Harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an

[Imam]

We do know that this is what the Qur'an teaches. Did you know that it is ONLY Muslims who see Christians as practicing shirk. .

A statement far beyond reality!!!!

The fact is that only Christians who see themselves as practicing pure monotheism

I will let only some of the quotes that I have of non-Mulsims speaks of itself,to see how the world apart from Christians view the Trinity in terms of true monotheism...


"Anyone who can worship a trinity and insist that his religion is a monotheism can believe anything." -- Robert A. Heinlein


in July 1531, Servetus published De trinitatis erroribus ("On the Errors of the Trinity"). The next year he published Dialogorum de Trinitate ("Dialogues on the Trinity") In these books, Servetus rejected the belief of the Trinity He noted that it arose from teachings of (Greek) philosophers According to Servetus, trinitarians had turned Christianity into a form of "tritheism", or belief in three gods. " Condemned by Catholics and Protestants alike, he was burnt at the stake as a heretic by order of the Protestant Geneva governing council.
Wikipedia



The Trinity so confusing because they are trying to make Polytheism look like Monotheism ..Abraham Khalil Flobres (Ex Egyptian christian missionary in Africa and a professor in the evangelical university in Egypt, who adapted Islam later)



The Egyptians were not such sticklers about keeping boundaries between
monotheism and polytheism. If the Xtians were honest they'd admit that
the Trinity is pure polytheism. Polytheistic Dictionary: Mysticism Magick Dictionary


Maimonides translated his theoretical disdain of Christianity into practice. He
deemed Christians to be idolators and bemoaned the fact that political
necessity forced many European Jews to live in Christian societies.



In comparing Roman Catholicism (we might as well include Protestantism
as it is hardly removed from Catholicism) with ancient Babylonian paganism, Hislop uses "Trinity in Unity" as his very first subject. Quoting from the various authoritative sources, it appears that the idea of a Trinity is an ancient one: "In the unity of that One Only God of the Babylonians, there were three persons and...they employed...the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Romish Church does today." (Pg.16) "The Papacy has...in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the Triune God, with three heads on one body." (Pg.17) Similar three-headed gods are found in India's ancient supreme divinity and Japan's Buddha (Pg.17-18). "The recognition of a Trinity was universal in all the ancient nations of
the world." (Pg.18)




All scholarly attempts at understanding it have caused only more
misunderstanding! All theological attempts at clarifying it have resulted in more confusion.
Why? Simply because it's a man-made fiction! Richard l.s.Gan Prophetic*Revelation




Mendel Kravitz, an 84-year old Jew, was hit by a car in New York City
and lay bleeding on the sidewalk. A policeman arrived on the scene and,
glancing at the victim, immediately called for an ambulance and a priest.
The priest arrived first, and bending over Kravitz, he asked, "Do you
believe in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?"
Kravitz lifted up his head, opened his eyes wide, and turned to the
crowd that had gathered around him. "I’m laying here dying and he’s
asking me riddles!"



"He (Justin) has great difficulty in expressing this point of view. He had, it is true, the precedents of Philo, and even of St.John; for in St.John the Logos or Reason or Word is the power by which God made the world, and also the light that illuminates every man who comes into the world, if that is the correct translation; but Justin attempted to define the matter most precisely. The divine Reason is a second God. He is 'a second God in number, but not in mind'; that is to say, 'he is a second God and he is not a second God'." (Dictionary of Christian Biography)




although we have but entered upon the threshold of the evidence tending
to prove that the Christian Trinity was born of heathen parents, that it is an offspring of heathen mythology, like other doctrines of the Christian faith, claimed by its disciples as the gift of divine revelation.
The Trinity Very Anciently a Current Heathen Doctrine by Kersey Graves



In simple terms the incoherence can be understood as follows: There are
three divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Yet these three divine persons are supposed to be distinct from one another: the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. However, there is exactly one God. According to this doctrine, Christ must be his own father and his own son. The Holy Ghost is neither father nor son, but both. The son was begotten by the father, but existed before he was begotten. Christ is just as old as his father, and the father is just as young as his son. The Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and Son, but he is of the same age as the other two.
Michael L. Martin - analytic philosopher and professor emeritus at
Boston University.




