The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He crea

[barney]

I was going to start a thread about kittens, but diddnt because it would inevitably decend into pages and pages of cut and paste quotations from scripture and You-tube vids of beheadings.


I must have missed the "popping out of the ether" post, sorry.
I would hazard a guess that it involved free will to beleive or disbeleive though.

 

[جوري]

Don't do it man..

 

[Grace Seeker]

I must have missed the "popping out of the ether" post, sorry.

You can read it here: http://www.islamicboard.com/858236-post430.html. It was in answer to basically the same question you asked in another thread.

 

[barney]

Ahh thanks Graceseeker. I hadnt seen it before.

Whilst I understand where you are going with the arguement, I gotta say I was doing my standard Aggy screwing my face up and biting my lip whilst squinting that this was a reason why Jesus hopped onto the Soapbox at 27 or 28 after a promising start in Carpentry.

My Mum always says, God knoweth every hair on your head. (Yup, she actualy says Knoweth). Now whilst i'm not a literalist to the point that I expect God to have some personal interest in hairdressing, I do take this to mean that he can see what is in our hearts, what we are doing, what we are thinking and what our Humanity is. (I'm not going to wander down the Bibilic bits where God asks Adam & Eve where they are as they hide from him in Eden. (My particular answer to that would be .."Shhhh, Eve, after he finds us , we can do the counting, God can hide")

As our creator and Knower of EVERYTHING, God dosnt need to spend time as a Human to say, Oooh! This is what it's like eh? Cool! Note To Self: On mark two humans , dont make Teeth with nerves He is hopefully already painfully aware of something as simple as our Humanity. (Although he did keep wiping out tens of thousands of people randomly for Human frailtys such as complaining).

Nope on balance, if my Mate Jeff came up to me and told me he was suddenly the actual incarnation-in-flesh of the supreme power, I would have a bit of trouble beleiving him.
As regards the miracles: Added in later for flavour. A rule for a big lie is tell it often and tell it officially.

BTW, I'm not trying to convert you Grace, just giving you my take on things.
Cheers.

 

[Imam]

as to Christ's nature I provide the following passage which speaks for itself:
5Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6Who, being in very nature[a] 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.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!
.

Seeker, what did Jesus,according to that passage , in his human (incarnate) state, empty himself?

We have only two choices:

1- that at the time of the Incarnation, God emptied himself of his divine attributes so that he could become a man. And in becoming a man in the very real sense, And so there is the transformation from deity to humanity because he set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation; the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God.
.

2-or his transformation from deity to humanity never set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.His human nature was fully human, and his divine nature always and everywhere was fully divine.(fully man and fully God).

If so then


How could you have a being who is perfect and not perfect simultaneously?

Luke 18:19, Jesus responded: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God..


How could a being be infinite and finite at the same time?

Jesus (who is supposed to be always and everywhere was fully divine) cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).

How could a being be both ignorant of some facts and omniscient?

Jesus said"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations.



how could a being prayed to himself and there would have been no need for him to pray at all?
"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt"

Matthew 26:39


how could a being send spirit to his own spirit?

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

Luke 23:46

If Jesus and God were "one substance" then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus.


How could one substance has two wills?

And "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
John 5:30
If Jesus and God were one substance then this ONE substance must only have ONE will.

How could a being of one substance forsake itself?

Jesus cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).


Plainly put it,If Jesus lacks a quality possessed by God or vice versa,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.or as you wish to call him(fully man and fully God).

Unless you are able to repeal the law of contradiction, Seeker, you are entangled in a hopeless quest for a phantasy.

 

[NoName55]

In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read:

"If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism. The pure Deism of the first Christians . . . was changed, by the Church of Rome, into the incomprehensible dogma of the trinity. Many of the pagan tenets, invented by the Egyptians and idealized by Plato, were retained as being worthy of belief."

"Christendom has done away with Christianity without being quite aware of it" (Soren Kierkegaard, cited in Time magazine, Dec. 16, 1946, p. 64).

"The three-in-one/one-in-three mystery of Father, Son and Holy Ghost made tritheism official...The Church - Catholic and later Protestant - turned aggressively on the two most clearly monotheistic religions in view - Judaism and Islam - and persecuted them as heathen or pagan. The external history of Christianity consists largely of accusations that other religions rely on the worship of more than one god and therefore not the true God. These pagans must therefore be converted, conquered and/or killed for their own good in order that they benefit from the singularity of the Holy Trinity, plus appendages." -- The Doubter's Companion (John Ralston Saul)

Saul failed to mention three others that also reject the Trinity along with Jews and Muslims; Unitarians, Deists, and Jehovah's Witnesses. And only three groups today believe in the Trinity; Christians, Gnostics, and Hindus. The Hindu Trinity really isn't related to the other two, but among Christians and Gnostics, it's nearly identical, and both are related to the Gospel of John. We shall explore why, where the belief comes from, and how it ended up as the main focus of Christianity.

