What was the nature of Jesus' (alayhi salam) birth?

[YieldedOne]

Oops. On #2 above I meant..."In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without forgetting the absolute transcendence of God?"

 

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMc: Conceptually, I can understand how you possibly could come to this conclusion.

I'm glad to see that it's not a conceptual inconceivability. That's very, very important. Glad we could get that out the way. Thanks.

...but that does not make Jesus God incarnate anymore than the Quran encapsulates Allah's (swt) Essence.

Hmmm...I don't know if the analogy works all the way, but I get the main assertion: Allah can create without His creation necessarily being pantheistic. That is to say, metaphysically speaking, created reality is actually distinct from Allah's personal being. I'd agree with that. And I would even say that the human mind, soul, and body that Jesus has falls directly into the created category. No doubt.

At the same time, there doesn't seem to be anything in that belief of Jesus' human createdness that necessarily ELIMINATES the possibility of being a manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality. Especially when that very thing is claimed for the Quran.

No, you err in equating a Word, 'Be!' with a 'manifestation of Allah (swt). You are twisting the Quran around to say what you want it to say.

And let me be very clear: I am NOT arguing for the Trinity per se...nor am I arguing for the eternal SONSHIP of Jesus. Not at all. I am arguing that there is nothing in Islam (that I've seen) that completely removes the possibility of Jesus being Allah's "word" eternally spoken and temporally manifested into human history through Mary "in the fulness of time."
Unless there is something in the Quran or Islamic metaphysics that makes it absolutely impossible for Jesus to be an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah...then I don't see how a Muslim could fault a thinking person for conceiving and believing such about Jesus.

Even if that is so, it does not mean that we were intended to worship Jesus (as). We believe that the Quran is the very Word of Allah (swt) but I as a Muslim do not worship the Book. The Book points me toward the worship of the Creator, just like Jesus (as) did.

Some thoughts:
1) Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless". Especially prayer like hesychasm. That is to say, a Christian is not bound to always think in "icons" to worship the Transcendent God.

Thank you I learned something.

2) Can a Muslim think about the physically-ascendant Jesus (who is now in the presence of God) without being an idolater? In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without forgetting the absolute transcendence of God? (corrected) If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then I'd wonder if the very same thing couldn't be applicable to Christians.

Sorry, but you lost me there. We think of Jesus (as) as one of those who are or will be brought near to Allah (as), but I believe this means after Judgment Day. No, that does not indicate that Jesus (as) is any more God than when he was on earth.

3) I'd say that God could manifest eternal, uncreated reality in human existence for the same reason that it's claimed he did so in the Quran: a greater degree of self-revelation.

No, again I see that you are twisting the meaning. I don't see that Allah (swt) needs to reveal Himself to me more than has been done in the Quran. That is sufficient for me to have some, albeit limited, understanding of the One God that I worship as it so also reveals to me what not to worship, including the human, Jesus (as), who is often referred to as the 'Son of Mary'.

 

[PouringRain]

1) Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless".

This is a good point. The churches I have attended my whole life do not have iconography, images, crucifixes, etc. within the church. There was never a time when we thought of an image during prayer, nor prayed before an image, etc.

 

[MustafaMc]

This is a good point. The churches I have attended my whole life do not have iconography, images, crucifixes, etc. within the church. There was never a time when we thought of an image during prayer, nor prayed before an image, etc.

Do you partake of communion in your worship service? When I was attending the Church of Christ, we took communion every Sunday. I often thought (mental image) of Jesus on the cross during that time as we "participated symbolically in the blood and body of Christ". Perhaps, that is not a common Christian experience. Whether or not there were physical images in church (there were not) of the crucifixion, nevertheless the images in my mind during communion and in singing certain songs were real to me.