The Trinity was a major stumblingblock for the Jews, who adhered to
strict monotheism. The inherent polytheism in the Trinity doctrine cannot be explained away with the nonsensical claim that three is one and one is three. Besides, Jesus himself undermined any pretense of triunity (or omnipotence, for that matter) in Matthew 19:17 , "And he said unto them, Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God...." Matthew 20:23 ; Mark 14:32 ; John 5:30 ; 7:16 and 14:28 also contradict the Trinitarian concept.
Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage by Stephen Van Eck



Monotheism and polytheism can be compatible when it is realized that ... even the doctrine of the Trinity suggests that .Tom Harpur



The idea of the Trinity contains in itself the contradiction of polytheism and monotheism, of imagination and reason, of fiction and reality. Imagination gives the Trinity, reason the Unity of the parsons. According to reason, the things distinguished are only distinctions according to imagination, the distinctions are things distinguished, which therefore do away with the unity of the divine being. To the reason, the divine persons are phantoms, to the
imagination realities. The idea of the Trinity demands that man should think the opposite of what he imagines, and imagine the opposite of what he thinks, – that he should think phantoms realities.To require the reality of the persons is to require the unreality of the unity, and conversely, to require the reality of the unity is to require the unreality of the persons. Thus in the holy mystery of the Trinity, – that is to say, so far as it is supposed to represent a truth distinct from human nature, – all resolves itself into delusions, phantasms, contradictions, and sophisms.
Feuerbach, Essence of Christianity: Chapter XXIV. The Contradiction in the Trinity

.

The doctrine of the Trinity poses a deep and difficult problem. On the
one hand, it says that there are three distinct Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—and that each of these Persons “is God”. On the other hand, it says that there is one and only one God. So it appears to involve a contradiction. It seems to say that there is exactly one divine being, and also that there is more than one
Michael Rea, Material Constitution and the Trinity


Members of Oneness Pentecostal churches historically have rejected the
doctrine of the Trinity as polytheism. The more combative members of
Oneness churches say Trinitarians will go to hell



Christianity, on the other hand, remains a subject of contention, with many arguing that belief in the Trinity is polytheistic, and therefore out of bounds under Noahide law.
Michael Kress ,The Seven Laws of Noah and the Non-Jews who Follow Them



Christianity did not put an end to idolatry, rather it reinforced it. The Greek mind came back to life in a new form, in the doctrines and rituals of the church. The Greek rituals appeared in the rituals of the monastic saints. From Egypt came the idea of the holy trinity 11/418
(The Story of Civilization)Will Durant



Ancient Egyptian religion espoused soft polytheism in the form of triads or triple Gods or Goddesses. They believed that certain Gods were aspects of a great God. Amon was an aspect of Ra and was usually known as Amon-Ra. The presence of triple Gods such as Ptah-Sokar-Osiris, or "the Trinity", shows that even though their Gods may have distinct personalities and traits, they are considered to be aspects of another deity. In Hinduism, the Smartha tradition can also be seen as a form of soft polytheism.
Wikipedia



The early Christians came out of the strictly monotheistic world of Judaism into the rampantly polytheistic Roman Empire. The Doctrine of the Trinity, "God in one substance, but in three persona, Gk. hypostaseis" was an attempt to position themselves theologically between these extremes.the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is in fact more-or-less disguised polytheism.