....

 

[Grace Seeker]

As our creator and Knower of EVERYTHING, God dosnt need to spend time as a Human to say, Oooh! This is what it's like eh? Cool! Note To Self: On mark two humans , dont make Teeth with nerves He is hopefully already painfully aware of something as simple as our Humanity. (Although he did keep wiping out tens of thousands of people randomly for Human frailtys such as complaining).

I never said that God was wanting to say that "this is what it's like eh?", as if he didn't understand humanity.

I said that the Christian message is that God came to reconcile the world to himself. For this reason he entered into humanity. Watching one of those Discover channel shows where they show how things are done, they commented on the importance when building a suspension bridge to anchor the cables solidly at both ends. Well, in reconciling the world to himself, God was basically building a bridge between himself and humanity. That connection had been there in the beginning at our creation, but sin had marred us to the point that the connection no longer existed. To reestablish that connection would take a perfect human being. Now perhaps you suspect that all persons are born perfect. I know that our Muslim brothers and sisters view infants this way. But the Bible does not. It presents ever person (even infants) as a fallen creature stained in our common humanity by the reality of sin. Jesus would enter the world sinless, and yet still share in our humanity. He would live a perfect life and offer it to the father as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. It sort of a bloody concept, and a lot of people turn away simply because of it, but that is what we are talking about. Neither you nor I would ever accomplish this task, if we could, then Jesus wouldn't have had to come. But we can't and so either God had to let us slip away or he had to reclaim us. The sacrifice was necessary in the justice of God. Again, some people don't want to have anything to do with a God that practices that type of justice, but again, that is the God described in the Bible. So, God enters humanity to offer himself on its behalf. And in entering humanity, he came as a child, because that's how real humans enter the world.

It's little wonder that Muslims and atheist reject this idea. About the only people that could ever accept it are Christians, and if you do accept it, there would be nothing to stop you from becoming a Christian.

 

[Imam]

The sacrifice was necessary in the justice of God. Again, some people don't want to have anything to do with a God that practices that type of justice, but again, that is the God described in the Bible. So, God enters humanity to offer himself on its behalf. And in entering humanity, he came as a child, because that's how real humans enter the world.

It's little wonder that Muslims and atheist reject this idea. About the only people that could ever accept it are Christians, and if you do accept it, there would be nothing to stop you from becoming a Christian.

You made several errors,seeker

1-Muslims basically reject such idea due to the fact,that the source (NT)from which christians quote such idea is proved to be mostly (non-inspired)

all you know about the so called blood atonment comes from Scripture. The validity of such idea depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of Scripture.

A non-inspired book isn't enough for Muslims ,Jews(whom you skipped from the list) and atheists to buy the idea of (Jesus atoned us through blood)...


2- Not true that Christian the only people that could ever accept it


"The worship of suffering gods was to be found on all sides, and the belief in the torture of the victims in the rites of human sacrifice for the redemption from sin was very general. The gods Osiris, Attis, Adonis, Dionysos, and others, had all suffered for mankind; and thus the Servant of Yahweh was also conceived as having to be wounded for' men's transgressions. But as I say, this conception had passed into the background in the days of Jesus" (The Paganism in Our Christianity, Arthur Weigall, 1928, p106)



Quote (Kersey Graves: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors)

THERE were various practices in vogue amongst the orientalists, which originated with the design of appeasing the anger and propitiating the favor of a presumed to be irascible deity. Most of these practices consisted in some kind of sacrifice or destructive offering called the "atonement." But here let it be observed, that the doctrine of atonement for sin, by sacrifice, was unfolded by degrees, and that the crucifixion of a God was not the first practical exhibition of it. On the contrary, it appears to have commenced with the most valueless or cheapest species of property then known. And from this starting-point ascended gradually, so as finally to embody the most costly commodities; and did not stop here, but reached forward till it laid its murderous hands on human beings, and immolated them upon its bloody altars. And finally, to cap the climax, it assumed the effrontery to drag a God off the throne of heaven, to stretch its blood-thirsty spirit, as evinced by Paul's declaration, "Without the shedding of blood there can be no remission of sin." Rather a bloody doctrine, and one which our humanity rejects with instinctive horror.

