^^ Grace Seeker, I am sure you didn't notice my post at page 5 otherwise you would surly reply. I am still waiting your reply "if" you have the time to address it.
I'll do my best. But I fear you may think naidamar is right by the time I'm done. May peace be upon you in your search for Allah's ‘hidayah.
You said that there was no time where the father was not really a father .
I am very sure that I asked a question about who did create Jesus and a Christian here answered that it was God "the father"....I can't tell where and when exactly I posted that, but anyways what is your answer to such question?
Let's be clear. Are you talking about Jesus or are you talking about God the Son? The fact that God has always been an eternal Father tells us that God the Son is also co-eternal with him. In other words, there never was a time when the Son was not. To orthodox Christian understanding, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all co-eternal and have always existed in community and relationship with each other from before the beginning of time. In fact, with regard to creation itself (which would include the creation of time) our Christian scriptures have this to say:
For by him [the Son] all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. (Colossians 1:16)
So, we don't believe that the Son was created, but was the creator. But you also asked about Jesus and that needs a different answer. That might be confusing for a moment, if you are jumping to certain conclusions. So, let me just address what one of those possible issues right away with the following assertion: while Jesus has always been the Son, the Son was not always Jesus.
Now what do I mean by that? I mean just what I said. God has always existed. Hence God the Son has always existed. But this does not mean that Jesus is pre-existent. Another set of scriptures might help with this.
John 1
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning. 3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.
If you accept, as Christians do based on later passages, that "the Word" being referred to in this passage is one and the same as "God the Son", then this passage pretty much says the same thing as the previous one did in terms of creation and the pre-existence of the Son (or Word in this case). Now if we keep reading we find that a little more is disclosed regarding the Word:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
In saying that the Word become flesh and made his dwelling among us, Christians understand this as a reference to incarnation. To be incarnate (with the stem word "carne", meaning "flesh") tells us that there has been a change in the way the Word relates to the world. The word is not just the creator outside of the world, but not enters into the world as a person just like the rest of us. This may be an outrageous and completely unacceptable concept for Muslims, but we Christians can't just dismiss it. It is right there in our text. And when read in the context of the rest of the chapter, it is pretty obvious that the person that is being referred to who is the incarnation of the Word is none other than Jesus. So this is one of several texts that causes us to say that Jesus is not just a man, but uniquely the one and only God who has incarnated himself among us.
The actual word for "dwelling" here is in older English versions translated as "tabernacled." So, the Word became flesh and "tabernacled" among us, reminding the reader of the stories of how God used to dwell in the tabernacle (a tent used in place of the temple during the nation of Israel's Exodus experience) where God would converse with Moses. And it might be helpful to think of Jesus' body as God putting on a fleshly tent in the same way that we put on clothes. Although I warn you that some people have taken that picture too far and tried to suggest that this means that Jesus wasn't really human. In all honestly, that is one of the difficult things about Christianity. God is constantly stretching our understanding of him. Jesus is God. Jesus is human. Jesus is both at the same time.
How exactly this can be is never something that we will explain to everyone's satisfaction, we hardly explain it to our own. What we have to remember to do is to keep the two concepts in tension, never allowing one understanding of Jesus' nature to dictate completely our understanding of the other aspect of his shared nature. So, Jesus is completely God. And we know that God has no needs. Yet Jesus is reported to have been hungry, tired, thirsty, even angry and to have felt sorrow -- all very human things. Perhaps this was just God dwelling ("tenting") among us like a person putting on a costume for a masquerade? Except such an understanding would make Jesus (and therefore God) into a fraud as he shared that human side of himself. Further, Paul's letter to the Philippians records specifically that
Philippians 2
6[Christ Jesus] Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
It is interesting that this is not just Paul's own thought. It is actually one of the earliest hymns of the church that Paul has borrowed to make his point in this letter. Namely that in coming to earth in the person of Jesus that God the Son has emptied himself of those divine perogatives that we are so familiar with ascribing to God:
- omnipresence -- dwelling in the flesh, Jesus cannot be in more than one place at a time
- omniscience -- dwelling in the flesh, there are things that Jesus doesn't know, things that he reports are only known by the Father or only known by him as the Father reveals them to him
- omnipotence -- the one who once had by the power of his word simply spoken world into being, is now going to be subject to the actions of cruel evil mean
Hardly sounds like God, does it? And it shouldn't. Jesus may be God the creator, but he dwells on earth just as every other created being does, so much has he humbled himself in order to identify with his creation. And so, while his spiritual, divine nature is eternal, his human, earthly nature actually has a beginning, a conception when the cells which will become the baby Jesus are given life within the womb of Mary. (Whether this is one more miracle of creation of an embryo ex nihlo or the miraculous generating of life from Mary's own eggs without the need for sperm cells the scriptures do not say. We are just told that what was conceived in Mary was through the power of the Holy Spirit, not the normal form of mechanical biological reproduction.)
