The Christian idea about Two natures?

[idav]

What if the case is this, God, who is Powerful wants to took human form? That's the case of Jesus Christ "who, in nature was God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness and found in human appearance." (Phil. 2:6-7)

How is it that god would limit himself to the point of being a limited mortal human? This doesn't seem possible without God losing sovereignty.

I see it more as humans being elevated and god lowering himself so that it was possible to sort of meet in the middle. Jesus would have elevated humans by being sinless, then the above verse makes sense with God coming to our level.

 

[Kemble]

You didn't fully quote verse 46 it says: And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to Him."

Yea, sorry about that. Now I see it actually says something completely different. Thanks for quoting the entire thing.

[end of sarcasm]

When you quoted verse 113-114 you forgot to start from verse 110 it simply says that some of Christian and Jewish community did the right thing, however it doesn't talk about the present time but the past since the Islamic idea is that the Christians before Mohammed(saws) were considered Muslims in whoever followed Jesus(pbuh) in the right way.

Verses 110-112 are condemning Christians who disbelieve in Muhammad as a prophet and seek conflict with Muslims; they aren't related to anything about Christians viewing Jesus the right way.

Christ's divinity was a fundamental belief among a good number of early Christians pre-Nicea and was fully canonized in 325 AD along with the Trinity -- we're talking 300 years before Muhammad's birth (and earlier). Realistically Muhammad would have had contact with Christian Orthodoxy in his formative years. Unless he was referring to the scattered heretical sects that didn't, it seems unlikely. By his time "Christian" should have been implicitly synonymous with the Nicean creed.

Its funny how you just cherry picked some words without even reading the whole verse or its context but i am used it now lets read it completely:

It is quoted from Zakaria Boutros and he usually quotes the Quran, Hadiths, and Tafseer on memory. Shoot him an email if you have complaints.

(171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, nor say of Allah except the truth. Al-Masih `Isa, son of Maryam, was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word, which He bestowed on Maryam and a spirit from Him; so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not: "Three!'' Cease! (it is) better for you. For Allah is (the only) One God, hallowed be He above having a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is All-Sufficient as a Disposer of affairs.)

You quoted, "This incident was in place of the normal conception between man and woman that results in children. This is why `Isa was a word and a Ruh (spirit) created by Allah, as he had no father to conceive him."

In Christian doctrine the Father and Son are metaphorical titles for God (Father of the universe) and His Word (incarnate in a human body, Christ). When the Quran says "was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word", we see an agreement with the Two Natures concept. He was no more than a human being and His Word. Christ is an incarnation of the Word in human flesh. And since he didn't have a physical father, he related to God directly.

The rest of the verse derides the idea of three gods and a physical father-son relationship which would not have been the majority belief among even early Christians.

There was actually a heretical Trinity sect, the Mariamists, that Islam encountered in the 7th century and the Quran may be condemning under "people of Scripture" rather than the authentic Christian Trinity. The Mariamists believed God wedded Mary, a goddess, and gave birth to Jesus, hence the Trinity consisted of three gods: God, Mary, and Jesus.

In Sūrat Al Mā’ida, The Banquet: 116 – “ Then Allāh will say, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind, ‘Worship me and my mother as gods beside Allāh?”

Zakaria says,

You can see clearly from this discussion that Islām did not fight the belief of Christianity that God is one. He has one nature, speaking the Word, alive in Spirit, as the Kurān says, ‘Jesus the son of Mary is the messenger of God and His Word …and a Spirit from Him” (Sūrat A l Nisā’, The Women: 171). But Islām fights another trinity, the trinity of the Mariamist doctrine. They fight those who consider the blessed Mary a goddess who gave birth to Christ by means of procreation after God had married her...As for the principle belief of Christianity, it is the belief in one God in a Trinity: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.

Its funny how tried changing subjects, quoting a priest to support your ideas, trying to make islam say something you want it to say.

Unlike many Muslims he knows all arabic Islamic scriptures on memory. Again, shoot him an email.

 

[Kemble]

The problem arises when we claim that a person like Jesus(pbuh) is god because Jesus(pbuh) was limited in many ways. Now try to understand this God = Unlimited by definition.. Humans are limited by definition.. If God becomes a human he is limited or he had to make himself an unlimited human being however we can clearly see that Jesus(pbuh) is limited.