This idea obviously was suggested by observing that their earthly rulers always smiled, and became less rigorous in their laws, and milder in their treatment of their subjects, when they made them presents of some valuable or desirable commodity. They soon learned that such offerings had the effect to cheek their cruel and bloody mode of governing the people; so that when their houses were shaken down, or swallowed up by earthquakes, the trees riven by lightning, and prostrated by storms, and their cattle swept away by floods, the thought arose in their minds at once, that perhaps his wrath could be abated by the same expedient as that which had served in the case of their mundane lords -- that of making presents of property.

And when drag a God off the throne of heaven , or voluntairy came down , and was put to death on the cross as an atonement for sin, such was the value of the victim, such the magnitude of the offering, that it "atoned" for all sin, past, present and future, for all the human race.

We cherish no such conception. We cannot for a moment harbor a blasphemous doctrine, which represents the Universal Father as being a bloody-minded and murderous being, instead of a being of infinite love, infinite wisdom, and infinite in all the moral virtues. Such a character would be a deep-dyed stigma upon any human being. And no person actuated by a strict sense of justice would accept salvation upon any such terms as that prescribed by the Christian atonement.
The doctrine of the atonement also involves the infinite absurdity of God punishing himself to appease his own wrath.
But we find, upon further investigation, that the assumed debt is not paid -- after all.

When a debt is paid, it is canceled, and dismissed from memory, and nothing more said about it. But in this case the sinner is told he must still suffer the penalty for every sin he commits, notwithstanding Christ died to atone for and cancel that sin.

Where, then, is the virtue of the atonement? Like other doctrines of the orthodox creed, it is at war with reason and common sense, and every principle of sound morality, and will be marked by coming ages as a relic of barbarism.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Seeker, what did Jesus,according to that passage , in his human (incarnate) state, empty himself?

We have only two choices:

1- that at the time of the Incarnation, God emptied himself of his divine attributes so that he could become a man. And in becoming a man in the very real sense, And so there is the transformation from deity to humanity because he set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.If God laid aside one of his attributes, the immutable undergoes a mutation; the infinite suddenly stops being infinite; it would be the end of the universe. God cannot stop being God and still be God.
.

2-or his transformation from deity to humanity never set aside his omniscience, his omnipotence, and all of those other attributes that are proper to the nature of God.His human nature was fully human, and his divine nature always and everywhere was fully divine.(fully man and fully God).

Yes, God the Son did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus. Jesus' power to do miracles did not come from his divine attributes but came from the Father. His knowledge came to him as revealed from the Father. But I reject that this meant that he ceased to be God. And I certainly reject the idea that this means that God ceased to exist also. First off, God the Father still retained all of his omniscience. And because God has given human kind free will, we know that he actually limits his omnipotence, never fully exercising it over people's personal choices.

Second, though God the Son emptied himself of these divine attributes he was, as you said, always fully human and fully divine. But it does not follow that he was both perfect and imperfect in the way you speak of it. What was perfect in regard to Jesus was that he was in fact born without sin and lived a sinless life. (Am I right that Muslims believe something similar with regard to not only Jesus, but all of the prophets of Islam? An idea that Christians hold is true only of Jesus.)

Luke 18:19, Jesus responded: "Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is God.

I never understood why this verse is so appealing to Muslims? First, Jesus does not state that either that he is not good nor that he is not God in this passage. He simply turns the question back on the one who puts it to him. This man is a teacher of the law. He should know these things. How very unusual for him to add the adjective "good", rather than just addressing Jesus as "teacher".

One way to interpret this passage is to suggest that Jesus is questioning the man to see if he has suddenly come to the realization that Jesus is in fact God. Take a look at how Jesus on other questions had similar conversations with his disciples. They are talking about all the rumors over who he is, so he asks them, "And who do you say that I am?". Very similar to how Jesus turns this question back on the teacher of the law.

How could a being be infinite and finite at the same time?

Are you an infinite being or a finite one?

Let me suggest the following paradox: Because I am finite flesh I might say, "I will not live forever." However, that statement is not true of my soul; my soul is created to live for eternity. On the other hand, because I am infinite soul I might also say, "I will never die." Yet, such a statement is not true of my present body. Thus, though they seem contradictory statements, both statements can be made by and would be true with regard to any person: "I will not live forever," and "I will never die." (I understand this is one thing that Christians and Muslims agree on that we are in fact eternal beings who will either live forever in paradise with God or in hell apart from him.)

