truthseeker63's Corner in Comparative religion

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Yahya:
You're the one who claims that he was the "uncreated Word". If the Koran had meant "only the human part of him" then it would have said "only the human part of him". Not to mention how resolutely it denies that there were any non-human parts of him. You're splitting hairs to dodge the issue.


I'm not "splitting hairs to dodge the issue." If the Quran is speaking about the Christian view of the Incarnation, then that's what must be addressed. Christian doctrine (East and West) is very clear that the uncreated, pre-existent Word of God existed before the Incarnation of that Word...and did not cease to exist as such after the Incarnation. Straight up. So to try to say that the pre-existent Word can now be destroyed because it took on human nature is completely inaccurate. If your question is supposed to have any power against the Incarnation at all, then it must deal with it as truly understood by Christians. That just makes sense, doesn't it?


********************************************

Yahya:
Ah, so there is something He can't do! And don't try to weasel out in the predictable fashion like everyone always does by committing an equivocation fallacy by completely redefining "omnipotence" from its universally accepted meaning of "being able to do anything, period" to "being able to do anything that's 'logically possible'", a phrase which really always seems to just mean "anything that doesn't go against my own dogma". The Bible says, "With God all things are possible." It does not include any qualifiers nor does any human being on any occasion other than people responding to logical arguments like this with that shopworn cop-out. So don't even try.


Wait a second. Not even your Muslim brothers and sisters would agree that omnipotence means "being able to do anything, period". (Care to verify this, Woodrow?) Surely, you know this. At any rate, my point stands. JUST LIKE IN ISLAM how it's said that the "uncreated speech" of the Quran is indestructible, so also the "uncreated speech" that is the Word/Memra of God. The only way that you can deny such is to affirm that 1) the Quran is completely created and destructible or 2) the uncreated Quran can be destroyed by Allah. I hope that you don't go either route. LOL!

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker said this so well...I just HAVE to repost it!

"...we must think of the Son always, so to speak, streaming forth from the Father, like light from a lamp or thoughts from a mind. He, the Son, is the self-expression of the Father--the Word the Father has to say. And there never was a time when the Father was not saying it. And since this whole time we have been talking about God, when the Bible speaks of the Word it declares that the Word is with God and the Word was God. And further, in perfect concert with Genesis 1, it declares that all things are created through this eternal divine Word(John 1:1-3). Note: we are not referring to the historical Jesus at all, but to the pre-incarnate Son who in time (meaning entering into time and nature) becomes flesh and dwells among humanity. This Son comes from the Father and is himself God (John 1:14 & 18)."


God the Father's Word is as UNCREATED and ETERNAL as He Himself is. God's Word is His "uncreated speech." And Christians believe that this "uncreated speech" became expressed uniquely in created reality via an individual human soul and body...even as it never ceased from being "with" God the Father.


It's seems like John of Damascus saw the same thing. Too funny, right?


John of Damascus, active in the eighth century AD, is traditionally considered to have been aware of the significance of God's speech to Muslims as an eternal attribute and theological concept in the new discourse between Christians and Muslims. John, in his Disputatio Christiani et Saraceni, if it is correctly attributed to him, presents idealized debates between Muslims and Christians in the century after the Muslim conquest of Syria in 635.18 In one of his debates, he bases the entire argument on the premise that an orthodox Muslim will not admit that the pre-existent Word of God was created. The result was that the Muslim, refusing the createdness of the Word, would hopefully be convinced that the pre-existent Christ, referred to also as the Word of God in the Qur'ān, is coeternal with God since any Word of God must be uncreated. If the veracity of the text can be confirmed, then by the time of John of Damascus the theory was that the Qur'ān, as the Word of God, was uncreated.

See, that's the cool part. This ain't even a new idea. It was thought of in the 8th century!

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Oh, what the heck. Something random.