I hope when you talk about the "monotheistic" religions that you're not
including Christianity in the mix, because by it's nature it's essentially polytheistic. No matter how you may try to dress up the trinity, it comes down to polytheism. And if you're Catholic, like I grew up, it becomes even more complicated by the veneration of Mary, the saints, etc.
Hank Scorpio



I Believes that the idea of the Trinity is polytheistic.
Church of Christ, Scientist, Mary Baker Eddy; Boston


It is not necessary, however, that the individuality and specialization of function of the supreme beings recognized by any religious system should be so conspicuous as they are in this case, or in the Greek or Roman Pantheon, to mark it as in its essence polytheistic or of polytheistic tendency. It is quite enough that the immortals are deemed to be capable of hearing and answering the prayers of their adorers, and of interfering actively in passing events, either for good or for evil. This, at the root of it, constitutes the crucial difference between polytheism and monotheism; and in this sense the Roman Catholic form of Christianity, representing the oldest undisturbed evolution of a strictly monotheistic doctrine, is undeniably polytheistic.The Empire of the Supernatural.
By Thomas Alfred Spalding (1880)



It seems that not only has Christianity incorporated bits and pieces
from older religions into its mythology, but has also painted itself into a polytheistic corner with the concept of the Trinity.
Randy L. Kendrick



well, we have read only a sample of quotes from every corner of the Earth accusing the trinity as a hidden formula of polytheism under a monotheistic slogan .

Hitler propagated his ideology as peaceful ,the same Bush and other leaders whose memories now in the rubbish of history... they are war like and claim to be peace makers..... and their followers believed , and clapped their hands for them !

the same those who propagate the trinity ...

The accusation that
only Muslims see Christians as practicing shirk,
Muslims attack the trinity because they misunderstand it
is mere a christian propagandistic nonsense,I would like to hear it no more .



Grenville ....I'm reading your posts ...and have lots to post (my time is really short nowadays) regarding the issues you highlighted (the term son of God,which trinity the Quran is talking about,the nature of Jesus) ...I just wait you to post your views on (the purpose of Jesus)....then I will post all my views on such issues and in deatails inshallah..

peace for all

 

[malayloveislam]

Peace,

What we Muslims see in prophet Jesus (pbuh) is that he is a prophet and G-d messenger to the people around him, and he is just the same like prophet Moses (pbuh), prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or any other human prophets with revelations. So, it is the Samaritans, the Jews, and etc around him are the target of the message that he brought.

The harmony can not be achieved when Quran emphasize on His Oneness while according to Bible quotes that being brought in here, they emphasize on prophet Jesus (pbuh) as G-d. Whether he is the son of G-d in the sense of metaphor or in the real sense, the Son of G-d it is always confusing me about Christians' stand. The Creed is the basis that will decide whether there is harmony between Quran and Bible.

With Love and Peace

 

[Follower]

I have asked this before-

Are muslims saying that the GOD that created the universe is incapable of being one substance and coming to mankind in 3 different ways? 1 x 1 x 1 =1

Or just that you don't believe GOD did?

 

[جوري]

I have asked this before-

Are muslims saying that the GOD that created the universe is incapable of being one substance and coming to mankind in 3 different ways? 1 x 1 x 1 =1

Or just that you don't believe GOD did?

That Question follows the same faulty lines of can God create a rock stronger than he i?.. the Question has been discussed here and the final conclusion is that your premise is faulty.. such as when you have defined what a circle is but go on calculating its parameters using a formula for cubes!

happy evangelizing

 

[BlackMamba]

^it's not 1*1*1 it's 1+1+1 and that equals 3 Muslims believe in Allah alone with no partners. Father son spirit are three things when you add them it's 3. It clearly contradicts the fundamental belief of Islam.

But there be something true in what Grenville is saying as far as Christianity straying away from bible and that bible doesn't support polytheism but rather it's the Christian tradition that supports polytheism. I have watched a lecture on zakir naik talking about the similarities between Christianity and Islam(really the bible and Islam) and it seems that there are several verses in the bible that talk about pure monotheism. Like Jesus telling people to worship God alone. And also, the bible never ever talks about bible, and the bible is HUge.