So, if a finite flesh and an infinite soul can yet be one man, why should it seem strange to you that man and God can be one Christ?

Jesus (who is supposed to be always and everywhere was fully divine) cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).

I've addressed this several times, but perhaps you have not been part of those threads.

First you have to realize that what Jesus was doing was quoting a psalm, Psalm 22. That psalm begins with this plaintive cry. I said it begins there, and it explores the death of those emotions. And each time it comes back to affirm that God is faithful, and present, and can be trusted to save us. It concludes with a great affirmation of God who not only rescues his appointed one, but tells how he is lifted up. I believe the cross is indeed an enactment of this psalm being played out in the life of Jesus. You have to read through to the end of the psalm to see this. Just because Jesus in his agony did not quote the whole Psalm does not mean that the rest of it is irrelevant.

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.
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it. [i.e. he has won our redemption.]
(Pslam 22:29-31)

In addition, Christians believe that on the cross Jesus took the sins of the world upon himself. He wasn't truly abandoned by God, as I have discussed above, but he did feel the weight of a burden that he would never have felt before. Scripture tells us that the wage of sin is death. Not just physical death, but spiritual death, a separation from the presence of God in our lives. We only have Jesus' words on the cross to go on, following the resurrection Jesus never comments on this, but I do not hold it impossible that for this moment in time Jesus actually felt, for the first time in his entire life, separation from God his Father. I don't suppose we will ever know the facts of that moment.

How could a being be both ignorant of some facts and omniscient?

He couldn't. But see above. I'm not the one claiming that Jesus was omniscient.

Jesus said"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in Heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32 and Matt. 24:36) But God knows all. His knowledge is without any limitations.

Again, see above.

how could a being prayed to himself and there would have been no need for him to pray at all?
"And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will but as thou wilt" Matthew 26:39

Why do you find this strange? Remember, Christians understand that God exists in Trinity. I expect there to be communication between the 3 persons of the one eternal being who is God continuously. Both prior to Christ's birth, during his earthly life, and now in heaven.

how could a being send spirit to his own spirit?

"And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." Luke 23:46

Sorry, I don't understand the question. Or perhaps you don't understand the verse?

Recall at Jesus' baptism how the Holy Ghost came upon him, not that the Holy Spirit was only physically located in Jesus. I believe that what the disciples saw was more for their benefit than some new experience in Jesus' life. But at Jesus' death there no longer existed the hypostatic union between the two natures. Just as when we die, our soul departs our body at the moment of death, so too would Jesus' divine nature (which of course is Spirit) no longer be present in the body (though it would reanimate it in the resurrection). To say that Jesus gave up the ghost, just sounds like a colloquial way of speaking meaning, "he died". We speak this way today all the time, why would you expect it to have been any different in Jesus' day?

If Jesus and God were "one substance" then Jesus (pbuh) would not need to send his spirit to God because it is already God's own spirit, who is also Jesus.


How could one substance has two wills?

And "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
John 5:30
If Jesus and God were one substance then this ONE substance must only have ONE will.

How could a being of one substance forsake itself?

Jesus cried out while on the cross"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" and died(Matt. 27:46).

These all seem to be repeats of the points or questions you posited above.

Plainly put it,If Jesus lacks a quality possessed by God or vice versa,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.or as you wish to call him(fully man and fully God).

I think you vastly underestimate the greatness of God in this regard. He is quite capable of still being God and fully present in heaven, sovereign over the universe AND STILL AT THE SAME TIME limit himself in respect to his physical manifestation on the earth among us.

Unless you are able to repeal the law of contradiction, Seeker, you are entangled in a hopeless quest for a phantasy.

These laws of contradiction that you speak of are not something that even applies in this instance because there is nothing contradictory about God being bigger than our human minds can encompass. When you and I say that God is omnipotent and an atheist challenges with: Is God so powerful that he can make a rock so big that he cannot move it?, there is no contradiction present in that question. I don't see your questions any differently.

But I will tell to you that not all Christians agree with my assessment regarding Christ's emptying of himself in Philippians 2:6. I encourage you to read some dissenting opinions in these other websites: New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia and Kenosis.info. For myself I like this stanza from one of my favorite hymns:

HE LEFT HIS FATHER'S THRONE ABOVE,
SO FREE, SO INFINITE HIS GRACE;
EMPTIED HIMSELF OF ALL BUT LOVE
AND BLED FOR ADAM'S HELPLESS RACE:
​

 

[barney]

who wants to bet that the quote above will be deleted as soon as it is reported as offensive by Trinitarians and seen by staff? (guessing from past experience)

Oh NoName, If only the world revolved around the injustice of your deleted posts and the sickening Kuffarphillic behaviour of the mods. Cant they understand that all you are doing is fighting for the truth, whilst the dastardly Mods seem to unabashedly promote shirk , whilst censoring truth.