 

[PouringRain]

Do you partake of communion in your worship service? When I was attending the Church of Christ, we took communion every Sunday. I often thought (mental image) of Jesus on the cross during that time as we "participated symbolically in the blood and body of Christ". Perhaps, that is not a common Christian experience. Whether or not there were physical images in church (there were not) of the crucifixion, nevertheless the images in my mind during communion and in singing certain songs were real to me.

We do partake of communion-- probably about once a month or less. (I know of Christians who do it daily!) I can't say that I have ever conjured up a mental image of Jesus on the cross during that time. If I have any image that pops to mind when I think of communion it is of the "last supper." Usually, while partaking of communion, there is no image in mind. The focus at that time is of reflection and repentance. The Bible says that he who takes of it unworthily is drinking d amnation upon himself. (Minus the space in that one word. LOL) Communion is a time to examine oneself. Many of the churches I have been in also put importance in the sharing aspect of it-- as occurs at the passover supper. Communion is open to all believers, regardless of denomination or church affiliation, and is also a time for togetherness in the body of believers.

 

[YieldedOne]

YO: I'm glad to see that it's not a conceptual inconceivability. That's very, very important. Glad we could get that out the way.

MustafaMc: Thanks. ...but that does not make Jesus God incarnate anymore than the Quran encapsulates Allah's (swt) Essence.

Ok. If you notice, I am not talking about Jesus being God incarnate. THAT would be a trinitarian assertion. The only thing I'm working with right now is that it is logically conceivable and theologically viable that Jesus is an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah temporally manifested into human history through Mary. That's it.

So far, it seems as if the claim is both logically conceivable and theological viable.

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

YO:At the same time, there doesn't seem to be anything in that belief of Jesus' human createdness that necessarily ELIMINATES the possibility of being a manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality. Especially when that very thing is claimed for the Quran.

MustafaMc: No, you err in equating a Word, 'Be!' with a 'manifestation of Allah (swt). You are twisting the Quran around to say what you want it to say.

It seems like you are taking my statement "manifestation of uncreated, eternal reality" as something like unto manifestation of Allah's essence itself. I don't see where I've said that anywhere.

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

YO: And let me be very clear: I am NOT arguing for the Trinity per se...nor am I arguing for the eternal SONSHIP of Jesus. Not at all. I am arguing that there is nothing in Islam (that I've seen) that completely removes the possibility of Jesus being Allah's "word" eternally spoken and temporally manifested into human history through Mary "in the fulness of time." Unless there is something in the Quran or Islamic metaphysics that makes it absolutely impossible for Jesus to be an eternally-spoken, uncreated "word" of Allah...then I don't see how a Muslim could fault a thinking person for conceiving and believing such about Jesus.

MustafaMc: Even if that is so, it does not mean that we were intended to worship Jesus (as). We believe that the Quran is the very Word of Allah (swt) but I as a Muslim do not worship the Book. The Book points me toward the worship of the Creator, just like Jesus (as) did.

Hmmm. I'm not talking about worshipping Jesus. Again, the only thing I'm talking about right now is entertaining the idea that the Word of Allah spoken to Mary is just as paradoxically eternal and temporal as the Quran is said to be. That's it.

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

YO: Christian prayer and worship can be (and is) "imageless". Especially prayer like hesychasm. That is to say, a Christian is not bound to always think in "icons" to worship the Transcendent God.

MustafaMc: Thank you I learned something.

Not a problem. Glad to be helpful. :shade:

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

YO: Can a Muslim think about the physically-ascendant Jesus (who is now in the presence of God) without being an idolater? In other words, can a Muslim think about Jesus' physically-ascendent BODY without forgetting the absolute transcendence of God? (corrected) If the answer is "yes" to both questions, then I'd wonder if the very same thing couldn't be applicable to Christians.

MustafaMc: Sorry, but you lost me there. We think of Jesus (as) as one of those who are or will be brought near to Allah (as), but I believe this means after Judgment Day. No, that does not indicate that Jesus (as) is any more God than when he was on earth.