Two Possible analogies for the One Uncreated "Tri-Hypostatic Subject"*, YHWH (God):

1)
God the Father: Speaker
God The Father's Self-Expressive Word: Spoken Word
God The Father's Spirit: Speaker's Breath/Voice

One cannot imagine an audibly heard speaker with no voice or no words. They would not then be "speakers". Equally, you couldn't conceive of hearing a spoken word with no voice or speaker. Equally, you couldn't conceive of the reality of "voice" without some USER of the voice or an expression of that voice, as in spoken words. The one act of speaking is actually TRIUNE...for all 3 aspects are needed for a person to AUTHENTICALLY be a speaker.


2)
God the Father: Subject (Conversation Intiator)
God the Father's Self-Image: Self (Conversation Receiver/Responder)
God The Father's Spirit: Subject/Self Relationship (Conversation Witness/Empowerer)

This is simply that ability to have inner dialogue within oneself. To relate oneself to oneself...and, in so relating, relate oneself to that relation. (This is how Soren Kierkegaard talked about it. Great guy.) In this, the one act of self-knowing and/or self-communication has 3 aspects that are necessary for it to authentically be called a RELATIONSHIP within the self. An aspect of self-other interaction that sentient consciousness itself is wired for as a "self." This is how personal integrity (or lack thereof) is experienced by self-relational beings.

Just throwin' those out there.

Are those coherently understandable? Just wanna know...

And just so it's understood, these analogies go exactly with HOW the trinitarian "movement" is understood in Christianity, I'd say. That is, God the Father is the "source/origin" of the one triune activity, and is NEVER WITHOUT his Self-Expressive Word and Self-Empowering Spirit in that activity. God, His Word, and His Spirit are all necessary aspects of the ONE uncreated, eternal activity of Divine Self-Knowledge and Self-Expression. And that's the thing: to KNOW God is to LOVE God. So his Eternal Self-Knowledge IS Eternal Loving Self-Communion. (God is Love, maybe? :statisfie)


*An Eastern Orthodox theologian I read used that term, and I've loved it ever since: God as "Tri-Hypostatic" Subject and Creator.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Brothers Woodrow and GraceSeeker.

Would you say that these analogies are 1) meaningful and coherent as analogies and 2) logically possible within a monotheistic framework?

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Now. After all this argumentation...read the following IN LIGHT OF everything that's been said here. Seriously.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. He came as a witness, to bear witness about the light, that all might believe through him. He was not the light, but came to bear witness about the light.

The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world did not know him. He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) And from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

The analogies actually kinda MAKE SENSE of the text, if you think about it. Well, it seems that way to me, at least. Particularly, the UNIQUE KNOWLEDGE of God that Jesus kept claiming to have. Who could have more unique knowledge of God...than God's own Uncreated, Eternal Self-Expressive Word?

SERIOUSLY.

"No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known."

...

"I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world. Yours they were, and you gave them to me, and they have kept your word. Now they know that everything that you have given me is from you. For I have given them the words that you gave me, and they have received them and have come to know in truth that I came from you; and they have believed that you sent me."
John 17:6-8

All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”
Luke 10:22

If Jesus, the JEWISH Prophet, really WAS the Self-Expressive "Self-Image" of God incarnated in the "flesh", as it were, then these statements attributed to him would actually MAKE SENSE. Otherwise, they are merely crazy ramblings made by a delusional, egomaniacal Jewish human being.

 

[gmcbroom]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Yielded One,
Its funny you mentioned St. John of Damascus, as I'm reading his works right now. I'm reading where he talked of hypostatic union, which is a union by composition. He noted that while many of the Holy Fathers did not accept the term blending in connection with the Mystery of Christ, Union of composition was acceptable to them all. He talks of the Hypostatic union, that thing which is subsists of two natures is one hypostatically. Such as two things but in one person. Blending is is an opposition of bodies and a mutual combination of qualities that thats why many Holy Fathers didn't agree with it.

