truthseeker63's Corner in Comparative religion

[Ramadhan]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

first you sidetrack the discussion from jesus to one concerning david when we were agreed on the matter that it did refer to david (though christians view this as a double fulfillment but we need not get into this).

You said you still believed that psalm is about prophecy of Jesus. I had to point out the scriptural, historical, and logical fallacies and contradictions in that claim. Sorry if it hurt you.

then you start bringing up verses in which monogeneis is used of other individuals but naidamar, what is the christian claim? it is the fact that monogeneis is only used for christ in reference to being god's only begotten son. can you provide for us verses that actually have to do with this claim or will you once again provide for us information which was never contested nor talked about? please get to proving your point instead of filling up your post with information which does not pertain to the discussion. once again, all that i'm asking for is for you to provide us with bible passages in which monogeneis is used in reference to anyone else being god's only-begotten son.

It is important to provide to also provide how monogenese used in the other verses, so we can arrive at more accurate meaning of monogenese in John 1:18
It is also important to study the use of monogenese by the greeks at that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogen%C4%93s
And judging by all the current revised bibles, that is what your bible scholars are doing. I guess you can still keep your KJV.
I know it must be hard for you that something that you have believed all along turn out is actually smoke and mirror standing in the house of sand.

there was no jump between only begotten and eternal son. if you had any knowledge of christianity at all you would know that they actually are interchangeable and in fact teach the same thing.

Care to give us explanation from bible how only begotten = eternal?

somewhere i your post you seem to wish to say that monogeneis should be translated as unique son, still this would not in fact prove your point because only-begotten speaks of a unique position that only christ has. while we can all be called the sons of god in a general sense, only christ can be called the son of god in the sense of complete uniqueness which testifies to divinity. once again, you fail to prove your point.

I dont dispute that Jesus (pbuh) was unique. But nowehere in John 1:18 unique = divine

naidamar, once again, are you keeping up with the discussion at all? once again you display your ignorance in that you do not understand that the poster had asked for a quotation in which peter specifically calls christ the son of god and as such one was provided. the matter of the prophets also being called the sons of god is a moot point because all believers are the sons of god in a general sense yet once again we are back the claim concerning monogeneis in that christ is the only-begotten son of the father. you have just made the same mistake twice in a row.

Did simon peter use the word "monogenese" in that verse? no
or did he use greek equivalent of run of the mill "son of god", the same expression that God use to call his other sons? yes
I am wondering what exact word was actually used (presumably in aramaic, or ancient hebrew)

Yes, please bring us more bible verses. the more we talk bible verses, the more contradictions and errors that we can see.

By the way, I am quote concerned you didnt know this following facts:

The entrance of "only begotten" into the English Bible was not directly from mono-genes but from the Latin of the Vulgate, which had uni-genitus (one-begotten):[30]

• John 3:16 sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam. (Latin Vulgate)
• John 3:16 God lufede middan-eard swa þæt he sealde hys akennedan sune þæt nan ne for-wurðe þe on hine ge-lefð. Ac habbe þt eche lyf. (Hatton Gospels c.1160 AD)
• John 3:16 For God lovede so the world, that he yaf his oon bigetun sone, that each man that bileveth in him perishe not, but have everlastynge lijf.(Wyclif's Bible 1395 AD

Did you also know that John 1:18 is problematic?
In Textual criticism opinions are divided on whether Jesus is referred to as "only-begotten God" or "only-begotten Son", in John 1:18.[38]

• monogenes theos Sinaiticus, P66, Vaticanus etc.
• o monogenes uios Alexandrinus, Textus Receptus, Pe****ta etc.:

This textual issue is complicated by the scribal abbreviations of nomina sacra where "G-d" and "S-n" are abbreviated in the Greek manuscripts by ΘΣ and ΥΣ (theta-sigma vs upsilon-sigma) increasing the likelihood of scribal error.[39]

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Personally, I think the whole monogeneis thing is, at best, inconclusive. The core of why Christians believe in the pre-existence of Jesus (as Son/Word) is NOT found in the monogeneis discussion, but in the Johnanine association of Jesus with the "Word/Memra" of God, which antedated Creation and was with God eternally without Creation. Basically, Christians believe in Jesus' antedating Creation is largely because of John 1:1-18 and John 17. Please read all the texts in light of the JEWISH VIEW of "Word/Memra", NOT merely the Greek sense of "Logos"...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

and...