But Grenville I don't know what you're talking about when you say Islamic tradition takes away from Jesus. We believe he will come down to earth and fight dajjal(Antichrist). We say peace be upon him whenever we say his name aloud. We don't draw pictures or depict him in anyway to avoid disrespecting him. We say he is one of the greatest prophets and messengers of Allah. Actually Muslims respect Jesus much more than christians who make movies and jokes about Jesus routinely.

 

[malayloveislam]

^^

Very true, we respect all prophets and we treat them the same. We also respect their family who also following the teachings like mother Maryam (G-d be please with her), and the family of Abraham (pbuh) just like we respect the family of our final prophet and G-d messenger, Muhammad (pbuh).

 

[Rou]

Again, the Son is one person, the Father is another, but they are one and the same being. Thus, it is quite appropriate for Jesus who is the living incarnation of God to still refer to the Father as a seperate person, for they are two distinct persons. And since he was speaking to Mary, a third person, he puts it to her in the way that makes sense for her.

But you also have to quit reading verses in isolation from each other. This is the very same book in which the author presents Thomas (only 11 verses later) as declaring Jesus to be God. And then he goes on to say that his whole purpose for selecting that which he has of Jesus' life to write about is to lead people to believe "that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." The way that John, in particular, uses the term "Son of God" does not imply biological offspring, but rather that Jesus was himself divine. It is inconsistent with the rest of the book to thnk that John is presenting Jesus to us as some how NOT God in light of all the other things he has to say about Jesus at the same time.

Thank you for the reply imust say i have read the other verses in that chapter and not just that one but still to get to the answer that you have given it takes alot of self assumption as the verses themselves do not explain such matters? am i correct? what i mean is the verses need alot of human input to reach the conclusion that they are still refering to a seprate person but yet the same person...as in as you said they are all one but not!?

Alot of human input seems to be needed?

There are many times jesus pbuh mentions seprate beings such as the father being a seprate being far more than there are verses him stating clearly that he is this being he refers to?

looking at the conclusion could it not be possible that beacuse jesus has mentioned more times a third person more so than a refrence that he is this person that he could very well be talking about a third person and not himself as another being?

I mean this seems very clear to me -

"I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God"

Also as far as i know he is reffering to when he shall be taken in this verse from this world by god am i correct!?

 

[Grace Seeker]

a gift horse...

well, i wonder what happened to the notion that all you have to do is to believe in Jesus and be saved?

apparently, not in Gene's Christianity. what we see here is Gene trying to FORCE a fellow Christian on, and this is the good part, WHAT TO THINK!

HISTORY AND[or maybe of] the SYNOPTIC GOSPELS support what Grenville writes, but Gene won't have it!

YOU BELIEVE WHAT I BELIEVE OR YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN!

if anyone wonders how the Crusades took root in peoples minds...

"ALL one has to do is ....." Since when? Though Peter called the people to repentance and baptism with similar words, the way you phrase it is actually a distortion of the gospel message.

First, one might say that one does not even have to believe, for we are actually saved by grace. For Chrisians this grace comes through faith, but that does not prevent God from saving others for other reasons, perhaps even without faith, for salvation is always the act, i.e. choice, of a sovereign God, not by human works.

But more importantly, the right to define what is and is not a part of any religion is left to that religion to say for themselves. This is why the early church had debates over what was and was not within the Christian pail. Islam has done the same. I remind you that there are many who claim to be Muslims that you yourself, Yusuf, say are not. They go by the name Ahmadi. And I find that on this board there are some who even question whether or not the beliefs of Shi'ite Muslims are truly Islamic enough. So, yes, I do stand to protect the orthodox faith and say that some of what Greenville is presenting here is not in keeping with the teachings of Christianity, just as Tertulian once made his speach on that matter and others latter said that even Tertullian eventually went too far in some of his ideas.

Grenville is free to believe whatever he wants, but when he says that the Bible does not teach the incarnation, I am likewise free to say that I disagree and that his interpretation is so far afield from the teachings of the Christian faith as to no longer be appropriate for the adjective Christian to be applied to it.

Look, even other Muslims on this board realize that what Grenville is posting is not in keeping with the traditional teachings of the Christian church:

But there be something true in what Grenville is saying as far as Christianity straying away from bible and that bible doesn't support polytheism but rather it's the Christian tradition that supports polytheism.

Whether I agree with Shakoor's characterization of the degree to which Christianity can find Biblical support for its doctrines, even he gets that what Grenville proposes does not properly represent Christianity, and that is why I said what I said with regard to the Grenville's "way of life" status.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

At the start of this exercise, did we not all agree (including you) that Jesus was more than "just a man", as you are now claiming that I am asserting? We should believe what is explicitly stated in the Bible. The Bible explicitly describes Jesus as the Son of God and the Messiah. John, one of the authors of the four Gospels, explained why the Gospel was written.

“but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.” (John 20:31)​

In the evidence from the Bible, there are no references to “God the Son” or “God the Lamb” or “Jesus our God” or “our God Jesus” or anything similar. However, there are numerous references to “God the Father”, “Son of God” and “Lamb of God”. The word "of” suggests that the Lamb belongs to or comes from God, not that the Lamb is God.

The writer of Hebrews describes Jesus’ relationship with God and man.

Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation [atonement or amends] for the sins of the people. For in that He Himself has suffered, being tempted, He is able to aid those who are tempted. (Hebrews 2:17–18)​

Grace Seeker, I am very sympathetic to your religious traditional views, for I too shared some of them. However, our religious traditions should be supported by the Bible. There is a difference between the Bible and some Christian religious traditions, and between a person who submits to God and one who submit to religious traditions.

When we are confronted by claims of truth, then we should critically review such claims, which are what I am inviting you to do. May you be a seeker of the Truth as well as a seeker of God’s grace.

Regards,
Grenville.

Please continue your discussion. But do not ask me to say that the views that you are presenting are Christian in character. They are not. As you have just said in this post, my views are traditional, what you are describing are not traditional. They are more in keeping with say those of Jehovah's Witnesses or some other group that again I would say are non-Christian in their theology. I don't believe that one can use the adjective Chrsitian and deny any of the following: the incarnation, the crucifixion, nor the resurrection. Such statements would be non-sequitors.

As for what the Bible says on the matter of the incarnation, John 1:1-18 is enough for me to find Biblical support for the idea, but it is also found in plenty of other passages where Jesus (or the Christ) is referred to as God. I didn't think that such a debate was the subject of this thread, and so I have largely let go those points with which I disagree, but I cannot stand idly by and let you say that that which you are espousing fits within the context of the Christian Church, wide though that tent may be, there is a limit and you have stepped outside of it.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If that is the case, why did you make a thread querying 'the founder of Christianity' and gave two separate polls -- one for Jesus and for God, if they are indeed on in the same?
and why has Jesus taken precedents now while the other two godheads take a back seat to the Jesus figure head?

I made the poll as I did to give the widest possible options to the differing answers I was hearing from different people. I wasn't posting only that which I believed, if I had done that I would not have made a poll at all.


As to Jesus taking precedent, while I suspect this is true for certain individuals, I don't think that this is as true for the church as a whole as you seem to perceive it to be, but I don't doubt that from one outside the church it appears as you have said. However, since I don't see it the way you do, I am unable to respond to a perception that we don't share.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Did you know that it is only Muslims who see Christians as practicing shirk.

A statement far beyond reality!!!!

The fact is that only Christians who see themselves as practicing pure monotheism

I will let only some of the quotes that I have of non-Mulsims speaks of itself,to see how the world apart from Christians view the Trinity in terms of true monotheism...

Agreed that many non-Christians see the Christian understanding of the three-in-one God as not being monotheistic. But that is not what I was saying. You never showed one non-Muslim who declared that Christians practice shirk. I believe that statement still stands.


Is not shirk the adding of partners to God? Only Muslims accuse Christians of this. The others you mention may not see us as being truly monotheisitic, they may even see us as polytheistic, but they don't speak of Christians as adding partners or associates to God. Maybe Arius could be described as being guilty of that, for he thought of Jesus as sort of a sub-god, but then Arius' ideas were declared to be non-Christian and heretical to the Christian faith.

Maybe you can help me with this some more. I never hear Muslims speak of Hinduism as shirk. Why not? If the problem with Christianity is that it is not pure-monotheism as defined by Islam, how is Hinduism any less shirk than Christianity?

 

[جوري]

Hindus are kaffirs it isn't any better than being a mushrik

They believe in amongst others:
Some popular Hindu deities include Durga, Krishna, Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Hanuman, Kali, Murugan, Venkateshwara, Nataraja, Rama, and Lakshmi.'


Ganesha for instance

an elephant god.. does that seem anything to you like the God that Abraham worshiped?

Hence the difference.. they not only disbelief in the Lord of the universe, they pray or invoke these other gods of their mythology..


Christians on the other hand allege to worship the God of Abraham, but the god of Abraham according to all the people of the book excluding Christians, isn't Jesus, the god of Abraham doesn't take a backseat to a human and the God of Abraham doesn't descend to women to nunciate to them he is about to impregnate them with his person.. and that is what makes you a mushrik and not a kaffir..
Both are cardinal sins btw


all the best

 

[Follower]

"The fact is that only Christians who see themselves as practicing pure monotheism"

No in truth Christians also see Islam and Judiasm as practising monotheism also.

 

[Follower]

shakoor said - If Jesus and god are the same thing then why do you call it a trinity. Trinity implies 3 kinda like lord of the rings trinity. And if Jesus n god are the same thing how can one be the son?! You can't keep redefining the word son to match your beliefs

Although I would be labeled a trinitarian I don't care for the term. It is a man made term used to try and label a concept that is beyond us. Islam has given Allah 99 names, is he more then what these names call him or is he limiited to just these 99 attributes?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I know GOD is one substance that has revealed Himself to us in 3 different ways.

The key to a Muslims being able to understand our concept of GOD is the fact that GOD is one substance. Do we know what this substance is? I believe it is spirit. I have heard some say that the substance of GOD is "pure love".

What is the substance of Allah?

One substance, 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. 1 to the 99th power = 1.

Do muslims believe that Allah is incapable of manifesting in different ways? or is it that they just don't believe he did?

 

[GreyKode]

I have heard some say that the substance of GOD is "pure love".

What is this rubbish about substance and stuff?
First you say spirit and then "PURE LOVE", what is that!!!!
Does love have a substance?:enough!:

 

[Grace Seeker]

What is this rubbish about substance and stuff?
First you say spirit and then "PURE LOVE", what is that!!!!
Does love have a substance?:enough!:

Yes, he gave different options as to how one might answer the question. But let me try to re-phrase the question:

In Islamic thinking, is Allah of a particular defined form, essence, or substance?

 

[malayloveislam]

Allah is the Creator, the Universe is the creation. Basically two different things. We can not say that G-d is in spirit form like angels or genies nor in physical form like human or like anything in the Universe, we could never think or imagine how Dzat of Allah look like because we still can not escape from tagging Him with the creations because we live in earth and we will associate Him with what we see, they will merge into Polytheism!

We still can feel His presence with our heart, whenever we sincerely chant His Holiest name "Allah" in prayers and dzikrs (remembering Him in heart and by oral). We only can see G-d when we are in the paradise, where He Himself will let us see Him. We can't even imagine His image in the earth, it is Holy.

99 Glorious names of G-d is not G-d, it is His names and His Holy Characters. He has more than 99 names but those 99 are the prominent ones. The Holiest name of G-d is Allah, it can't be used to any creature nor uttered simply anywhere especially in dirty places.

As an example, I may have many nicknames but those names are not me, they might be representing my character, background, and etc but basically the names are not me. Also people might talking about me, that person is wicked John, that person is generous Thomas, this person is a honorable shop keeper, those adjectives are not me. They are describing my characters and also being my identification that made people know about my characters.