Peace be with you

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

And also with you, my brother!

gmcbroom:
I'm reading where he talked of hypostatic union, which is a union by composition. He noted that while many of the Holy Fathers did not accept the term blending in connection with the Mystery of Christ, Union of composition was acceptable to them all. He talks of the Hypostatic union, that thing which is subsists of two natures is one hypostatically. Such as two things but in one person.

Yes. Two natures (uncreated-divine/created-human) in one hypostasis (Uncreated Word of God the Father). And we could go further and say that those two natures coinhere within the one hypostasis of the Word...just like the "natures" of fire and metal coinhere in one white hot metal bar. Just as the metal bar can be "indwelt" by fire due to it's constant permeation by fire...so also can the humanity of Jesus be "indwelt" by God's "Uncreated Speech" due to it's constant permeation by said "Speech" by the God's Spirit...such that the actions of Jesus demonstrated both human and divine characteristics. Rougly speaking.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Well said. What really matters is what he stood for and preached, right?

But, was Jesus asked before he was crucified about why his "God" did not rescue him and didn't he then yell out for help to "God"...outside himself?

I think you are referring to this part of the story:

Matthew 27

38 Two rebels were crucified with him [Jesus], one on his right and one on his left. 39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads 40 and saying, “You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, save yourself! Come down from the cross, if you are the Son of God!” 41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him. 42 “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! He’s the king of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 In the same way the rebels who were crucified with him also heaped insults on him. 45 From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. 46 About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

Why do you think that God did not rescue Jesus from the cross? Could it be that there was a plan and a purpose to the cross? Is that what the night spent in prayer in the Garden might be where Jesus wrestled with what lay ahead in his immediate future (“My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” and “My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done.” ) might have been about?

Do you suppose that Jesus was really abandoned by the Father? Might it be that he felt abandoned but that God was still there? Might it be that having quoted the first line of a famous Psalm (Psalm 22, one of hope and redemption in the face of feeling forsaken) that Jesus was recalling a passage of confidence in God's presence, but didn't have the physical strength to recite the whole Psalm and thus simple uttered its opening line? What other possible reasons might there be for Jesus to have uttered these words?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

With so many different sects of Christianity, how can we all agree on the same thing? So many different thoughts and interpretations out there.

I do not believe that Jesus Christ was a demi-god as explained in the Trinity. There mere idea of saying "Godhood" just sounds like it is making Jesus out to be a human-god hybrid as apparent in Greek mythology. I believe that Jesus Christ was a man, who walked this Earth, sent by God as a messenger. Yes, he was a son of God, but not begotten. Go ahead and say I'm not a real Christian, an infidel, but that's just the way I see it.

If it was not begotten, one wonders why so many different passages in the scripture declare that he was?

1. 1. John 1:14
      And the Word was made 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.
   2. John 1:18
      No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
      
   3. John 3:16
      For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
      
   4. John 3:18
      He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
      
   5. Acts 13:33
      God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
      
   6. 1 Corinthians 4:15
      For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
   7. Hebrews 1:5
      For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
      
   8. Hebrews 5:5
      So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
      
   9. 1 John 4:9
      In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
      

But I admit that I too am often squemish of the term "begotten." It seems that people read things into it that I am not sure are met to be understood by it. I wonder if then the problem is not with the term, but perhaps with the connotations we have attached to it?

What do you understand is meant by saying begotten with regard to Jesus?
Is he begotten as a human being? Or is it referring to him as the begotten Son prior even to his birth?
If it is the former, what are the implications of such a statement?
If the latter, what might that mean about his pre-incarnate being?
Is it even possible to talk about Jesus having a pre-incarnate being?

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Just a stream of consciousness moment...

When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth
Genesis 5:3

Hmmm...in this Scripture, the father/son relationship is one of likeness and image (seeing oneself in the likeness and image). The father sees himself in his son...and the son sees himself in his father. And the father is the ground of all of the father's aspects in both father and son. At most ideal, the son would be the "spittin' image" of his daddy.

So...
Father: Original
Son: Likeness, Image

Wow. That sure sounds familiar. Don't know where I've heard that language before...;D

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Just a stream of consciousness moment...

