What was the nature of Jesus' (alayhi salam) birth?

[YieldedOne]

Let me say it this way:

If the Quran, which human beings can touch, hold, and read...can faithfully be said to be uncreated and eternal in nature as Allah's word...I don't see how it can be seen as completely inconceivable that Allah could do the same self-disclosing activity through a living, breathing HUMAN BEING who can be touched, held, and observed.

I'm seriously not seeing it. Wowzers.

 

[جوري]

Let this be said. I personally am not arguing for God as Trinity per se. I really ain't doing that.

I am asking THIS question:
Is there anything, Quranically speaking, that renders INCONCEIVABLE that the "word" spoken by Allah to Mary was simultaneously an eternal, uncreated "word" of divine self-disclosure that was temporally manifested like unto what is claimed about the Quran itself being eternal and uncreated but temporally manifested?

I honestly don't see anything in the Quran...or any discussion that I've ever seen...that eliminates the possibility of what I'm talking about. I'd like to see some, if I could.

Help?

Dr. Deedat sums it best

Somethings are very obvious, you don't need to conjure up absurdities and demand that they be acknowledged!

all the best

 

[YieldedOne]

Wanna tie all this back to the thread. I believe that the nature of Jesus' birth is divine fiat, whatever the actual mechanism may have been. God's willed and spoken "word" is what ultimately brings forth Jesus' emergence into human history. In this way, it IS like Adam, though there are distinctions. God says "Be!" and it is.

My thought is this: Is it conceivable that the "word" of Allah spoken by God causing Jesus to "Be!" actually ANTEDATED Mary's faithful, humble acceptance of that "word" to her? If it is conceivable, such that the "word" to Mary precedes the encounter with Mary, who is to say that the same "word" could not have been an ETERNAL one, spoken from before Creation began?

Take me logically step by step how it's inconceivable...anyone.

 

[YieldedOne]

Um...I listened to Dr. Deedat and he was really cool! But I didn't get anything that would help answer my question. I really listened...and I didn't get anything.

Help, again?

 

[YieldedOne]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ:
Somethings are very obvious, you don't need to conjure up absurdities and demand that they be acknowledged!

I'm sorry. What does this sentence mean, lily? That any conceptualization of a triune subject is absurd? Interesting.

 

[جوري]

Wanna tie all this back to the thread. I believe that the nature of Jesus' birth is divine fiat, whatever the actual mechanism may have been. God's willed and spoken "word" is what ultimately brings forth Jesus' emergence into human history. In this way, it IS like Adam, though there are distinctions. God says "Be!" and it is. My thought is this: Is it conceivable that the "word" of Allah spoken by God causing Jesus to "Be!" actually ANTEDATED Mary's faithful, humble acceptance of that "word" to her? If it is conceivable, such that the "word" to Mary precedes the encounter with Mary, who is to say that the same "word" could not have been an ETERNAL one, spoken from before Creation began? Take me logically step by step how it's inconceivable...anyone.

You're not using logical tools for a debate, so how can I make a logical conclusion out of an absurdity?
It is to say the ingredients for apple pie (as is universally known by definition of the terms themselves to be) apples, dough, sugar, cinnamon, yet you bring chicken legs buttermilk and crumbs and expect me to walk you through the process to prove that those can't be the ingredients of apple pies, furthermore expect me to find you in cook books a refutation to your proposed ingredients as the foundation of apple pies, and using rearwards logic.

This is the portion where we either do an MMSE on you to check your mental status for a serious condition or ignore you all together as a malingering troll!

all the best

 

[YieldedOne]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ:
You're not using logical tools for a debate, so how can I make a logical conclusion out of an absurdity? It is to say the ingredients for apple pie (as is universally known by definition of the terms themselves to be) apples, dough, sugar, cinnamon, yet you bring chicken legs buttermilk and crumbs and expect me to walk you through the process to prove that those can't be the ingredients of apple pies, furthermore expect me to find you in cook books a refutation to your proposed ingredients as the foundation of apple pies, and using rearwards logic. This is the portion where we either do an MMSE on you to check your mental status for a serious condition or ignore you all together as a malingering troll!