What I'm saying is this: merely focusing on the locality of the Ascendant Jesus's body does not take away from the ability to believe in the absolute Transcendence of Allah. The "image" of Jesus' risen humanity need not be a hindrance to this understanding. That's what I'm saying.

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

YO: I'd say that God could manifest eternal, uncreated reality in human existence for the same reason that it's claimed he did so in the Quran: a greater degree of self-revelation.

MustafaMc: No, again I see that you are twisting the meaning. I don't see that Allah (swt) needs to reveal Himself to me more than has been done in the Quran. That is sufficient for me to have some, albeit limited, understanding of the One God that I worship as it so also reveals to me what not to worship, including the human, Jesus (as), who is often referred to as the 'Son of Mary'.

How is the meaning being twisted? It seems like you are directly relating the idea of "manifestation of eternal, uncreated reality" with "incarnation of divine essence". Those are two different things. I'm talking about the former, not the latter. No Muslim would say that the Quran is an incarnation of divine essence, but many WOULD and DO say that the Quran is UNCREATED and ETERNAL even as it is temporally revealed in human history.

 

[MustafaMc]

PouringRain, your reply reflects a different personal experience of the same act. There was an inscription, "Do This in Remembrance of Me", on the small table that held the tiny cups of grape juice and plates of unleavened bread. Quoting from a Church of Christ website, "The Lord's Supper is a commemorative ordinance, a memorial of Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross. It is a feast of living union of believers with the Saviour, whereby they truly, that is spiritually and by faith, receive Christ with all His benefits, and are nourished with His life unto eternal life. The Supper is a personal fellowship with Christ. Partaking of one bread creates fellowship between the members too; it merges them into one body, the church." So for me, partaking of the bread was a remembrance of Jesus' suffering and the grape juice reminded me of the blood that was shed so that I may have everlasting life.

I rather enjoyed my time spent as a member of this church as I perceived they were closer than the Baptist in adhering to Biblical teaching. An elder in the Church of Christ (also my Sunday school teacher) was later my PhD major professor after I became a Muslim. I actually had the opportunity to discuss Islam with him several years after I graduated.

 

[MustafaMc]

YieldedOne, that was an interesting post and I have actually pondered over the meaning of the ayat 3:45 "(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)." I can see the point that you are trying to make and I can't say that I disagree with you. This is where I need to say Allah (swt) knows best the full meaning and I should not speculate beyond what is apparent.

 

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMc:
YieldedOne, that was an interesting post and I have actually pondered over the meaning of the ayat 3:45 "(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)." I can see the point that you are trying to make and I can't say that I disagree with you. This is where I need to say Allah (swt) knows best the full meaning and I should not speculate beyond what is apparent.

SuhWEEET! :statisfie Thanks for engaging this stuff, MustafaMc. Kudos, homie.

Here's a quote from "The Uncreatedness of the Divine Speech: The Glorious Qur'an" by Sh. G. F. Haddad. Again, you can easily Google it online...

---------------------------------------------

This posting sums up the doctrine of the massive majority of the Muslims, namely the People of the Sunna and the Congregation, concerning the pre-existent, pre-eternal, beginningless, and uncreated nature of the Divine Speech Allah Most High has named al-Qur'an, as held by the Salaf al-Salihun and as formulated by the two Masters, Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash`ari and Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi and their respective schools.

The position of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a differs fundamentally on this matter with that of the rest of the Muslim sects, especially with that of the now defunct Mu`tazila. The position of the Shi`a is indentical with that of the Mu`tazila, who denied not only the Pre-existent status of the Divine Speech, but of all the Divine Attributes for they considered that they are the same as the Essence.

Ahl al-Sunna agree one and all that the Qur'an is the pre-existent, pre-eternal, uncreated Speech of Allah Most High on the evidence of the Qur'an, the Sunna, and faith-guided reason.