When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth
Genesis 5:3

Hmmm...in this Scripture, the father/son relationship is one of likeness and image (seeing oneself in the likeness and image). The father sees himself in his son...and the son sees himself in his father. And the father is the ground of all of the father's aspects in both father and son. At most ideal, the son would be the "spittin' image" of his daddy.

So...
Father: Original
Son: Likeness, Image

Wow. That sure sounds familiar. Don't know where I've heard that language before...;D

Be careful when use make word comparisons using the English language, as sometimes they do and sometimes they don't hold up in the original languages. I can't speak to Hebrew, but in Greek the term for 'image" is "ikon" from which we get our word "icon". It carries with it the idea of representation more than "spittin' image", but the idea of the Christ as the representative of the Father is very Messianic, don't you think? Especially when the Hebrew for "Messiah" means anointed, especially anointed for God's purposes.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
Be careful when use make word comparisons using the English language, as sometimes they do and sometimes they don't hold up in the original languages.

Duly noted! Given this, I think it's safe to say that "likeness" and "image" are fairly good translations for the words used, in this case.

But, the idea of "resemblance" is a fairly good variant for "likeness", I'd say. Children "resemble" their parents.

Thus we could say that Jesus, as Son of God, is the "perfect resemblance" of God the Father in human expression. Through Jesus, we see what God the Father is LIKE.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

That suffices…but to add to it I would define immortality as: eternal life, the ability of not being affected by death…

Great! You know I actually agree with you.

So, since you have affirmed that though on the one had you are mortal and going to die, but on the other hand even after death you will have life and continue to exist, having eternal life. And since death will affect the geography of your life, but not have any real affect on the continuation of your life would it not be fair to say that on the other hand you are also an immortal creature? Indeed, that all of us humans are indeed both mortal and immortal creatures.

Thus, completely devoid of Christian ideas of "Jesus saves", but just speaking in terms of what it means to follow Islam or not follow Islam, one could say:

every time you [or any person] make a choice you are turning the central part of you, the part of you that chooses, into something a little different from what it was before. And taking your life as a whole, with all your innumerable choices, all your life long you are slowly turning this central thing either into a heavenly creature or into a hellish creature: either into a creature that is in harmony with God, and with other creatures, and with itself, or else into one that is in a state of war and hatred with God, and with its fellow-creatures, and with itself.

To be the one kind of creature is heaven: that is, it is joy and peace and knowledge and power. To be the other means madness, horror, idiocy, rage, impotence, and eternal loneliness. Each of us at each moment is progressing to the one state or the other.

Therefore, what really matters is those little marks or twists on the central, inside part of the soul which are going to turn it, in the long run, into a heavenly or a hellish creature.

 

[IAmZamzam]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

I'm not "splitting hairs to dodge the issue." If the Quran is speaking about the Christian view of the Incarnation, then that's what must be addressed. Christian doctrine (East and West) is very clear that the uncreated, pre-existent Word of God existed before the Incarnation of that Word...and did not cease to exist as such after the Incarnation. Straight up. So to try to say that the pre-existent Word can now be destroyed because it took on human nature is completely inaccurate. If your question is supposed to have any power against the Incarnation at all, then it must deal with it as truly understood by Christians. That just makes sense, doesn't it?

Was he the uncreated Word or not? This is not rhetorical.

Wait a second. Not even your Muslim brothers and sisters would agree that omnipotence means "being able to do anything, period". (Care to verify this, Woodrow?)

I wouldn't be too surprised if you were right about that. Christian apologists are of course not the only people to attempt so base and blasphemous a way of trying to weasel out. That still wouldn't change the fact that they're trying to have things both ways. If you can begin ANY question with the words "can God" and the answer is ever "no" then you are not talking about an omnipotent being. If God is bound by logic then He is bound by His own creation, or by a byproduct of His creations, unless you think He is not the prime mover who controls everything else that exists? The laws of mathematics (the foundation of reason) are just part of the organizing, structuring teleological system He made. Or do you think He's not the Designer, or that mathematics, the essence of the laws of physics themselves, were not part of His design? There's no way out of this. And no way, I fear, that you'll accept that either.