Ok. All I can assume is that I must be saying something super offensive right now. I'm sorry if that's what's happening. I'm definitely not trying to be a "malingering troll." (Wow. Never been called THAT before. Hmm.) Am I going to fast...or what? I'm trying to be clear. Could you help me sot that I can be more clear for communicating what I'm trying to ask?

 

[جوري]

Ok. All I can assume is that I must be saying something super offensive right now. I'm sorry if that's what's happening. I'm definitely not trying to be a "malingering troll." (Wow. Never been called THAT before. Hmm.) Am I going to fast...or what? I'm trying to be clear. Could you help me sot that I can be more clear for communicating what I'm trying to ask?

I can't help you formulate questions out of non-questions, create logic out of being illogical.. see previous replies and analogies on the subject matter..

all the best

 

[YieldedOne]

I'm thinking about Surah 4:171...

O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him.

It says clearly that Jesus, son of Mary, was a "word" of Allah directed to Mary and a soul created by divine fiat or command.

I don't see anything that limits this "word" of Allah being solely and exhaustively temporal in nature.

I'm really trying to ask this simply...

 

[جوري]

I'm thinking about Surah 4:171... O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. It says clearly that Jesus, son of Mary, was a "word" of Allah directed to Mary and a soul created by divine fiat or command. I don't see anything that limits this "word" of Allah being solely and exhaustively temporal in nature. I'm really trying to ask this simply...

Everything that is created is the word of God.

• 2:117- The Initiator of the heavens and the earth: to have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

• 3:47- She said, "My Lord, how can I have a son, when no man has touched me?" He said, "God thus creates whatever He wills. To have anything done, He simply says to it, 'Be,' and it is."

• 6:73- He is the One who created the heavens and the earth, truthfully. Whenever He says, "Be," it is. His word is the absolute truth. All sovereignty belongs to Him the day the trumpet is blown. Knower of all secrets and declarations, He is the Most Wise, the Cognizant.

• 16:40- To have anything done, we simply say to it, "Be," and it is.

• 19:35- It does not befit God that He begets a son, be He glorified. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is."

• 36:82- All He needs to do to carry out any command is say to it, "Be," and it is.

• 40:68- He is the only One who controls life and death. To have anything done, He simply says to it, "Be," and it is.

hope that helps..

all the best

 

[YieldedOne]

[And mention] when the angels said, "O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous."

She said, "My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?" [The angel] said, "Such is Allah ; He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is.

 

[YieldedOne]

So....everything that exists is "spoken" into existence by Allah. Interesting. Christians have that same belief, except that believe that Jesus is the Eternal Word through whom Creation was/is "spoken" into existence by Allah.

Interesting.

So, Allah spoke the Quran into existence as well, right?

 

[YieldedOne]

It's like this, I think. Jesus' emergence in human history is of specific divine will and intention, not mere human social convention or biological propagation. Christians AND Muslims will agree on that score. Where they will disagree is whether or not Allah's specific divine will and intention for Jesus' existence as revelatory "word" antedates Allah's encounter with Mary.

I think. Heh.

 

[YieldedOne]

I know I can't post links. So, I'll just mention this. There was a pretty good article online called "THE UNCREATEDNESS OF THE DIVINE SPEECH: THE GLORIOUS QUR'AN" by Sh. G. F. Haddad. It talks specifically about the idea of the Quran being the "Speech of Allah" which is uncreated.

 

[M.I.A.]