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.
...

“I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me. I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”

From what I've been able to tell from this discussion, the "Logos" talk in John gets superficially written off as mere Hellenistic influence on Judaism...rather than seeing the "Logos" talk as being a contemporary connecting point with the Jewish idea of "Word/Memra" of God. For those who want to dispute the claim of Jesus' preexistence as Logos/Word, it's a lot easier for people to write the Logos idea off as a predominantly Greek idea than to believe that it's actually grounded in an authentically JEWISH one (ala Philo of Alexandria), interpreted in terms of Jesus and accepted by other Jewish people, who became the early Church.

To me, if a person agrees that the early Jewish Christians (ala John, Paul, etc) most likely believed that...

1) the Word/Memra of God antedates Creation
and...
2) the Word/Memra of God was to be directly associated with Jesus of Nazareth...

Then it would seem much easier to demonsrate why Christians believe that Jesus--as Word/Memra of God--is always WITH God sans Creation, and thus, is uncreated AS God is.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

It is also important to study the use of monogenese by the greeks at that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monogenēs
And judging by all the current revised bibles, that is what your bible scholars are doing. I guess you can still keep your KJV.
I know it must be hard for you that something that you have believed all along turn out is actually smoke and mirror standing in the house of sand.

given that you've sent me a link from wikipedia, i suppose that we should actually read what it says: In A Greek-English Lexicon of Liddell & Scott the following main definition is given:
A. the only member of a kin or kind: hence, generally, only, single, "child" (pais, παῖς) Hesiod, Works and Days 376; Herodotus Histories 7.221; cf. Gospel of John 1.14; Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 32.1; Hesiod Theogony, concerning Hecate.
2. unique, of (to on, τὸ ὄν), Parmenides 8.4; “εἷς ὅδε μ. οὐρανὸς γεγονώς” Plato Timaeus.31b, cf. Proclus Institutio Theologica 22; “θεὸς ὁ μ.” Friedrich Preisigke's Sammelbuch 4324.15.

once again we return to the position of christ being unique. thereby meaning that he is the son of god in a vastly different sense than anyone else. you have yet to show that monogeneis is used of any other individual when in reference to being god's son. you have conveniently ignored this matter and so i would like to bring it up again.

Care to give us explanation from bible how only begotten = eternal?

here is the logic again:

It is the Greek word “monogeneis.” This is not simply “begotten,” for that expression can be applied to all believers, those who have been begotten or born again by the Spirit. This is a unique expression for a unique person, the only-begotten Son of God. The expression appears in John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18. It would literally mean the “only generated one.” This is the key expression for the doctrine of “the eternal generation of the Son,” meaning, he always was the only begotten Son. The expression does not refer to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, because he is the Son from eternity past.

[...] You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son.

the above is the christian logic.

I dont dispute that Jesus (pbuh) was unique. But nowehere in John 1:18 unique = divine

actually, john 1:18 is quite clear that it is speaking of christ being divine:

Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν είς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

this then brings us to the matter of the problem you imply with john 1:18 i.e. that it should be rendered Son instead of God. what first needs to be said is that the earliest manuscripts have monogenês theos (the only God) instead of the only son. yet at this point you would like to disagree with the earlier manuscripts and go for the later ones and given your theological biases, i suppose that this is understandable. yet if the matter is to be rendered "only son" instead of "only god", would this prove your point (that the uniqueness of christ doesn't refer to his divinity)? no it wouldn't. because if we were to look at the very chapter you glean your quote from (given that you are arguing from the textus receptus tradition, let us actually see how bibles which follow this translate the chapter in question (and as such, what context the statement in question is being spoken in). here is the KJV:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made 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. 15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. 16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. 18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. --- John 1:1-18 KJV

so from the above we see that even if we were to go with the reading of the textus receptus, we would still end up with a divine son. naidamar, once again you are trying to argue concerning matters that you don't even understand. your point failed when you started using the gospel of john to prove your point. once again, even if we were to accept your initial premise we would still end up with my conclusion. yes, textual critics are indeed divided as to best render the passage yet the division does not concern whether or not the passage means to speak of the divinity of christ. either way we render the passage, we would still end up with christ being unique because he is god.

far from somehow crushing my beliefs you have only shown yourself to not understand the nature of the discussion at all. the fact that you even used john 1:18 to prove your point shows just how little you know in the first place. you perk up at the words "scholars divided" and assume that this somehow proves your point when the division concerns on how to best translate the verse and not whether the passage attests to the divinity of christ at all. it's not frustrating to have to educate you on these matters but the fact that you are so confident in knowledge you acquire through a few google searches is certainly disheartening. anyway, i await your response because you have repeatedly shown yourself to lack basic knowledge on this matter yet are particularly obstinate against any attempt at correction.

@yielded: darn, you beat me to it.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Just to clear something up. Here are the words of Jesus...

“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.


Now, if you were to just look at THIS TEXT, would you not come to the conclusions that...

1) Jesus is NOT the "One True God" spoken of in the Shema, nor did he believe himself to be that "One True God"

2) Jesus believed that God the Father was the "One True God" spoken of in the Shema.

3) Jesus believed that he was the Son of God the Father, to whom authority was given by God the Father

4) Jesus believed that he existed WITH God the Father before Creation as Son/Word of God.

This is all exactly what the N-C Creed affirms.

That's for you, Sol.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Sol Invictus:
darn, you beat me to it.

Just think of it as the same Spirit working!

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Seriously now. Doesn't the Jewish view of "Word/Memra" specifically talked about in the Jewish Encyclopedia make a WHOLE LOT OF SENSE of the Johannine passages just mentioned? You can pretty much see it at work here. And then there's other statements like...

...for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
1 Corinthians 8:6

Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.
Hebrews 1:1-2

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Colossians 1:16

Now what would JEWISH believers in Jesus think about with that...perhaps this...

By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.
Psalm 33:6

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Just to clear something up. Here are the words of Jesus...

“Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.


Now, if you were to just look at THIS TEXT, would you not come to the conclusions that...

1) Jesus is NOT the "One True God" spoken of in the Shema, nor did he believe himself to be that "One True God"

2) Jesus believed that God the Father was the "One True God" spoken of in the Shema.

3) Jesus believed that he was the Son of God the Father, to whom authority was given by God the Father

4) Jesus believed that he existed WITH GOD before Creation as Son/Word of God.

This is all exactly what the N-C Creed affirms.

That's for you, Sol.

greetings yielded. i can see your logic but when we look at passages from isaiah that specifically say that YHWH doesn't share his glory it then follows (to me at least) that your conclusion is wrong. you are making far too much of the one true god aspect, of course the father is the one true god but given that there is only one god in the first place, that certainly isn't a problem for me, right? the question isn't whether god is the one true god for we both believe this, the matter is actually on your particular notion that the shema is only addressed towards the father. i find that if this is true then it certainly isn't a problem, the "our father" is initially (if not particularly) addressed towards the father and so the important question is on what basis we are only to identify the first person of the trinity with the shema. in your response, could you please touch on the isaiah passages and my understanding of father which i shared in my prior response on the matter. and given the fact that i'm sure that this discussion will once again be misunderstood (as the john 1:18 passage was misunderstood) i am reminded of the following:

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. --- 2 Peter 3:15-16 NIV

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Sol: the question isn't whether god is the one true god for we both believe this, the matter is actually on your particular notion that the shema is only addressed towards the father.

