Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

[Ramadhan]

"I know many Christians who would argue that not even acceptance of the Trinity is necessary for salvation." I did not mean to imply that they do not accept God. I was refer to the fact that there are some people who accept that Christ is God and put their faith in him, but they do not accept the theological dogma known as the doctrine of the Trinity as being an accurate description of the nature of God.

ok, so it's merely playing with words it seems.
So that means people like Hiroshi (who does not believe christ is god) will not be saved, correct?

back to people who don't accept trinity, do they also accept holy spirit as god?
because if they accept the father, christ and holy spirit as god, that also mean they accept trinity or the 3-in-1 god (even if they dont know what trinity means).

 

[Grace Seeker]

In this sentence, you are implying that christ is not equal to god.
He sounds like having the monopoly on intercession with god (ie. he is not god)

I can see why you might jump to that conclusion, except for the statement I have already made:

A Christian....

...belongs to Christ.
...has placed his/her trust in the work of Christ to effect the restoration of one's spiritual fellowship with God.
...acknowledges Jesus to be BOTH one's Lord AND Savior.
...acknowledges Jesus to be the incarnation of the one and only God come to dwell among us and reconcile we who are separated from him by sin back to himself.
...is a follower of Christ to the extent that the teachings of Jesus and one's ongoing relationship with God are patterned after Jesus' example and this forms one spiritual and moral core.
...is a follower of Jesus to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.
​

 

[Ramadhan]

But naidamar, that isn't understanding God. That is simply yet another form of a faith statement about God, just like the credo I posted above.

That is the statement indeed, the statement which is UNDERSTOOD by all. I challenge you to find me a muslim that does not understand that God is One (absolute), and that understanding.
Just like understanding that the earth is round is logical.
I challenge you to find a person who believe that the earth is round, square and triangle at the same time, you will have to do mental and verbal acrobatic to explain it, and yet no one will be able to understand.

For christians, faith is blind,
for muslims, faith is supported by understanding.

 

[Ramadhan]

I agree. God can resurrect the dead and restore them to life.

God can provide ability to anyone to perform miracles, in this case bringing back the dead.

The antichrist will also be able to perform the same miracle, which he will use to trick people to treat him as god.
will you believe in him then?

 

[Grace Seeker]

ok, so it's merely playing with words it seems.
So that means people like Hiroshi (who does not believe christ is god) will not be saved, correct?

Whether people who do not believe Christ is god or not will be saved is something I believe lays in the grace of God to determine. On this particular point, I'm at the more liberal end of the Christian theological spectrum. I believe that God can and will save whoever he wills. I have confidence that we have a promise that all who do in fact place their faith and trust in Christ shall be saved, but I don't believe that this necessarily excludes everyone else. I am hoping that God will save all who have sought in their hearts to serve him, by whatever name they have known him, that even if they have worshipped amiss, that their sincere desire to worship him will nonetheless be accepted as genuine worship and they also will be saved. I don't know that this will happen, but this is my hope. I see nothing in the scriptures which excludes that possibility. And I see a few things in the scriptures that, thought they don't guarantee that result, still hint at it. So, not only Hiroshi, but I have hope that you also might be saved by God's grace.

back to people who don't accept trinity, do they also accept holy spirit as god?

I don't know. It would depend on which person you talk to what exactly it is that they do or don't accept. I imagine that the world is big enough that you could find persons for whom that statement would be yes and other persons for whom that statement would be no.

because if they accept the father, christ and holy spirit as god, that also mean they accept trinity or the 3-in-1 god (even if they dont know what trinity means).

Yes. I would agree. But you've just described a person who would have faith in the triune God and yet not understand the Trinity. That is exactly what you objected to me describing above:

So, NOT understanding who you worship is OK in christianity?

 

[Ramadhan]

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten, begotten of the Father before all ages; Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made.

It is extremely interesting (pardon the euphemism) to not that you insist jesus was not made, but merely begotten.

from dictionary:
be·get
   /bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled[bih-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1.
(esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2.
to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
Origin:
bef. 1000; ME begeten ( see be-, get); r. ME biyeten, OE begetan; c. Goth bigitan, OHG bigezzan

—Related forms
be·get·ter, noun

—Synonyms
1. spawn, sire, breed, father. 2. occasion, engender, effect, generate.

If jesus was begotten from God, according to dictionary, he was not god.
And if god begets, he behaves like his creation.

 

[Ramadhan]

...acknowledges Jesus to be the incarnation of the one and only God come to dwell among us and reconcile we who are separated from him by sin back to himself.

This is an interesting new explanation of trinity I might admit.
That god split into two because of human sin.
we were seperated from him (by whom? our sin?), so god must send his split twin to earth and must die to collect humans to be unified with god?

 

[Ramadhan]

Whether people who do not believe Christ is god or not will be saved is something I believe lays in the grace of God to determine. On this particular point, I'm at the more liberal end of the Christian theological spectrum. I believe that God can and will save whoever he wills. I have confidence that we have a promise that all who do in fact place their faith and trust in Christ shall be saved, but I don't believe that this necessarily excludes everyone else. I am hoping that God will save all who have sought in their hearts to serve him, by whatever name they have known him, that even if they have worshipped amiss, that their sincere desire to worship him will nonetheless be accepted as genuine worship and they also will be saved. I don't know that this will happen, but this is my hope. I see nothing in the scriptures which excludes that possibility. And I see a few things in the scriptures that, thought they don't guarantee that result, still hint at it. So, not only Hiroshi, but I have hope that you also might be saved by God's grace.