So, that's a long way to finally answer your question: Jesus' human body does have a beginning as God created a body for himself by which he could enter into creation, even as God the Son has always existed and is the creator, not a part of creation until he arrived to dwell on earth in the person of Jesus.
If they are both Gods sharing the same features, and even communicate with each other, then why they don't "pray" or lets use your word "converse" with each other?
why its only one way from the son to the father?
First they are not both God
s (plural). They are both God (singular). We believe in just one and only one God. Again, you can see that in the very passages we have already looked at:
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
comapre that with
No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known. (John 1:18)
God makes God known. And this God who makes God known is the Word who dwells among us. And at the same time is God the One and Only. There is no other God for us Christians, than the one and only God who created the world (remember we have already seen that this is the Son), who made covenant with Abraham, and who tabernacled in the desert with Moses and command to the nation of Israel that they were to have no other gods before Him.
But just as long before the time of Jesus we can see recorded in the Old Testament itself how the God's monotheistic people personified God's Spirit and God's Word (for examples see Gen. 1:2; Job 32:8; Ps. 33:6-9; Ps. 104: 29-30; Is. 11:2; Is. 55:10-11), so too Jesus' own disciples in understanding that Jesus had made God known to them, did not consider that the God Jesus had made known to them was any different God than Yahweh whom they had always worshipped. Indeed, when you see in the (Greek) New Testament that Jesus is called Lord, the writers are using the very same term ("
kyrios") as the Jews used to speak of Yahweh in their own Greek translation of the Tanakh, it was not just another way of saying "Sir" as some suggest, but an announcement that whether referring to Jesus or the God worshipped by the Jews, these followers of Jesus were referring to one and the same being, just in known to them in different personas (of the Father and of the Son, and ultimately also of the Spirit).
Perhaps no biblical writer links Jesus so closely with the Jewish concept of Yahweh as does Paul. (Not surprising as he was a rabbinically schooled pharisee, and always wrote of Jesus within the context of God's covenant with Israel.) Picking up the song Paul was quoting in Philippians were we left off, he goes on to record of the man Jesus:
Therefore God exalted him [Jesus] to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name... (Philippians 2:9)
The "name" which is being referred to, that the early church said was given to Jesus is the name that was so high that it could not even be spoken aloud and when written was written without the vowels so that no one might accidentally speak it. It was the name revealed in the Old Testament as the sacred name of God, the tetragammaton (YHWH) -- four consonant which orthodox Jews do not dare to speak for its holiness and which, even today, most English Bibles simply print as 'LORD'.
What is particularly striking is the way that two Old Testament passages are combined in this early Christian hymn Paul borrows:
Philippians 2
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.
Isaiah 45
22 Turn to me and be saved,
all you ends of the earth;
for I am God, and there is no other.
23 By myself I have sworn,
my mouth has uttered in all integrity
a word that will not be revoked:
Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear.
Six times in that chapter of Isaiah comes the refrain in which God declares, "there is no other." Clearly God is emphasizing his uniqueness, the fact that God and God alone is the one and only -- there is no other God, but God.
The other passage incorporated into this hymn about Christ is also from Isaiah:
Isaiah 42
8 I am the LORD; that is my name!
I will not give my glory to another
or my praise to idols.
By using this hymn which incorporates this language to speak of Christ, the monotheistic Jew, Paul, is taking some of the strongest language about the sovereignty and identity of God found in the Tanakh (the Old Testament) and saying that it applies to Jesus, before whom every knee will bow in worship. This sort of adoration would not be used by any Jew of Paul's pharisical background and rabbinical training to refer to any mere creature, not even an angel, and illustrates the completeness with which the early church identified Jesus as the one God.
Curiously, they never bothered to relate how or why they came to this view, only that they did. But from that understanding, any time that we see Jesus in prayer, should be understood as a time of communication with his Father. And it begins at a very young age.
One of the few accounts of Jesus non-adult life is the story of him remaining behind in the temple after his parents had made a journey to Jerusalem. When they realize that Jesus is missing from the family caravan headed home, Joseph and Mary return to Jerusalem looking for the boy-Jesus and finding him discoursing with the elders in the temple. On questioning him for why he caused them to worry and search for him, he cryptically responds: "Why were you searching for me? Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?"
And all four gospel accounts record that at the beginning of Jesus' ministry, the Father did indeed speak so that others could hear his affirmation of Jesus as his beloved Son. But most of the time that we see Jesus praying, he goes off by himself. We simply aren't priviledge to those experiences but rarely. One of those times was when Jesus invited Peter, James, and John to go up with him to the top of what today we call the Mount of Transfiguration. For Jesus the conversation (which included a manifestation of Moses and Elijah) was about Jesus' approaching death; for the disciples what they heard was another affirmation of Jesus as the beloved son of God. While we were not party to what Jesus was praying, the way Luke (chapter 9) tells the story, I expect the arrival of Moses and Elijah was perhaps in answer to the conversation he was having with his Father.