Woodrow, the same that you have said about time could be said of the measurements we use of space -- length, width, depth. Are you suggesting that these are not "things" either, and that they were not created in the same way you suggest that time is not created? You are the first person in the fields of either religion or science to ever suggest to me that time does not exist as a part of creation. I understand that ideas of a Euclidean universe of 3 dimensions of space and one dimension of time have been repostulated in which space and time are combined into a single manifold, but I have yet to see it argued as I understand you to suggest that time itself does not exist, other than that it could not have existed prior to the creation of the universe in which we do indeed (as you yourself say) measure it. How is that not the same as saying that time was created in the act of creating the universe? (And, relative to Mustafa's question, what does this rabbit trail have to do with the actual topic of this thread?)

time does not exist for god only for creation... god would be bored silly by now.. especially if he knew what was going to happen.

actually the concept of time being subjective.. i would say relative but not in the sense it was first termed.. is in the quran.

 

[M.I.A.]

i have no problem with believing the above yet it still does not change the fact that allah decides to act at some point. there is a time before, during, and after he makes the effect materialize. let us remember that allah knows from all eternity what he is going to do and when he is going to do so but this does not change the fact that at the appropriate moment, he wills that his purpose be accomplished. in this case, at the appropriate moment, he wills that the effect of speech be materialized to moses. that once again is an action and action takes place within the realm of time. time was created by allah and as such he does indeed enter hid creation.


once again the above shows that at some point in time, allah wills that jesus be created within the womb of mary. this is once again an act on his part that happens within time and as such he does indeed enter into his creation.


clearly you do not understand what omnitemporal even means. omnitemporal is defined as god existing at every point within time. yet it also includes the fact that he is pretemporal, supertemporal, and postemporal. the very fact that you're going around saying words like omnitemporal shows that you are ignorant on the subject itself seeing as omnitemporal means that god is within time (and outside of it, before it, after it, etc.) and as such he has entered his creation. yet if i recall correctly, aren't you the individual who is arguing that god does not enter into his creation?

@gene: we will have to disagree on this. for one thing, i firmly believe that you believe god to be bound by goodness, or is it that you disagree with the statement that god cannot lie? do you suppose that he could make a square-circle? do you believe that god can make himself to cease to exist? clearly we should be in agreement on these so it is not that a sovereign god is not bound by anything but rather he is not bound by anything outside of himself. logic, goodness etc. find their source in him and as such he could not deny himself.

furthermore, what is your understanding of "interacting with creation" and "entering creation"?


to be quite sure, all you've shown is your own ignorance on the subject. i have not used the fact that allah does indeed enter into his creation in order to imply that he entered a human. if what you say is true, please provide us with this quote? it's almost ironic that you would enter this thread and be so quick to label others as deceivers and liars when at this point, it is only you who has said something which is false. that said, it does not even matter if these hadiths refer to the day of judgement etc. (and could you also provide us with the quote where i claimed that they didn't?), they still show that allah enters into his creation. please try to engage my argument. we can have this discussion if you would like but let us not abandon civility or the proper rules of debate.

btw, this thread has nothing to do with the trinity. i spoke of it at length during the other thread and it would seem that you failed to participate. that however is not my problem.

you must understand the light from the most distant of stars takes very long to reach earth. in the same way just because you understand that god is only to say be and it is.. the nature of the creation is not restricted to any time constraint.
to think god is at any moment constantly saying be would be quite frustrating no doubt.

i dont know if that is what you implied but im just saying

...dont bother replying, i know most certainly that allah swt is not bound to any restriction of time.

if the angels are made of light, the fastest they can travel is the speed of light... and they still turn up on time? lol at the very least we are on a eight minute delay.. no im kidding, light is almost a constant.

actually the concept of angels taking human form and remaining made of light would lead a person to question the very nature of reality, the boundaries of creation and what is external.

another thing.. putting a angel(for the sake of example) into a situation would require a "be" aswell. angels only do what they are commanded.. but it did exist before the "be" didnt it?

