Muslims converting to Christianity

[MadeenJibreel]

Coexisting of the same substance...in other words the same entity manifesting in different ways.

As for the "Son of God" this is a title of nature and not of office. The sonship of Christ denotes his equality with the Father. To call Christ the Son of God is to assert his true and proper divinity. It does not mean Christ is a physical offspring of God....that would be rather blasphemous wouldn't it? It simply refers, as Christ often pointed out, His relationship with the Father...being One with the Father.

--> ..being One with the Father.
That's the piece where the problem is. So 3 substances, say 3 entities, yet 1 - this doesn't work. Jesus, peace upon him, is not equal to God - he (according to the Bible) said it himself. I'll post a verse for you in case you're not aware of it.
Now, either Jesus was saying the truth (I believe so 100%), that he is not equal to God (the verse uses the word Father) or he was lying (I don't think so!), and if he was lying the he is equal to God - which would confirm what you said.

Now you claimed that Jesus is equal to Father. You just contradicted Jesus (according to the Bible, if he really said those words), so it's either you not saying the truth or Jesus is not saying the truth - what do you think?

 

[MadeenJibreel]

>It does not mean Christ is a physical offspring of God....that would be rather blasphemous wouldn't it?

Well, Christians call Mary, peace upon her, the mother of God (Allah forgive me for quoting what they say...), so is she (according to the Christian faith) the mother of God or not? She can't be both now, so which one?

They also say "she gave birth to God's son or God himself...". I gotta ask you, are you really a Christian?

 

[Keltoi]

--> ..being One with the Father.
That's the piece where the problem is. So 3 substances, say 3 entities, yet 1 - this doesn't work. Jesus, peace upon him, is not equal to God - he (according to the Bible) said it himself. I'll post a verse for you in case you're not aware of it.
Now, either Jesus was saying the truth (I believe so 100%), that he is not equal to God (the verse uses the word Father) or he was lying (I don't think so!), and if he was lying the he is equal to God - which would confirm what you said.

Now you claimed that Jesus is equal to Father. You just contradicted Jesus (according to the Bible, if he really said those words), so it's either you not saying the truth or Jesus is not saying the truth - what do you think?

Jesus stated that He and the Father are One. I didn't say that, He did. As for the other verse you mentioned and the supposed contradiction, perhaps Paul would be a better authority than I.

"...being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,)

Apologetics Press :: Alleged Discrepancies

In What Way was God Greater than Jesus?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
[Español]

Printer version | Email this article


According to the apostle John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became 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” (John 1:1,14, emp. added). Unquestionably, this Word (God), Whom John claims became flesh, was Jesus Christ (1:17). This same apostle recorded other statements in his account of the Gospel that convey the same basic truth. He wrote how, on one occasion, Jesus told a group of hostile Jews, “I and My Father are one” (10:30). Later, he recorded how Jesus responded to Philip’s request to see God by saying, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9). He even told about how Jesus accepted worship from a blind man whom He had healed (9:38; cf. Matthew 8:2). And, since only God is to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10), the implication is that Jesus believed He was God (cf. John 1:29,41,49; 20:28; Mark 14:62).

Some, however, see an inconsistency with these statements when they are placed alongside John 14:28, in which Jesus declared: “My Father is greater than I”. Allegedly, this verse (among others—cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3; Mark 13:32; Colossians 3:1) proves that Jesus and the Bible writers were contradictory in their portrayal of Jesus’ divine nature. Jesus could not be one with God and lesser than God at the same time, could He? What is the proper way to understand John 14:28?

Statements found in passages like John 14:28 (indicating that Jesus was lesser than God), or in Mark 13:32 (where Jesus made the comment that even He did not know on what day the Second Coming would be), must be understood in light of what the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi concerning Jesus’ self-limitation during His time on Earth. Christ,

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,).

While on Earth, and in the flesh, Jesus was voluntarily in a subordinate position to the Father. Christ “emptied Himself ” (Philippians 2:7; He “made Himself nothing”—NIV). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), humbled Himself, and obediently accepted the role of a servant. Jesus’ earthly limitations (. Mark 13:32), however, were not the consequence of a less-than-God nature; rather, they were the result of a self-imposed submission reflecting the exercise of His sovereign will. While on Earth, Jesus assumed a position of complete subjection to the Father, and exercised His divine attributes only at the Father’s bidding.

