truthseeker63's Corner in Comparative religion

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

YieldedOne said:
For Muslims the primary source of understanding the nature of God is the Qur'an, which they believe to be the literal word of God. Whereas Christians see Jesus as the Logos, or the "Word," Muslims see the Qur'an as the Holy Writ, or the "Word." In this respect, the Qur'an holds the same place within Islam as Jesus does within Christianity. In the Qur'an, God reveals His nature to the believer.
Voices of Islam, Page 34.


In my opinion, this is EXACTLY right. Christians view Jesus as an act of DIVINE SELF-REVELATION from God...just like Muslims view the Qur'an as such. What I've been trying to say is that there is no philosophical or theological reason that the pre-existent "Word/Memra" of God cannot be expressed in human activity rather than paper, ink, and writing. I believe Jesus perfectly "embodied" the content of the Reality symbolized by the "Mother of the Book."

In Muslim belief, the historical earthly Qur'an is a transcript from the umm al-kitab (the "mother of the Book"), the celestial archetype from which the original scriptures of the other "peoples of the Book" (e.g., the Torah of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus) were also derived.
"Medieval Islamic Civilization", page 655.
Click to expand...


If I am understanding you correctly, does this mean You believe the Injil that was revealed to Jesus(as) is the Word? Not Jesus(as) the man.who was the messenger, not the word made flesh.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Woodrow:
If I am understanding you correctly, does this mean You believe the Injil that was revealed to Jesus(as) is the Word? Not Jesus(as) the man.who was the messenger, not the word made flesh.

I'm saying that the substance of uncreated, pre-existent divine self-disclosing revelation that grounds ALL of the writings of the "People of the Book" is completely embodied in Jesus, such that to see Jesus IS to see the Invisible God self-revealed in created terms. The Torah that Jesus read and the Gospel he proclaimed were of that divine revelation that he himself was the embodiment for. He perfectly "lived" the letter AND the spirit of the Law, Prophets and Writings. Even a cursory look at Jesus' life shows this, I think.

The main thing is that there are NO philsophical or theological grounds for saying that God is UNABLE to do such self-revelatory activity through a single human being. NOTHING. Especially given the ideas within Islam I've already mentioned. It's simply reticence to admit the possibility at this point.


Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.

And if you just think about it, it makes sense. In any self-disclosing communication, you will find the self-understanding of the self-disclosing person revealed within it. Otherwise the communication would not be true revelatory self-disclosure at all. Christianly speaking, Jesus of Nazareth is the product of the self-disclosure of God the Father in and through humanity by the power of the Spirit of God.
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
All I'm saying is that the Nicene and N-C creeds maintain that distinction between the "One God, the Father" and the "One Lord, Jesus Christ". It's a distinction in unity, to be sure...which is WHY Jesus is specifically stated to be "true God from true God."
Click to expand...

But we remain "off track" because you keep returning to this "all I'm saying...." and it is precisely on that where we disagree. I do NOT think that the Nicene creeds maintains the distinction you propose, but that it was written to counteract those who wanted to make such a false dichotomy. That is why this really also isn't off track. Some appeared not to understand that this was the whole purpose of the Nicene Creed and thus the Council of Chalcedon had to be held to reaffirm this point with regard to the fullness of both the humanity and the divinity of Jesus. (Though curiously, at the time of Chalcedon it was Jesus' humanity, not his divinity that was most in question.)
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Yeah...

Muslims also believe the Qur'an to be the literal word of God in the highest sense, the divine utterance that has existed for all eternity. Accordingly, it is inerrant, and even the physical book that contains the text is holy, to be approached only in purity and with some degree of awe, and to be disposed of, when that is required, with proper reverence. Indeed, given the importance of the Qur'an as the word of the transcendent God made manifest in this world, some have suggested that its analogue in Christian theology is not so much the Bible but rather the divinely incarnate Word (Christ, the Johannine Logos) itself.
"Medieval Islamic Civilization", page 655.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Chavundur said:
Yielder One , We don't need to quibble over noncommittal details, You know and I know (finally) what Hypostatic union is. I can describe what Hypostatic union is as a new learner;