Grrrr!

Graceseeker. Your saying "Yeah, I know this is freaking nuts, and I dont expect anyone to beleive it, because it sounds pretty fruity to me, but it's still the truth."
Cripes. The muslims are starting to make sense to me at the moment in comparison to the 3 in 1 washes whiter than your usual Deity, or your money back, and I was raised by a Decon of a Christian baptist church.

At the end of the day, you are saying, "this is my beleif and this is my faith. I suppose I have to respect that. But I'm a person of the earth and using my (God-given) mind to analyse what youve said. IMO, its chaos.

I wish you the best and i'm happy you find solace and comfort in your faith.
Regards

 

[Grace Seeker]

Graceseeker. Your saying "Yeah, I know this is freaking nuts, and I dont expect anyone to beleive it, because it sounds pretty fruity to me, but it's still the truth."

Not quite, but if that is how you hear me, then that is how you hear me. I am willing to admit that what I believe can test the limits of credulity to many people. I base those beliefs on a book that I am willing to trust as being an faithful account of what took place regarding the death and resurrection of a certain man known as Jesus. That alone is a pretty incredible story. If you don't accept that there is no reason to try to convince anyone of any of the rest of the theology about a 3-in-1 god, a hypostatic union, a kenosis theory or anything else. It all pretty much crumbles if Jesus Christ is not risen from the dead. For if he isn't, then he isn't even the Christ, he's just a dead Galilean Jew and that's the end of the story.

But, if he is risen, then the rest of it is totally believable. The question is can we believe the witness of those who claim that it happened? I do. You apparently do not. That pretty much is both the beginning and the end of it right there. The rest of the discussion only makes any sense if you are trying to understand the nature of a crucified and resurrected Christ. If you don't buy into that, then there is no nature to try to understand, just reject the whole story as irrelevant. If you do buy into that, then one has to begin to explain some of the other things said about him as well.

I wish you the best and i'm happy you find solace and comfort in your faith.
Regards

Muchos gracias. I wish you peace and joy, may you find it both in the present and for all that follows.

 

[Keltoi]

Grace Seeker brought up a good point. Unless one accepts Christ was crucified and rose from the dead, and unless one accepts the reasons for this, the other theological questions are simply filler. To believing Christians like myself and Grace Seeker, who accept Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, the larger theological questions fall right into place. That doesn't mean we understand every nuance of God's will and plan, but those larger theological questions are much easier to come to grips with.

 

[Imam]

Yes, God the Son did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus.

simple correction:

you should have written,in order to make sense for the reader

(Yes, God the father did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus).

under the line of Trinitarians' reasoning Jesus is said to be the manifestation of God the father.....

what you wrote refutes totally the concept of the Trinity....

If The Son was mere a human without divine attributes then he obviously lacks qualities possessed by God,and If a being whatever you wish to call(God the son-Moses-seeker etc...) lacks a a quality possessed by God,,be it ever so minute, then he isn't God.

seeker,if you will consult a basic logic book you will learn the simplicity of your error.

God the Father still retained all of his omniscience.

then, it logically follows that Jesus still retained all of his omniscience,otherwise he doesn't deserve the title of God...If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then, it logically follows that Jesus is identical to the Father. You say, "The Father is not the Son." Oh, yes he is! Under your line of reasoning, he has to be.Here, again, your muddle is exposed. If two things are the same in material , then they are identical. If they differ in any respect, whatever, then they are neither the same nor identical.

Second, though God the Son emptied himself of these divine attributes he was, as you said, always fully human and fully divine. What was perfect in regard to Jesus was that he was in fact born without sin and lived a sinless life.

Seeker, your position continues to deteriorate apace....

If God the father empitied God the Son of the divine attributes , then, it logically follows that he was only fully human..