 

[Keltoi]

>It does not mean Christ is a physical offspring of God....that would be rather blasphemous wouldn't it?

Well, Christians call Mary, peace upon her, the mother of God (Allah forgive me for quoting what they say...), so is she (according to the Christian faith) the mother of God or not? She can't be both now, so which one?

They also say "she gave birth to God's son or God himself...". I gotta ask you, are you really a Christian?

Well, I'm not Catholic, so I do not hold the same beliefs about Mary as many Catholics do. That being said, she was indeed the mother of Jesus, although I don't think "Mother of God" is an appropriate term to use. I suppose I can see why some might, as technically she was the mother of Christ who was indeed One with God. However, I am personally uncomfortable with the Catholic understanding of Mary and her place in the context of God and Christ.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

Jesus stated that He and the Father are One. I didn't say that, He did. As for the other verse you mentioned and the supposed contradiction, perhaps Paul would be a better authority than I.

"...being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,)

Apologetics Press :: Alleged Discrepancies

In What Way was God Greater than Jesus?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.
[Español]

Printer version | Email this article


According to the apostle John, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. And the Word became 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” (John 1:1,14, emp. added). Unquestionably, this Word (God), Whom John claims became flesh, was Jesus Christ (1:17). This same apostle recorded other statements in his account of the Gospel that convey the same basic truth. He wrote how, on one occasion, Jesus told a group of hostile Jews, “I and My Father are one” (10:30). Later, he recorded how Jesus responded to Philip’s request to see God by saying, “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (14:9). He even told about how Jesus accepted worship from a blind man whom He had healed (9:38; cf. Matthew 8:2). And, since only God is to be worshipped (Matthew 4:10), the implication is that Jesus believed He was God (cf. John 1:29,41,49; 20:28; Mark 14:62).

Some, however, see an inconsistency with these statements when they are placed alongside John 14:28, in which Jesus declared: “My Father is greater than I”. Allegedly, this verse (among others—cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3; Mark 13:32; Colossians 3:1) proves that Jesus and the Bible writers were contradictory in their portrayal of Jesus’ divine nature. Jesus could not be one with God and lesser than God at the same time, could He? What is the proper way to understand John 14:28?

Statements found in passages like John 14:28 (indicating that Jesus was lesser than God), or in Mark 13:32 (where Jesus made the comment that even He did not know on what day the Second Coming would be), must be understood in light of what the apostle Paul wrote to the church at Philippi concerning Jesus’ self-limitation during His time on Earth. Christ,

being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation [He “emptied Himself”—NASB], taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross (Philippians 2:6-8,).

While on Earth, and in the flesh, Jesus was voluntarily in a subordinate position to the Father. Christ “emptied Himself ” (Philippians 2:7; He “made Himself nothing”—NIV). Unlike Adam and Eve, who made an attempt to seize equality with God (Genesis 3:5), Jesus, the last Adam (1 Corinthians 15:47), humbled Himself, and obediently accepted the role of a servant. Jesus’ earthly limitations (. Mark 13:32), however, were not the consequence of a less-than-God nature; rather, they were the result of a self-imposed submission reflecting the exercise of His sovereign will. While on Earth, Jesus assumed a position of complete subjection to the Father, and exercised His divine attributes only at the Father’s bidding.

Just one question, before I go and tackle the text you quoted.
What exactly does it mean "I and Father are one"? Do you know? (OK, more than 1 question
I'm not a native english speaker, but surely, that statement does not mean "I and Father are God".

God is One (I agree)
but the word One cannot mutate to word God. One in that verse can mean anything, i.e. the message I'm giving to you is the same as the One given to me by God, the path I'm on is the One God wants you to be, etc.

What do you think?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Well, yes and no. According to Wikipedia: A Muslim is an adherent of the religion of Islam. The feminine form of 'Muslim' is Muslimah. Literally, the word means "one who submits to God". Since Moses (as) submitted his will to that of God to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, then he was a Muslim even though he did not know Muhammad (saaws). We Muslims refuse to accept the title of "Mohammedan" to be applied to us.

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed. He was a jew, a monotheists, who submitted to the jewish version of god(who is a male). He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.
The term muslim is defined too widely, but since it's a part of your religion I won't argue any more. You can call Moses a muslim and non-muslims won't.


PS: What about Mohammedan Muslim?

 

[MadeenJibreel]

Well, I'm not Catholic, so I do not hold the same beliefs about Mary as many Catholics do. That being said, she was indeed the mother of Jesus, although I don't think "Mother of God" is an appropriate term to use. I suppose I can see why some might, as technically she was the mother of Christ who was indeed One with God. However, I am personally uncomfortable with the Catholic understanding of Mary and her place in the context of God and Christ.

A fair explanation is always appreciated.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed. He was a jew, a monotheists, who submitted to the jewish version of god(who is a male). He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.
The term muslim is defined too widely, but since it's a part of your religion I won't argue any more. You can call Moses a muslim, non-muslims won't.


PS: What about Mohammedan Muslim?

Where are you taking your proof from, that Moses didn't believe in the Day of Judgment, Hell, Paradise, etc.? You've got a proof for this?
And term "Mohammedan Muslim" is an insult to every Muslim, so please do not use it.

 

[snakelegs]

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed. He was a jew, a monotheists, who submitted to the jewish version of god(who is a male). He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.
The term muslim is defined too widely, but since it's a part of your religion I won't argue any more. You can call Moses a muslim and non-muslims won't.


PS: What about Mohammedan Muslim?

i don't know how you came up with the jewish version of god (who is a male)??? god has no form, how can he have gender.
mohammadan is a term used by western scholars and rejected by muslims.
it implies worship of muhammad, a man, which is definitely not accurate and would be idolatry.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Where are you taking your proof from, that Moses didn't believe in the Day of Judgment, Hell, Paradise, etc.? You've got a proof for this?
And term "Mohammedan Muslim" is an insult to every Muslim, so please do not use it.

Because Jews and the Torah don't.
Ok, I won't.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

i don't know how you came up with the jewish version of god (who is a male)??? god has no form, how can he have gender.
mohammadan is a term used by western scholars and rejected by muslims.
it implies worship of muhammad, a man, which is definitely not accurate and would be idolatry.

Gramatically God is a male, and as afr as i know, before Jesus nobody discussed his sex/sexlessness...
I could be wrong.:?

 

[snakelegs]

Gramatically God is a male, and as afr as i know, before Jesus nobody discussed his sex/sexlessness...
I could be wrong.:?

i was talking about god - not jesus. jesus was a man, so of course he had gender.
do not confuse a grammatical term with reality. obviously words are needed to attempt to explain the inexplicable. god has no form and is invisible.
i don't know what the christian understanding is.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

i was talking about god - not jesus. jesus was a man, so of course he had gender.
do not confuse a grammatical term with reality. obviously words are needed to attempt to explain the inexplicable. god has no form and is invisible.
i don't know what the christian understanding is.

I wasn't talking about Jesus' gender. I said nobody before Jesus spoke of God's gender/genderlessness. Or have they?

 

[Whatsthepoint]

And even if the word God is masculine, that doesn't explain why God is refered to as "he". It wouldn't explain Exodus 3:14, where god says I am, where the verb be contains a Hebrew masculine verb prefix.

 

[Umar001]

Moses certainly wasn't an adherent of Islam, religion started by Mohammed.

I don't think anyone will argue that Moses, peace be upon him, prayed the way Muhammad was taught to pray or that Moses fasted Ramadan or that Moses read the Qur'an. (I do not think there is any writing in Islam, Qur'an and Sunnah, to suggest so)

So if you mean that Moses did not follow the Islam, the laws, that Muhammad brought than sure. But Islam in its non specific meaning, then I am sure most people will agree Moses was a Muslim. Let us reason, did Moses submit himself to Almighty God, establishing the unity of God and refusing to share any worship to anyone else other than God? Muslims, Christains and Jews will say yes. A point we all agree on. This is what Islam is! Since we all would agree then I guess that makes it easier.

He did not believe in the day of teh judgement, predestination, hell and many other islamic concepts, which makes him even less muslim.

Now this is where we disagree, you are using what as your source? From another post of yours I assume you use the Torah, but this Torah is not the Torah Moses wrote, how can you then be sure that Moses believed or did not believe in something?

If you ask me to bring evidence that it is not Moses' Torah, then I will more than happly direct you to study the text yourself, if not possible then read the writings of Biblical Scholars, some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah. If that is not possible, i.e. read the writings of Biblical Scholars, then I ask to bring evidence that Moses did write the Torah, did he claims so, is it possible historically, does the writing show as such etc.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

I don't think anyone will argue that Moses, peace be upon him, prayed the way Muhammad was taught to pray or that Moses fasted Ramadan or that Moses read the Qur'an. (I do not think there is any writing in Islam, Qur'an and Sunnah, to suggest so)

So if you mean that Moses did not follow the Islam, the laws, that Muhammad brought than sure. But Islam in its non specific meaning, then I am sure most people will agree Moses was a Muslim. Let us reason, did Moses submit himself to Almighty God, establishing the unity of God and refusing to share any worship to anyone else other than God? Muslims, Christains and Jews will say yes. A point we all agree on. This is what Islam is! Since we all would agree then I guess that makes it easier.

Yeah, Islam and muslims are very widely defined. Every monotheist can be a muslim and not every muslim is a muslim...
But then, would Moses still be considered a muslim, if he believed there was no hell? Is it wrong for the Jews, who don't belive in hell and claim the same for Moses, to say he was not a muslim? Is it wrong for them to say Moses wasn't a muslim, because according to their faith he did not believe in the day of the Judgement?

Now this is where we disagree, you are using what as your source? From another post of yours I assume you use the Torah, but this Torah is not the Torah Moses wrote, how can you then be sure that Moses believed or did not believe in something?

If you ask me to bring evidence that it is not Moses' Torah, then I will more than happly direct you to study the text yourself, if not possible then read the writings of Biblical Scholars, some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah. If that is not possible, i.e. read the writings of Biblical Scholars, then I ask to bring evidence that Moses did write the Torah, did he claims so, is it possible historically, does the writing show as such etc.

...Some of whom claim that there are no less than 4 writers/compilers and a editor to the Torah, some claim it had 5 authors...some claim he never existed! I personally think the latter are closest to the truth.
Even if 3 more people wrote the Torah, it is odd that Moses didn't say anything about the day of the judgement, hell etc in the parts he wrote.
And even if he did believe in those things and for some reason didn't write them down, it's up to muslims to prove he ahd knowledge of them. If you can't prove that clearly, it is a part of your faith. And your faith is no better than that of the Jews, who belive Moses was not a muslim.

 

[snakelegs]

And even if the word God is masculine, that doesn't explain why God is refered to as "he". It wouldn't explain Exodus 3:14, where god says I am, where the verb be contains a Hebrew masculine verb prefix.

yes, of course - that is known as grammar.
the most commonly used term for god is actually plural form. does this mean that jews worship many gods? no, it is a grammatical form showing respect.
again, god is formless and invisible, not some little man in the sky.
i don't know if you're familiar with j. krishnamurti but a quote from him comes to mind -"the description in not the described".

 

[snakelegs]

I wasn't talking about Jesus' gender. I said nobody before Jesus spoke of God's gender/genderlessness. Or have they?

i have no idea.

 

[MadeenJibreel]

Gramatically God is a male, and as afr as i know, before Jesus nobody discussed his sex/sexlessness...
I could be wrong.:?

True, english word God is a male, whilst arabic word ALLAAH has no gender
And neither you can make it "genderable" ...

 

[Grace Seeker]

lol i see, point noted


but its important that people realise a muslim is one who does indeed submit his will to God, Al-Islaam is to achieve peace via submission to the almighty.

You keep going against the allmighty how can you expect peace when peace is only within his control and distributed with his favor?

right?

i hope you know what i mean

Yes, Islam is submitting one's self to the will of God. And I agree that Jesus most certianly did. What I cannot agree is that Muhammad (I still wish peace to be upon him) in fact got the message right. When he says that that God's angel told him that Jesus never died on the cross, all I can conclude is that either Muhammad misheard or was listening to an angel who he thought was Jibreel, but really wasn't. Indeed it was being willing to submit to God that led Jesus to the cross, to deny that is to deny that Jesus was submissive. And though Jesus would not be born until generations later, I believe that the holy scriptures teach that Abraham and Moses longed for Jesus' day and were submissive to him as an act of faith. To say that they would not recognize Jesus as God is to say that they would not be submissive to God, and for Muslim today to deny that this is who Jesus is likewise is not living a life of submission to the one true God.

So, I guess it all depends not on how you define Islam (for we agree on its meaning) but on who it is that one submitts to. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Jesus none of them were submissive to God in the way that a modern day Muslim defines being submissive to Allah. If they were followers of Islam, then today's Muslim is not.