This is very interesting.
So muslims who consider jesus pbuh as a prophet and messenger of god will also be saved, may I conclude from your explanation above.
how widespread is this view among christians?

 

[Ramadhan]

I don't know. It would depend on which person you talk to what exactly it is that they do or don't accept. I imagine that the world is big enough that you could find persons for whom that statement would be yes and other persons for whom that statement would be no.

Do you not find it bizzare that christians could hold such extremely differing views regarding who it is they worship?
(this is what I meant with "So, NOT understanding who you worship is OK in christianity?")

I mean, do you not find it alarming that your scripture can be the source of such radically different interpretations of the most fundamental of all?

 

[Grace Seeker]

For christians, faith is blind,
for muslims, faith is supported by understanding.

OK. I can actually accept that as far as it goes. But I don't think it goes far enough.

You see to say that faith is blind for a Christian is not quite accurate. Better to say that we accept by faith that which we do not fully yet see. This does not mean that we don't have any knowledge or understanding of it. Just that we admit to our understanding not being yet complete or perfect. Talking about the Christian faith, Paul wrote:

We don't yet see things clearly. We're squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won't be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We'll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us! (1 Corinthians 13:12, The Message)

And while of course one's faith is supported by understanding, I think even you will admit that not all who are Muslims fully understand Isalm. It is even recorded in the Hadith:

Narrated Qais: I heard Sad saying, "I was the first amongst the 'Arabs who shot an arrow for Allah's Cause. We used to fight along with the Prophets, while we had nothing to eat except the leaves of trees so that one's excrete would look like the excrete balls of camel or a sheep, containing nothing to mix them together. Today Banu Asad tribe blame me for not having understood Islam. I would be a loser if my deeds were in vain." Those people complained about Sad to 'Umar, claiming that he did not offer his prayers perfectly. (Book #57, Hadith #74)

And while I know that the whole concept of understanding is central to what it means to be a recipiant of the Qur'an, which is it that comes first, faith or understanding? Consider what the Qur'an itself has to say on the subject:

Verily, the rising by night (for Tahajjud prayer) is very hard and most potent and good for governing oneself, and most suitable for (understanding) the Word (of Allah).

(Al-Muzzammil, Chapter #73, Verse #6, Mohsin Kahn translation)

It seems to me that faith (expressed in the rising for prayer) comes first, and then the practice of faith produces understanding. So, while faith is supported by understanding -- reading the Qur'an would increase one's faith and knowledge of Allah. It could also be said that faith leads to understanding is is described in this verse.

It works both ways in both of our religions. But I can see that the Muslim puts the greater emphasis on understanding while the Christian puts the greater emphasis on faith.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This is very interesting.
So muslims who consider jesus pbuh as a prophet and messenger of god will also be saved, may I conclude from your explanation above.
how widespread is this view among christians?

You can conclude that I hold to that hope. I would guess that the view is non-existent among more fundamentalist and conservative believing Christians. (And usually I number myself among the conservatives, but not in this case.) Among those more liberal in their theology you would find some who go so far as to suggest that eventually God saves everyone. I'm not that liberal in my views.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Do you not find it bizzare that christians could hold such extremely differing views regarding who it is they worship?
(this is what I meant with "So, NOT understanding who you worship is OK in christianity?")

I mean, do you not find it alarming that your scripture can be the source of such radically different interpretations of the most fundamental of all?

Yes, I find that both alarming and distressing. But I don't think there is anything that can be done to avoid it. I think that is the way it is with all documents wherein we cannot question the author. We have to interpret what was intended by what we read and different readers come to different conclusions as to what it means. I know you would probably argue that this does not happen in Islam, but I would disagree. I believe it does happen even within Isalm. I see different schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. I see division among groups such as the Sufi and Wahhabi as to what the Sunna is. Islam may not have the plethora of denominations that Christianity has, but from all that I have observed strict theological uniformity is more of a myth than a reality within the Ummah.

 

[Grace Seeker]

This is an interesting new explanation of trinity I might admit.
That god split into two because of human sin.
we were seperated from him (by whom? our sin?), so god must send his split twin to earth and must die to collect humans to be unified with god?

Well, that's not exactly what I meant. I don't consider the incarnation a case of God sending his split twin to earth. Though I'm afraid it is getting late enough for me (3:25 AM) that I probably can't express myself on this very clearly any more tonight. Perhaps we can take it up again tomorrow.

PEACE.

