His only begotten son?

[Abdul Fattah]

Greetings, Eesa
Why is it as difficult to accept that God can do these things?
As Muslims you too believe that with God all things are possible.
The reason you reject the idea of Jesus' divinity, is that it doesn't fit into your religious teachings. That's fair enough.
But for Muslim to say 'How can God do this? and 'Why would God do that?', seems rather odd.
God knows best, and God is all-powerful ... we both believe this!
Peace

Actually Glo disagree. I don't believe this is capable. I think you are misinterpreting omnipotence. Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice. So the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature. Like asking God to draw squared circles. A circle by defenition is round, so a squared circle would no longer fit the defenition of circle. The flaw lies not in God, but in the question.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Actually Glo disagree. I don't believe this is capable. I think you are misinterpreting omnipotence. Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice. So the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature. Like asking God to draw squared circles. A circle by defenition is round, so a squared circle would no longer fit the defenition of circle. The flaw lies not in God, but in the question.

Malaikah, since I know that you are in this thread also, do you see how Steve's description of ominpotence is in line with the Kenosis theory we have been talking about Thread on the Crucifixion. He has just given a Muslim description with respect to God of the same thing I have been talking about with respect to Jesus as God.

 

[Malaikah]

I dont see how it supports youre point though... :?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. I think we begin in agreement that nothing is impossible with God.


But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. Now Steve begins to show how making a choice begins to limit possiblities without limiting who God is.


For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice.


So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness, but as a man is also at the same time choosing to not exercise his divine attributes as long as he is physically incarnate amongst us -- the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature to be both exercising divine attributes and human limitations at the same time.

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also. Thus, Jesus (who is God) prays to God. I know for you that is a contradiction in terms; it simply isn't for me. It isn't important that you believe this this actually occurred, but I hope you can imagine that God might be able to make and execute such a choice if he so desired.

 

[Umar001]

Yea but Grace Seeker, if God then choses to make a body for himself and go into the body, then how is it still possible that God is still totally God, for example, God knows everything, so when He goes into the body and submits his powers, does he then submit his knowledge? If so then he is not God because God knows everything. If he doesn't submit the knowledge then he knows everything which contradicts the fact of him being same as Adam.

If your finding this annoying or anything then say, I find this type of discussion interesting and it helps me see other people's views and so forth, some find it irritating that I dont just say 'Oh ok' and walk off.

Eesa.

 

[Malaikah]

Yea but Grace Seeker, if God then choses to make a body for himself and go into the body, then how is it still possible that God is still totally God, for example, God knows everything, so when He goes into the body and submits his powers, does he then submit his knowledge? If so then he is not God because God knows everything. If he doesn't submit the knowledge then he knows everything which contradicts the fact of him being same as Adam.

LOL! This is exactly the topic of my thread about Can God be 100% man and 100% divine.

See, I knew this topic needed to be discussed on its own, it cmes up everywhere otherwise! Shame that no body took my thread seriously.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. I think we begin in agreement that nothing is impossible with God.


But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. Now Steve begins to show how making a choice begins to limit possiblities without limiting who God is.


For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice.


So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness, but as a man is also at the same time choosing to not exercise his divine attributes as long as he is physically incarnate amongst us -- the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature to be both exercising divine attributes and human limitations at the same time.

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also. Thus, Jesus (who is God) prays to God. I know for you that is a contradiction in terms; it simply isn't for me. It isn't important that you believe this this actually occurred, but I hope you can imagine that God might be able to make and execute such a choice if he so desired.

I think you missed the whole point of my post. It is true that waving away capabilities by choice does not undermine omnipotence. However my whole point was that due to this choice, it is decided that the opposite of the choice will not happen. So saying: "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this" is a smokescreen, because in reality he will not do it, as he already chose not to. God isn't like people who after making a chose change their mind. Next to being omnipotent, god is also omniscient. So suggesting he'd change his mind undermines that omniscience. When we change our minds, that happens when new information becomes available; and when based on that new information we realize our decision was wrong. So God, being omniscient wouldn't have this.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Yea but Grace Seeker, if God then choses to make a body for himself and go into the body, then how is it still possible that God is still totally God, for example, God knows everything, so when He goes into the body and submits his powers, does he then submit his knowledge? If so then he is not God because God knows everything. If he doesn't submit the knowledge then he knows everything which contradicts the fact of him being same as Adam.