How do you expect from a being to be emptied by another being from the divine attributes ,still to be called Divine or share him the same nature?!!!


the claim that he never sinned is a myth

A sample from the NT proved himself sinful :

while he advised

"...But anyone who says 'You fool' will be in danger of the hell fire" (NIV)

yet,He refers to the Pharisees as "you fools,"In Matthew 23:13-36, Jesus refers to them as "blind fools," extortionists, sons of serpents, a brood of vipers


also

His Transferring demons into about 2,000 pigs: Mark 5:8-14, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:27-39 describe an incident in which Jesus exorcised a man who had been tormented by about 2,000 demons. Jesus sent the demons into a nearby herd of pigs. Mark 5:13 states: "...And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand and were choked in the sea.

In this case, the sin was to destroy intentionaly the livelihood of the farmers who owned the pigs.

ask anyone on earth whether such act is a sin or not,and you'll have always the same answer....


But

Still that is not the crux of the matter,our matter is clear

Is Jesus of the same material of God?

for the sake of argument, even if Jesus was sinless

A sinless flesh that is empitied of the divine attributes,can by no mean considered to be God .





we have just known that his flesh was under the control of another being (the father)

His power to do miracles came from the Father.

His knowledge came to him as revealed from the Father.

his morality and how he should act and to avoid sin (if true)revealed to him from the Father too .

WE EXPECT INCARNATED GOD TO BE SINLESS BUT WE EXPECT HIM NOT TO LACK THE OTHER ATTIBUTES OF HIS DIVINITY AS WELL..

in other words What he gains by being sinless,he loses for his lack of omniscience.

Again,if you will consult a basic logic book you will learn that A sinless flesh that is empitied of the divine attributes can by no mean considered a divine being or has any kind of unity with the nature of God.

I never understood why this verse is so appealing to Muslims? First, Jesus does not state that either that he is not good nor that he is not God in this passage. He simply turns the question back on the one who puts it to him.

with all due respect,that is indeed,a laughable explanation

Imagine ,once Bill Gates sent a PC engineer to a small village in the Amazon that full of people who have problems with their PC's ,one day a man asked him

"proficient engineer, what shall I do to have a pc without trouble?"
("And the engineer said unto him, Why callest
thou me proficient? there is none proficient but one, that is Bill Gates")

It would be absured if someone claims that the engineer turns the question back on the one who puts it to him,claiming that the engineer whom sent Bill Gates is Bill Gates himself.

surely Jesus doesn't neccesarily mean that he is not good,he just mean his,our goodness is not equal to those that God has...

Are you an infinite being or a finite one?
if a finite flesh and an infinite soul can yet be one man, why should it seem strange to you that man and God can be one Christ?

well done, you provided us with another refutation to the trinity....

If the unity of a finite flesh and an infinite soul can produce a God,then under such line of reasoning we are all Gods,and of the same material of God !!!

Otherwise, God may united the flesh of Jesus with a first class soul and united our flesh with a second class soul?

the unity of a finite flesh and an infinite soul can produce any creature including Jesus,Hitler,me and you without claiming we are of the same material of God the almighty......

TO BE CONTINUED

 

[Imam]

First you have to realize that what Jesus was doing was quoting a psalm, Psalm 22. It concludes with a great affirmation of God who not only rescues his appointed one, but tells how he is lifted up. I believe the cross is indeed an enactment of this psalm being played out in the life of Jesus. You have to read through to the end of the psalm to see this.

In fact,the one who needs to read Psalm IN CONTEXT ,will be you ,seeker !

the cross and Jesus are indeed, nothing but imposment on the Old Testmant ,including psalm .

here the Psalm22 in context:


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 For dogs have surrounded me; a band of evildoers encompassed me; like a lion [they are at] 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 [d] 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.


The overall theme of Psalms 22 depicts the plight of the Jew who, as an individual, prays for an end to Israel’s long exile from its land and from the Temple in Jerusalem. A reading of this psalm in the original Hebrew or in a correct translation reveals that its author describes his own pain, anguish, and longing during those times when he was a fugitive from his enemies. Consequently, this is an historical rather than a messianic psalm. When he refers to himself as a worm (Ps 22:7[6]), a helpless creature, whose only salvation can come from G-d, it becomes abundantly clear that the author does not consider himself to be someone who can provide salvation, and certainly not one who is divine!.
The author speaks of the powerful empires that have constantly tried to conquer , Israel. He utilizes a series of metaphorical references to what he endured (Ps 22:12-22[11-21]); this is similar to Isaiah's use of a series of metaphorical references to describe what King Hezekiah experienced during his illness (Is 38:12-14). His use of animal motifs of lions, dogs, and bulls/bison, to describe his adversaries is not unique to this psalm; he employs similar metaphors on many other occasions (e.g., Ps 17:11,12, 35:17, 59:2-7,15). http://www.messiahtruth.com/psa22.html


For the sake of argument,let's assume that the text really talks about a future servant to God who will cry in vain to God for help by day and night,who wish God Be not far from him,and to Deliver his soul from the sword,,And God has not hidden his face from him, but has listened to his cry for help.....