YO: Right.

Sol: i find that if this is true then it certainly isn't a problem, the "our father" is initially (if not particularly) addressed towards the father and so the important question is on what basis we are only to identify the first person of the trinity with the shema. in your response, could you please touch on the isaiah passages and my understanding of father which i shared in my prior response on the matter.

YO: 1) For me, the biblical basis upon which we are to identify only God the Father with the Shema is...

a) language of the prophets like Isaiah and Hosea. (Both specifically associate YHWH as the Father, and the Shema is to YHWH.)
b) the "Lord's Prayer" where Jesus prays to God the Father saying "Our Father"
c) John 17, Jesus specifically referring to God the Father as the "One True God"

The extrabiblical evidence are the Nicene and N-C Creeds themselves which take on just such language.


2) The Isaiah passage that you said was this...

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

If you look at the commentary views on this page, you'll see something interesting. I'd recommend reading them all to get a good gist. One thing that this passage DOESN'T mean is that the Shema should be applied to Jesus or the Messiah in general. There's nothing inherent in the Isaiah passage that says that the "child who is born" is to be considered to be the object of the Jewish Shema.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

If you look at the commentary views on this page, you'll see something interesting. I'd recommend reading them all to get a good gist. One thing that this passage DOESN'T mean is that the Shema should be applied to Jesus or the Messiah in general. There's nothing inherent in the Isaiah passage that says that the "child who is born" is to be considered to be the object of the Jewish Shema.

this will be really brief because i want to deal with your post later but yeah, i'm aware that the better rendering would be father of eternity but that certainly does not negate my isaiah passages concerning god's glory...meh, i'll make a post concerning this matter later. til then, yielded.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Check it out...

The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity. The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.).

Come on now. If the Jewish scholars who wrote this article can see it THIS CLEARLY...man...

Let's once again tie all this back to the title of this thread...

Bottom line: The "Immortal" aspect of Jesus of Nazareth deals specifically with his being identified with the pre-existent, uncreated Word/Memra of God. Without this, Jesus of Narareth would simply be a divinely-created "Mortal" human body and soul...not the "Word/Memra made flesh" as John 1 states.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Help me understand what you are trying to argue, Sol. What I hear you saying is this: There are certain passages in Isaiah say that YHWH will not share his glory.

What does this have to do with God the Father alone being the referent in the Shema?

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Repost remix...

With the hypostatic union in Jesus (linked to the Incarnation of God's "Word/Memra"), we can use an analogy I've used before...

Uncreated <=> Fire (heat, light, etc)
Created <=> Razor sharp metal blade (solid, conductivity, etc)
Created permeated by Uncreated <=> White hot metal blade

Like Siam's ocean water/sponge analogy, it shows interpenetration of one reality by another without confusing or conflating things. You have metal that can burn things and give off light...and you have the power of fire now able operate as a solid and cut like a razor. And in the state of interpenetration, one cannot be effectively separated from the other, even though the two are not fused or confused.

So, it would be like this...

Uncreated "Word/Memra" properties <=> Fire
Human body and soul properties <=> Razor sharp metal blade
Incarnate "Word", Jesus of Nazareth <=> White hot metal blade, the "Sword of the Spirit", if you will...

Both the properties of the uncreated "Word/Memra" and the created human body and soul belong to the singular, personal being, Jesus of Nazareth, in a manner of complementarity* between uncreated nature and created nature such that Jesus is the "Word/Memra" of God the Father that has taken on human existence by the power and will of God.

*--The complementarity principle states that some objects have multiple properties that appear to be contradictory.

I guess I see this as actually having meaning when I say it. Sure, people can disagree that this is the case. But I don't feel like I'm saying incoherent gibberish that cannot be understood or logically comprehended. I genuinely believe that this is a logically consistent, philosophically viable way of describing what the earliest Jewish Christians believed about how the "Word" by which YHWH created all things "became flesh."