 

[Sol Invictus]

( a ) you must understand the light from the most distant of stars takes very long to reach earth. in the same way just because you understand that god is only to say be and it is.. the nature of the creation is not restricted to any time constraint.
( b ) to think god is at any moment constantly saying be would be quite frustrating no doubt.

i dont know if that is what you implied but im just saying

( c ) ...dont bother replying, i know most certainly that allah swt is not bound to any restriction of time.

if the angels are made of light, the fastest they can travel is the speed of light... and they still turn up on time? lol at the very least we are on a eight minute delay.. no im kidding, light is almost a constant.

actually the concept of angels taking human form and remaining made of light would lead a person to question the very nature of reality, the boundaries of creation and what is external.

another thing.. putting a angel(for the sake of example) into a situation would require a "be" aswell. angels only do what they are commanded.. but it did exist before the "be" didnt it?

( a ) that is a wonderful point and in fact goes a long way in trying to resolve the issue of time and action as it relates to god. in fact it almost manages to do so. yet the very fact that for something to come into existence at some point, requires allah to have called it to exist at some point prior to which he did not call it to exist, once again shows that the actions of allah are accomplished within time (or else there could be no before, during, or after to these actions) and as such he does indeed enter his creation.

( b ) that is not what i am saying and i'm glad that we can be in agreement on this.

( c ) that is a subtly different point then what i seek to prove with my argument.

 

[MustafaMc]

I cannot affirm that this even represents what I am saying from my perspective.

Do I misunderstand? I thought that you believe that Jesus is fully human and yet fully God while also the Father is fully God. Please, correct my misunderstanding.

One does not have an eternal Father without an eternal Son. If, to your understnading, the Son cannot be Allah, please don't equate the Father with Allah then either. For what you mean by Allah is what we mean not by the Father, but by God who is all three in one.

Well the Quran clearly says that the Messiah is not Allah and when one reads the Quran one comes away with exactly the understanding I conveyed. If you remember, I used the term 'Father' for what Jesus was quoted in the NT as referring to God and I also said "without implying any 'fatherhood' to Him."

If I understand you correctly now we are in agreement: "God is not bound by space or time in any way." So, God indeed can be omnipresent (i.e., in every place and in every time all at the same time)?

I am unclear as to how not being bound by space and time means that God is omnipresent. Perhaps, it is semantics in the difference between being aware of everything with His knowledge as opposed to physically being present everywhere at once. However, I am afraid we will not get anywhere with further discussion on this point.

Actually I do understand that this is how you see them. And I too see them as distinct persons, but I do not see them as separate beings. And I understand that for you those two statements reek of illogic. Yet for me they are simply revealed truth.

Yes, it is illogical, but we all know that we can't put God inside a box so we can understand Him. Our understanding of God is quite different, but yet He remains the same eternally. Is the Trinity concept found in the OT? Did Moses or Abraham have an understanding of Jesus?

If in the first sentence you were to substitute the term "person" for "being", I would agree with you. However, as I stated above, one should not equate Allah with the Father alone separate from the Son and the Spirit, for to do so divides God into multiple beings which we Christians would never do. And we would not do so, specifically because we do indeed believe that there is just one God -- a single divine being who in his nature exists in community within himself as three distinct persons, but who is nevertheless wholly one being. Yes, your problem with this issue is rather obvious.

...but still you haven't explained how Jesus praying to the Father is 'just one God'.

Even the way you misrepresent what it is makes it clear that you have a problem with it. (And I don't mean that you do so with malice or even intent, but you just don't speak of the Trinity meaning by it what we mean by it.)

Perhaps you could explain it in a way where I will understand.

Well, the omnipresence of God, not the Trinity, would be the reason for speaking of God as being in Egypt and New York and for that matter Mississippi all at the same time. And when God is present, then of course it is all of him that is present. To say that God cannot do this is to say that God is limited with regard to space and time. And I don't believe God to be so bound. And according to what you said above you don't either. Or do you? I'm still unclear.

There remains the distinction between being present in His knowledge (what I believe) and being actually physically present (what you believe).

I don't know how to your comment about God being 100% of different races or different genders at the same time. I don't recall anyone every saying any such thing. I would argue that God has neither race nor gender. That even the use of the personal pronoun "he" is a convention and not meant to be description of the gender of one who in his image creates us both male and female. That doesn't sound like one to whom a specific gender should be ascribed.