How many future servants could have such experience(fulfillment if you wish)?!!!

Let's go further, satisfying the christians and ignoring verse 24 ( has listened to his cry for help)
,and assume that such servant prayed to be saved but finally got nailed to the cross ........
Obviously, only one person in the history of the world has had their hands and feet pierced.?!!! such passage could belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many.
(This is a prime example of how you need to first believe in Jesus blindly before you understand the text)

Not one of the prophecies (including psalm) clearly pertains to Jesus. The entire messianic structure is built on conjecture, speculation, and interpolation.

"There is no prophecy in the OT foretelling the coming of Jesus Christ. There is not one word in the OT referring to him in any way--not one word. The only way to prove this is to take your Bible, and whenever you find the words: 'That it might be fulfilled' and 'which was spoken' turn to the OT and find what was written, and you will see that it had not the slightest possible reference to the thing recounted in the NT--not the slightest" (Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 277).

 

[Grace Seeker]

simple correction:

you should have written,in order to make sense for the reader

(Yes, God the father did set aside his divine attributes when he manifested himself in the human person, Jesus).

under the line of Trinitarians' reasoning Jesus is said to be the manifestation of God the father.....

what you wrote refutes totally the concept of the Trinity....

No. I spoke correctly. You just misunderstand what we mean when we speak of the Trinity. There are three persons, but only one God. Now, when speaking of one of the three persons, because the three persons are one being it may be true on most occassions to think is as if one is speaking of any other of the three persons. Yet, no one person of the God-head actually becomes a different person. The Son is not the Father who is not the same as the Spirit. There are still yet three distinct person, even as there is just one God be he known in the person of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Spirit.


And again, I believe you misunderstand what I have said with respect to the Psalm. I did not say that the Psalm was a prophecy. I said that Jesus was referring to this Psalm. That he saw himself in that same situation as the psalmist, calling on the Lord God in his anguish and trusting in God's eternal purposes to be with him no matter what, so that even as he felt forsaken, he knew in fact that he was not. I see Jesus as making a life application of that psalm to his own life. And in that I see an incredible truth that even in our deepest and darkest moments, when I feel most lost and alone, that I am not, the God is still with me. I see that in Jesus' quoting of this Psalm, and I see it in many other places in the Psalms, in Jesus' life, and throughout scripture.

 

[al-muslimah]

Jesus(as) is the slave of Allah and his prophet and messenger not his SON.How can Mary(as) be called avirgin if he had a father.sigh....

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus(as) is the slave of Allah and his prophet and messenger not his SON.How can Mary(as) be called avirgin if he had a father.sigh....

A virgin is one who has never had sex. Mary never had sex with anyone prior to the birth of Jesus. God is not Jesus' biological father. God existed in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) from before the beginning of the world, even before the creation of Adam.

 

[Imam]

No. I spoke correctly. You just misunderstand what we mean when we speak of the Trinity. There are three persons, but only one God. Now, when speaking of one of the three persons, because the three persons are one being it may be true on most occassions to think is as if one is speaking of any other of the three persons. Yet, no one person of the God-head actually becomes a different person. The Son is not the Father who is not the same as the Spirit. There are still yet three distinct person, even as there is just one God be he known in the person of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Spirit.

If you keep using these terms, so you are obligated to provide definitions of "being" and "person" and a distinction between the two. Without a doubletalk, what are the differences? in fact, there are no differences

"Being" and "person" have no distinction and are merely elements of a ruse employed by christians. Because they can come up with two different words, they, therefore, claim they have two different entities.

If Jesus is God and the Father is God, then how can God be a being. It must be a quality such as Godhood or Godhead. But it is not a separate being per se.
Christians call this three persons within one being but fail to admit that one of the beings is separate from the other three beings. Thus, there are not 3 persons within one being but 3 separate beings distinct from a fourth being which has a separate and distinct identity. On the other hand, whenever expediency dictates, Christians dissolve the beingness or personhood of God and turn him into nothing more than a general term, a rubric, into which the other 3 beings are absorbed, much like the words "mankind" or "dogkind" and use words like "Godhead" or "Godhood." Your argument is as,that Robert is a separate and distinct human; John is a separate and distinct human; therefore, "human" is a separate and distinct being.
The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy

I did not say that the Psalm was a prophecy.