1. H.U is a way of saying that God is three without using numbers ( Especially 3)
2. H.U is a kind of mathematical art proving how one can be divided easily into three without dividing really.
3. H.U is a resource of endless discussion subject making minds miserable before itself.
4. H.U is both 1 and 3 at the same time without being same and different. ( A miracle of Wisdom )
5. H.U is such a subject that two person can not comprehend it likewise.
6. H.U is an endless subject of both Hindus and Christians.
7. H.U is such a subject that three minds can not absorb it likewise too.
8. H.U is beyond struggle, It is love, It is love of love, It makes its beloveds bewildered

After Sol's message (page 4 or 5 ) about Trinity ,sorry for using that word, Oneness I learned what it is, After that short explanation, There is nothing beneficial to discuss that matter again and again for Muslims especially. But there are exceptions like me, I didn't know how trinity can be transformed into Hypostatic Union concept. I learned.
Click to expand...

Actually, the hypostatic union is NOT saying any of the above.

The hypostatic union refers to Jesus' own person and his nature as a human being. It not about the Trinity at all except as an offshoot of the discussion of the Trinity -- a tangent, a rabbit trail in ancient Chrsitian thought, just like these threads can develop rabbit trails.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
But we remain "off track" because you keep returning to this "all I'm saying...." and it is precisely on that where we disagree. I do NOT think that the Nicene creeds maintains the distinction you propose, but that it was written to counteract those who wanted to make such a false dichotomy. That is why this really also isn't off track. Some appeared not to understand that this was the whole purpose of the Nicene Creed and thus the Council of Chalcedon had to be held to reaffirm this point with regard to the fullness of both the humanity and the divinity of Jesus. (Though curiously, at the time of Chalcedon it was Jesus' humanity, not his divinity that was most in question.)


What is this "false dichotomy" that you are talking about? And where do you see me making it? There is something that you seem really concerned about here...

As I'm understanding things, much of the 325 argument hinged on God ETERNALLY being "Father" such that the natural implication is that he ALWAYS had the "Son" with him, over and against what the Arians were saying. It wasn't about calling Jesus "God" or saying that Jesus was YHWH, per se. It was about maintaining the "oneness" of Jesus with God the Father...which was seen to be threatened by Arianism. The Council of Nicea combatted the idea that the "Word" was not "homoousias" with God the Father...hence the "very God from very God" language and things like that. Isn't that right?
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

Woodrow said:
I find that concept as being illogical because looking at it we either have 3 attributes, very strong attributes but still attributes of a single God(swt). If that is the case there is no Trinity. It is one god and only one with the ability to do all things. but, he is one and not a Triune.
Click to expand...


And as the term "Trinity" is not itself God, but only a term coined by Christians to describe the nature of God, then I actually have no problem with you reaching this conclusion. If you are able to conceive of the totality of God apart from the description of the Trinity, then more power to you. It is a tool to help those seeking to know God better and more fully to achieve such knowledge. I find it helpful. Others do not. My only fear is that from my perspective I see you not just rejecting the Trinity, but also rejecting God's disclosure of himself in the person of Jesus. And that I would not wish on you as for me the fullness of the One God must include this self-revelation.

As it relates to this thread, the WORD is not just a product of God's speaking. It is not just a noun, it is also a verb -- "BE" in the Muslim parlance. But for Christians that active movement of God in this world is therefore also not just a product of God it is God manifesting himself. And when we see that manifestation incarnated in human form, then we cannot say that this is just a man, a messenger from God, we must recognize that he is the God who is, and who will be who he will be.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
GraceSeeker:
But we remain "off track" because you keep returning to this "all I'm saying...." and it is precisely on that where we disagree. I do NOT think that the Nicene creeds maintains the distinction you propose, but that it was written to counteract those who wanted to make such a false dichotomy. That is why this really also isn't off track. Some appeared not to understand that this was the whole purpose of the Nicene Creed and thus the Council of Chalcedon had to be held to reaffirm this point with regard to the fullness of both the humanity and the divinity of Jesus. (Though curiously, at the time of Chalcedon it was Jesus' humanity, not his divinity that was most in question.)

What is this "false dichotomy" that you are talking about? And where do you see me making it? There is something that you seem really concerned about here...
Click to expand...