 

[Grace Seeker]

It is extremely interesting (pardon the euphemism) to not that you insist jesus was not made, but merely begotten.

from dictionary:
be·get
   /bɪˈgɛt/ Show Spelled[bih-get] Show IPA
–verb (used with object), be·got or ( Archaic ) be·gat; be·got·ten or be·got; be·get·ting.
1.
(esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring).
2.
to cause; produce as an effect: a belief that power begets power.
Origin:
bef. 1000; ME begeten ( see be-, get); r. ME biyeten, OE begetan; c. Goth bigitan, OHG bigezzan

—Related forms
be·get·ter, noun

—Synonyms
1. spawn, sire, breed, father. 2. occasion, engender, effect, generate.

If jesus was begotten from God, according to dictionary, he was not god.
And if god begets, he behaves like his creation.

I've commented on the use of the term "begotten" numerous times in the past. I don't find it to be the best English term to use to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, I can't change historical texts, I can only tell you that those who wrote it weren't thinking of "begotten" with the same connotation you take from today's dictionaries.

 

[Ramadhan]

You see to say that faith is blind for a Christian is not quite accurate. Better to say that we accept by faith that which we do not fully yet see. This does not mean that we don't have any knowledge or understanding of it. Just that we admit to our understanding not being yet complete or perfect.

Whatever/however you say it, it requires complete faith (and complete abandonment of logic) to accept that 3 = 1.

Talking about the Christian faith, Paul wrote:
We don't yet see things clearly. We're squinting in a fog, peering through a mist. But it won't be long before the weather clears and the sun shines bright! We'll see it all then, see it all as clearly as God sees us, knowing him directly just as he knows us! (1 Corinthians 13:12, The Message)

a note to consider, Paul seems like the ultimate authority of all things christians, don't you agree?

Anyway, if christians can see all things clearly as God sees and knowing him completely (as Paul said), it is utter shocking that christians (at least Ive met) do not fully understand the 3-1 god concept, or at least can not explain it in words that can be understood by laymen (if at all).

 

[Ramadhan]

And while of course one's faith is supported by understanding, I think even you will admit that not all who are Muslims fully understand Isalm. It is even recorded in the Hadith:

It is true that not all muslims do not fully understand Islam.
But as sis Lily has mentioned in previous post, it is a matter of fiqh/jurispriudence.

While belief in god is a matter of tawheed.

I am sure you also agree that faith and acceptance of god is matter of utmost importance?

While it seems that ability to understand and explain triune god can only be left to "professional" christian.

I am sure those countless atheists and agnostics who have left christianity agree with this.

 

[Hiroshi]

God can provide ability to anyone to perform miracles, in this case bringing back the dead.

The antichrist will also be able to perform the same miracle, which he will use to trick people to treat him as god.
will you believe in him then?

Hi Naidamar.

This must be a reference to some hadith. I would like to know the source if you can tell me. I personally cannot believe that an enemy of God would be able to bring life to the dead.

I think that these recent comments about the soul and the condition of the dead really belong in the "Comparative Religion" section. I'm discussing them there also at the moment in the "Mankind needing a saviour???" thread. Perhaps we could better talk about it there if anyone wants to pursue this further.

 

[Ramadhan]

Yes, I find that both alarming and distressing. But I don't think there is anything that can be done to avoid it. I think that is the way it is with all documents wherein we cannot question the author. We have to interpret what was intended by what we read and different readers come to different conclusions as to what it means. I know you would probably argue that this does not happen in Islam, but I would disagree. I believe it does happen even within Isalm. I see different schools of Islamic Jurisprudence. I see division among groups such as the Sufi and Wahhabi as to what the Sunna is. Islam may not have the plethora of denominations that Christianity has, but from all that I have observed strict theological uniformity is more of a myth than a reality within the Ummah.

Again, as has been explained before, jurisprudence (fiqh) is not fundamental. Tawheed is (the oneness of God).
No muslim would argue with this.

Meanwhile, christians are still confused on this issue (ie. oneness of god), thousand of years after the council of niceae silenced all other groups and decided which books are collected into bible and which to be discarded and destroyed.

if it were the true message, why is the message so confusing and creates confusion?

 

[Ramadhan]

This must be a reference to some hadith. I would like to know the source if you can tell me. I personally cannot believe that an enemy of God would be able to bring life to the dead.

Al-Bukhaari narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri (may Allaah be pleased with him) that this man whom the Dajjaal will kill will be one of the best people, who will go out to the Dajjaal from the city of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and will say to the Dajjaal, “I bear witness that you are the Dajjaal of whom the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us.” The Dajjaal will say (to the people): “What do you think – if I kill this man then bring him back to life, will you have any doubts?” They will say, “No.” So he will kill him, then bring him back to life. Then he (the believing man) will say, “By Allaah, I have never been more sure about you than I am today.” The Dajjaal will want to kill him but will not be permitted to. (al-Bukhaari, no. 6599)

Ok, so you don't believe that enemy of god will be able to bring back the dead to life.
But let's say hypothetically, there will come a person who have that ability, will you worship him as god?

 

[Ramadhan]

I've commented on the use of the term "begotten" numerous times in the past. I don't find it to be the best English term to use to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. However, I can't change historical texts, I can only tell you that those who wrote it weren't thinking of "begotten" with the same connotation you take from today's dictionaries

That's your scripture.
I am sorry that it can't explain such fundamental point (if not the most fundamental) in the terms that can be understood.