Open for debate
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42420
Printed Date: 26 April 2024 at 3:53am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Open for debate
Posted By: Al Masihi
Subject: Open for debate
Date Posted: 29 March 2018 at 11:10am
| Muslims here are free to debate me on anything regarding Christianity and Islam. |
Replies:
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 29 March 2018 at 11:29pm
|
In another forum you claimed that ‘Jesus is the one God of Israel.’ I asked (several times):‘How is this possible,in the light of Christian doctrines concerning the nature of God?', but you chose not to debate them. Are you prepared to do so on this Forum? ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 30 March 2018 at 11:59pm
| First of all your not being clear in your own question, first you must tell me why do you think he's not the God of Israel, give me reasons then I will answer back. |
Posted By: yandex
Date Posted: 02 April 2018 at 1:08am
Once the Christians of Najran challenged 'prophet' Muhammad to debate, and instead taking it up, Allah immediately revealed a verse on how to response. I find it really very amusing. Then whoever argues with you about it after [this] knowledge has come to you - say, "Come, let us call our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves, then supplicate earnestly [together] and invoke the curse of Allah upon the liars [among us]." (Quran 3 61) |
Al Masihi wrote:Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 02 April 2018 at 5:21am
The burden of proof rests with the person making the claim. It is you who claim that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is the God of Israel; and so the burden is yours. But let me help you out. You claim to be a Maronite; a body of Christians in full communion with the Catholic Church. You should know that according to the Catholic Church there are grades of theological certainty; the highest of which (identified as ‘de fide’): ‘Appertains to the immediately revealed truths (and are) based on the authority of God Revealing; and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that (such a) truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church.’ (Ludwig Ott - ‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’; Page 9). According to the Catholic Church, Christ is ‘True God, and True Man’. This is a doctrine shared by the Maronites. Concerning the immutability of God: The Church teaches that God is absolutely immutable: ‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable……’ (Fourth Lateran Council: Constitution 1. Confession of Faith); and again: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal.’ (The Council of Basel: Session 114). By ‘absolutely immutable’ is meant that in God there can be no change whatsoever. The Dominican theologian St Thomas Aquinas bases the absolute immutability of God on His absolute simplicity (a Spirit, having no parts); on His pure actuality (He has no potential for change); and on His infinite perfection. According to Aquinas, mutability includes potentiality, composition and imperfection and as such is irreconcilable with God as ‘actus purus’ (the absolutely simple, absolutely perfect Essence). (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 9; Article 1). Please explain how God - pure spirit, pure actuality, with no potential for change (none whatsoever) - can become flesh (which is forever subject to change). ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 05 April 2018 at 12:31pm
| 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. |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 05 April 2018 at 12:33pm
| I find that to be Mohammeds excuse to avoid debating Najrani Christians. |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 09 April 2018 at 7:43am
| Anymore question from anyone? |
Posted By: asep garut
Date Posted: 09 April 2018 at 7:42pm
Al Masihi, You said “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.” In Islam, God can not be equated with all creatures that He created (Qur'an 112:4). "And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." If your assumption that God is incarnate as a human, it will be weak because the basic properties in humans need something in their life such as eating, drinking, laughing, crying etc., while for God is the opposite from that all. God does not want His creatures to be wrong in interpreting the existence of the original form. (Qur'an 6:103) “No vision can grasp Him, but He grasps all vision. He is Al-Latif (the Most Subtle and Courteous), Well-Acquainted with all things.” And the Prophet Muhammad avoids to debate with Najrani Christians not because of your perception. |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 10 April 2018 at 4:53am
| It all depends on how you define weak, many instances in the Torah has God appeared as a man or in the image of a man. The fact God was willing to lay aside his heavenly glory shows how powerful and glorious God really is. Jesus came to finally reveal God to the world and complete all the revelations of the prophets and at the same time bring a new and everlasting covenant with mankind. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 11 April 2018 at 12:52pm
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. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: asep garut
Date Posted: 11 April 2018 at 4:35pm
I do
not define it weakly, but God who tells me through His word in the Qur'an means
my argument is strong. You say "many instances in the Torah has God appear
as a man or in the image of a man." Are you sure of that news ?, while
Moses himself is unable to see the real face of God (he fainted), then what are
the books before the Qur'an there is a word of God that states about the
maintenance of its authenticity? or will not anyone be able to change them? If God becomes a man, then God can be attenuated by His creatures, while Allah is the Mighty of all that can weaken Him. |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 11 April 2018 at 9:00pm
| There was the time when God wrestled with Jacob to test him and so forth. God appearing as a man is not him in his true form because no one can see the true form of God. We still have original copies of the Bible and Torah the Dead Sea Scrolls are an example and they are almost identical to the modern day Old Testament, |
Posted By: asep garut
Date Posted: 13 April 2018 at 5:00pm
In Islam that one who meets Jacob is an angel sent by Allah, again if God becomes a man, then He can be weakened by His creatures, while He is Very Perfect, besides, people will get the impression and imagine that His hands, legs, body, etc. will be like a man while He is not equal to what He created. |
Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 13 April 2018 at 5:44pm
|
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). |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 14 April 2018 at 4:29am
Thank you for your input. I await a reply, from the OP, to my latest post to him. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: asep garut
Date Posted: 14 April 2018 at 6:55pm
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. |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 15 April 2018 at 10:05am
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. |
Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 16 April 2018 at 12:52am
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. |
Posted By: asep garut
Date 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. |
Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 23 April 2018 at 12:42am
Hello
Asep Garut thank you for your reply. Your
quotes from the Quran are interesting but I am not sure why you are quoting them
as I do not believe in the Quran. If you compare the modern Quran with the
oldest manuscript you can see it is not accurate. Also
I must correct you. In the New Testament / Injel it is clear that Jesus message
was first for the Jews and after that it was for all of mankind. In Mathew
28.19 he said - “Therefore
go and make disciples of all nations” What
proof do you have the Jews changed Gods message? Can you prove it ? and why
should I trust Allah id he cannot be trusted to preserve his message by
allowing Jews to change the message ? |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 24 April 2018 at 3:15am