JUST LIKE IN ISLAM how it's said that the "uncreated speech" of the Quran is indestructible, so also the "uncreated speech" that is the Word/Memra of God.

I admit I'm rusty but I don't remember one single Koranic verse saying that the Koran's words are uncreated or indestructible. The text does refer vaguely at some point to some heavenly "essence" of the book with God but that's it.

Just to make sure you don't overlook it, here are my questions again:

Was Jesus (P) or was He not the Uncreated Word? What does John 1:1 (in the standard Christian interpretation, that is) say again?

If God is bound by logic then He is bound by His own creation, or by a byproduct of His creations, unless you think He is not the prime mover who controls everything else that exists? The laws of mathematics (the foundation of reason) are just part of the organizing, structuring teleological system He made. Or do you think He's not the Designer, or that mathematics, the essence of the laws of physics themselves, were not part of His design?

And by the by here's another one: if God is bound by logic, then doesn't make make logic greater than God?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Was he the uncreated Word or not? This is not rhetorical.

Yahya, I know it looks like a simply "YES" or "NO" question, but you have asked for the answer based on a Christian interpretation of John 1:1. And that requires that you understand that there can actually be more than one answer to this question depending on which of Jesus' two natures you are asking the question of. For, whether you find it logical or not, it must be remembered that according to a Christian understanding of the Biblical text, Jesus is revealed to be one person with two different nature, one human and the other divine.

So, the human nature is NOT the uncreated Word. The Divine natures is. Prior to his incarnation in the womb of Mary, the human nature of Jesus never even existed. It was created in the womb. But prior to that moment, there already did exist the divine person, known as the Son, who is eternally begotten and uncreated. Subsequent to the birth of his incarnated form, he is given the name Jesus. So, at that time the answer becomes dependent on which of his natures you are referrencing.

Now, I know that as a Muslim you don't believe that anything is greater than God. And I also see from the above that you believe if God is bound by logic that it would mean that logic was greater than God. Thus, since as a Muslim you believe that God is greater than everything and therefore cannot be bound by anything, it would also follow that you don't believe God to be bound by logic. That's good, becuase then I won't have to hear about how you find the idea of God being incarnate or of a person having both a human and a divine nature at the same time to be illogical. After all, God is not bound by human logic.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

And by the by here's another one: if God is bound by logic, then doesn't make make logic greater than God?

greetings yahya. i believe that most christians and muslims would disagree. what you have said above is similar to euthyphro's dilemma (though in that case it involved goodness) and the answer is really quite simple: logic finds its source in god and as such he is only bound by his own nature. just as god is bound by goodness and justice, he is also bound by logic because this is exactly the kind of being that he is. once again, just as it is impossible for god to sin, to be wrong, to fail to be just because goodness, perfection, and justice are inherent to his nature (and as such this is the kind of being that he is), in the same way he cannot be illogical because logic is inherent to his nature (that is simply the kind of being that he is). this is the kind of scenario we get into when we start saying that god is not bound by logic:

Next, we must understand the implications of the claim that God can do the logically impossible. First, if God can do the logically impossible, then he can sin. He can also bring it about that the same act is and is not sin at the same time and in the same sense and by the same person. He may consign us both to heaven and hell at the same time and in the same sense. He may bring about a squared circle, a married bachelor, or even that we do not exist right now!

If God can do the logically impossible, then God could bring it about that the universe does and does not exist. But it gets stranger than this. He would also be able to bring it about that he did all these things while not existing! But how can a God who does not exist do anything?