In a rare instance of classic kalâm reasoning, Imam Malik gave the most succint statement of this doctrine:
"The Qur'an is the Speech of Allah, the Speech of Allah comes from Him, and nothing created comes from Allah Most High." Narrated by al-Dhahabi in Siyar A`lam al-Nubala' (Dar al-Fikr ed. 7:416).

Hafiz Abu al-Qasim Ibn `Asakir said in Tabyin Kadhib al-Muftari (Dar al-Jil ed. p. 150-151):
"The Mu`tazila said: 'the Speech of Allah Most High is created, invented, and brought into being.' The Hashwiyya, who attribute a body to Allah the Exalted, said: 'The alphabetical characters (al-hurûf al-muqatta`a), the materials on which they are written, the colors in which they are written, and all that is between the two covers [of the volumes of Qur'an] is beginningless and pre-existent (qadîma azaliyya). Al-Ash`ari took a middle road between them and said: The Qur'an is the beginningless speech of Allah Most High unchanged, uncreated, not of recent origin in time, nor brought into being. As for the alphabetical characters, the materials, the colors, the voices, the elements that are subject to limitations (al-mahdûdât), and all that is subject to modality (al-mukayyafât) in the0 world: all this is created, originated, and produced."

-------------------------------------------

I think about the bolded quote a lot. If "nothing created comes from Allah Most High"...and the Quran says that Jesus is a Word from Allah Himself...then, it seems to me that we have all we need to say what I'm saying without too much speculation at all. :shade:

 

[YieldedOne]

Succinctly:
If Muslims believe the Quran to be the beginningless, uncreated, pre-existent "speech of Allah" while being manifested in things that are "created, originated, and produced"...then there is absolutely no theological or metaphysical reason at all for those same Muslims to deny the possibility that Jesus, specifically noted in the Quran as a "Word" from Allah Himself, could ALSO be the beginningless, uncreated, pre-existent "speech of Allah" while being manifested in creaturely existence. All of this is possible because of the nature of Jesus' birth as direct "Word" from Allah.

Make sense, y'all?

:aboo:

 

[MustafaMc]

...and the point of your supposition is....

 

[YieldedOne]

Heh. :statisfie

The point of the "supposition" is that even if Muslims and Christians disagree on whether or not God is trinity (and they must surely do)...there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary. I'm big on interfaith dialogue and I believe that this is another platform by which healthy, respectful, honest, rigorous dialogue can take place. It says NOTHING about worshipping Jesus as second member of the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God, or any of that stuff.

Actually, I bet it would knock some Christians down a peg or two to recognize that Islam considered Jesus' very being as a "Word" from God to humanity. Yeah. :shade:

 

[YieldedOne]

Surely there's nothing wrong with THAT...now, is there?

 

[MustafaMc]

...there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary. I'm big on interfaith dialogue and I believe that this is another platform by which healthy, respectful, honest, rigorous dialogue can take place. It says NOTHING about worshipping Jesus as second member of the Trinity, Jesus being the Son of God, or any of that stuff.

There is room in my understanding of the Quran to entertain what you are saying. Likewise, some may have a tendency to extrapolate on what you are saying to worship Jesus (as) as God incarnate. I believe that I understand you to say that is not your intention.

 

[YieldedOne]

MustafaMc:
There is room in my understanding of the Quran to entertain what you are saying.

Excellent. I'm hoping that many more share your understanding of the Quran!

****************************
MustafaMc:
Likewise, some may have a tendency to extrapolate on what you are saying to worship Jesus (as) as God incarnate. I believe that I understand you to say that is not your intention.