Thank you for your courteous reply. You write: ‘Let's examine the trinity which says that the one God exists in three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Council of Basel (1431-45 A.D.) decreed: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; one in essence, three in persons……………… These three persons are one God not three gods, because there is one substance of the three, one essence, one nature, one Godhead, one immensity, one eternity……. Therefore it condemns, reproves, anathematizes and declares to be outside the body of Christ, which is the church, whoever holds opposing or contrary views. Hence it condemns Sabellius, who confused the persons and altogether removed their real distinction. It condemns the Arians, the Eunomians and the Macedonians who say that only the Father is true God and place the Son and the holy Spirit in the order of creatures. It also condemns any others who make degrees or inequalities in the Trinity.’ (Session 114). The Church teaches that within the Godhead the Father is entirely within the Son and entirely within the Holy Spirit; that the Son is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Holy Spirit; and that the Holy Spirit is entirely within the Father and entirely within the Son. In other words, the three Persons form a single unity, indivisible and permanent. They are not three persons standing side by side, so to speak. The Church teaches that God does not have a body. He is spirit: ‘Every corporeal thing, being extended, is compound and has parts. But God is not compound: therefore He is not anything corporeal. With this demonstrated truth divine authority also agrees. For it is said: God is a spirit (John 4:24): To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, only God (1 Tim. 1:17): The invisible things of God are understood and discerned by the things that are made (Rom. 1:29).’ (St Thomas Aquinas: Summa Contra Gentiles - Chapter 20). And here we have a problem, for the Church also teaches – as you know – that the Second Person of the Trinity became flesh; that is, became the very body of Christ. It also teaches that this ‘incarnation’ is for all eternity. If this is true, then the following declarations of Basle can only be false: That the ‘Father, Son and Holy Spirit (are) one in essence…one of substance’. How can they be, if one of the three is forever incarnate as a human body? That the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ‘one immensity’. How can they be if one of the three is finite (no one is suggesting that Yeshua’s body is infinite). And what do we make of this particular teaching: (That) God is not compound: therefore He is not anything corporeal.’? If God is not anything corporeal, then the incarnation did not take place. If the incarnation took place – and is forever – then God is a compound. Mike Robinson (a Christian apologist) writes: ‘Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God has two natures found in one person……The Bible reveals the dual nature of Christ and humanity’s salvation demands that be the case. It’s a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption. Jesus, in the incarnation, did not lose His divinity. He did not lose His authority or His deity. He voluntarily came to the earth as a human baby to live perfectly as He fulfilled the Law…..He took on our humanity in order to die in our place….’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’). Consider ‘Doctrine A’: Christ has two natures….one human…one divine. It is quite clear that you and Mike are in agreement with this. And here’s ‘Doctrine B’: Christ is ‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin…’(Council of Basel: Session 13). The 4th Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council taught that man consists of two essential parts - a material body and a spiritual soul (Denzinger 428, 1783). In short, man has but one nature (I know of no Christian doctrine that teaches otherwise). A moment’s thought will reveal that ‘Doctrine A’ and ‘Doctrine B’ are mutually exclusive; by which I mean that if one is true then the other can’t be. If Christ has two natures (one human and one divine) then he cannot possibly be ‘like us in ALL RESPECTS (except for sin)’. If, on the other hand, he - like the rest of humanity - has only one nature, then he cannot possibly be God. Trinitarians simply cannot have it all ways. Robinson tells us that the incarnation is: ‘…..a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption.’ My one comment is that the doctrine of the incarnation makes absolutely no sense at all; no matter how many ways (selected or not) one looks at it. Robinson quotes J.I. Packer: ‘The divine Son became a Jew; the Almighty appeared on earth as a helpless human baby, unable to do more than lie and stare and wriggle and make noises, needed to be fed and changed and taught to talk like any other child... The more you think about it, the more staggering it gets.’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’). Staggering indeed (but not in the way that Packer means!). Perhaps it is time to move on. You write: ‘Jesus is still both God and man, divine and human, at the same time.’ Please explain how this is possible. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 24 April 2018 at 10:55pm
We worship one God no more no less, Jesus’ words also show an awareness of Israel’s place in God’s plan of salvation. God revealed through Moses that the children of Israel were “a holy people to the LORD . . . chosen . . . a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deut%207.6" rel="nofollow - Deuteronomy 7:6 ). It was through the Jews that God issued His Law, preserved His Word, and sent His Son. This is why, elsewhere, Jesus tells a Samaritan that “salvation is of the Jews” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%204.22" rel="nofollow - John 4:22 ). In https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matt%2015" rel="nofollow - Matthew 15 , when the Jewish Messiah says that He was sent to “the house of Israel,” He is simply connecting His presence with God’s purpose in Old Testament history. Christ was “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%204.4-5" rel="nofollow - Galatians 4:4-5 ).
|
Posted By: asep garut
Date Posted: 25 April 2018 at 6:30pm
|
Hi 2Acts, thank you for your reply. You said: “Your quotes from the Quran are interesting but I am not sure why you are quoting them as I do not believe in the Quran.” Islamic teachings do not force people to become Muslims as in His word: “There is no compulsion in religion. Verily, the Right Path has become distinct from the wrong path.” (2:256) Therefore, anyone who does not believe in the Qur'an, will not be forced to believe. “..Say: “Are those who know equal to those who know not ?” It is only men of understanding who will remember (i.e. get a lesson from Allah’s verses) – (39:9) You said: “If you compare the modern Quran with the oldest manuscript you can see it is not accurate.” The differences between the modern Quran and the oldest manuscript are only in the provision of a reading sign only, while the composition of the letters, verses and surah are the same. It is made to make it easier for people to read it, whether it is read "Kasrah", "Fathah", or "Dhamah", etc. And if we have already known about the ordinance of writing and reading, it will know the purpose of every verse in the Qur'an. You said: “What proof do you have the Jews changed Gods message? Can you prove it ? and why should I trust Allah id he cannot be trusted to preserve his message by allowing Jews to change the message ? “
With the existence of two statements in the Bible, as below: 1. "Jesus answered," I am sent only to the lost sheep of the people of Israel. " (Mathew 15:24) 2. “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Mathew 28:19)
Doesn't that already show any difference?
While in the Qur'an there is a statement of God as follows: “Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will believe in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Torah), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it ?“ (2:75)
And God is strongly opposed to those who make a lie to Allah by His word: “Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and they say, “This is from Allah,” to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.” (2:79) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 25 April 2018 at 11:47pm
|
In https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jer%2050.6" rel="nofollow - Jeremiah 50:6 , God calls Israel His people and “lost sheep.” The Messiah, spoken of throughout the Old Testament, was seen as the one who would gather these “lost sheep” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ezek%2034.23-24" rel="nofollow - Ezekiel 34:23-24 ; https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Micah%205.4-5" rel="nofollow - Micah 5:4-5 ). When Jesus presented Himself as a shepherd to Israel, He was claiming to be the fulfillment of Messianic prophecy ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%206.34" rel="nofollow - Mark 6:34 , https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Mark%2014.27" rel="nofollow - 14:27 ; https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2010.11-16" rel="nofollow - John 10:11-16 ; see also https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb%2013.20" rel="nofollow - Hebrews 13:20 ; https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Pet%205.4" rel="nofollow - 1 Peter 5:4 ; and https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Rev%207.17" rel="nofollow - Revelation 7:17 ). Jesus’ words show an awareness of Israel’s place in God’s plan of salvation. God revealed through Moses that the children of Israel were “a holy people to the LORD . . . chosen . . . a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Deut%207.6" rel="nofollow - Deuteronomy 7:6 ). It was through the Jews that God issued His Law, preserved His Word, and sent His Son. This is why, elsewhere, Jesus tells a Samaritan that “salvation is of the Jews” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%204.22" rel="nofollow - John 4:22 ). In https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matt%2015" rel="nofollow - Matthew 15 , when the Jewish Messiah says that He was sent to “the house of Israel,” He is simply connecting His presence with God’s purpose in Old Testament history. Christ was “born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%204.4-5" rel="nofollow - Galatians 4:4-5 ). |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 25 April 2018 at 11:50pm
Again I don't see how the councils are contradictory, esus Christ, took on a human nature, yet remained fully God at the same time. Jesus always had been God ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.58" rel="nofollow - John 8:58 , https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2010.30" rel="nofollow - 10:30 ), but at the incarnation Jesus became a human being ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.14" rel="nofollow - John 1:14 ). The addition of the human nature to the divine nature is Jesus, the God-man. This is the hypostatic union, Jesus Christ, one Person, fully God and fully man.