The other time we are invited to join Jesus in prayer is in the garden of Gethsemane. Unfortunately, the disciples were not very attentive at the time, and one wonders how the gospel writers are even able to report what they do, unless it might have been shared with them later, perhaps by Jesus himself in the days between his resurrection and ascension. Anyway, the form of the report that we have is like listening to just one end of a telephone conversation. I don't think that just because we don't hear the voice on the other end ourselves, and only that of the person in the room with us, that we should suppose that it is a one-way conversation.
You can see how the Father is indeed responsive to Jesus' prayers, but that we are generally going to be privilded to listen in from the story of a time when the Father's response was actually intended for us. On that occassion the conversation was one that others heard as well:
John 12 [Jesus knows that his death is less than a week away as he speaks.]
27"Now my heart is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save me from this hour'? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour. 28Father, glorify your name!"
Then a voice came from heaven, "I have glorified it, and will glorify it again." 29The crowd that was there and heard it said it had thundered; others said an angel had spoken to him.
30Jesus said, "This voice was for your benefit, not mine."
Is it really two-way communication?
because as I said they don't pray to each other. They are equal in features, so there must be no problem of any of them to "converse" with the other!
My own conversations with God are not one-way, why should Christ's have been when he prayed?
That Jesus did receive information from the Father is clearly seen in these comments that Jesus made to his disciples:
"The world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me" (John 14:31).
and
"Everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you" (John 15:15b).
Didn't he say "My God! My God why have you forsaken me?" is he his God when Jesus himself is a God? Can a God call another God "My God"?
I've already spent quite a bit of time above discussing that we are not talking about two different gods, but just one. I can understand how it might be that someone from outside of our faith might think in terms of two gods, or a big God and a little god. Indeed, some of the early church fathers had trouble with this sort of language at times themselves. But even the idea of Jesus being subordinated to the Father, other than that which he did so voluntarily in terms of obediently seeking to fulfill and submit to the Father's will (which of course was his whole purpose in entering into identification with humanity on earth), is not supported in the orthodox Christian understanding of scripture.
The passage you quote is, in my opinion, often misunderstood as a cry of deriliction and abandonment. I don't see it this way at all. The reason I don't is that I happen to know where it comes from. It is the opening line of(i.e., the equivalent of a title or way of referencing) Psalm 22
Psalm 22
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.
19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.
This was known even then as a Psalm representative of the Messiah, as God's anointed suffering servant who comes to make atonement for God's people. Note that while it starts off in distress that it culminates in praise of the God who does
NOT abandon his servant: "But you, O Lord, be not far off; O my Strength come to help me" (vs. 19). And the events that Jesus is himself suffering are very much alluded to in the Psalm itself. If you accept the idea of prophecy, I think it even looks ahead to the time of the Church when: "Posterity will serve him; future generations will be told about the Lord. [And] they will proclaim his righteousness to a people yet unborn— for he has done it [made atonement]" (vs. 30-31). Thus, Jesus' cry is anything
but a sense of being forsaken, rather it is a proclamation of the grace of God at work even in the midst of so much suffering, and Jesus' trust in the final outcome that he had already wrestled while praying in the garden.
Interesting!
if someone need something from God and the spirit came as you said to intercede for people in what they cant express. Can't they pray to the Spirit himself directly to grant them what they wish for?
Indeed we can, and there are examples of this even in scripture itself. After all, praying to the Spirit is just praying to God.
Why the Spirit has to pray on behalf of them to another God?
He doesn't and isn't. Again, just one God. Three persons, but just one God.
Another thing, what about the "communication" between Jesus and the holy spirit? did anyone pray to the other?
Jesus claimed that the Spirit of the Lord was an anointing upon him and his ministry:
Luke 4
14Jesus returned to Galilee in the power of the Spirit, and news about him spread through the whole countryside. 15He taught in their synagogues, and everyone praised him.
16He went to Nazareth, where he had been brought up, and on the Sabbath day he went into the synagogue, as was his custom. And he stood up to read. 17The scroll of the prophet Isaiah was handed to him. Unrolling it, he found the place where it is written:
18"The Spirit of the Lord is on me,
because he has anointed me
to preach good news to the poor.
He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners
and recovery of sight for the blind,
to release the oppressed,
19to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor."
20Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, 21and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."
And we are frequently told about how the Spirit led Jesus: "Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan and was led by the Spirit in the desert" (Luke 4:1).
At the end, thanks a lot for your continuous answering to most of my questions here. I really appreciate your time.
Peace
Are you sure? I can't imagine you expected a response this long. You asked a lot of good, but involved, questions that deserved as full of an answer as I could provide right now. My apologies if overwhelms more than addresses what you were seeking to know.