My intention is to try to find as much authentic "common ground" as possible between Islam and Christianity for the sake of interfaith dialogue. Space for both Christians and Muslims to "live in the question." And I believe that there's lots more then both sides think there is, specifically with the "common word" that both Christians and Muslims share: Isa/Jesus, Messenger and Prophet of Allah.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Succinctly:
If Muslims believe the Quran to be the beginningless, uncreated, pre-existent "speech of Allah" while being manifested in things that are "created, originated, and produced"...
:aboo:

that is a pretty interesting thought. it would seem then, that if the qur'an itself is eternal then the arabic language would be eternal as well? so then we would not only have an eternal god, but an eternal book, and now an eternal language. could i also request hadiths or verses which talk about this eternal qur'an? if it is indeed a book then would the paper it was written on be eternal as well? and now wouldn't this just add to our list of things which allah has not created (eternal book, eternal language, eternal paper etc.)? but more importantly, if the qur'an is indeed eternal, and one cannot practise islam without the sunnah and the relevant hadiths, does that mean that from the beginning of time to the advent of muhammad the qur'an was itself incomplete for its purpose?

 

[جوري]

My intention is to try to find as much authentic "common ground" as possible between Islam and Christianity for the sake of interfaith dialogue. Space for both Christians and Muslims to "live in the question." And I believe that there's lots more then both sides think there is, specifically with the "common word" that both Christians and Muslims share: Isa/Jesus, Messenger and Prophet of Allah.

There are no commonalities between Islam and Christianity.. 'modern Christians' can't even be called 'people of the book'
Israa (21) And say: "Truth has (now) arrived, and falsehood perished: for falsehood is (by its nature) bound to perish."

As far as beliefs are concerned there is absolutely no compromise: any belief that contradicts Islam is false, and must be criticized. But those who adhere to such false beliefs are to be tolerated, nicely treated and invited to the truth in the best of ways!

beyond that, there is no common ground.. nor should any Muslim seek such common grounds with you.. They should find the concept of idolatry, and man worship patently appalling and not befitting of God's magistrate.

At the end of the day you worship a middle eastern man, and we worship the one who created him, so what common ground do you seek?

all the best

 

[Insaanah]

there is metaphysical and theological "ROOM FOR AGREEMENT" on Jesus being an uncreated, eternal "kalimat" of God to humanity through Mary.

No. Jesus (peace be upon him), like Adam (peace be upon him), was a creation.

"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

And not eternal.

"Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive." (Qur'an 19:33)

Peace.

 

[MustafaMc]

No. Jesus (peace be upon him), like Adam (peace be upon him), was a creation.

"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

And not eternal.

"Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised alive." (Qur'an 19:33)

You are correct in pointing this out that there is a danger in reading too much into a word (Be!) and going beyond what is apparent in the meaning. Allah (swt) had a reason for creating Jesus (as) in Mary's womb independent of a human father and Allah (swt) knows best what that reason was.

I believe the Quran when it says, "They indeed have disbelieved who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary." We know that to die as a disbeliever is not a good thing. We know the relationship of Jesus (as) to Allah (swt) is that of a servant to his Master as shown by, "The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah." Note also that Jesus (as) is referred to as the servant of God twice in the Book of Acts.

 

[YieldedOne]

Alright! ;D

Insaanah:
No. Jesus (peace be upon him), like Adam (peace be upon him), was a creation.
"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." (Qur'an 3:59)

Please note something. (You too, MustafaMc) All that the 3:59 text says is that like Adam he was 1) directly originated from God's will and purpose and 2) bodily created. Basically, God-willed embryogenesis...which Christians can believe in too. No problem there, bud. I fully state that Jesus was a full HUMAN BEING, with a created immaterial and material aspect to his reality. I've done that on this thread, actually.

But just because that createdness had an origination point doesn't eliminate the possibility we've been talking about. If it did, then the Quran couldn't be uncreated and eternal because it had an earthly origination point. But Muslims don't say that. So, then...


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

Insaanah:
And not eternal.
"Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised alive." (Qur'an 19:33)

Same argument as above. No Muslim would say that just because a Quran is capable of being destroyed/annihilated that is is NOT uncreated or eternal for that reason.