Jesus' two natures, human and divine, are inseparable. Jesus will forever be the God-man, fully God and fully human, two distinct natures in one Person. Jesus' humanity and divinity are not mixed, but are united without loss of separate identity. Jesus sometimes operated with the limitations of humanity ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%204.6" rel="nofollow - John 4:6 , https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2019.28" rel="nofollow - 19:28 ) and other times in the power of His deity ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2011.43" rel="nofollow - John 11:43 ; https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matt%2014.18-21" rel="nofollow - Matthew 14:18-21 ). In both, Jesus' actions were from His one Person. Jesus had two natures, but only one personality. The doctrine of the hypostatic union is 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 ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%201.35" rel="nofollow - Luke 1:35 ). But that does not mean Jesus did not exist before He was conceived. Jesus has always existed ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.58" rel="nofollow - John 8:58 , https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2010.30" rel="nofollow - 10:30 ). When Jesus was conceived, He became a human being in addition to being God ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.1" rel="nofollow - John 1:1 , https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.14" rel="nofollow - 14 ). Jesus is both God and man. Jesus has always been God, but He did not become a human being until He was conceived in Mary. Jesus became a human being in order to identify with us in our struggles ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb%202.17" rel="nofollow - Hebrews 2:17 ) and, more importantly, so that He could die on the cross to pay the penalty for our sins ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Phil%202.5-11" rel="nofollow - Philippians 2:5-11 ). In summary, the hypostatic union teaches that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine, that there is no mixture or dilution of either nature, and that He is one united Person, forever. The Triune God of the Bible has existed and reigned from all eternity, and the second Person of the https://www.gotquestions.org/Trinity-Bible.html" rel="nofollow - Trinity , the Son, took on human flesh at a particular point in time ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%201.35" rel="nofollow - Luke 1:35 ; https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb%201.5" rel="nofollow - Hebrews 1:5 ). God the Son added a sinless human nature to His eternally existent divine nature. The result was the Incarnation. God the Son became a man ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.1" rel="nofollow - John 1:1 , https://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.14" rel="nofollow - 14 ). https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Heb%202.17" rel="nofollow - Hebrews 2:17 gives the reason that Jesus had to be both God and man: “He had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people.” The Son of God took on human flesh to provide redemption to those under the law ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Gal%204.4%E2%80%935" rel="nofollow - Galatians 4:4–5 ). At no time did Jesus ever cease to be God. Although He was made fully human, there was never a point when He abrogated His divine nature (see https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%206.5" rel="nofollow - Luke 6:5 , https://biblia.com/bible/esv/Luke%206.8" rel="nofollow - 8 ). It is equally true that, after becoming incarnate, the Son has never ceased to be human. As the apostle Paul wrote, “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” ( https://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Tim%202.5" rel="nofollow - 1 Timothy 2:5 , emphasis added). Jesus is not half-human and half-divine. Rather, He is Theanthropos, the God-man. The Lord Jesus Christ is one eternally divine Person who will forever possess two https://www.gotquestions.org/hypostatic-union.html" rel="nofollow - distinct yet inseparable natures : one divine and one human. |
Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 26 April 2018 at 12:16am
Hello Asep Garut Thankyou for your
reply. The oldest Quran found in Sanaa Yemen in the 1970s showed that the
differences were a lot more thn just reading differences. Also Uthman destroyed
all the original copies because of differences. Regarding Jesus saying, “I am sent only to the lost sheep of the people of Israel. " (Mathew 15:24) and “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations” (Mathew 28:19) this is not a contradiction if you read them in context. |
Posted By: asep garut
Date Posted: 07 May 2018 at 4:41pm
Hi 2Acts, I would not be surprised if anyone says that has been found the oldest Qur'an etc. because at the time of the Prophet Muhammad also there was a claiming a Prophet for example a man named Abhalah bin Ka'ab bin Ghauts Al Kadzdzab alias Al Aswadi Al Ansi, he came from Yemen, he claimed to be a prophet and spoke in the name of God, he has made the word - false words, and finally the false words vanished from the surface of the earth (61: 8) I have faith that the original Qur'an will be preserved because God Himself speaks in His word (15: 9), while the false Qur'an will disappear from the earth's surface (17:81) I chose the Qur'an to be believed because the original revelation language still exists that is Arabic, for example every Qur'an is always written in two languages ie Arabic and translation into each country's language. And for me, thing that can determine that the Qur'an is original or fake is by checking each composition of the original revelation of the letters. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 12:27am
Sorry for the delayed reply. The question is: How can Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) be both ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’ at one and the same time? Help me out with a little experiment: Make a fist with your right hand. Now open that same hand as wide as you can. Repeat this process half a dozen times; and see if you can identify the principal ingredient that makes this process possible. The principal ingredient is time. The process can happen only because each action occupies its own niche in time. Sticking with your right hand, try making a fist and an open palm at the same time. Can’t be done. Welcome to the ‘law of non-contradiction’. This law states that a thing cannot be ‘A’ (in this case your fist) and ‘not-A’ (in this case your open palm) at one and the same time. James N. Anderson and Greg Welty write: ‘(But) what exactly is the Law of Non-Contradiction about? What is its subject matter? The simple answer here is that the Law of Non-Contradiction is a truth about truths. Specifically, it is the truth that no truth whatsoever can also be a falsehood….Anyone who insists that the Law of Non-Contradiction applies to truths about cars but not to truths about cats would rightly be considered confused. ‘In the standard terminology of possible worlds, we are observing here that the Law of Non-Contradiction is true not only in the actual world but also in every possible world. There is no possible world in which that logical law is false (or fails to be true in any other way). ‘The notion of non-contradiction lies at the core of our understanding of possibility.’ (‘The Lord of Non-Contradiction: An Argument for God from Logic). The Persian philosopher, Avicenna, said: ‘Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned.’ (Metaphysics, I.8; commenting on Aristotle). How can Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) be both ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’ at one and the same time? He can’t. And here’s why: If we define ‘man’ as a member of the species homo-sapiens, with various physical and mental limitations, then we distinguish ‘man’ from ‘God’. If Yeshua is ‘wholly man’ then he cannot possibly be wholly not-man (God, after all is not man) at one and the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we insist that he is indeed both ‘man’ and ‘God’ – and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms – then we make him a logical contradiction. The thing about logical contradictions is that they are never true. They are always false, because the real world never satisfies both a statement and its negation at the same time, simply by the meaning of negation. To believe in a logical contradiction is to believe a lie. By now you may be thinking: ‘but (surely) with God all things are possible!’ (Matthew 19:26). What you should really be thinking is: ‘All things that are possible are possible with God.’ This is quite a different matter. C.S. Lewis writes: ‘(God’s) Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God. ‘Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can."… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.’ (The Problem of Pain). Read these words again, and very closely: ‘It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; NOT BECAUSE HIS POWER MEETS AN OBSTACLE, BUT BECAUSE NONSENSE REMAINS NONSENSE EVEN WHEN WE TALK IT ABOUT GOD.’ When Lewis says that God cannot ‘carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives’ he is referring to the law of non-contradiction. He is saying that God cannot do what is logically impossible; and in this he is supported by St Thomas Aquinas, who writes that God cannot create a man who is, at the same time, a donkey; for in the statement that a man is a donkey ‘the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject.’ (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3). Ludwig Ott writes: ‘To God's Infinite Reality of Being there corresponds an (intensively) Infinite Power. This extends over the whole sphere of real and possible being (extensively infinite). As God's power is identical with God's Essence, it cannot imply anything which contradicts the Essence and the Attributes of God. Thus God CANNOT CHANGE, cannot lie, can make nothing that has happened not to have happened (contrary to the teaching of St. Peter Damian), CANNOT REALISE anything which is contradictory in itself 2 Tim. 2, 13: He cannot deny himself.’ (‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’; page 47 - emphasis is mine). Note: God cannot realise (i.e. bring into being) that which is contradictory in itself; for example, a man who is, at the same time, a donkey; or a man who is, at the same time, God. Aquinas writes: ‘Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.’ (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3). This means that there are certain ‘intrinsically impossible’ things that even an omnipotent God cannot do. He cannot be finite and at the same time infinite; absolutely immutable and at the same time changeable; omnipotent and at the same time powerless. To believe in a logical contradiction is to believe a lie. The puzzle is: why do Trinitarians do just that…why do they (do you) not see that doctrines associated with the ‘incarnation’ contain contradictions: God is pure spirit; is not a compound; is not anything corporeal……against: Through the act of incarnation God became - and remains - corporeal; a compound of spirit and flesh. God is immutable……against: God became a man. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are ‘one immensity’…….against: One of the three is finite. Yeshua is fully God; against….Yeshua is fully man. Yeshua is a man like us in every respect……against….Yeshua has two natures, in one divine person. Why do Trinitarians accept such nonsense? The answer lies in George Orwell’s concept of ‘doublethink’: ‘(Doublethink is) the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies…. and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’ (‘Nineteen Eighty-Four; part 2, chapter 9, page 220). The doctrine of the incarnation is a lie that owes its very existence to ‘doublethink’. No matter how hard the Trinitarians push it; no matter how often they repeat it; a lie remains a lie. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 4:20am