If the Psalm is not a prophecy ,why the Christians including the inspired ones (John 19:23-24),Matthew (27:34) bother us with the claim (this was to fulfill the Scripture)?!!!

I said that Jesus was referring to this Psalm. That he saw himself in that same situation as the psalmist,I see Jesus as making a life application of that psalm to his own life.

In fact Jesus saw himself in the wrong place .....

Jesus is free to quote the Psalm or any other books from the Old Testament ,as long as his quotes makes sense to his claims and could be applied to his case...


1- The Jesus who cried "my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?
needed to know
“For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;” (Psalms 37:28)
Psalm 46:1 "God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble."

2- The Jesus who cried "my God, my God why hast thou forsaken me? needed to know,and supposed to be God incarnate, he can't speak of being forsaken by himself at all, let alone at the culmination of his plan for human salvation.Why was Jesus afraid, since events were allegedly moving as he desired?

3- "Be not far from me; for trouble is near; for there is none to help" (Psalm 22:11). This indicates that if there were someone to help, he (Jesus) would gladly agree to be saved, which would have meant his death occurred against his will. How then can Christians say he willed it?

4- The The afflicted one in Psalm, God has listened to his cry for help,whereas
Jesus is not..

Psalm24 but has listened to his cry for help.

Matthew34At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?" which is translated, "MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?" 35When some of the bystanders heard it, they began saying, "Behold, He is calling for Elijah." Someone ran and filled a sponge with sour wine, put it on a reed, and gave Him a drink, saying, "Let us see whether Elijah will come to take Him down." (AC)And Jesus uttered a loud cry, and breathed His last.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If you keep using these terms, so you are obligated to provide definitions of "being" and "person" and a distinction between the two. Without a doubletalk, what are the differences? in fact, there are no differences

"Being" and "person" have no distinction and are merely elements of a ruse employed by christians. Because they can come up with two different words, they, therefore, claim they have two different entities.

First Christians didn't make up these words, Greeks did. And then Christians who spoke Greek adopted them to explain what they had experienced regarding Jesus. These Christians knew that there is just one God. They also knew that the person they knew as Jesus was God. They had to reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable things. The word "person" and the word "being" may in the way you use them be synonymous, but they were not to the Greeks who first employed them to speak about God and chose them to describe him as being of one substance, yet three persons.

And to say that God is a being is not to say that he is not God. If you don't like my terms, fine. But they are my terms which I use to speak about what I know and have experienced. You are free to use different terms, but whatever terms you use, I will continue to insist that Jesus is in fact God come in the flesh, incarnate, to dwell among us, for Jesus is Immanuel, God with us. And I believe him to be the very same God who created the world and still reigns over it. Not a different God or an alternate God, but the very same God. Attacking my language does not disprove this, it only proves that I have poor language skills.

And using the Qu'ran to call the Bible false doesn't prove anything either, accept that your prejudices are to trust a 7th century document over a 1st century document when it comes to telling about events that took place in the 1st century. If logic is going to be questioned, that is the sort of logic that I find questionable.

 

[Imam]

I will continue to insist that Jesus is in fact God come in the flesh, incarnate, to dwell among us, for Jesus is Immanuel, God with us.

Jesus is Immanuel?!!!!!

according to who?!

the writer of
Matthew 1:23 or the writer of Isaiah 7:14?

no doubt Jesus is Immanuel,according to the writer of Matthew,while there is not the slightest possible reference to Jesus in Isaiah :7,

The Immanuel of Isaiah :7 ,which Matthew misquoted ,is said ,in a crystal clear language that before he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings(Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel ) whom Ahaz dread will be laid waste.

13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The girl will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah—he will bring the king of Assyria."



The Immanuel of Matthew 1:23,is one Immanuel of his own imagination .....


but it is your choice to believe those who twist, distort, and concoct OT verses for purposes of indoctrination.

And using the Qu'ran to call the Bible false doesn't prove anything either, accept that your prejudices are to trust a 7th century document .

Seeker,there we go again to the game THE OLDER IS THE BETTER ..


we , muslims play another game (THE PROVED TO BE DIVINE,INERRANT,MIRACELOUS IS TO BE ACCEPTED)

Now I see why you want to change the topic.....your logic will help you no more with the Trinity, but no wonder ...
you are not the first and will not be the last ,to fail proving,reasoning the Trinity either with proof text or logic....

so I consider our discussion with the original topic of the thread to be over,and let's see if other christian friends have something different to add....