Finally, if God can do the logically impossible, he can bring it about that it is logically possible for him to do the logically impossible. This, of course, means that he both can and cannot do any and all of these things at the same time, in the same sense, in the same manner, while existing and not existing—and he can cause even that to be true and false!

so clearly, god is indeed bound by logic.

it must also be mentioned that the laws of nature refer to (and are guided by) physical possibility (physics) and not necessarily logical possibility. the laws of nature and as such physics, could very well have been different and god can indeed circumvent them anytime he so wishes yet he cannot circumvent logical possibilities because these find their ground in his very nature. i.e. he can raise the dead back to life and circumvent physical possibilities but he cannot sin for this would be logically impossible and contrary to his nature. in your post you were partly confusing these two.

having thus spoken concerning logic, it would also be appropriate to say a word concerning your challenge to christians as regards the incarnation and how this fits into the discussion i have so far maintained:

The question, once again, is “Who…shall override God in any way if He desires to destroy the Messiah, Mary’s son, and his mother, and all those who are on earth?” This is the Koran’s challenge to Christians who believe in the incarnation; I can only hope that if such a Christian is reading this, he or she will realize that the Koran has him or her trapped, and subsequently do the right thing and give up their belief in the incarnation.

i don't know if the qur'an really meant this as a challenge to christians but i do know that in you directing this towards christians you have made the qur'an commit a logical fallacy. any elementary logics course will tell you that seeing as the above is directed at a christian audience you have just begged the question. you seek to prove by the above that christ is not god and yet your question already assumes what you are trying to prove (i.e. that christ is not god for if it didn't, you could not ask who would stop god from destroying christ---as if god could destroy himself) and that is the textbook definition of the logical fallacy. once again, the above fails to pass as a proper argument by any standard you would choose. you have already assumed the conclusion and as such i must reiterate the fact that the above is faulty argumentation. if it is indeed the fact that the above was intended at a christian audience, then the muslim deity has failed to grasp the workings of simple logic. please look up the definition of the logical fallacy called 'begging the question' if you do not believe my criticism.

edit: i have since read the surah and it would seem that you were correct in supposing that the qur'an directed the question towards christians but incorrect in supposing that the argument was logically valid.

on a different note, thirty-something pages and over 500 posts later, i still have not received a refutation for what i posted on the first page.

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

I'm reallieee sorry for the late reply......was busy with some other stuff....i still am! mg:

So, since you have affirmed that though on the one had you are mortal and going to die, but on the other hand even after death you will have life and continue to exist, having eternal life. And since death will affect the geography of your life, but not have any real affect on the continuation of your life would it not be fair to say that on the other hand you are also an immortal creature? Indeed, that all of us humans are indeed both mortal and immortal creatures.

The Hereafter is a completely different story….it has got nothing to do with us being “mortal” on earth.
The only link in the Hereafter and this life that I can see and which is also the main purpose of us living in this world is that we fulfill the covenant we made to God Almighty; that we’ll worship none other than Him.
The Covenant taken from the Descendants of Adam

There is no point in saying that we are mortal on earth and immortal in the Hereafter so that makes us both mortal and immortal creatures...Neither does it sound apt…u might think it makes sense but….give it a second thought…u’l feel lame…atleast I did.

And one more point….
In some verses the Quran describes the people of the Hell-Fire…like…
“Indeed, whoever comes to his Lord as a criminal - indeed, for him is Hell; he will neither die therein nor live.”
(surah Taha 20:74)

Think over it....

 

[Grace Seeker]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

There is no point in saying that we are mortal on earth and immortal in the Hereafter so that makes us both mortal and immortal creatures...Neither does it sound apt…u might think it makes sense but….give it a second thought…u’l feel lame…atleast I did.

Actually, I have thought about it a second, third, and many other times. What makes it lame?

I wasn't putting any words in your mouth, I took great pains to be sure that I only represented your very own views:

the person we are now will die
yet after death we do live forever
and we are the same persons both now and after death
​

Therefore there is continuity in who we are. You don't quit being you when you die to be resurrected a different you. With a different sort of body perhaps, in a different sort of existence perhaps, but it is like a catepillar that transforms into a butterfly or a moth -- you are still you, who you are right now.