How is it that god would limit himself to the point of being a limited mortal human? This doesn't seem possible without God losing sovereignty.

Pretty possible. If you look at Christ as the embodiment of God's Intellect you can come around to understanding this. Quoting from fatherzakaria.net:

Ok, logic says: you maintain that Christ is the word of God that is His intellect, and you also maintain that the word of God was incarnated in human body. So God appeared with His mind in human body, but what about God up there, that is so hard?

Of course this question comes from.. I mean it results from incompletable awareness and perception. For example, let me put this question to the one who asked: Can your intellect be separated from your own being or existence? Certainly not. How can we separate man’s mind? It’s impossible. So wherever the Word of God is, there is God. This echo is verse in the Bible in the book of Ecclesiastes, “Where the word of the God is, there is God.” And why so? Because God is infinite and His mind is also infinite. So wherever the Intellect is found, God is also found, because God is omnipresent, and manifested in this particular spot exactly the same as this. We may ask this question: Isn’t it also in the Quran in Sura 28, 20, and 27 when the fire appeared in the holy spot, in the tree, and He said to Moses, “I am God and there is no other deity but I.” Alright then, who was filling the heaven at the time?

 

[F0uad]

Yea, sorry about that. Now I see it actually says something completely different. Thanks for quoting the entire thing.

[end of sarcasm]



Verses 110-112 are condemning Christians who disbelieve in Muhammad as a prophet and seek conflict with Muslims; they aren't related to anything about Christians viewing Jesus the right way.

Christ's divinity was a fundamental belief among a good number of early Christians pre-Nicea and was fully canonized in 325 AD along with the Trinity -- we're talking 300 years before Muhammad's birth (and earlier). Realistically Muhammad would have had contact with Christian Orthodoxy in his formative years. Unless he was referring to the scattered heretical sects that didn't, it seems unlikely. By his time "Christian" should have been implicitly synonymous with the Nicean creed.



It is quoted from Zakaria Boutros and he usually quotes the Quran, Hadiths, and Tafseer on memory. Shoot him an email if you have complaints.



You quoted, "This incident was in place of the normal conception between man and woman that results in children. This is why `Isa was a word and a Ruh (spirit) created by Allah, as he had no father to conceive him."

In Christian doctrine the Father and Son are metaphorical titles for God (Father of the universe) and His Word (incarnate in a human body, Christ). When the Quran says "was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah and His Word", we see an agreement with the Two Natures concept. He was no more than a human being and His Word. Christ is an incarnation of the Word in human flesh. And since he didn't have a physical father, he related to God directly.

The rest of the verse derides the idea of three gods and a physical father-son relationship which would not have been the majority belief among even early Christians.

There was actually a heretical Trinity sect, the Mariamists, that Islam encountered in the 7th century and the Quran may be condemning under "people of Scripture" rather than the authentic Christian Trinity. The Mariamists believed God wedded Mary, a goddess, and gave birth to Jesus, hence the Trinity consisted of three gods: God, Mary, and Jesus.

In Sūrat Al Mā’ida, The Banquet: 116 – “ Then Allāh will say, ‘Jesus, son of Mary, did you ever say to mankind, ‘Worship me and my mother as gods beside Allāh?”

Zakaria says,



Unlike many Muslims he knows all arabic Islamic scriptures on memory. Again, shoot him an email.

I am not going to act like a child and think that you are sincere, just a advice post some questions you have about Islam on the dirs. To really know the interpretations of those verses one has to ask Muslims not a christian priest who doesn't follow the faith. Its like me presenting Christianity to other people while i myself do not belief in that religion it makes no sense.

If you want to debate certain verses i ask you again to quote the tasfeer and hadith regarding it and then we will see who is right or wrong. (In a different topic)
Now if you can't stay to the subject about the two natures please move on.

 

[Kemble]

We've always been talking about the Two Natures. If you can't hang it's not a big deal. Next time read your Quran before getting into a debate.

 

[Renji]

]How is it that god would limit himself to the point of being a limited mortal human? This doesn't seem possible without God losing sovereignty. [/I]

I see it more as humans being elevated and god lowering himself so that it was possible to sort of meet in the middle. Jesus would have elevated humans by being sinless, then the above verse makes sense with God coming to our level.