|
Niblo, No one can understand God or the ways of God, and there is nothing God cannot do. I believe this is accepted in Islam as well as Christianity. Human arguments simply will not stand. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 5:28am
Hello David. Consider this verse: ‘It is Allāh who created seven heavens and a similar (number) of earths. His command descends throughout them. So you should realize that He has power over all things and that His knowledge encompasses everything.’ (Al-Talaq) What follows is taken (verbatim) from the site ‘Islam Question and Answer’ - as part of a response to Question 87677: “An atheist saying “Can Allaah create a god like Himself?”. It is worth mentioning that this site represents the ‘puritan’ wing of Islam. Its folk are by no means wishy-washy ‘moderates’ like me! Here you are: ‘That which is impossible does not exist, because it cannot exist, so it is nothing, even if the mind can imagine it. It is known that the mind can assume and imagine the impossible, the mind can imagine two opposites, such as something existing and not existing, at the same time. ‘The verse states that Allaah has power over “things” but that does not include things that are inherently impossible, because they are not things, rather they do not exist and they cannot be brought into existence. ‘Hence more than one of the scholars have stated that the power of Allaah has to do with that which is possible, for the reason that we have mentioned, which is that that which is non-existent and impossible is not a “thing”. ‘Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: As for Ahl al-Sunnah, in their view Allaah, may He be exalted, has power over all things, and everything that is possible is included in that. As for that which is inherently impossible, such as a thing both existing and being non-existent, there is no reality in it and its existence cannot be imagined, so it cannot be called a “thing” according to the consensus of the wise. This includes the idea of creating another like Himself, and so on. End quote from Manhaaj al-Sunnah (2/294). ‘Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in Shifa’ al-‘Aleel (p. 374): Because that which is impossible is not a “thing”, so His Power has nothing to do with it. Allaah has power over all things and no possible thing is beyond His power. End quote. ‘And Allaah knows best.’ Very best regards. PS: If 'Human arguments simply will not stand' they why are you here...arguing?  ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 18 May 2018 at 6:59am
| That is simply a misunderstanding and misapplication of the Principle of Non-Contradiction. The Principle states that nothing can both be and not be at the same time in the same respect. The Hypostatic Union in no way violates this because the Hypostatic Union describes the reality that Christ has two natures (Human and Divine) united in one personhood. If we were to say that Christ’s human nature was His Divine nature or his divine nature was His human nature then that would run afoul of non-contradiction. But we don’t say that. Since there are two natures there is no contradiction. Christ is indeed God by virtue of possessing a Divine Nature and He is man by virtue of possessing a human nature. Thus when we say of Christ “that is a man” and we say of Christ “that is a Divine Being” we are not violating the principle of non-contradiction because He is not both man and divine in the same respect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 2:27am
|
If you want to use a science fiction metaphore you could use the idea of a familure or avatar where, say in an Ian M Banks book (Very good reads all of them), a hyper inteligent computer, normally a ship, will often have a human biological bit of it freely wandering around as a human. Fully human but the brain inside is inhabited by the mind of the computer. The ship's remote wroker drones it uses to repair stuff around and about are the same sort of thing but they are mechanical. The ship's human avitar is, in this science fiction setting, both fully human and fully a machine intelligence. |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 9:49pm
|
Hello Niblo. As I said, I believe we agree which is hardly an argument. The Christian answer to "Can God create another god like himself?" is no, because God was not created. It is a nonsensical question. It is like asking, "Can God create a circle with three sides and three angles?" ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 11:43pm
Of course there’s a contradiction. You are assuming that the incarnation is true in order to prove that it’s true. You are assuming that Christ has two natures in order to prove that he has two natures. You are assuming that Christ is a ‘Divine Being’ in order to prove that he is a divine being. In every case your premises assume the truth of your conclusions. This is circular reasoning; a logical fallacy in itself. Would you argue that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is both wholly man and wholly donkey (see my reference to Aquinas)? Of course not. Then why would you think that he is both ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’? The second statement is just as ludicrous as the first; just as much a contradiction; and just as impossible. Ponder this: ‘Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.’ (Aquinas: Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3). Very best regards. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 11:45pm
Hi Tim. A 'hyper intelligent computer', having a 'human biological bit of it freely wandering around as a human' is a compound. Machine plus a bit of human. The avatar is a human with a brain that is inhabited by the 'mind of the computer' Therefore the avatar is also a compound. As you describe it, this avatar is not ‘fully a machine’ at all...only a certain function of its brain, its machine intelligence, can claim that distinction. We have to assume, since the avatar is human, that those parts of its brain that control its bodily functions are as human as yours and mine. I’ve not read Ian Banks; but am happy to accept that he does a good job. As you say, his books are works of fiction; exactly the same genre as the doctrine of the incarnation, some might say! I wish him every success. Very best regards. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 19 May 2018 at 11:53pm
Hi David You wrote this: ‘There is nothing God cannot do. I believe this is accepted in Islam as well as Christianity.’ The article I quoted included these words: ‘That which is impossible does not exist, because it cannot exist, so it is nothing, even if the mind can imagine it. It is known that the mind can assume and imagine the impossible, the mind can imagine two opposites, such as something existing and not existing, at the same time. ‘The verse states that Allaah has power over “things” but that does not include things that are inherently impossible, because they are not things, rather they do not exist and they cannot be brought into existence. ‘Hence more than one of the scholars have stated that the power of Allaah has to do with that which is possible, for the reason that we have mentioned, which is that that which is non-existent and impossible is not a “thing”. I wished only to demonstrate that your statement ‘I believe this is accepted in Islam as well as Christianity.’ is incorrect. We certainly are in agreement (you and I) when we say that God cannot do the inherently impossible, such as creating ‘a circle with three sides and three angles.’ Very best regards. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 21 May 2018 at 1:31pm
Indeed, you bring up a very important point here. I once tried to "help the Christian view" by comparing the Trinity concept with the 2-dimensional projection of a body which -in the case of a cone for instance- can lead to a circle or a triangle, depending on the observer. So the same object can have two "contradicting" appearances albeit in a lower dimension. Well, it didn't go down well at the time... To the point: I think the concept of an eternal, omnipotent and omniscient being leads in itself to unsolvable conflicts. My thoughts on this one go like this: A) An omniscient being must (by definition) know everything, including the past, and future and everything about itself. B) Therefore this being can not change his mind nor take any decision since these alterations are consequences of new insight, thus something the being could/did not know before. This is obviously in conflict with A) C) Therefore this being must be fully static for eternity. Some people call [an entity in] this state simply "dead". Airmano
------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 21 May 2018 at 1:47pm
@DavidC
If I see your point correctly you argue that logic exists outside the realm of God. It was thus not created [by him] nor can it be overruled by God either. Do I interpret you correctly ? Airmano ------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 24 May 2018 at 6:04am
|
Not exactly but true in part. I do not know if God created logic, but I suspect it is part of the 3D world he created. Aristotle, who defined human logic, states logic is only applicable to physical things. God, angels, djinn and other elohim are not subject to logic as they are not physical. Neither is anything in the emotional realm. God is not constrained by time, but does appear to function sequentially. Reason, not logic, is useful in approaching God. Logic is rarely applicable. We can infer, but we cannot deduce because we cannot define the limits of God. The classic error in amateur intellectualism is a failure to adequately examine the basis of axioms and postulates before building upon them. Aquinas did the early Christian theological work on the logic of God using apophatic logic, but truly this was more a pragmatic way of defining where logic and reason are not useful in theology, Aquinas is dogmatic in this area and not doctrinal. Al Ghazzali wrote extensively on this topic from an Islamic perspective in 'A Niche for Light' and 'The Incoherence of the Philosophers'. These are essential reading which demonstrate Islam is a sound theology and not a superstition. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 24 May 2018 at 5:43pm
|
What do people think Jesus was saying in John 10. 34-36 where he said - “Is it not written in
your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ … what about
the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why
then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?” |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 25 May 2018 at 3:22am
He has had great success. But has also died. Disappointingly. My point is that to try to explain the situation of a human, to all appearances, being part of a hyperintelligent machine with powers so advanced that it is, compaired to humans, all powerful, able to reshape mountains at will etc, would be very complex today and impossible for to translate 1500 years ago.
|
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 1:04am
We are agreed that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) exists. Using one religious teaching, and ignoring all others, you argue that since He is omniscient, and therefore (by your reckoning) incapable of changing His mind, or taking any decisions, he must be ‘static’. Omniscience means, of course, the power to know all things; past, present, and future. The Beloved did not gain knowledge by study, trial and error as we do; having to decide along the way what is true and what is not; having to change His mind in order to accommodate new information, and by that process make new decisions. The Beloved’s knowledge is one with His Nature; and this nature is eternal (defined as a duration without beginning and without end, without sooner and later, a permanent ‘Now’). Knowledge does not preclude action. If it did then I, knowing how to type, would be incapable of so doing. Clearly, I am capable. The Beloved’s absolute knowledge (omniscience) does not prevent Him from acting either. I will argue (using some of the teachings that you ignore) that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) had a plan for the whole of creation even before it existed; and since He knew exactly how that plan would unfold - and since there is no power capable of causing Him to deviate from that plan to even the slightest degree - He had no cause to change His mind. He had only to say ‘Be’ to begin the process of putting His plan into effect. The only matter to be decided is this: Is He indeed active? The Catholic Church teaches that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) continually preserves the existence all created things. The First Vatican Council declared: ‘God, by His Providence, protects all that He has created’, which is to say that He preserves it from relapsing into nothingness: ‘If His Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning they would fall back into nothingness immediately.’ (Denzinger 1784). In the Qur’an we read: ‘Allāh: there is no god but Him, the Ever Living, the Ever Watchful. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. All that is in the heavens and in the earth belongs to Him. Who is there that can intercede with Him except by His leave? He knows what is before them and what is behind them, but they do not comprehend any of His knowledge except what He wills. His throne extends over the heavens and the earth; it does not weary Him to preserve them both. He is the Most High, the Tremendous.’ (Al-Baqara: 255). Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) promises this: ‘(Prophet), if My servants ask you about Me, I am near. I respond to those who call Me, so let them respond to Me, and believe in Me, so that they may be guided.’ (Al-Baqara: 186). Those who are conscious of the Beloved’s constant presence turn to Him for support and help whenever this is needed (daily!); fully assured that He hears whenever they call. They acknowledge, with gratitude and praise, the innumerable gifts they receive from their Lord; whether or not these have come in answer to a supplication. Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) acknowledges any good that a we do: ‘Anyone who does good of his own accord will be rewarded, for Allāh rewards good deeds, and knows every-thing.’ (Al-Baqara 158); and again: ‘If anyone does good, We shall increase it for him; Allāh is most forgiving and most appreciative.’ (Al-Shura 23). It is a source of immeasurable wonder that the Beloved - Master of the Universe - should say to every person: ‘Remember Me; I will remember you.’ (Al-Baqara: 152). Does this sound like a ‘static’ Being to you? ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 2:29am
| Yes it is ludicrous to state that he is both wholly man and wholly donkey in the same respect, Jesus Christ is not both God and man in the same respect. We’re not saying his human nature is his divine nature or his divine nature was his human nature, that’s the only time when you could say we’re violating the law of non contradiction. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 3:37am
I accept that without reservation. To say that he is wholly a man, and not God would be fine. No contradiction there. To say that he is wholly God, and not a man would also be fine. No contradiction there either. But to say that he is both man and God at one and the same time (and this is what both you and the Church are claiming, after all) is very much a contradiction. As much a contradiction as saying that he can be both a man and a donkey; a man and a tree; a man and a rock, and so on. I fully understand why you can't see this. Aquinas, who argued that a human being cannot be both a man and a donkey, couldn't see it either. He was, of course, a Trinitarian. C.S. Lewis - who argued for the law of non-contradiction - was equally blind to this law when applied to the incarnation. He was also a Trinitarian. All Trinitarians believe as you do...I also once believed as you do. The real mystery is how on earth we did so, even while applying the law of non-contradiction to other things; to reality in general. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 3:58am
| It seems to me that the main mistake of your argument is the lack of distinction between person and nature. A person is not his nature - a person possesses a nature. Jesus is fully God because He possesses entirely the divine nature; He is fully man because He assumed, and now possesses entirely, human nature. It is important to note that hypostatic union does not imply that Christ is only God, and also only man. It implies that Christ is fully God and also fully man. There is a huge distinction, neither nature is the other, they are both united, but not swapped or confused, or congealed into some third nature. Both retain their characteristics intact they aren’t each other neither do they combine to form another nature, they are two separate natures therefore this doesn’t violate the law of non contradiction. |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 6:08am
This answer presumes that God has some of the limitations of created things. It is an argument of the atheist. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 8:19am
I think I understand what you are saying - science fiction is not my thing - but the analogy doesn’t hold. When talking about God we are trying to define – to explain – a Being who is nothing like us at all; who is nothing like anything we know, or can imagine. Because of this, some have said that the best response to the question: ‘What is God’ is silence. A Catholic priest once told me that should we ever come to a true understanding of what God is – should the reality of His nature hit us – we would ‘fall on our faces and never get up again’. However, the various doctrines that claim to convey the truths about God (including the ‘incarnation’) are clear enough. Most certainly they are open to investigation; and that is what I have done. I have stated only what the Church teaches (in this matter) and have done so with citations, so that folk can check stuff out for themselves. The Church is not saying that God (the hyper intelligent machine in your analogy) has a part of Him that is a man. No. It teaches (as you will know) that He is pure infinite spirit, having no corporeal elements is His whatsoever in His essence. Above all, the Church insists - correctly - that God is not a man. Absolutely not! The Church also teaches (as you know) that man was created by God; that man is most certainly not God. If man is not God, and God is not man, then how can anyone be both a man and God at one and the same time? How can God be both God and a man at one and the same time? Both are logical contradictions (assuming that we preserve the integrity of the definitions of these terms); and therefore intrinsically impossible. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 8:21am
You insist that my argument is that of the atheist. It is not. An atheist would simply deny that there is a God - any god - to argue about. You I presume that: 'God has some of the limitations of created things.’ No. I am simply agreeing with C.S Lewis (a Trinitarian) who writes: ‘(God’s) Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God.’ (The Problem of Pain). And with St Thomas Aquinas (another Trinitarian) who wrote: ‘Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.’ (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3). And with Ludwig Ott (yet another Trinitarian) who writes: ‘To God's Infinite Reality of Being there corresponds an (intensively) Infinite Power. This extends over the whole sphere of real and possible being (extensively infinite). As God's power is identical with God's Essence, it cannot imply anything which contradicts the Essence and the Attributes of God. Thus God CANNOT CHANGE, cannot lie, can make nothing that has happened not to have happened (contrary to the teaching of St. Peter Damian), CANNOT REALISE anything which is contradictory in itself 2 Tim. 2, 13: He cannot deny himself.’ (‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’; page 47 - emphasis is mine). The message is simple: God cannot realise (i.e. bring into being) that which is contradictory in itself. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 8:49am
1, I don't really take much notice of what the church teaches in its' finer points of doctrine. Never seen the point, like praying to your cat. 2, My point about the hyper intelligent and powerful beyond any power humanity has at the moment is that it is very difficult to explain to you how a human can be an avatar of a space ship and human in every way except for the link/spirit of a hyper intelligent computer in them. That this state could be a very similar state to that of an all powerful, or at least vastly powerful beyond our ability to imagine, God thingy having an aspect of its' self being a man. If it was that God was in this situation how would he explain it in human terms 2,000 years ago? Would that end up with what we have? Not that I beleive any of it. Just sayin'.