My use of that was merely an analogy for how you see Jesus as 100% human and 100% God or is it a 50/50 kind of thing - I am yet unclear.

Again, the passages you reference indeed do point to a distinction between the persons of the Father and of the Son, or between the Son and the Spirit. There are many more besides these that you have named. We Christian don't deny, rather we affirm that there are distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. But we would also point out that there are passages that point to oneness as well. And whether we are comfortable doing it or not might be questions, but most certainly we do hold these passages in tension affirming both to be revealed truth. It is out of that affirmation that the doctrine which you know as an articulation of the Trinity developed.

I can understand how it is difficult to explain. This is the very point about why I may say, "And Allah knows best" as I try not to speak about Allah (swt) in a way that is not correct. I fear that I may actually go too far in this respect some times and should 'hold my tongue' more.

Your expression of the oneness of Allah is similary not something that you arrived at by logic, but by declaring your faith in the truth as you best understand it revealed. Now, having arrived at that belief, I am sure that is seems logical to you. But what I observe of human nature is that we arrive at our beliefs first by faith, and then find those beliefs to be logical, not the other way around. Though surely there is someone who with me having now made such a statement will tell their personal story and prove me wrong. C'est le vie!

No, I agree with you. Even now there are things I don't understand, but I accept them as true anyway because I accept the Quran as the Word of God. I am sure that you are the same way about the Bible.

Well, I have written already a great deal on how it is that we Christians see the nature of God. How though we see a distinction between three persons, that we still understand that we are speaking of one divine Being, one singluar essence. I have written in other posts how we Christians begin with the concept that God is one and that there are no other gods. And yet, in the course of time how we came to believe that God had revealed himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, since we affirm that there is just the one God, if Jesus was God revealed in the flesh then it followed that within our understanding of the one God we had to allow for the possibility that this one God existed within himself in community. Holding these two concepts to both be true and yet seeming running contrary to each other, the early church church wrestled with what this revelation meant. And in the end, the present Nicene formulation is what emerged.

Now, I don't expect that such an explanation in the single paragraph I provided above is going to be sufficient to answer all the questions that are raised. I would very much like to try to be more complete if afforded the opportunity. Indeed, I had considered during the time that I was away from the forum earlier this year to devote myself to an intensive study of the Trinity and to bring my own thoughts back to here to share. I don't know if that would be acceptable given the rules of the forum. But if so, I would like to discuss how it is that monotheistic Jews, as the disciples of Jesus all were, should nontheless find it necessary to express their conviction that Jesus was himself God incarnate. I would like to show how the ideas that we eventually find articulated as the doctrine of the Trinity, are actually rooted in the Jewish understanding of God, and how the Christian understanding of the Trinity is as much a statement about the oneness of God as it is about the distinctiveness of the three persons. But such a project thus far has been beyond my time to initiate, and I fear might be beyond the tolerance of this forum to allow posting.

Well, the previous paragraph made more sense than the last one. My understanding of Jewish theology is that it is strictly monotheistic and I fail to see how the Trinity doctrine has Jewish roots.

 

[MustafaMc]

Two things:

1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?

2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

Conceptually, I can understand how you possibly could come to this conclusion.

An analogy for Jesus' (as) creation could be a person blowing up a balloon. The balloon is not the person and yet the air inside the balloon is not even the breath of that person anymore despite being derived from him blowing up the balloon with his breath. The air inside the balloon is simply 'air' even though it has less oxygen and more carbon dioxide than the surrounding air.

Likewise, Jesus (as) was created by Allah (swt) by His speaking (in a way befitting of His majesty) the word, "Be!" without this Word in any way comprising His Being.