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

no one here is arguing that the prophets didn't do the same so i'm a bit lost to what you're saying.

In response to what u said earlier: "he submitted himself as a man to the will of the father",
What I meant was that all the Prophets (pbut) before him and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) all equally submitted to the will of God. So what is the difference in his submission and theirs?

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Interesting...

Sunnis believe that been "mutakaalim" from before Creation existed...and it is this "kaalam" of God that has "come down" to us in the created form of the Quran, yes? This represents the Sunni perspective, as I understand it...

We confess that the Quran is the speech of Allah, uncreated, His inspiration, and revelation, not He, yet not other than He, but His real quality, written in the copies, recited by the tongues. The ink, the paper, the writing are created, for they are the work of man"
--Abu Hanifa

The Shias differ from the Sunnis in that they believe that God has NOT been "mutakaalim" from before Creation existed...basically saying that God didn't start "speaking" until Creation's intended origin. Basically, God wasn't speaking...because sans Creation, God had no one to speak to...and no reason to speak, I guess.

"For example, we say that Allah was from ever Hearing, Seeing,
Omniscient, Wise, Omnipotent, Having power, Living, Self-existent, One
and Eternal. And these are His personal attributes. and we do not say
that He was from ever Creating, Doing, Intending, pleased, displeased,
Giving sustenance, Speaking; because these virtues describe His
actions; and they are not eternal; it is not allowed to say that Allah
was doing all these actions from eternity. The reason for this
distinction is obvious. Actions need an object. For example, if we say
that Allah was giving sustenance from ever, then we will have to admit
the existence of sustained thing from ever. In other words, we will
have to admit that the world was from ever. but it is against our
belief that nothing except God is Eternal." --Shaykh Saduq

and...

Says thc Shaykh Abu Ja'far (on whom be the mercy of Allah): our belief concerning the attributes of (His) essence is this. Whenever we describe Allah by the attributes of His essence, we only desire by each attribute the denial of its opposite in respect of Him, the Glorious and Mighty. We say that Allah, the Glorious and Mighty, has always been the Hearing One (sami), the Seeing One (basir), the Knowing One ('alim}, the Wise (hakim), the Powerful (qadir), the Glorious (aziz), the Living (hayy), the Ever-lasting (qayyum), the One (wahid), the Prior (qadim), - for these are the attributes of His essence. We do not say that He, the Glorious and Mighty has always been the Great Creator (khallaq), the One possessed of Action (fa'il), Will (sha'i') and Intention (murid), the Approver (radi), the Disapprover (sakhit), the Provider (raziq), the Bountiful One (wahhab),the Speaker (mutakallim), - because these are the attributes of His Actions (af'al), and (therefore) they are created (muhdath). It is not right to say that Allah is always to be qualified by them.

I would agree with the Sunnis (and DISagree with the Shia) that God's "speaking" or "mutakallim" antedates Creation. It is not irrational or illogical to believe that God can speak to Godself about Godself in self-communication and self-expression. And God doesn't require Creation for this to occur. God can say "I Am that I Am" without a Creation, right?

I would also agree with the Sunnis that uncreated "speech" of God can be expressed in and through the created.

See also...
The Speech and Word of Allah (Kalām): In Light of Traditional Discussions
Abdullah bin Hamid Ali

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

In response to what u said earlier: "he submitted himself as a man to the will of the father",
What I meant was that all the Prophets (pbut) before him and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) all equally submitted to the will of God. So what is the difference in his submission and theirs?

the first difference is that his submission was perfect. but more importantly i believe (i haven't actually yet gone back to read what i actually said so do take me to task on this if it seems like i'm contradicting myself) that what i implied was the fact that in entering his creation, christ lived the perfect life that we try but fail to live--a life in total submittance to god. aside from that, i don't think that i was saying anything else by the statement you have in quotes. christ followed the law because he deemed to live a perfect life both as man and as god. as god he would be perfect in his divinity no matter what he did but in his role as the saviour he would have to live in perfect submission to the law of god. tell me if i've explained myself properly and i'll be waiting for your response.