Unless I've totally misread you throughout, you seem to want to make a distinction between "One God" and "One Lord" when there is none. The "and" is a conjucntion that joins the terms. It is not there to separate them.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
Unless I've totally misread you throughout, you seem to want to make a distinction between "One God" and "One Lord" when there is none. The "and" is a conjucntion that joins the terms. It is not there to separate them.

1) I truly believe that the "One God" and "One Lord" distinctive language was used in the Nicene Creed simply because it was biblical. There were direct Scriptures saying the same wording. (ala 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4-6, John 17:1-5, etc)

2) Are you telling me that whenever the Nicene Creed was made, that they had N.T. WRIGHT'S PERSPECTIVE when they did that? (Even Wright himself said that there were Pauline scholars that didn't have his perspective!) That the council members truly saw absolutely no difference between the "One God" and "One Lord" in the creed? Are you sure you're not reading Wright into the Council?

3) Looking at the wording ( like "very God from very God" ), that would seem completely redundant if they truly didn't make any distinction between the One God and the One Lord. Again, from what I understand, the "very God from very God" langauge was to actively combat the Arians who AGREED the Jesus was Lord...but DISAGREED that he was of the same essence and nature as God the Father. In other words, the language was chosen SPECIFICALLY to note the "homoousias" quality of Jesus with God. How would that be possible if it was already understood by EVERYONE that there was no distinction between the One God and One Lord in the creed? The only reason that Arianism would be a real threat back then is if the distinctions between the One God and One Lord were ALREADY THERE theologically...with need for articulation of how the One God and the One Lord have the same essence and nature. See what I'm saying?


There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call—one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
1) I truly believe that the "One God" and "One Lord" distinctive language was used in the Nicene Creed simply because it was biblical. There were direct Scriptures saying the same wording.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though nothing in theological discourse appears ever to have been done "simply".


2) Are you telling me that whenever the Nicene Creed was made, that they had N.T. WRIGHT'S PERSPECTIVE when they did that? (Even Wright himself said that there were Pauline scholars that didn't have his perspective!) That the council members truly saw absolutely no difference between the "One God" and "One Lord" in the creed? Are you sure you're not reading Wright into the Council?
Click to expand...
Indeed. I am reading into what I have read. Don't we all. And having done that, I do think that Wright's perspective most accurately represents the Biblical point of view and that this was still held by those who constructed the Nicene Creed. Thus, you are correct, I am telling you that I believe that the council members saw no difference between the "One God" and "One Lord" in the creed.

3) Looking at the wording "very God from very God", that would seem completely redundant if they truly didn't make any distinction between the One God and the One Lord. Again, from what I understand, the "very God from very God" langauge was to combat the Arians who AGREED the Jesus was Lord...but DISAGREED that he was of the same essence of God the Father. In other words, the language was chosen SPECIFICALLY to note the "homoousias" quality of Jesus with God.
Click to expand...
I think redunancy was exactly the point. And they used it to combat Arianism because the council did indeed believe that given there is one essence, one should not arrive at any sort of dichotomy with regard to Jesus and God. Between Jesus and the Father there are distinctions, yes. But one cannot let those distinctions create a scenario where one begins to make a dichotomy between Jesus and God -- that is the whole idea behind the idea of speaking of Jesus as God incarnate which leads to your hypostatic union discussion.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
And they used it to combat Arianism because the council did indeed believe that given there is one essence, one should not arrive at any sort of dichotomy with regard to Jesus and God. Between Jesus and the Father there are distinctions, yes. But one cannot let those distinctions create a scenario where one begins to make a dichotomy between Jesus and God -- that is the whole idea behind the idea of speaking of Jesus as God incarnate which leads to your hypostatic union discussion.

Maybe that's where I'm getting really confused. Where do you see me dichotomizing Jesus and the Father...rather than making distinctions between the two? I don't see anything I've written on this thread to be Arian. I've clearly stated from my first mention of any of this that Jesus is NOT the One God (God the Father) that he prayed to while he lived on earth [Jesus did not in any way believe he was praying to HIMSELF]...but that he IS of the same divine nature as God the Father, just like the Nicene and N-C Creeds state. If anything, I am just putting heavy focus on God the Father as eternal "arche" and "fount" of the Trinity; the One God from whom the "very God from very God" is begotten. What's at stake here for you? It seems like there must be something that you believe is a concern here or something...
 
