,or the one who stayed in the grave for 3 days and 3 nights?


actually,the whole Christian argument is without merit ,due to the fact,and in accordance with the Christian believe, that any human being has a time to die and to be resurrected by the father and stay forever without death again !!!!


In sum and substance ,while arguing , What did jesus do according to the New Testament in order to proves that he is a true incarnated version of God ,the Resurrection fells short ....................

Again, you miss the big picture. Jesus was not made God by the Father. He is God.

In a previous post you stated:

"Prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:12
Proverb 14:15"The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

The extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof.



as for a claim of deity ,cheap words are not enough to make his claims convincing

again The extraordinary claim, requires extraordinary proof.

To which I cited the resurrection as being extraordinary. But do not mistake this for saying that I agree that any proof is needed for Jesus as God. There are many extraordinary things that one could testify to with regard to Jesus, but Jesus is not dependent on such things to "prove" that he is God, and certainly not to make him God. How ludicrous a concept!

Nothing made Jesus God. He simply is God and has always been so. To put it in your own context, what makes Allah God? Again, nothing. Allah simply is God. That's all there is to that.

[Imam]

Again you show that you simply are capable of only thinking form an Islamic perspective. While there are prophecies included in the Bible, Christianity makes no claim that the entirety of the Bible is prophecy. .

2 Timothy 3:16: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

Having read many of Keltoi's posts, both past and present, he presents himself as one who is well aware that not only were the Gospel writers not themselves present at the initial finding of the empty tomb, but that Luke and Mark are not even numbered among the disciples of Jesus.

take a look again ,Seeker

They were witnesses. These "contradictions" you posted actually lend more credence to the Gospel record from the Christian standpoint.

Again, you miss the big picture. Jesus was not made God by the Father. He is God.

and again you miss the simple questions.....we have dozens of Greek and Roman ordinary men being or becoming gods. As to the idea of a "sweating, stinking, defecating" mortal who dies and then becomes a god, there are so many examples in Greco-Roman religion .

they all claimed to be God,but they offered nothing to establish it other than claims by themselves or the zealous followers around them.......


Jesus needed to prove he is God?

with full mouth I answer yes,He had to prove,he is a true incarnated version of God,different from the other Greek and Roman pagan version in his time....

what makes Allah God? Again, nothing. Allah simply is God. That's all there is to that.

Seeker,You just are not with it

Allah never been incarnated ,in order to ask him are you God?

though we never seen him,he sent us a miraculous book ,offering both the muslims and non-muslims alike with a living proof of his existence ...

Dr. Moore ,former President of the Canadian Association of Anatomists,the author of several medical textbooks, including Clinically Oriented Anatomy (3rd Edition) and The Developing Human (5th Edition, with T.V.N. Persaud).

"It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Qur'an about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God, or Allah."

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...cientists.html

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus claimed that he was God. You claim that Allah is God. Both are claims.


Now, I don't wish to go dinegrating Islam, as I do respect it and most Muslims. I believe Jesus and you believe you. That is pretty much what it all boils down to.

I believe also the record that I have received passed down to me through the church that bears witness to these claims of Jesus. I see in the lfe, death, and resurrection of Jesus substantiation for these claims. You may think me a foolish person for so trusting, but I do so trust.

But as for your understanding of Christians ways and thought, I am sorry to say, it is still glaringly lacking. All scripture is inspired. That is true. But it does not mean more than that. That does not mean that all scripture is prophecy. Inspired men and women have even been known to make mistakes, though I do not believe that scriptures contain mistakes regarding the nature and character of God. And while most of the Biblical writers may have had the gift of prophecy, that also doesn't make all scripture prophecy.

Christians (save for a few that I happen to disagree with) do not mean that God dictated scripture to the biblical writers when they claim that the scriptures are inspired. It was God who inspired them to write, in the same way another man might be inspired to write a poem because of observing a sunset. Of course I think with scripture that there is more depth to it, but I am not among those who hold that to a literal inerrancy, nor do I think that the lack thereof implies the scriptures to therefore be untrustworthy.

You don't like my theology, fine. That's probably why I'm a Christian and you're not. But I do tire of you trying to tell me what my theology is or should be, which is what it seems you continue to insist on doing. Hence why I said in my last post, that I haven't seen any respect in your posts for some time now.



You said to take a look again at what Keltoi said. I have. Here is his quote:

The Gospel accounts are the recollection of Christ's ministry from the viewpoint of different men. They did not sit down together and compare notes. They wrote their accounts from the standpoint of their own recollections and, and yes, inspiration. They were witnesses.