What would be lame is for any of us who understand that we do indeed live forever to pretend that what we do in our mortal life has no bearing on eternity. And of course you don't; you understand very much that the righteous deeds of this life (or lack thereof) follow us from this life into the next. That only makes sense in a world where we are already immortal creatures, in fact created for immortaility, temporarily living a mortal existence.

 

[YieldedOne]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Good stuff, all.

So, Yahya, where are we with your question? GS and Sol have pretty much said why your question isn't as tidy as it seems. Nonetheless, their IS a salient Christian response for those who want to look at it.

Yo, I do wanna get some feedback on the triunity analogies, though. I'm makin' up another thread for that so get your opinions ready!

 

[missy]

Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Actually, I have thought about it a second, third, and many other times. What makes it lame?

I wasn't putting any words in your mouth, I took great pains to be sure that I only represented your very own views:
the person we are now will die
yet after death we do live forever
and we are the same persons both now and after death
Therefore there is continuity in who we are. You don't quit being you when you die to be resurrected a different you. With a different sort of body perhaps, in a different sort of existence perhaps, but it is like a catepillar that transforms into a butterfly or a moth -- you are still you, who you are right now.

What would be lame is for any of us who understand that we do indeed live forever to pretend that what we do in our mortal life has no bearing on eternity. And of course you don't; you understand very much that the righteous deeds of this life (or lack thereof) follow us from this life into the next. That only makes sense in a world where we are already immortal creatures, in fact created for immortaility, temporarily living a mortal existence.

Okay..lemme make this simple and clear…

Say for example a person was born an Atheist, at some point in his life he converted to Islam and became a Muslim…so obviously one can't say that the person is now both an Atheist and a Muslim...arguing that after all it’s the same person that v're talking about and the fact that we can't negate the events (his deeds/actions) that led him to become a Muslim…

What I basically wanna say is that "death" (mortality) of a human being is an inevitable fact and it has no link with the same person living an "eternal" life (immortality) in the Hereafter…..
That's just the way God Almighty Wills it to be….He is Most Merciful and hence He'll Reward whomever He Wills with eternal life in Paradise and that He is All Just and hence He'll condemn the bad people to eternal punishment in Hell-Fire for their disobedience.

There is no relation in a person being mortal on earth and immortal in the Hereafter just like after converting to Islam a person has no relation with his previous identity; that of spending life as an Atheist (ofcourse the series of events that might have occurred in his life play an important role, but then again those events have no link with him being "mortal"..)….i hope u get what I'm trying to say…

For the sake of argument even if we agree that this hypothesis works…we could say that in this aspect just like any other human being Jesus of Nazareth is both mortal on earth and immortal in the Hereafter…nothing more to it.
But if you use this example to say that he as God incarnate on earth was mortal and as (transcendent) God is immortal… this example won't stand as good evidence/analogy…bcuz then u'l be talkin about two completely different subjects…(feel short of jargon)…but I hope u get the point..
This will make it clearer …hopefully…from the above what I'm trying to tell u is that when u believe that Jesus is immortal u're ascribing "Divinity" to his "immortality"…whereas in case of normal human beings the "immortality" is not Divine. While the latter is possible, the case is not the same with the former because it's like saying Jesus is the Divine but he's mortal and cuz he's the Divine he is immortal……..so the example doesn't work.

I hope I made sense!

A few questions if you don't mind..
1) If Jesus is God then why did he sacrifice himself for the sins of humans?...Does God have any need to do so?...at worst "sacrifice" ?!!...beats me!
2) And sacrifice to whom?!.. (usually it's done as a ritual to please God)
3) If Jesus was immortal then there was no point in him dying…being "crucified"..sounds so brutal!..what is the wisdom behind this…Jesus (God the Son acc. to y'all…I believe u consider him to be of the same essence as God the Father) getting crucified?!

P.S: again...i'm sorry for the late reply...busy with loads of assignments these days.. :exhausted