Last edited:
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
And having done that, I do think that Wright's perspective most accurately represents the Biblical point of view and that this was still held by those who constructed the Nicene Creed. Thus, you are correct, I am telling you that I believe that the council members saw no difference between the "One God" and "One Lord" in the creed.

Upon what information related to the Council itself do you see this? Wright sure doesn't mention such a thing. And to me, that's crucial. Surely, if Wright was making his point, it would have been strenghtened and amplified by the fact that the actual Nicene Council participants used the exact same understanding and motif. That would have been a slam dunk against the other Pauline scholars that have "tried to edge their way round" his idea. But he doesn't say that at all. Conspicuous, yes?
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

So, whussup, Peacelover. Still ridin' with me, sis? :shade:
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
GraceSeeker:
And they used it to combat Arianism because the council did indeed believe that given there is one essence, one should not arrive at any sort of dichotomy with regard to Jesus and God. Between Jesus and the Father there are distinctions, yes. But one cannot let those distinctions create a scenario where one begins to make a dichotomy between Jesus and God -- that is the whole idea behind the idea of speaking of Jesus as God incarnate which leads to your hypostatic union discussion.

Maybe that's where I'm getting really confused. Where do you see me dichotomizing Jesus and the Father...rather than making distinctions between the two? I don't see anything I've written on this thread to be Arian. I've clearly stated from my first mention of any of this that Jesus is NOT the One God (God the Father) that he prayed to while he lived on earth [Jesus did not in any way believe he was praying to HIMSELF]...but that he IS of the same divine nature as God the Father, just like the Nicene and N-C Creeds state. If anything, I am just putting heavy focus on God the Father as eternal "arche" and "fount" of the Trinity; the One God from whom the "very God from very God" is begotten. What's at stake here for you? It seems like there must be something that you believe is a concern here or something...
Click to expand...


Do you see Jesus as a "lesser God"? Do you see the Son as something other than the God who was the creator of the universe? Do you see speaking of "One God" AND "One Lord" as being mutually exclusive language?
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

GraceSeeker:
Do you see Jesus as a "lesser God"? Do you see the Son as something other than the God who was the creator of the universe? Do you see speaking of "One God" AND "One Lord" as being mutually exclusive language.

1) Jesus is "homoousias" with God the Father.
2) The Son is not God the Father, but is "very God from God."
3) I don't see mutual exclusion between the "One God" and "One Lord" language. That would totally go against the intent of the Creeds. I do see distinction and differentiation within unified concepts, though.

Tell you what, brother. If you wanna do this on another thread, we can. I just don't want to derail this too much, ya dig? :D

I want to really nail this hypostatic union thing down.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

@Bro YieldedOne,
i'm totally lost right now :ermm: ....i'll get back to ya later!

sorry for that. :-[
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

So, Woodrow. Do you see anything that I'm saying about the motif I'm espousing (Jesus as union of complementarity between Uncreated "Word/Memra" and created human being) that just doesn't work, given the ideas like "uncreated speech" (Qur'an) and "heavenly archetypal material" (Mother of the Book) that already exist in Islam?
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
Tell you what, brother. If you wanna do this on another thread, we can. I just don't want to derail this too much, ya dig? :D

I want to really nail this hypostatic union thing down.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Might I suggest this thread: "The Issue : The nature of Christ: Was He the same substance as God or was He created?" unless you are wanting to create a new one specifically for our discussion. You could call it "A Friendly Discussion Between Christians Regarding the Nature of the Trinity and It's Implications Regarding the Divine Nature of Jesus." It also might be nice to transfer posts #367, #369, #370, #371, #372, #375, & #376 to wherever this discussion continues.
 
Re: Christians think that Jesus can be Immortal and Mortal at the sametime they say w

YieldedOne said:
Tell you what, brother. If you wanna do this on another thread, we can. I just don't want to derail this too much, ya dig?
Click to expand...


I think that the spirit of this discussion is a derailment all by itself, I mean there was no derailment before the essence of this topic. In other words, All meanings and secrets in derailment have been embodied and became the essence of our discussion. I also think that the end of this discussion will be held at great court of Almighty One. There will be seen some scenes as in Surah Maida. Oh Christian How did you describe your Lord through your logical concept ? What was your divine source, How were you sure its exactness ? and of course We will account for too, there is no way out of it.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top