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

the first difference is that his submission was perfect.

do u mean to say that the other prophets were not perfect in their submission?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say when Jesus died on the cross his human body died but his spirit never died can you or anyone debunk or refute this claim because would I be correct that only God is Immortal humans are Mortal while humans have spirits these spirits were created by God like the Angels were created by God ?

I don't even understand where this question comes from.
Christian, Jews and Muslims, too, think that all persons not only can be, but actually are both mortal AND immortal at the same time. We all acknowlegde that our human flesh shall die, yet shall we live. While we may disagree on some (perhaps many) of the details, in general we affirm that all die a mortal death and then go on to an immortal life in which the righteous receive a reward to spend it with God and the unrighteous are condemned to dammation (yes, I can spell, but the computer won't print it) apart from God. There are no mortal men, only immortal creatures on their way to becoming something so special that only God himself can imagine it, or something so horrid that you would do well not to try.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

do u mean to say that the other prophets were not perfect in their submission?

precisely. no one has lived a perfect life as the one lived by christ. the prophets are all revered and holy men (and women actually for there were women prophets) yet not a single one of them could come close to the life that christ lived.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Then Ibn Hajar said,

“And a summary of what has been conveyed about the speculative theologians (ahl al-kalām) in this issue are five different views:

The first: is the view of the Mu’tazila that it is created.

The second: is the view of the Kullābiyya that it is beginningless present with the being of the Lord. It is not letters and sounds, while what is found in the midst of people is an expression of it, not it itself.

The third: is the view of the Sālimiyya that it is letters and sounds that are beginningless in essence. And it is actually these written letters and sounds heard.

The fourth: is the view of the Karrāmiyya that it is newly uttered (muhdath), not created (makhlūq)…

And the fifth: is that it (the Qur’ān) is the speech of Allah, uncreated, and that He has been – since before creation - speaking whenever He pleases.

Ahmad expressed that in Kitāb al-Radd ‘ala Al-Jahmiyya. But his disciples have split into two factions:

One of them says: that it is inseparable from His being while the letters and sounds are on an even plain (muqtarina), not following one another in a sequence (muta’āqiba). And he allows whomever He pleases to hear His speech.

However, most of them said: ‘Verily He is one who speaks (mutakallim) with what He pleases and when He pleases. And when he summoned Musa (pbuh) when He spoke to him He had not summoned him prior to that time [in pre-eternity].”

And what the view of the Ash’aris has become established upon is that:

‘The Qur’ān is the speech of Allah, uncreated, inscribed on pages, guarded in hearts (or minds), and recited on tongues.’ Allah – High is He – said ((…Then grant him asylum so that he may hear Allah’s speech)). And He – High is He – said ((Rather, it is verses made clear [found] in the breasts of those who have been given knowledge)). And in the hadith agreed upon (by Bukhārī and Muslim) on the authority of Ibn ‘Umar as has preceded in (The Book of) Jihad, (the Prophet said): “Do not travel with the Qur’ān to the land of the enemy out of dislike for having the enemy reach it.” And it doesn’t mean ‘what is in the breasts.’ Rather, it means ‘what is in papers.’

And the Salaf have unanimously agreed that all between the two covers (of the book) is Allah’s word (kalām). And some of them said: “The Qur’ān is mentioned and it is a reference to ‘the thing read’ (maqrū), which is the beginningless quality (of Allah). It is also mentioned while being a reference to ‘the reading’ (qirā’a), which are the words that point to (the existence of) that (quality). Due to that, disagreement occurred.

As for their statement that ‘Verily it is exonerated from letters and sounds,’ their intent is the unuttered speech (kalām nafsī) present with the divine essence (of Allah). For it is one of the beginningless existing attributes (of Allah).
​

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

precisely. no one has lived a perfect life as the one lived by christ.

I have to disagree here.