I can see how you might think that Keltoi is refering to the Gospel writers as witnesses. But again, having read more than just this single post by Keltoi, as I already said above, I know that he knows the difference. First, to be a witness is to be a person who gives testimony. I am a witness for the resurrection of Jesus Christ, though I was not present at the time. Second, John was indeed a witness not of the resurrection event, but of the resurrected Christ, and I believe that Matthew was as well. Mark and Luke were passing along the testimony of those that had themselves experienced the same and it is not beyound the realm of possibility that they too had personally met Christ following the rsurrection as among the over 500 brethern that scripture mentions who did see him. But Keltoi does know, and you would know he knows if you had read more of his posts, that none of these Gospel writers were present at the Resurrection itself. Those who report it, do so based on their own personal post-resurrection experiences with Jesus or from having been under the tutelage of those who themselves had that experience.

I hope this can bring an end to this unwarranted side-track from the topic and we can return to discussing the Nature of Christ rather than a discussion of one's belief in the testimony of the New Testament. If one wishes to make it about that, we might as well recognize that we are of different minds that are not going to change, and thus there is no common ground from which to discuss anything.

[Imam]

All scripture is inspired. That is true. Inspired men and women have even been known to make mistakes.

If they made mistakes with the narratives of the cornerstone of Christianity(the resurrection),who ever bother calling them inspired?!!

though I do not believe that scriptures contain mistakes regarding the nature and character of God.

How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false?

the religious reformer, John Wesley, said:

"If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth."




In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24, ).

You don't like my theology, fine. That's probably why I'm a Christian and you're not. Hence why I said in my last post, that I haven't seen any respect in your posts for some time now.

Seeker ....you may think so..that I don't respect you..........

for me objecting to theology doesn't mean lacking respect to the one who is convinced to...

you can never imagine how much respect and affection I have with the Christians lived and living around me in real life.....

[Keltoi]

Another John Wesley quote: "I do not love God. I never did. Therefore I never believed, in the Christian sense of the word. Therefore I am only an honest heathen..."

Since we are throwing around quotes like they mean something profound. :)

It also appears that your (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties) source is also quite mistaken in its understanding of how Christians view the Scripture. This is the most striking difference between Christianity and Islam. Christians do not believe God writes books, or that He sends one of His angels to do so. When a Christian reads the Gospel record, he or she understands(in most cases) that it was written by the hands of men. So that author's personality, writing style, thought process, etc, are all a part of that narrative. That doesn't equate to infallibility, nor does it equate to fallibility. It is simply the affect of a human mind putting thoughts to paper. Where those thoughts come from is the question. You as a Muslim believe something different, and we as Christians have a much different understanding.

Now, I hope this thread can return to the original point as well.

[Grace Seeker]

Seeker ....you may think so..that I don't respect you..........

for me objecting to theology doesn't mean lacking respect to the one who is convinced to...

you can never imagine how much respect and affection I have with the Christians lived and living around me in real life.....

Objecting to theology isn't why I said what I said regarding respect either. But take a look at what you quoted and what you did not from what I said:

You don't like my theology, fine. That's probably why I'm a Christian and you're not. But I do tire of you trying to tell me what my theology is or should be, which is what it seems you continue to insist on doing. Hence why I said in my last post, that I haven't seen any respect in your posts for some time now.

The bold part, a sentence which you completely omitted is why I said that I feel that you do not show respect, hence the word "hence" with which I started the subsequent sentence. And glossing over that important statement sort of highlights exactly what I was referring to.


P.S. I'm glad you read John Wesley. He was a better theologian than I can ever hope to be. But even though I am a United Methodist, I still don't agree with all things that he said, and you have landed upon one of them.

[NoName55]

if you do not stop accusing Br. Imam of insults/disrespect, some suck-up kiddie mod will come along and evaporate most of his posts (as they are well known for doing)

2 so-called experts including a pastor trying to overwhelm 1 person, then playing at being martyrs! :(

[Keltoi]

if you do not stop accusing Br. Imam of insults/disrespect, some suck-up kiddie mod will come along and evaporate most of his posts (as they are well known for doing)

2 so-called experts including a pastor trying to overwhelm 1 person, then playing at being martyrs! :(

I don't remember anybody claiming to be an expert, but I would say I do understand the doctrine of my faith and it does get tiresome to repeat answers to the same questions time and time again. It isn't the questions that bother me, it is the context in which they are asked.

As for playing at being "martyrs", I'm not sure where that even comes from.

[MustafaMc]

Unless one accepts Christ was crucified and rose from the dead, and unless one accepts the reasons for this, the other theological questions are simply filler. To believing Christians like myself and Grace Seeker, who accept Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, the larger theological questions fall right into place.

I find it extremely interesting that the Qur'an addresses this very issue about the death of Jesus (as) on the cross. The whole of Christianity pivots on this very event. If Jesus (as) was not killed by crucifixion as the Qur'an clearly claims, then there is no foundation for the Christian religion. GraceSeeker has stated that this denial of crucifixion is the very reason that he rejects the Qur'an as the Word of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws). Interesting, as Ahmad Deedat once said, "Crucifixion or cruci-fiction?"