If your finding this annoying or anything then say, I find this type of discussion interesting and it helps me see other people's views and so forth, some find it irritating that I dont just say 'Oh ok' and walk off.

Eesa.

Not annoying at all. In fact, I have had this same discussion with some of my Christiam friends. There are some who believe that Jesus would have known that the earth was round not flat, that germs not demons are what causes illnesses, and a whole host of other things not known by the people of his day. They believe this for the same reasons you have just given.

I disagree. Jesus himself says that there are some things that he does not know, such as when he would return, that such information is known only to the Father. Now you claim that this makes him less than God because God knows everything. Again I disagree. We have all heard stories of the king who seeks to become a servant, who goes amongst his people incognito. He is still king, but having given up all of the trappings of royality, not only will people not recognize him, but he can act as a king unless they recognize him as such. While not a perfect analogy for what we are talking about, I think it speaks to the situation you protest about. Jesus, while on earth, had to live within the limitations of ordinary human beings. You say that makes him less than God, I think he is just a king that must make his way on his human rather than his royal attributes.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. I think we begin in agreement that nothing is impossible with God.


But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. Now Steve begins to show how making a choice begins to limit possiblities without limiting who God is.


For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice.


So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness, but as a man is also at the same time choosing to not exercise his divine attributes as long as he is physically incarnate amongst us -- the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature to be both exercising divine attributes and human limitations at the same time.

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also. Thus, Jesus (who is God) prays to God. I know for you that is a contradiction in terms; it simply isn't for me. It isn't important that you believe this this actually occurred, but I hope you can imagine that God might be able to make and execute such a choice if he so desired.

I think you missed the whole point of my post. It is true that waving away capabilities by choice does not undermine omnipotence. However my whole point was that due to this choice, it is decided that the opposite of the choice will not happen. So saying: "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this" is a smokescreen, because in reality he will not do it, as he already chose not to. God isn't like people who after making a chose change their mind. Next to being omnipotent, god is also omniscient. So suggesting he'd change his mind undermines that omniscience. When we change our minds, that happens when new information becomes available; and when based on that new information we realize our decision was wrong. So God, being omniscient wouldn't have this.

Steve, I know what you were trying to say. But I think the application of your idea is bigger than you might have thought. As to the "smokescreen" you refer to, I didn't say "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this", nor did I make a reference to God changing his mind.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve, I know what you were trying to say. But I think the application of your idea is bigger than you might have thought. As to the "smokescreen" you refer to, I didn't say "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this", nor did I make a reference to God changing his mind.

Well you did imply it didn't you?
First you said:

So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness

So God choses option A, and hence waves option B.

then you said:

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also

So even though he waved option B, that was only the result of chose so he is still omnipotent and still capable of option B.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Well you did imply it didn't you?
First you said:

So God choses option A, and hence waves option B.

Right

then you said:

So even though he waved option B, that was only the result of chose so he is still omnipotent and still capable of option B.

This is where the Trinitarian concept kicks in. Meaning that while Jesus is God on earth waving option B, that God the Father still exists retaining option B. That is what I was referring to in saying that "even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also". And while I know that some will see this as two Gods, we Christians simply do not see it that way, but as one God being manifested in more than one way.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry for my late reply, I lost track of this tread among all the new ones
anyway to get back to your post. You said:

This is where the Trinitarian concept kicks in. Meaning that while Jesus is God on earth waving option B, that God the Father still exists retaining option B.

But that means only part God waves option B. So were not talking about 100% here. If I understand teh concept of trinity correctly it claims that God is all three at the same time, and not one third of him being one thing, another third being something else and yet another being something else. So if you say that Jesus waves option B but the father (and the holy spirit) do not wave it aren't you deviding it up in three thirds? No offence, but this trinity thing is really frustrating to discuss. Everytime I raise a question that suggests that according to the theory we're dealing with three parts I get a reply that says that it is not three parts but one being three at the same time. And every time I raise a question about one being three at the same time I get a reply that it are actually three parts. It's like there's a different trinity-theory depending on the question. So what it the trinity? One God consistent out of three different parts, or one God being three things at the same time?