 

[Walter]

Hi Everyone:

What was Jesus’ role. Let us first examine what Jesus repeatedly and consistently explicitly stated.

• Jesus explained that He has a close personal relationship with God, calling Him Father and describing Himself as God’s Son.
  
• Jesus explained that He came from God and would return to God – not that He was God.
  
• Jesus explained that He did not come to do His own desires, but the will of His Father who sent Him.
  
• Jesus explained that the relationship that He had with God would be available to all who believed in Him once He completed His mission. Therefore, Jesus would not need to pray to God for anyone. Instead, each person could cultivate a personal relationship with God as their loving Heavenly Father
  
• Jesus explained that God had given Him life in Himself, and the authority to judge the world.

At this point, it is useful to read the account of Jesus just before He was to do what He was sent to do.

Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to the disciples, “Sit here while I go and pray over there.” And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and He began to be sorrowful and deeply distressed. 38 Then He said to them, “My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even to death. Stay here and watch with Me.”

He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”

Then He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, “What! Could you not watch with Me one hour? 41 Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Again, a second time, He went away and prayed, saying, “O My Father, if this cup cannot pass away from Me unless I drink it, Your will be done.”

And He came and found them asleep again, for their eyes were heavy. So He left them, went away again, and prayed the third time, saying the same words. Then He came to His disciples and said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand, and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us be going. See, My betrayer is at hand.”

And while He was still speaking, behold, Judas, one of the twelve, with a great multitude with swords and clubs, came from the chief priests and elders of the people. Now His betrayer had given them a sign, saying, “Whomever I kiss, He is the One; seize Him.” 49 Immediately he went up to Jesus and said, “Greetings, Rabbi!” and kissed Him. But Jesus said to him, “Friend, why have you come?”

Then they came and laid hands on Jesus and took Him. And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear. But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels? How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?”

In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, “Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize Me. But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled.” Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled. (Matthew 26:36-56)​

Jesus’ betrayer delivered Him to the multitude, who delivered Him to the Chief Priest, who delivered Him to the Roman Governor, Pilate, who delivered Him to King Herod, who returned Him to Pilate, who delivered Him to the Roman soldiers who crucified Him.

The question that remains outstanding is: What were these scriptures that had to be fulfilled to which Jesus referred. The entire Isaiah 53, which described His condition after His arrest, follows.

1 Who has believed our report? And to whom has the arm of the LORD been revealed? 2 For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant, And as a root out of dry ground. He has no form or comeliness; And when we see Him, There is no beauty that we should desire Him. 3 He is despised and rejected by men, A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him; He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4 Surely He has borne our griefs And carried our sorrows; Yet we esteemed Him stricken, Smitten by God, and afflicted. 5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.

6 All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all. 7 He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, And as a sheep before its shearers is silent, So He opened not His mouth.

8 He was taken from prison and from judgment, And who will declare His generation? For He was cut off from the land of the living; For the transgressions of My people He was stricken. 9 And they[a] made His grave with the wicked— But with the rich at His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise Him; He has put Him to grief. When You make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, And the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in His hand. 11 He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied. By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many, For He shall bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, And He shall divide the spoil with the strong, Because He poured out His soul unto death, And He was numbered with the transgressors, And He bore the sin of many, And made intercession for the transgressors. (Isaiah 53)​

This is the meaning of Messiah. The person who was sent from God to reconcile all people to God, that they might cultivate a personal relationship with their Creator. Mohammed directed people to believe in the Messiah. He also explained that a close relationship with God was the aim.

It is possible to submit to God as a slave, and to hope that you are doing what you think that He requires. It is an entirely different relationship to know God as your Heavenly Father and friend, and to confidently trust Him even during times of severe persecution.

The Qur’an concurs.

