The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea (OP)
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.
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
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..
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
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.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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?
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
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.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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.......
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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..
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
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.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
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...!
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by 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...!
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.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by 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...!
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).
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
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.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
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.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 12-04-2007 at 11:17 PM.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
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.
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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.
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
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....
Re: The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea
format_quote Originally Posted by Imam
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.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks