IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Open for debate
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Open for debate

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
Author
Message
asep garut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 November 2017
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 206
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote asep garut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 April 2018 at 6:55pm
Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an merely an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as human beings with finite minds, should not expect to totally comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14).


You said: “. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14).”

It is perfectly natural that humans always have differences in opinion, and that we should respect each other with such differences.

In Muslim understanding that Jesus is not a child of God according to His Word in 112:3

“He begets not, nor was He begotten.”

This all returns to our understanding of each of the scriptures we understood, and we are convinced that all the Word of God are true (in the Torah, in the Gospel, and in the Qur'an), and what is wrong is only in the human who writes into the book or in reading and understanding it.

Today, there are many differences from the Word of God, this indicates that the books that now have many changes because of the human hand who wrote it.

God is unlikely to bring down His Words that cause mankind to be confused which one is true. And one of the Muslim beliefs towards the Qur'an is as in His word (6: 153)

“And verily, this Commandments (Qur’an) is My Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not other paths, for they will separate you away from His Path. This He has ordained for you that you may become Muttaqun (the pious).”

Let us run our own convictions as well as possible because we will all return to the Lord to be held accountable for the deeds of our own deeds while living in the world.

Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Al Masihi View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 02 March 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 70
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Masihi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 April 2018 at 10:05am
Originally posted by Niblo Niblo wrote:

Originally posted by Al Masihi Al Masihi wrote:

I'm not exactly a Maronite I identify with them since I have not been baptized into any Church and I'm rather yet a bit skeptical of the Catholic Church but anyways. When God became a man he didn't change with respect to His Divinity, even in becoming Man He underwent no change in essence or substance. That is what we mean God does not change nor undergoes change in essence or in divine nature.


I asked: ‘Please explain how God - pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change (none whatsoever) - can become flesh (which is forever subject to change).

You replied: ‘When God became a man he didn't change with respect to His Divinity, even in becoming Man He underwent no change in essence or substance.’

Water becomes ice. Change. Youth becomes old age. Change. Day becomes night. Change. The ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ becomes flesh. No change. What???

Have a look at what Ott has to say:

‘…..it is objected that the Hypostatic Union contradicts the immutability of God. The rejoinder to this is that the act of becoming man, as an operation of God ad extra, has no more induced a change in the Divine Essence than did the creation of the world, as it is only the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of will. Neither did the event of the Incarnation result in a change of the Divine Essence; for, after the assumption of a body the Logos was no more perfect and no less perfect than before. No change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was; and no change for the better, because It already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity.’ (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Chapter 4 - Theological-speculative Discussion on the Hypostatic Union’).

Let’s examine this statement more closely:

1. That the act by which the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ (the ‘Logos’) became a man is no different from God’s act of creation; since both are merely ‘the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of (His) will.’

I know of no Trinitarian who believes that when God created the universe - and all that lies therein- He actually became this universe; this galaxy; this planet; this rock; this tree; or that He became ‘Adam’. On the other hand, every Trinitarian believes that the ‘Logos’ became flesh.

The act of creation and the (alleged) act of Incarnation are entirely different as to their natures. The former required no change to the essential nature of God. The latter, on the other hand, cannot be achieved without such change (assuming that the doctrine of God’s immutability is correct).

2. That after ‘the event of the Incarnation’ the ‘Logos’ was: ‘no less perfect than before (and that) no change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was.’

The Nicene Creed confesses: ‘’Who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven and was made flesh’ (Denzinger 86).   To say that the ‘Logos’ was: ‘no less perfect’ after becoming flesh is to say that God and man are equal in their perfection; in their holiness; in their very natures.

The nature of God: He is spirit…………He is immutable…….He is infinite………He is omnipotent…………He is not man!

The nature of man: He is corporeal…..He is mutable…….He is finite……..He is weak……..He is not God!

How can these two natures be the same? How can a change from the former to the latter not be a change for the worse?

3. That the ‘Logos’: ‘Already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity.’

No need for a philosophical debate here! We are agreed, I’m sure, that humans are corporeal.

The 4th Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council taught that God is absolutely simple (Denzinger 428, 1782). This means that He is free from any kind of composition, whether physical or metaphysical. He is pure spirit; being neither a body nor a composition of body and spirit.

If this doctrine is true, then how can God possess - in any way, and to any degree - a corporeal nature?

Having made his first statement, Ott goes on to say:

‘The change lay on the side of the human nature only, which was elevated to participation in the Personal Subsistence of the Logos.’

In other words, what changed was not the ‘Logos’ but the human nature of Christ. It become divine (at the moment of conception).

This claim contradicts the Council of Basel, which decreed that it: ‘Holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13).

Note: The Council assures us that: Christ is ‘perfect in humanity’….a ‘true man’…..‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity’…..‘like us in all respects except for sin.’

It’s worth noting that the Council of Chalcedon also declared Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) to be ‘truly God and truly man’ (Denzinger 148).

In Chapter Two (Section 10) of his book, Ott speaks of the ‘Adamite Origin of Christ's Human Nature’.

He confirms the doctrine that ‘Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary’; and then goes on to write:

‘The reality and integrity of Christ's human nature is especially guaranteed by the fact that Christ was truly generated and born of a human mother. Through His descent from a daughter of Adam, He was, as to His humanity, incorporated into the posterity of Adam. He had identity of essence with man and continuity of race; Christ became our Brother.’

In short….the nature of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) was that of any other human. It was in no way divine. It was not ‘elevated to participation in the Personal Subsistence of the Logos.’

John Hick writes: ‘(The Council of Chalcedon) merely asserted that Jesus was ‘truly God and truly man’ without attempting to say how such a paradox is possible…. Merely to assert that two different natures coexisted in Jesus ‘without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’ is to utter a form of words which as yet has no specific meaning.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate’; page 48).

E. P. Sanders writes: ‘It lies beyond my meagre abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine, without either interfering with the other.’ (The Historical Figure of Jesus’; page 134.).

I now ask: How is it possible for that one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine at one and the same time?’

I invite you to provide an answer.

The same way you are fully a body and fully a soul, and yet you are the one person. Or how coal is fully fire and fully wood, yet one piece of coal. Although the nature of God and people might seem contradictory to you and I they are rather not so contradictory as you might think as God said let us create man in our image. I don't really see how the councils are contradictory but let's examine the trinity which says that the one God exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son (Jesus) is the word made flesh. "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God... 14 and the word became flesh and dwelt among us..." (John 1:1, 14). The Bible teaches us that Jesus has two natures: God and man. This is known as the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Jesus is still both God and man, divine and human, at the same time. Jesus, as one person, exists with two natures - the divine nature "joined" with the human nature in the one person of Christ. The divine nature did not change at all in this "joining." Now, please note that the divine nature did not combine with the human nature and form a new nature called the god-man nature. That is known as monophysitism and was condemned as a heresy. The two natures are "in communication" with each other, and the attributes of each nature are ascribed to the single person. This is called the communicatio idiomatum. This Latin phrase means, "communication of the properties." In other words, the one person of Christ "claims" the attributes of each nature. Here is proof: John 17:5 says, "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." Notice that the man Jesus is laying claim to pre-existence and glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. This is because Jesus, the person, has two natures, divine and human; and the attributes of the divine nature were ascribed to the single person of Christ.

The Word did not change by adding anything to its nature. It simply joined with the human nature in the person of Christ, so that two distinct natures exist simultaneously in Jesus. This is why Paul says, "In Him all the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form," (Col. 2:9). Besides, in order for God's immutability to be in question, the Word would have had to change itself by melding with the human nature into a new third thing. This would mean that it would no longer be "the Word." It would be "the Word Man" nature which is neither divine nor human but a new third thing. Furthermore, the doctrine of the incarnation denies any change in the divine word at all. It simply states that the Word became flesh (not meaning it changed its nature). The Word resides in the person of Christ along with the human nature, so that Jesus has two distinct natures.

Therefore, we can conclude that the Godhead participates in humanity through the incarnation of Christ, but the Godhead is not changed in anyway.

The Son of God did not change His nature at the Incarnation. The divine nature did not “blend” with the human nature—that would have required change. Rather, the divine nature resides with the human nature in the Person of Christ. The Incarnation means that Jesus can lay claim to both His divine nature and His human nature.

Back to Top
2Acts View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 22 March 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 102
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 2Acts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 April 2018 at 12:52am
Originally posted by asep garut asep garut wrote:

Originally posted by 2Acts 2Acts wrote:

The doctrine of the hypostatic union is an merely an attempt to explain how Jesus could be both God and man at the same time. It is ultimately, though, a doctrine we are incapable of fully understanding. It is impossible for us to fully understand how God works. We, as human beings with finite minds, should not expect to totally comprehend an infinite God. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14).


You said: “. Jesus is God’s Son in that He was conceived by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed (John 8:58, 10:30). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God (John 1:1, 14).”

It is perfectly natural that humans always have differences in opinion, and that we should respect each other with such differences.

In Muslim understanding that Jesus is not a child of God according to His Word in 112:3

“He begets not, nor was He begotten.”

This all returns to our understanding of each of the scriptures we understood, and we are convinced that all the Word of God are true (in the Torah, in the Gospel, and in the Qur'an), and what is wrong is only in the human who writes into the book or in reading and understanding it.

Today, there are many differences from the Word of God, this indicates that the books that now have many changes because of the human hand who wrote it.

God is unlikely to bring down His Words that cause mankind to be confused which one is true. And one of the Muslim beliefs towards the Qur'an is as in His word (6: 153)

“And verily, this Commandments (Qur’an) is My Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not other paths, for they will separate you away from His Path. This He has ordained for you that you may become Muttaqun (the pious).”

Let us run our own convictions as well as possible because we will all return to the Lord to be held accountable for the deeds of our own deeds while living in the world.

Hello Asep Garet

Thankyou for your reply. I agree it is perfectly natural that humans always have differences in opinion, and that we should respect each other with such differences.

Can you explain the differences from the Word of God, how the books have changes because of the human hand who wrote them ? And why would God allow this to happen ?

Back to Top
asep garut View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 02 November 2017
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 206
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote asep garut Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 April 2018 at 1:45pm
Hi 2Acts, You're welcome. Following are the answers:

You asked: “Can you explain the differences from the Word of God,”

Among those that distinguish between the Words of Allah sent down to His messengers are all the words that are in the books before the Qur'an is only for one nation, not for all people or nation. Here are among the evidences in the Qur'an.

“And Moses said: O my people (Israel)! If you have believed in Allah, then put your trust in Him if you are Muslims (those who submit to Allah’s Will).” (Qur’an 10:84)


“....Jesus said: O Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Verily, .......” (Qur’an 5:72)

Inside the Bible is also found.

"Jesus answered," I am sent only to the lost sheep of the people of Israel. " (Matthew 15:24)

"The twelve were sent by Jesus, and he commanded them:" Do not turn to the way of other peoples or enter the city of the Samaritans, but go to the lost sheep of the people of Israel. " (Matthew 10:6)

While in the Qur'an there is the word of Allah like "O mankind!" for example:

 “O mankind! Worship your Lord (Allah), Who created you and those who were before you so that you may become Al-Muttaqun (the pious).” (Qur’an 2:21)

And then you asked: ” how the books have changes because of the human hand who wrote them ?”

I have found several books other than the Qur'an that are not the same about the contents, who else if not caused by human hands, even the Qur'an has also informed that there are such humans behavior.

“Among those who are Jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places....” (Qur’an 4:46)

“..They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them...” (Qur’an 5:13)

And then you asked: “And why would God allow this to happen ?”

Allah has an absolute right where humans can not influence His will, and in Islam it's called "Sunnatullah". Therefore, if Allah wants all mankind to believe and worship only to Him, thing like that is very easy to Allah, but Allah has another will.

“And had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed, all of them together. So, will you then compel mankind, until they become believers.” (Qur’an 10:99)

“It is not for any person to believe, except by the will of Allah, and He will put the wrath on those who are heedless.” (10:100)

Apart from that, it is impossible for Allah to create heaven and hell if there are no its content or inhabitants.

Nevertheless, Allah has also shown His compassion by giving warning to mankind through His word in Qur'an 10:108

“Say: O you mankind! Now truth (the Qur’an and Prophet Muhammad) has come to you from your Lord. So whosoever receives guidance, he does so for the good of his own self, and whosoever goes astray, he does so to his own loss, and I am not (set) over you as a Wakil (disposer of affairs to oblige you for guidance).”

From all my answers, it's all returned to each of us, for one of the duties of a Muslim is to convey the answer according to the truth from Allah, while the final decision is in the hands of Allah because only Allah who has Hidayah (guidance). Thanks 2Acts.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.