As the Nicene Creed put it:

We believe in One God the Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and Earth, and of all things visible and invisible
And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God,
begotten of the Father before all worlds
God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God,
begotten, not made, being one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven....

that simple. How did that happen? through the mystery of incarnation.

..and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost, of the Virgin Mary, and was made man...

I would say that God lowered Himself into our level, but he did not raise the level of man into a "god-state" rather, He lowered Himself so that we may know that He has walked with us (just like us, He needed to undergo suffering, having human form, so that in His wounds, we may be healed) and so that we would follow that example that He has set (by "carrying our own cross"). And yeah, the verse clearly stated that He took the form of the slave. If humans were really raised into a god-like state, I think the term slave isn't the right word that the writer have used for that verse.

That's how the mainstream Christians view this issue.

 

[F0uad]

We've always been talking about the Two Natures. If you can't hang it's not a big deal. Next time read your Quran before getting into a debate.

Thanks for making my point that Christians always change subjects when they feel fire burning beneath there feet.

 

[Muffled]

Can you show me how it is biblical? Could you also take a look on the OP and explain how it works..
Since i tried every argument to tackle my own statement but in the end i keep failing.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

My question is how does the Two natures of Jesuss(pbuh) actually works?

I believe tHe nature of God which is all powerful has sovreignty over the physical nature. The best example is Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Mat 26:39 And he went forward a little, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass away from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.

This is the flesh speaking from the mind.

This is still the flesh speaking from the mind but with the mind controlled by the Spirit of God that resides within.

My reasoning is this: that the physical mind would not change itself so the change of mind has to be due to the Spirit of God.

 

[Muffled]

We believe that when Jesus walked with His apostles, that He was a full human being. And that He is 100% God when returned to His Kingdom. Confusing, yep.

I don't believe there is any evidence to support this view.

 

[Muffled]

The way I look at it, Jesus had a human body. But He also had a spirit (as we all do) and His spirit was One with God's. While we are working to get to that level; He was there; that's the difference.

As a Christian there was no work required. I received Jesus as Lord and Savior, God abided in me. Granted that I have a tendency to want to control my own life and have to battle that tendency but God has permission to do with my mind and body whatever He wishes whenever He wishes.

 

[idav]

As the Nicene Creed put it:



that simple. How did that happen? through the mystery of incarnation.



I would say that God lowered Himself into our level, but he did not raise the level of man into a "god-state" rather, He lowered Himself so that we may know that He has walked with us (just like us, He needed to undergo suffering, having human form, so that in His wounds, we may be healed) and so that we would follow that example that He has set (by "carrying our own cross"). And yeah, the verse clearly stated that He took the form of the slave. If humans were really raised into a god-like state, I think the term slave isn't the right word that the writer have used for that verse.

That's how the mainstream Christians view this issue.

I can see where your coming from. I don't read the slave thing as lowering human status. Humbled and giving to everyone is perfecting the human state. Christains do believe Jesus reached a perfect human state otherwise God wouldn't have been accepting.

 

[Kemble]

Christains do believe Jesus reached a perfect human state otherwise God wouldn't have been accepting.

Technically he would have been already born in a perfect human state without original sin. The OP is a bit lopsided. I don't think F0uad originally knew this, but the "two natures" is essentially the dyophysite take on it. The second major take is the miaphysite exemplified by H. H. Pope Shenouda III's exposition:

The Lord Jesus Christ is God Himself, the Incarnate Logos Who took to Himself a
perfect manhood. His Divine nature is one with his human nature yet without mingling,
confusion or alteration; a complete Hypostatic Union. Words are inadequate to describe
this union. It was said, that without controversy, "Great is the mystery of godliness, God
was manifest in the flesh. " (I Tim. 3:16).
As this union is permanent, never divided nor separated, we say in the liturgy that His
Godhead never departed from His manhood for a single moment nor even for a twinkle
of an eye.
The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of
the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified
the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the
original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This
Unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s womb.
As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the
Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the
Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it.

...St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity.

So the miaphysites, or the Eastern Orthodox, view the "two natures" as a heresy.

 

[Desert Snake]

Can you show me how it is biblical? Could you also take a look on the OP and explain how it works..
Since i tried every argument to tackle my own statement but in the end i keep failing.

It is entirely Biblical, that's why Jesus refers to God, and doesn't claim to be God.
Your OP version of events is what is non-Biblical.

 

[F0uad]

It is entirely Biblical, that's why Jesus refers to God, and doesn't claim to be God.
Your OP version of events is what is non-Biblical.

So in a way you cant provide such scripture yet you seem it to be Biblical?
I don't think what you said is Biblical but made up theories to support the claim.

My Op is based on Logic and Reasoning i am not here to destroy one's religion i am simply asking how this can be logical correct.

 

[Desert Snake]

So in a way you cant provide such scripture yet you seem it to be Biblical?
I don't think what you said is Biblical but made up theories to support the claim.

You don't seem to be taking the answers into consideration, I think it has been explained, you just either aren't reading the replies, or aren't understanding them. Your theory regarding it based on "logic and reasoning" doesn't fit scripture, so you'll have to provide verses to back up your claim, at this point.

 

[Kemble]

My Op is based on Logic and Reasoning i am not here to destroy one's religion i am simply asking how this can be logical correct.

See my last reply if you genuinely want to understand Christian theology. Keep in mind the exact nature of God's Logos will remain containing a margin of the unknown due to the idea of the infinite properties of the God of the universe. But if you are genuine about looking at this through straight-line "Reason/Logic," we can demonstrate in a matter of minutes how a simultaneous omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God (a much less innocent contradiction than the divinity of Jesus) is one huge walking contradiction, leading to the only authentic rational conclusion that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God/Allah is an impossibility. All the more exemplified by the quote, "you can't have your cake and eat it too." Let me know.

 

[F0uad]

See my last reply if you genuinely want to understand Christian theology. Keep in mind the exact nature of God's Logos will remain containing a margin of the unknown due to the idea of the infinite properties of the God of the universe. But if you are genuine about looking at this through straight-line "Reason/Logic," we can demonstrate in a matter of minutes how a simultaneous omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent God (a much less innocent contradiction than the divinity of Jesus) is one huge walking contradiction, leading to the only authentic rational conclusion that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God/Allah is an impossibility. All the more exemplified by the quote, "you can't have your cake and eat it too." Let me know.

I don't think its impossible for the Islamic "God" and we don't belief he is omnipresent as the Christians do. I have read your argument what was a copy but it still didn't make sense that's why i dismissed it, its hard to read everyone's reply and come to a conclusion when there are so many different opinions regarding it. As i clearly have said earlier i am not her to disrespect anyone or hes(her) belief i am simply asking if there is a logical explanation where we can use a valid example or something? A nature of a human being or a god shouldn't be that hard to explain the concept of God is very easy for other religions to explain (not to mix with comprehension) so why not for Christianity? If you are still willing can you just try to explain it again how two natures that contradict each other can yet be the same and exact being.

 

[F0uad]

You don't seem to be taking the answers into consideration, I think it has been explained, you just either aren't reading the replies, or aren't understanding them. Your theory regarding it based on "logic and reasoning" doesn't fit scripture, so you'll have to provide verses to back up your claim, at this point.

:help:

 

[Brickjectivity]

its hard to read everyone's reply and come to a conclusion when there are so many different opinions regarding it.

That is what the Trinity is for, probably. It is a word that people say defined by words, and people always make errors in their speech. Now that is something that can be proved Biblically, so to argue about how Jesus could be both God and a human is pointless as neither of his existences can be expressed perfectly in words. Words are not what poets claim. The Trinity is impossible to explain, I think, but it makes some very nice poetry.

 

[F0uad]

That is what the Trinity is for, probably. It is a word that people say defined by words, and people always make errors in their speech. Now that is something that can be proved Biblically, so to argue about how Jesus could be both God and a human is pointless as neither of his existences can be expressed perfectly in words. Words are not what poets claim. The Trinity is impossible to explain, I think, but it makes some very nice poetry.

Well i agree that the trinity itself is impossible to explain if you go into the details to bad though because that means the explanation of the Christian Monotheistic idea is impossible to explain also.

But i am actually not talking about the trinity in essence, i was merely asking how two opposites by nature can be the same being?
If Faith is the answer i have no problem accepting that as someone's answer.