I personally don't believe that God would literally become incarnate within human flesh for the very reason that people would focus on that mental image as the entity they worship. I know that when I was a Christian the mental image I had was of Jesus on the cross illustrating that God so loved me that He would come down to earth and die a horrible death so that I could be cleansed of my sins. Even though I had prayed to the 'Father' 'in the name of Jesus' the focus for nearly all of the songs was on Jesus and his crucifixion. In contrast, the Lord's Prayer illustrates how Jesus had instructed his disciples to pray and to worship the One God. Now when I pray as a Muslim, I have absolutely no mental image of the One I worship. Even though I can't see Him, I know that He sees me and hears my prayer.

 

[YieldedOne]

Thanks for the great interaction, MustafaMC! Here we goooo...:shade:

Yielded One: 1) Jesus is ALREADY considered to be a "word" of Allah, quranically speaking. Allah's says "Be" and Jesus is. This is what happened in Mary's womb, yes? The question is whether or not it is CONCEIVABLE that a creaturely reality can "incarnate" eternal reality. Can Jesus can an ETERNALLY SPOKEN "word" of Allah manifested into human history through Mary?
2) If it is conceivable for the Quran itself to be creaturely manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality being the very "word" of Allah...I don't see how it can be said to be INconceivable that Allah could do the very same thing through a human being.

MustafaMc: Conceptually, I can understand how you possibly could come to this conclusion.

I'm glad to see that it's not a conceptual inconceivability. That's very, very important. Glad we could get that out the way. Thanks.

************************

MustafaMc:
An analogy for Jesus' (as) creation could be a person blowing up a balloon. The balloon is not the person and yet the air inside the balloon is not even the breath of that person anymore despite being derived from him blowing up the balloon with his breath. The air inside the balloon is simply 'air' even though it has less oxygen and more carbon dioxide than the surrounding air.

Likewise, Jesus (as) was created by Allah (swt) by His speaking (in a way befitting of His majesty) the word, "Be!" without this Word in any way comprising His Being.

Hmmm...I don't know if the analogy works all the way, but I get the main assertion: Allah can create without His creation necessarily being pantheistic. That is to say, metaphysically speaking, created reality is actually distinct from Allah's personal being. I'd agree with that. And I would even say that the human mind, soul, and body that Jesus has falls directly into the created category. No doubt.

At the same time, there doesn't seem to be anything in that belief of Jesus' human createdness that necessarily ELIMINATES the possibility of being a manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality. Especially when that very thing is claimed for the Quran.

And let me be very clear: I am NOT arguing for the Trinity per se...nor am I arguing for the eternal SONSHIP of Jesus. Not at all. I am arguing that there is nothing in Islam (that I've seen) that completely removes the possibility of Jesus being Allah's "word" eternally spoken and temporally manifested into human history through Mary "in the fulness of time."
Unless there is something in the Quran or Islamic metaphysics that makes it absolutely impossible for Jesus to be an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah...then I don't see how a Muslim could fault a thinking person for conceiving and believing such about Jesus.

****************************

MustafaMc:
I personally don't believe that God would literally become incarnate within human flesh for the very reason that people would focus on that mental image as the entity they worship. I know that when I was a Christian the mental image I had was of Jesus on the cross illustrating that God so loved me that He would come down to earth and die a horrible death so that I could be cleansed of my sins. Even though I had prayed to the 'Father' 'in the name of Jesus' the focus for nearly all of the songs was on Jesus and his crucifixion. In contrast, the Lord's Prayer illustrates how Jesus had instructed his disciples to pray and to worship the One God. Now when I pray as a Muslim, I have absolutely no mental image of the One I worship. Even though I can't see Him, I know that He sees me and hears my prayer.

Some thoughts:
1) Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless". Especially prayer like hesychasm. That is to say, a Christian is not bound to always think in "icons" to worship the Transcendent God.

2) Can a Muslim think about the physically-ascendant Jesus (who is now in the presence of God) without being an idolater? In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without remembering the absolute transcendence of God? If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then I'd wonder if the very same thing couldn't be applicable to Christians.

3) I'd say that God could manifest eternal, uncreated reality in human existence for the same reason that it's claimed he did so in the Quran: a greater degree of self-revelation.