|
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 9:39am
|
This are the Trinitarian axioms: The Father is not the Son. The Son is not the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Father. The Father is God. The Son is God. The Holy Spirit is God. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 11:53am
Indeed. But we are not talking about the trinity per se. We are talking about the contradiction that is the 'incarnation'. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 12:26pm
| Actually what Thomas Aquinas says is that you cannot say something is only man and only a donkey at the same time. The doctrine of hypostatic Union doesn’t say Jesus is only God and only man at the same time and in the same respect, since they are two natures there is no contradiction. |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 1:00pm
|
The incarnation is a mystery. Your argument denies the divinity of God by forcing God to conform to the rules of created physical things. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 1:11pm
Read again my post timed at 8.21am today. Are you saying that the Christians I quoted are denying the divinity of God? By the way..I certainly do not deny His divinity. What I most certainly deny is the notion that it is ok to attribute nonsense to Him. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 27 May 2018 at 2:30pm
|
God does whatever he wills. Truly, it is that simple. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 28 May 2018 at 1:50pm
|
@Niblo Thanks for https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=42420&PID=216518&title=open-for-debate#216518" rel="nofollow - your reply , so far the best I ever got from the Muslim side on this subject. Usually I only get a series of unrelated Quran citations (well, you couldn't quite resist either). Let's work it through point by point: A) "We are agreed that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) exists." Actually no, I just did a thought experiment, but in this special case this is irrelevant. B) "Using one religious teaching, and ignoring all others, you argue that since He is omniscient, and therefore (by your reckoning) incapable of changing His mind, or taking any decisions, he must be ‘static’". By and large correct although I do not understand what you mean by "Using one religious teaching and ignoring all others". My reasoning applies equally to Christianity for example. Again I do not think that this is important here. C) "Knowledge does not preclude action. If it did then I, knowing how to type, would be incapable of so doing. Clearly, I am capable. The Beloved’s absolute knowledge (omniscience) does not prevent Him from acting either." I feel 'C)' as being your core statement (please correct me if I'm wrong) and I admit that I had to think a little bit about it. Here comes my answer: I think you'd agree that within your logic God must have always known that at a given 'moment' (whatever this means in the absence of time) he would create the Universe. I think you'd also agree that he could never have taken this decision [actively] because this would imply a change in his state of mind (because if he took this decision he did not know [for sure] beforehand that he would create the universe - which would be in open conflict with "all-knowledgeable). The Universe exists however. This could mean that the rules which allowed the Universe to come into existence have always coexisted with God (He may well have known about them all the 'time' but what is his job in this case ?) or that God did indeed change his mind but in this case he is not all-knowing. Another option (and it seems this is the one you are favoring) would be that God executes this (you'd call it 'his') immutable eternal plan. However, this reduces him onto a level of a (deterministic) machine or call it a robot - which is not much better than 'dead'. Equally I can not see the advantage of this construction - compared to the thought that eternal laws of nature brought our universe into existence. D) I jump the Quran surahs because as far as I can see they do not bring any additional insight. What are your thoughts about this ? Airmano
------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 30 May 2018 at 12:05pm
Hi Airmano. Among the Muslims it is considered very bad practice to make a statement about Islam, or its teachings, without citing one’s sources. This is the way I was educated as a Christian, by the way; and this is how I intend to continue. The only way to avoid citations from yours truly is not to ask yours truly any questions! I know you’re an atheist (I’ve read enough of your posts). However, when you argue that God is ‘static’ you are acknowledging – albeit only for debating purposes – that He exists. That is why I said (tongue firmly in cheek) that we are agreed on this. Relax. My reference to your taking just one religious teaching, while ignoring all others, was a caution against ripping a particular doctrine (that of God’s omniscience, in our case) out of its context; and then using it as the sole basis for an argument. ‘Cherry picking’ leaves us vulnerable to accusations of intellectual laziness or dishonesty. Who knows, in extreme circumstances, a fella might be accused of living under a bridge in Norway. Avoiding such behaviour is extremely important if we desire to be taken seriously. Yes, I do agree that God must ‘always have known that He would create the Universe in due course.’ I disagree with your claim that since God is omniscient He cannot change His mind (and is therefore ‘static’). As far as I’m concerned, being omniscient means He doesn’t need to change His mind. This is quite a different matter. I don’t agree that God was in any way inhibited from implementing His plan of creation. Nor do I accept that moving from the planning stage (if I may call it that) to the implementation stage involved a ‘change in his state of mind’. Deciding NOT to create the universe - after having decided to do just that - would have involved a change of mind. You refer to ‘rules which allowed the Universe to come into existence’; and state that these might have ‘always coexisted with God.’ I opine that the so-called ‘rules of nature’ did not allow (or cause) the Universe to come into existence; rather, they are contingent upon its existence. In short, without nature there can be no ‘rules’ of nature. If we accept that nature is not eternal then we must accept that these rules are not eternal. You claim that God – by executing His ‘immutable eternal plan’ – has reduced Himself to the ‘level of a robot.’ How so? Finally, you write: ‘I jump the Quran surahs because as far as I can see they do not bring any additional insight.’ You wish to know my thoughts about this. Muhammad Ali once said: ‘The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.’ I insist you read every single word of mine (and every quote). This may not make you any wiser; but it will make you better informed!  Seriously, we should develop the habit of reading as often as we are able; covering as many topics as we are able – no matter how hard it might be to read stuff that stands in direct conflict with our most cherished opinions. Selecting only what agrees with us – or what is easier for us to cope with – is another form of intellectual laziness. It prevents us from growing. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 30 May 2018 at 1:37pm
@Niblo
As I once told Miaw: Quran citations have the same effect on me as holy water may have on you: It only makes me wet. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A statement of the kind "An entirely green plant which is red" doesn't need a masters degree in botany to be identified as contradictory. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bad example in my eyes: He's supposed to know everything in advance, thus also the change or rather "his new" state of mind. Obviously: something new which has been known forever simply can't be [called] new. Got a better one ? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I prefer to keep it short and to concentrate on the core. OK that we discuss the other points in due course ? Thanks for your reply nevertheless, I didn't realize so far that you're a former Christian. Airmano
------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 31 May 2018 at 2:50am
Hello again. Yes, we can concentrate on the core; and discuss other points in due course, God willing. You seem fixated on the notion that putting a decision into effect equates to a change of mind. I have a sentence in mind (‘The cat sat on the mat’) that I now intend to write. Here goes: ‘The cat sat on the mat.’ By definition, a change of mind is a decision to reverse an earlier decision. Had I decided not to write my sentence after all; or to write, instead of that sentence, the words 'On the mat the cat sat’ I would have satisfied this definition. When it comes to God you insist that the expression ‘a change of mind’ be re-defined as: ‘Putting a decision into effect’. What is your justification for this? Your notion that God is a robot can wait! Very best regards. Paul ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 31 May 2018 at 1:27pm
@Niblo
I think there is a misunderstanding. My logic doesn't require any action [so far]. I was only trying to take position with respect to your sentence: "Knowledge does not preclude action. If it did then I, knowing how to type, would be incapable of so doing. Clearly, I am capable. The Beloved’s absolute knowledge (omniscience) does not prevent Him from acting either." Looking at this sentence I felt that your logic was: "How can something which acts be dead ?". This was the/my trigger. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, since we both seem to agree that the "action part" is not relevant at this level, let's go back to your example which goes:
On a human scale the change of mind is often triggered by new knowledge or insight which is -for God- already excluded by the very definition of an omniscient being. Furthermore, for an eternal omniscient being it would have always been clear that it would never write the sentence [or write it 'differently', to stick to your second example] . In this sense the omniscient being would have equally known (forever) that it "would change its mind" and what the new state of mind would be. But does it make sense to use the term "changing mind" when you already know beforehand what you "will think" later ? I don't think so. --------- On top of that: If I asked you "why did you change the sentence" (provided you told me that you did) you'd probably produce an argument which is similar to: "it sounds (or rimes) better" or "it is closer to what I want to express". I.a.W you went through a (felt or real) inner optimization procedure to reach the final result (you may as well discard the sentence entirely because you find it not attractive enough). The problem with this is, in short: A perfect being can't be optimized. (Here I obviously use a different Dogma which is "God is perfect"). So God as you define it must/can not go through the procedure the way you describe it. In more philosophical terms: An altered truth can not be the truth anymore (since there can be only one). [Ultimate] Truth can't be altered, it is static, it is the truth. Airmano
------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 7:15am
Hello again airmano. Mmm..…I fear we are in danger of dancing in circles. However…. I conclude my previous post with a question: ‘By definition, a change of mind is a decision to reverse an earlier decision…. When it comes to God you insist that the expression ‘a change of mind’ be re-defined as: ‘Putting a decision into effect’. What is your justification for this?’ In reply you write that: ‘(An) omniscient being would have…known (forever) that it "would change its mind" and what the new state of mind would be. But does it make sense to use the term "changing mind" when you already know beforehand what you "will think" later?’ I fail to see how this answers my question. Please help me out. Which of these, in your opinion, is the correct definition of a ‘change of mind’ when applied to God: a) ‘A decision to reverse an earlier decision’; or b) ‘Putting a decision into effect’ Thank you. The remainder of your post will be addressed once you’ve responded to my request. I don’t need more than a simple ‘a’ or ‘b’; but feel free to elaborate, if you wish. Very best regards. Paul ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: airmano
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 7:34am
@Niblo
Only A) would be required. But my thought is that he [logically] can't. Airmano
------------- The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses (Albert Einstein 1954, in his "Gods Letter") |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 8:12am
God wills only that which is intrinsically possible. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 9:47am
You write: ‘Actually what Thomas Aquinas says is that you cannot say something is only man and only a donkey at the same time.’ Permit a former Thomist to tell you what Aquinas says: ‘On Whether God Is Omnipotent? ‘It remains therefore, that God is called omnipotent because He can do all things that are possible absolutely; which is the second way of saying a thing is possible. For a thing is said to be possible or impossible absolutely, according to the relation in which the very terms stand to one another, possible if the predicate is not incompatible with the subject, as that Socrates sits; and absolutely impossible when the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject, as, for instance, that a man is a donkey.’ (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3). Message: God cannot create a man who is, at the same time, a donkey. Why not? Because not even God can create what is intrinsically impossible (i.e. that which is a logical contradiction). If a man cannot be both man and donkey; then how can he possibly be both man and God? You write: ‘The doctrine of hypostatic Union doesn’t say Jesus is only God and only man at the same time and in the same respect, since they are two natures there is no contradiction.’ Throughout this reply let ‘man’ be ‘A’ and let ‘God’ be ‘not-A’: The teaching of the Catholic Church (and of most other Trinitarian churches, come to that) is that Yeshua is both a man ‘A’ and God ‘not-A’: St Augustine writes: ‘From the moment in which He began to be a man (‘A’), He is also God (‘not-A’)’ (‘On the Trinity’; Thirteen; 17, 22). Claim: Yeshua is both a man and God (no quibble about their respective natures, just a plain statement). ‘(This Council) 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 (‘not-A’) and true man (‘A’)….’ (Council of Basel: Session 13). Claim: Yeshua is both a man and God (no quibble about their respective natures, just a plain statement). ‘For the right faith is, that we believe and we confess that our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, is God (‘not-A’) and man (‘A’)’ (Athanasian Creed) Claim: Yeshua is both a man and God (no quibble about their respective natures, just a plain statement). These are the words of folk who share your beliefs. They are not my words. According to these folk, Yeshua is both man and God…..both man and God……both man and God; no quibble about their respective natures, just a plain statement of faith. I repeat: If a man cannot be both man and donkey (‘absolutely impossible’, according to Aquinas); then how can he possibly be both man and God? He can’t. Unless you come up with argument not yet discussed in this 'debate' I propose we end it here. It is not the best use of our time to waltz around in circles. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 11:25am
|
So Niblo, you are saying God is of the same substantia as a donkey. One of the class of things created and not the creator? What is next? God cannot coexist within creation? God is limited by time and form? We have God appearing as a cloud over Muhummad. Was God somehow present only in the cloud, or absent outside of it? I think al-Ghazali is correct when he states that the best similitude for God is light. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 11:58am
Please don't be silly. I am saying no such thing. Do try and think (carefully) before you write. Put simply: If a man cannot be a donkey...a created being like himself...how can he possibly be God...the One uncreated Being? ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 1:50pm
|
Your logic is flawed at its core. All predcates in any syllogism must be of the same substantia. God's presence as man, or as a cloud over Muhummad, or the possibility of a veridical Hijra, cannot be excluded logically because God and man and smoke and flying horses are all of different substantia. This is basic Aristotle. One may reason these possibilities are unlikely, but logical exclusion is not possible. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 2:45pm
Source? While you're looking it up, ask yourself: Is the statement 'A thing cannot be 'A' and 'not-A' at one and the same time' a syllogism? ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 01 June 2018 at 6:42pm
|
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is available on the internet. Your statement is a gross oversimplification. No thing is ever only A or only not-A. All things contain multiple categories. God, I believe we can agree, is infinite in category with the 99 names of Allah a poetic yet specific allusion to God's infinitude. How can you cradle this marvelous pearl in your palms and tell me God must be only A or not-A? ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 04 June 2018 at 11:36pm
The law of non-contradiction is not a syllogism, and so the conditions set out in your earlier post do not apply. The law states that a thing cannot be both ‘A’ and ‘not-A’ at one at the same time, and in the same respect (sense). This includes God, of course. I think you will agree, for example, that He cannot be infinite and finite at the same time; or exist and not exist; or be omnipotent and weak; or omniscient and ignorant. In order to understand what is meant by ‘in the same respect’ consider this statement: ‘Jack is alive in body but dead in spirit.’ There is no contradiction in this example, since we are not referring to his body and his spirit in the same respect. When we speak of his body we are speaking literally; when we refer to his spirit we are speaking metaphorically, as a means of criticising some aspect of his behaviour. As you know, the Church claims that Christ is ‘truly man’ and ‘truly God’ at one and the same time, and in the same respect. The Church is not speaking metaphorically; moreover, it demands that this doctrine be accepted as fact. The doctrine is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction; which means that it cannot be true. Denial takes numerous forms: claiming exception to a general rule (as when the law of non-contradiction is applied, as now, to the doctrine of the incarnation); or simply refusing to believe proof when it’s shown to us, are but two examples. To deny something, and then to imagine that this denial constitutes a fair rebuttal is the weakest form of argument. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 1:34am
Reasonable for a situation where the terms in use are suitable for the thing being described. The example I gave of a super intelligent computer/space ship having a part of its' self as a human would not really be able to be described back in 700AD. The closest you could get may well be A and not A at the same time. Similar to the 2010 film wher the space man who disappeared into the alien ship/universe/big black slab thing at the end of 2001 reappeared and said that all that had been the origional spaceman he was and so much more.
|
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 3:44am
|
Wrong, the Church doesn’t say Jesus is only man and only God in the same respect there are TWO separate natures that coexist within Jesus Christ. Thus when we say of Christ “that is a man” and we say of Christ “that is a Divine Being” we are not violating the principle of non-contradiction because He is not both man and divine in the same respect. As applied to my statement about Christ. . .it is dogmatic that Christ is both fully human and fully Divine. But these are not mutually exclusive of each other. He is Divine with respect to (or when viewed under) His Divine Nature, and He is human with respect to (or when viewed under) His human nature. |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 5:13am
|
No, the church generally claims that Jesus is not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. When it comes to God, who animates everything there is no law of non-contradiction. That is a purely human concept. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 5:32am
Of course the Church does not say that Yeshua is God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. The Church most certainly claims that he is the Second Person of the Trinity made flesh (that is what the word 'incarnation' means, after all). The Church also teaches that the Father, Holy Spirit and Second Person are ONE God. That is why it claims that Yeshua is 'wholly man' and 'wholly God'. Please read again my earlier posts, wherein I quote my sources. The law of non-contradiction is a fundamental truth; without which there could be only chaos. Are you saying that God can exist and not exist at the same time? Are you saying that He can be both omnipotent and weak at the same time? Are you saying that He can be omniscient and ignorant at the same time? Are you saying that He can be both God and a rock; a tree; a car; a ship, or any other entity at the same time? If you say 'No', then He is subject to the law of non-contradiction in the same manner as everything else. If you say 'Yes', then you and I inhabit quite different realities. Denial is the weakest form of argument (I've said this before). Unless you have something new to add - something we have not discussed - then it really is time to move on. Other folk can read what's been said; and decide for themselves where the truth lies. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 8:04am
|
You are arguing from a child's anthropomorphic charactature of Christianity, and trying reduce the power of God to mere creation. You are imprisoning your idea of God within human logic and language. I can clearly see the power of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit working within and throughout Islam because God is present in Islam. The Sufis teach us to seek the water; not the pitcher. I think this is wise advice. Seek the water. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 8:28am
I know how much certain folk crave to have the last word; so feel free to answer this question: God certainly does work within and throughout Islam (and everywhere else). Tell me....could He be totally at work, and totally not at work at one and the same time? ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 9:00am
|
I can be totally at work and totally not at work. Like me writing this message at work :) Again, this is semantics not logic. The biblical language used for this concept is approach and withdrawal. When God is in total approach the terms dwell or fill are typically used. God approaches and withdraws from mankind based on purity. God withdraws in proportion to the amount of impurity present. Is this type of language used in Islam? Let's return to the Sufis and the water pitcher. If it is raining outside but the pitcher is empty do the Sufis have water? Only if they want to praise God and they do not want to make tea. The 'fact' depends upon their intention. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 11:36am
To say that you are 'totally at work and totally not at work' at one and the same time is not a contradiction, simply because you are not using the words 'at work' in the same respect. The first 'at work' refers to a location..the place where you labour. The second 'at work' refers to a task (writing your post). To say that God can both work and not work at the same time, and in the same respect is, on the other hand, a contradiction. Likewise, that He can be both God and a tree at the same time....etc. My son is a Sufi. Not exactly house-trained.....but even he can manage to make a cup of tea and pray at the same time! As for God 'approaching and 'withdrawing, you will need to be more specific. What exactly do you mean by this? (Neat change of subject, though). ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 05 June 2018 at 3:02pm
|
Again, you are making semantic arguments. Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it? Classic semantic fallacy masquerading as paradox. What does it mean for God or for mankind to exist? I think we agree we continue to exist after we die, so this is really semantics and not logic as existence is not always the same thing. My late parents exist yet they do not exist. The biblical language of god approaching and receeding is sometimes one of emptiness or fullness. Personally, I prefer al-Gazzali's metaphor of a light in a lantern, and the lantern owner's responsibility to keep the glass clean so the light is brilliant and not dimmed. Similar ideas expressed differently. . ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 06 June 2018 at 1:43am
A reference to his 'Mishkât Al-Anwar'. Interesting read. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: DavidC
Date Posted: 06 June 2018 at 4:19am
It is indeed. I also like the part where he divides the human personality into five parts. Predates Freud by centuries and is more accurate imho but Gazzali just touches on the subject then moves on. ------------- Christian; Wesleyan M.Div. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 07 June 2018 at 6:41am
So sorry, airmano, but I overlooked your post. Spotted it only a moment ago. Will be away from my desk this weekend. God willing, I'll continue our conversation next week. Very best regards, and have a great wekend. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 07 June 2018 at 7:12am
The contradiction arises because the Church is claiming that Yeshua is both everything we understand by the term ‘Man’ and everything we understand by the term ‘God’. The only way this could not be a contradiction is if the words ‘Man’ and ‘God’ were freely interchangeable; simply different ways of describing the same entity: like ‘stone’ and ‘rock’; or ‘lake’ and ‘loch’; in other words, if man and God were one and the same being. I'm done waltzing in circles! More importantly, people have been given more than sufficient information to decide where the truth lies. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 07 June 2018 at 9:51am
| As much as your trying to make it a contradiction there isn’t, because the Church doesn’t say Jesus is both God and man in the same respect these are two natures. The law of non contradiction states one thing can not be another thing at the same time. Jesus has two natures not one that is simultaneously God and man at the same time. |
Posted By: Niblo
Date Posted: 13 June 2018 at 3:55am
Hello Airmano. Sorry for the delay. I asked you to state which of the following is the correct definition of a ‘change of mind’ when applied to God: a) ‘A decision to reverse an earlier decision’; or b) ‘Putting a decision into effect’ You replied: ‘Only A) would be required. But my thought is that he (logically) can't.’ We are agreed on (a). I don’t understand what you mean when you say that God is incapable of changing His mind. God decides a course of action, and acts accordingly. He has no need to reverse any of His decisions, simply because these are a) based on His absolute knowledge (which precludes any unforeseen reason for reversal), and b) because there is no possible constraint that could prevent His decisions being implemented in precisely the way He intends. Having no need to change His mind does not mean that God is incapable of so doing; indeed, a current notion (called ‘open theism’) suggests that He can, and does, change His mind; and even that this change can be caused by human behaviour. The notion rests on literal interpretations of certain biblical texts; but this is a matter beyond the scope of this post. You suggest there is a ‘logical’ barrier to God changing His mind. Please clarify. Have a great day, and very best regards. Paul. ------------- 'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib) |
Posted By: iec786
Date Posted: 22 June 2018 at 3:33pm
|
Yes When God [Jesus} was in his mothers womb for 9 months who was in charge of the universe? https://www.bibleref.com/Job/25/Job-25-4.html" rel="nofollow - 4 How then can a mortal be righteous before God? How can one born of woman be pure? https://www.bibleref.com/Job/25/Job-25-5.html" rel="nofollow - 5 If even the moon is not bright and the stars are not pure in his eyes, https://www.bibleref.com/Job/25/Job-25-6.html" rel="nofollow - 6 how much less a mortal, who is but a maggot-- a human being, who is only a worm!'Job 25:4 Was Jesus that maggot???
|
Posted By: Al Masihi
Date Posted: 23 June 2018 at 3:00am
| That can be understood by understanding how the trinity works, God is composed of three distinct persons, Jesus was God the Son. The verse speaks of human beings being born into the world with their sinful nature, Jesus was not just human however, an important distinction to make. Jesus is not that maggot because he’s not just a simple human being. |
Posted By: mohammed24
Date Posted: 24 June 2018 at 5:19pm
|
My name is John Darlington, i battled with prostate cancer for 2 years. Until my consultant Dr Ahmed Mustafa from Dubai told me about a cure of another patient who got treated by one of his colleagues in Dubai using cannabis oil. According to Dr Ahmed's story, the treatment lasted for 3 and halve months. So, he said i too can be treated by this same method. So, he contacted his colleague and he came down to discuss how this can be done. I was placed on four months treatment. This happened early 2017 and now i can confidently say i am free from any cancerous cells. Although i still go for routine check up, but no trace of cancer cells. if you want to contact Dr Ahmed Mustafa on this, send him a mail on [email protected] |
Posted By: 2Acts
Date Posted: 01 July 2018 at 3:53pm
Anti Islamic. Are you saying the esteemed prophet Jesus / Isa (PBUH) was a maggot. Why the moderators dont delete this post or ban you I dont know.
|