[Keltoi]

I find it extremely interesting that the Qur'an addresses this very issue about the death of Jesus (as) on the cross. The whole of Christianity pivots on this very event. If Jesus (as) was not killed by crucifixion as the Qur'an clearly claims, then there is no foundation for the Christian religion. GraceSeeker has stated that this denial of crucifixion is the very reason that he rejects the Qur'an as the Word of Allah and the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws). Interesting, as Ahmad Deedat once said, "Crucifixion or cruci-fiction?"

Yes, and Ahmad Deedat has no basis for that belief other than his faith in Islam.

You are correct in one sense. If there was no resurrection then the foundation of the Christian faith is in error. That being said, my faith tells me that Christ was indeed crucified and was indeed resurrected. My faith and your faith differ. It is as simple as that.

[MustafaMc]

If there was no resurrection then the foundation of the Christian faith is in error. That being said, my faith tells me that Christ was indeed crucified and was indeed resurrected. My faith and your faith differ. It is as simple as that.

I find it also interesting that Paul himself pointed out this crucial issue for the Christian faith. For if there is no death, how can there be a resurrection from the dead.

I Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:
14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.
15 Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised:
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.

...and yes of course my faith is different from yours. It seems that our differences can be boiled down to:

1) the Divinity of Jesus (as)
2) the death of Jesus (as) on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead
3) the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws)

If we agreed on these three major points, would there be any reason for us to have different religions? If so, what additional major points of difference do you see?

[Keltoi]

I find it also interesting that Paul himself pointed out this crucial issue for the Christian faith. For if there is no death, how can there be a resurrection from the dead.

I Corinthians 15:12 Now if Christ is preached that he hath been raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, neither hath Christ been raised:
14 and if Christ hath not been raised, then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain.
15 Yea, we are found false witnesses of God; because we witnessed of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, neither hath Christ been raised:
17 and if Christ hath not been raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.
18 Then they also that are fallen asleep in Christ have perished.
19 If we have only hoped in Christ in this life, we are of all men most pitiable.

...and yes of course my faith is different from yours. It seems that our differences can be boiled down to:

1) the Divinity of Jesus (as)
2) the death of Jesus (as) on the cross and his subsequent resurrection from the dead
3) the prophethood of Muhammad (saaws)

If we agreed on these three major points, would there be any reason for us to have different religions? If so, what additional major points of difference do you see?

The divinity and resurrection of Christ and the promise of salvation through Him are THE foundation of Christianity. Those are crucial points, and outside of divine interference will always separate Christianity and Islam.

[MustafaMc]

The divinity and resurrection of Christ and the promise of salvation through Him are THE foundation of Christianity. Those are crucial points, and outside of divine interference will always separate Christianity and Islam.

There is a hadith that speaks of the return of Jesus (as) in Bukhari 3:425 Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

If this hadith is a true prophesy (as I believe), then Jesus himself will bring Christians and Muslims together by exposing the foundation of Christianity to be sinking sand.

[Keltoi]

There is a hadith that speaks of the return of Jesus (as) in Bukhari 3:425 Allah's Apostle said, "By Him in Whose Hands my soul is, son of Mary (Jesus) will shortly descend amongst you people (Muslims) as a just ruler and will break the cross and kill the pig and abolish the Jizya (a tax taken from the non-Muslims who are in the protection of the Muslim government). Then there will be abundance of money and nobody will accept charitable gifts.

If this hadith is a true prophesy (as I believe), then Jesus himself will bring Christians and Muslims together by exposing the foundation of Christianity to be sinking sand.

That is a big "if" in my book obviously. :D

[MustafaMc]

That is a big "if" in my book obviously. :D

Yes, I understand your perspective. I suppose that interfaith dialog has some value, but in order to find some "middle ground" it seems that each would have to compromise their respective faiths. I certainly don't see that for me to compromise on the Divinity of Jesus (as) would be a good thing as I am certain that you would agree. I see a perpetual struggle until the end of days with one triumphing over the other as the Truth is made known to all. I also see that tolerance of the other and allowing him to practice his faith, as long as it does not interfere with his own practice, is the best that we can achieve until then. Allah (Holy Spirit according to you) will guide to the Truth whomsoever He wills.

[Grace Seeker]

That is a big "if" in my book obviously. :D

hahaha


I doubt if you meant it as a pun, but I'm thinking about the literal book(s) that we are talking about here, and that really does seem to be the difference maker.

[MustafaMc]

I doubt if you meant it as a pun, but I'm think about the literal book(s) that we are talking about here, and that really does seem to be the difference maker.

Chapter and verse?:D

[doorster]

:bump1: