Please any muslim brother clear my doubt

[imran123]

what about this one


The Bible says that God is everywhere including the heavens and the earth...

Jeremiah 23:24

24 Can anyone hide in secret places
so that I cannot see him?"
declares the LORD.
"Do not I fill heaven and earth?"
declares the LORD.

Psalms 139: 7-8
7 Where can I go from your Spirit?
Where can I flee from your presence?

8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.


So here we see that God does fill the heaven and the earth. But else where it says that the heavens and the earth cannot contain God...


1 Kings 8:27

But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

2 Chronicles 2:6

But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?



Wouldn't this also contradict the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is literally dwelling inside the individual? But how, if the person's body can't contain God?

 

[imran123]

Brother read the complete verse
In context it refers to Almighty god not spirit

If your bible is the word of god why there are so many contradictions in bible. It is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Hebrews, Ch. No.1 Verses No.10 and 11, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.102, Verse No.25 and 26, that…‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’ Exactly opposite is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastics, Ch. No.1, Verse No.4, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.78, Verse No.69, that… ‘The earth will abide forever.

It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like Dr. William Campbell to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

It is mentioned in Ezra, Ch. No.2, Verse No.1, and Nehemiah, Ch. No.7, Verse No.6, the context that… ‘When the people returned from exile, from Babylon, when king Nebucheldeser of Babylon, when he released the men from Israel, they came back from captivity’ - and the list of the people are given. The list is given in Ezra, Ch. No.2, Verse No.2 to 63, and Nehemiah Ch. No.7, Verse No.7 up to 65; the list is given with the names as well as number of people released. In these 60 Verses there are no less than 18 times - the name is exactly the same but the number is different. There are no less than 18 contradictions in less than 60 Verses, of these two Chapters. This is the list - I don’t have time to run through the list - There are no less than 18 different contradictions in less than 60 Verses. Further it is mentioned in Ezra, Ch. No.2 Verse No.64 that… ‘The total congregation, if you add up… if you add up, it comes to 42,360.’ And if you read in Nehemiah, Ch. No.7, Verse No.66, there also the total is the same 42,360. But if you add up all these verses - which I had to do my homework - this is the list of Ezra… this is the list of Nehemiah. Ezra Ch. No 2, Nehemiah Ch. No 7 - If you add up - I had to do my homework…if you add up, Ezra Ch. No. 2 - It does not come to 42,360 - it comes to 29,818. And if you add up Nehemiah, Ch. No. 7, even then it does not come to 42,360 - It comes to 31,089. The author of the Bible, presumed to be ‘Almighty God’, does not know simple addition. If you give this problem, even to a person who has passed elementary school, he will be able to get the right answer. If you add up all the 60 Verses, it is so easy. Almighty God did not know adding – Nauzubillah… if we presume, that this is the word of God

WORD OF GOD CANNOT SCIENTIFIC ERRORS SORRY BROTHER

 

[glo]

So here we see that God does fill the heaven and the earth. But else where it says that the heavens and the earth cannot contain God...


Wouldn't this also contradict the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is literally dwelling inside the individual? But how, if the person's body can't contain God?

I think you misunderstand, imran.

Christian teaching is quite clear that God is omnipresent, which means he is everywhere.
The verse "even the highest heaven cannot contain you, how much less this temple I have built" doesn't say that God cannot be in the heavens or the temple (indeed he is present in both), instead it means that neither heaven nor the temple are great enough to provide a dwelling place for God in his entirety and fullness.

I found some further information here.

Solomon mentioned God’s omnipresence on the day that the temple was dedicated. It was a beautiful building where God would place His name, where He would personally dwell, and where He would meet with His people. But in Solomon’s majestic prayer of dedication he revealed a truth that we still misunderstand today. “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain Thee, how much less this house which I have built!” (1 Kings 8:27) God would dwell in that temple but He would not be restricted to it. We cannot limit God to a building. We cannot even limit Him to a universe. God is everywhere.

In other words, God is greater and bigger and more wonderful and more powerful than anything else in this entire universe!
Everything else pales into insignificance.

Would you, as a Muslim, not agree with that perception of God?

 

[PouringRain]

Glo is correct. It would be like if you filled a glass with water and continued to fill until the glass was just overflowing. The glass is indeed filled with water, but it also can not contain all the water.


Imran, since you have so many questions about Christianity, why don't you open your own thread in comparative religion?

 

[imran123]

Brother wot about the scientific errors in bible
No christian in the world can ever refute this errors.

 

[imran123]

If your bible is the word of god why there are so many contradictions in bible. It is mentioned in the Bible, in the book of Hebrews, Ch. No.1 Verses No.10 and 11, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.102, Verse No.25 and 26, that…‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’ Exactly opposite is mentioned in the book of Ecclesiastics, Ch. No.1, Verse No.4, and the book of Psalms, Ch. No.78, Verse No.69, that… ‘The earth will abide forever.

It is mentioned in the book of Leveticus, Ch. No.12, Verse No.1 to 5, and we know medically, that after a mother gives birth to a child, the post-partal period, it is unhygienic. To say it is ‘unclean’, Religiously - I have got no objection. But Leviticus, Ch. No.12 Verse No.1 to 5, says that… ‘After a woman gives birth to a male child, she will be unclean for 7 days, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 33 days more. It she give birth to a female child, she will be unclean for two weeks, and the period of uncleanliness will continue for 66 days. In short, if a woman gives birth to a male child… ‘a son’, she is unclean for 40 days. If she gives birth to a female child… ‘a daughter’, she is unclean for 80 days. I would like Dr. William Campbell to explain to me scientifically, how come a woman remains unclean for double the period, if she gives birth to a female child, as compared to a male child.

It is mentioned in Ezra, Ch. No.2, Verse No.1, and Nehemiah, Ch. No.7, Verse No.6, the context that… ‘When the people returned from exile, from Babylon, when king Nebucheldeser of Babylon, when he released the men from Israel, they came back from captivity’ - and the list of the people are given. The list is given in Ezra, Ch. No.2, Verse No.2 to 63, and Nehemiah Ch. No.7, Verse No.7 up to 65; the list is given with the names as well as number of people released. In these 60 Verses there are no less than 18 times - the name is exactly the same but the number is different. There are no less than 18 contradictions in less than 60 Verses, of these two Chapters. This is the list - I don’t have time to run through the list - There are no less than 18 different contradictions in less than 60 Verses. Further it is mentioned in Ezra, Ch. No.2 Verse No.64 that… ‘The total congregation, if you add up… if you add up, it comes to 42,360.’ And if you read in Nehemiah, Ch. No.7, Verse No.66, there also the total is the same 42,360. But if you add up all these verses - which I had to do my homework - this is the list of Ezra… this is the list of Nehemiah. Ezra Ch. No 2, Nehemiah Ch. No 7 - If you add up - I had to do my homework…if you add up, Ezra Ch. No. 2 - It does not come to 42,360 - it comes to 29,818. And if you add up Nehemiah, Ch. No. 7, even then it does not come to 42,360 - It comes to 31,089. The author of the Bible, presumed to be ‘Almighty God’, does not know simple addition. If you give this problem, even to a person who has passed elementary school, he will be able to get the right answer. If you add up all the 60 Verses, it is so easy. Almighty God did not know adding – Nauzubillah… if we presume, that this is the word of God

WORD OF GOD CANNOT SCIENTIFIC ERRORS SORRY BROTHER

 

[imran123]

1 Kings 8:27

But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!

2 Chronicles 2:6

But who is able to build a temple for him, since the heavens, even the highest heavens, cannot contain him? Who then am I to build a temple for him, except as a place to burn sacrifices before him?

Wouldn't this also contradict the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is literally dwelling inside the individual? But how, if the person's body can't contain God?

 

[FS123]

This thread is for interfaith forum, please move this thread to its appropriate section.

 

[IAmZamzam]

If this is what you said all along, then why were you disagreeing with me? If you look back, I was saying from the beginning that the spirit is not a distinct, separate entity, and you kept disagreeing with me. Why do you think I was so shocked? Look back at my post #17 where I said the spirit is not a distinct, separate entity, and your post 18 where you say "Yes, it is." Then in my post 19 I reiterated that it is not a distinct, separate entity.... and you continued to disagree with me from there

Look, let’s get this cleared up once and for all, because with the forum not allowing you to copy and paste from posts it takes me way too long to undertake something like this when I’d rather not be continuing to repeat myself in the first place. Here is what you said in post #17:

The problem in your original conceptualization is that you were trying to separate it from God and make it out to be a separate distinct entity. Which, of course, it isn't.

Then in the next post I responded:

Yes it is. You can semantically obfuscate that by referring to it as that “aspect of God's nature” all you like, but once again, that doesn't change that fact that a person's presence is not part of the person. It's a separate, external trait, an effect which the person is causing.

Then in post #34 you said:

IMO your beliefs sound more ‘trinitarian’ than my own, which is why I have been so shocked all this time that you actually believe the ‘spirit’ is a distinct, separate entity of its own. I am now compelled to try and understand if this is a common Islamic belief.

And even though I clarified the matter for you in post #36…

A distinct ENTITY? I never said that myself, and pretty much said the opposite. A distinct QUALITY? Most certainly.

...you’re still confused, or feigning confusion. I think perhaps you’re getting stuck in an equivocation of the two different meanings of the term “entity”. Just pretend that we had never used the word at all. God’s presence (or in that verse, “spirit”) is an effect that God’s existence naturally produces, just as my presence in this room is an effect that my being here naturally produces. It is as separate from my own self as it gets. As distinct as it gets. The very fact that I am its source makes it not part of me and distinct from me. Because if I were the source of any part of my own self, I would be violating the rules of cause and effect. You have no problem admitting this of me: why not admit it of God? Stop hiding behind semantics. Whether you’re a Trinitarian or not, you seem to have adopted their verbal tricks. Not to mention that you didn’t answer me when I asked whether you were one or not.

 

[PouringRain]

...you’re still confused, or feigning confusion. I think perhaps you’re getting stuck in an equivocation of the two different meanings of the term “entity”. Just pretend that we had never used the word at all.

Whether you’re a Trinitarian or not, you seem to have adopted their verbal tricks. Not to mention that you didn’t answer me when I asked whether you were one or not.

The word "entity" can not just be discarded from the conversation, because I think if you had properly read what I wrote from the onset, then we would not have been having this discussion. I said it is not a distinct, separate entity (post 17), you say in post 36 that it is not a distinct entity-- end of story, because the beliefs are in agreement. All the posts in between were clearly unnecessary, since you cleared up your position in post 36.

There was no trickery. I used the word "entity", or the phrase that it is not a separate, distinct entity in every reply to you (up until you began talking trinitarianism). The word entity was at the very core of what I was saying. It can not be discarded, nor was there any slight of hand, word game, trickery. I don't think I need to go back and count how many times I used the word between posts 17 and 36 in order to demonstrate how very clear I was saying it. It shouldn't be necessary, since the entire conversation is now moot.

Furthermore, I did not see a need to answer your question about being trinitarian in post 36, since it was that same post that you reaffirmed my position from post 17. At that point the question also seemed to be of no consequence.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Perhaps you should tell us, then, exactly which meaning of "entity" you were using.

When I said that I was referring to God's presence as "a distinct ENTITY? No. A distinct QUALITY? Yes." I was merely explaining what word I thought more sensible to use for the sake of the point I was making. The qualities a being produces are, however un"separated", still not the being. Since "entity" might or might not refer to life, that tends to obfuscate things.

 

[PouringRain]

Perhaps you should tell us, then, exactly which meaning of "entity" you were using.

When I said that I was referring to God's presence as "a distinct ENTITY? No. A distinct QUALITY? Yes." I was merely explaining what word I thought more sensible to use for the sake of the point I was making. The qualities a being produces are, however un"separated", still not the being. Since "entity" might or might not refer to life, that tends to obfuscate things.

In post #25 I defined it as "something that can exist on its own" & "has its own existence, independent, self-contained, etc." And in Post 27 I wrote "exists apart (on its own).

I realize that entity can mean different things, as can spirit, which is why I made attempts early on to be clear which definitions I was using.

The word quality can also have various meanings, and it is not a word I'd personally use to describe the spirit. Although, I would use it to describe some other attributes of things you mentioned earlier.

If I was to explain the "spirit" in a concrete manner (since understanding the spirit is very abstract), I'd describe it in this manner:

If I reach down and pick up a stone with my hand, it would be correct to say that "my hand picked up the stone" but it would be equally correct to say that "I picked up the stone." Both are correct, and my hand is both a part of me and also representative of me as a whole, but clearly my hand is not me. My hand acts in accordance with my will and can do no thing on its own. In this manner it is an integral part of me. Obviously, no one would look at my hand and say, "oh, you are beautiful" or "you are kind" or "you are mighty"-- because my hand is not representative of my whole in that manner. My hand can only be representative of my whole in the manner in which it functions. "I (my hand) picked up the stone." "I (my hand) pushed the box." I (my hand) am strong in grasp." So, the functions and the attributes of my hand can be applied to me as a whole, but my whole can not be applied to my hand. My hand is the means used to perform the action on behalf of my whole.

In an abstract manner, this is the same way God and his spirit are. His spirit is an integral part of him, but can only function in accordance with what he wills it. The functions and attributes of the spirit can be applied to God as a whole, but God's whole can not be applied to the spirit. So that, if we speak of God's presence (spirit) as the verses in the first post, we can say that we can not hide from God's presence, and we can also say we can not hide form God. Both are correct, because the spirit (presence, or more accurately omnipresence) is the means by which God is performing the action in the context. To extend this further, if the spirit guides one to the truth, the function of the spirit at that point is in guiding. We can accurately say that God guided man to the truth. The spirit is performing the actions in accordance with God's will, as an extension of God. The functions and attributes of the spirit can accurately be attributed to God (in the same manner that my hand can be attributed to me), but the whole of God can not be applied to the spirit.

Maybe this clarifies my stance further for you, since you weren't quite clear when I used the word entity. BTW, we do not have to agree. I am perfectly fine with us not reaching any sort of agreement. I do agree with part of what you are saying, but not completely. Some of that could be your choice of words used as well. When speaking of God and the spirit, obviously we are getting into more abstract ideas, which are not always explained well with concrete examples.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Very interesting argumentation, but there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind--repeat anyone's--now that you are a Trinitarian. Unless maybe they've never read a Trinitarian article in their lives. Maybe. I'm not going to actually demand that you fess up: you don't have to. At this point it would be so superfluous as to be silly.

I have covered both the Trinity itself and the sort of issues we've been discussing here.

 

[PouringRain]

Very interesting argumentation, but there is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind--repeat anyone's--now that you are a Trinitarian. Unless maybe they've never read a Trinitarian article in their lives. Maybe. I'm not going to actually demand that you fess up: you don't have to. At this point it would be so superfluous as to be silly.

I have covered both the Trinity itself and the sort of issues we've been discussing here.

I find your assessment and confidence in that assessment to be very interesting, considering what I wrote does not fit in with trinitarian doctrine. What definition of trinitarian are you using? I looked at your website and I couldn't find anywhere that you provided a concise definition of what you define as the trinity.

 

[IAmZamzam]

I find your assessment and confidence in that assessment to be very interesting, considering what I wrote does not fit in with trinitarian doctrine. What definition of trinitarian are you using? I looked at your website and I couldn't find anywhere that you provided a concise definition of what you define as the trinity.

There is no single, universal, and fully coherent definition of the Trinity, and there never ever will be. But I know Trinitarian thought when I see it so clearly expressed. If you're not a Trinitarian, you sure seem close enough to it to make the difference imperceptible, at least to me.

 

[Grace Seeker]

In post #25 I defined it as "something that can exist on its own" & "has its own existence, independent, self-contained, etc." And in Post 27 I wrote "exists apart (on its own).

I realize that entity can mean different things, as can spirit, which is why I made attempts early on to be clear which definitions I was using.

The word quality can also have various meanings, and it is not a word I'd personally use to describe the spirit. Although, I would use it to describe some other attributes of things you mentioned earlier.

If I was to explain the "spirit" in a concrete manner (since understanding the spirit is very abstract), I'd describe it in this manner:

If I reach down and pick up a stone with my hand, it would be correct to say that "my hand picked up the stone" but it would be equally correct to say that "I picked up the stone." Both are correct, and my hand is both a part of me and also representative of me as a whole, but clearly my hand is not me. My hand acts in accordance with my will and can do no thing on its own. In this manner it is an integral part of me. Obviously, no one would look at my hand and say, "oh, you are beautiful" or "you are kind" or "you are mighty"-- because my hand is not representative of my whole in that manner. My hand can only be representative of my whole in the manner in which it functions. "I (my hand) picked up the stone." "I (my hand) pushed the box." I (my hand) am strong in grasp." So, the functions and the attributes of my hand can be applied to me as a whole, but my whole can not be applied to my hand. My hand is the means used to perform the action on behalf of my whole.

In an abstract manner, this is the same way God and his spirit are. His spirit is an integral part of him, but can only function in accordance with what he wills it. The functions and attributes of the spirit can be applied to God as a whole, but God's whole can not be applied to the spirit. So that, if we speak of God's presence (spirit) as the verses in the first post, we can say that we can not hide from God's presence, and we can also say we can not hide form God. Both are correct, because the spirit (presence, or more accurately omnipresence) is the means by which God is performing the action in the context. To extend this further, if the spirit guides one to the truth, the function of the spirit at that point is in guiding. We can accurately say that God guided man to the truth. The spirit is performing the actions in accordance with God's will, as an extension of God. The functions and attributes of the spirit can accurately be attributed to God (in the same manner that my hand can be attributed to me), but the whole of God can not be applied to the spirit.

Maybe this clarifies my stance further for you, since you weren't quite clear when I used the word entity. BTW, we do not have to agree. I am perfectly fine with us not reaching any sort of agreement. I do agree with part of what you are saying, but not completely. Some of that could be your choice of words used as well. When speaking of God and the spirit, obviously we are getting into more abstract ideas, which are not always explained well with concrete examples.

Pouring Rain, I can see why Yahya Sulaiman might be convinced that you are a trinitarian after reading this post. The way you explain the relationship between the whole man and the hand is similar to the way that many trinitarians try to explain the relationship between the individual persons of the Trinity and the whole of God. However, such an explanation would be modalism, and you are correct that it is not actual trinitarianism. But, forgive Yahya Sulaiman, it is what often passes for trinitarianism in most conversations among those who claim they are trinitarians. And though I know it is really more modalism than pure trinitarianism, even I seldom try to correct people when they express their understanding of the Trinity this way.

It might be helpful, at least to me, if you were to take the next step and articulate your points of differentation from traditional trinitarian beliefs.

 

[PouringRain]

Pouring Rain, I can see why Yahya Sulaiman might be convinced that you are a trinitarian after reading this post. The way you explain the relationship between the whole man and the hand is similar to the way that many trinitarians try to explain the relationship between the individual persons of the Trinity and the whole of God. However, such an explanation would be modalism, and you are correct that it is not actual trinitarianism. But, forgive Yahya Sulaiman, it is what often passes for trinitarianism in most conversations among those who claim they are trinitarians. And though I know it is really more modalism than pure trinitarianism, even I seldom try to correct people when they express their understanding of the Trinity this way.

It might be helpful, at least to me, if you were to take the next step and articulate your points of differentation from traditional trinitarian beliefs.

Modalism states that the forms are consecutive and never simultaneous. This is not what I am describing at all in the hand analogy, considering that one's functions through one's hand can not occur in the absence of the individual. Modalism suggests that there is one God who exists in three modes or forms; whereas, Trinitarianism suggests that there is one God, who exists in three persons, co-eternal and co-equal, having one essence. Non-trinitarian doctrines sometimes reject even one aspect of the Trinitarian doctrine.

I agree with you that my view of the spirit is not Trinitarian, as it does not view the spirit as a co-equal with God. The view of the spirit as emanating from God is a non-trinitarian view, but it is not modalism (even though modalism is a non-trinitarian view also).

 

[Grace Seeker]

Ah, sorry, I didn't get the focuse on the emanating idea from my first reading of what you said. I thought you were focusing on the part of the whole aspect with the hand being part of the body, but not the whole of the body. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Again, smoke emanates from fire....