Who can be better in religion than one who submits his whole self to God, does good, and follows the way of Abraham the true in Faith? For God did take Abraham for a friend. (4:125)​

Regards,
Grenville

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Yes, he gave different options as to how one might answer the question. But let me try to re-phrase the question:

In Islamic thinking, is Allah of a particular defined form, essence, or substance?

Why does it matter? When God told us that he was one did he have to specify substance, essence, or form?

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

Please continue your discussion. But do not ask me to say that the views that you are presenting are Christian in character. They are not. As you have just said in this post, my views are traditional, what you are describing are not traditional. They are more in keeping with say those of Jehovah's Witnesses or some other group that again I would say are non-Christian in their theology. I don't believe that one can use the adjective Chrsitian and deny any of the following: the incarnation, the crucifixion, nor the resurrection. Such statements would be non-sequitors.

As for what the Bible says on the matter of the incarnation, John 1:1-18 is enough for me to find Biblical support for the idea, but it is also found in plenty of other passages where Jesus (or the Christ) is referred to as God. I didn't think that such a debate was the subject of this thread, and so I have largely let go those points with which I disagree, but I cannot stand idly by and let you say that that which you are espousing fits within the context of the Christian Church, wide though that tent may be, there is a limit and you have stepped outside of it.

Please note:

1. I believe the Bible uncompromisingly.
   
2. I have found that the Bible does not support the religious traditional teaching that Jesus is God.
   
3. I presented evidence to show that the Bible appeared to explicitly teach that Jesus was not God.
   
4. I invited you to examine all of the evidence in detail in Brothers Kept Apart. You can read it at your local library free of cost. I would be very interested to learn your interpretation of the evidence provided since I highly value your opinions.

Grace Seeker, if you have not read the book, then do you not consider your accusations and conclusions to be premature?

You have mentioned the evidence contained in John. Good. Let us examine it. The following evidence is taken to mean that Jesus is referred to as the Word, who was God.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)​

The first chapter of the Gospel of John contains many titles but two entities, God and: the Word, Life, Light, Flesh, Jesus, Christ, Son of God, Son of Man, Rabbi, King of Israel, Messiah, Son of Joseph, and Lamb of God. Of these titles, only one of them was referred to as God: “the Word was God”.

The evidence does not say that Jesus was God or that the Word is God as is taught by Christian religious tradition. Instead the Bible explicitly states that the Word was with God, and was God in the beginning. Now, let us try to discuss this issue honestly without damaging the integrity of any of the evidence in the Bible.

Grace Seeker, it is possible that words, before they are spoken, can be considered to be part of the person. My words not yet spoken are with me and can be said to be me. However, once spoken, they represent me, but are separate from me. If you agree, then let us see whether this explanation maintains the integrity of the evidence in the Bible.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. (John 1:1–2)​

The unspoken Word was with God in the beginning. This unspoken Word was God.

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. (John 1:3)​

The unspoken Word was spoken and creation was the result. Note that God is the Creator, and all things were made by God through the Word of God. We are essentially calling the “Word of God” the Word that belongs to God and came from God - which happens to be how Jesus described Himself.

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. (John 1:4–5)​

Once spoken, the Word became a separate entity with a life of His own.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)​

The Word, separated from God, eventually became flesh. The idea of the Word having life in Himself, and the Word becoming flesh, is consistent with other Biblical teachings.

For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself, and has given Him authority to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man. (John 5:26–27)​

Is this the actual interpretation? I cannot say for certain. However, it is a plausible explanation that does not damage any of the evidence and which is consistent with other Biblical teachings. The interpretation that "Jesus was God" or that "the Word is God" damages the integrity of the verse and ancillary verses. We must remember that Paul indicated that there exists an element of uncertainty for the time being.

For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known. (1 Corinthians 13:9–12)​

Therefore, dogmatic (doctrinal) statements should not be made about inconclusive issues. Rather, all of the relevant evidence should be examined, and conflicting evidence must be reconciled. No evidence should be simly ignored in order to reach a favored position.

I look forward to your critical review of Brothers Kept Apart.

Best regards,
Grenville