The Christian idea about Two natures?

[Kemble]

I don't think its impossible for the Islamic "God" and we don't belief he is omnipresent as the Christians do.

Omnipresent means being able to act and see everywhere at the same time, not necessarily being inside creation. From the Quran,

2:115 -- And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

With 42 mentions in the Quran that Allah is All-Seeing, omnipresence is should also be a trait.

I'll make another thread on this.

 

[F0uad]

Omnipresent means being able to act and see everywhere at the same time, not necessarily being inside creation. From the Quran,

2:115 -- And to Allah belongs the east and the west. So wherever you [might] turn, there is the Face of Allah. Indeed, Allah is all-Encompassing and Knowing.

With 42 mentions in the Quran that Allah is All-Seeing, omnipresence is should also be a trait.

I'll make another thread on this.

I thought it meant being everywhere but yes we do belief he knows and sees everything there is no dispute in that and i gave you no permission to put my name into the title.

 

[Kemble]

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.

Taking the reality of both transcendent and immanent divinity seriously, the best approach to understanding this is the Hypostatic Union.

Asking this is exactly like asking how one can be a soul and body at the same time. Both are different entities, how exactly do they mix/interact? [By the way, this is another obvious contradiction for spirituality, Islam included, but that's for later].

For the sake of the discussion, typically we see a soul and body as one person and his or her actions as coming from one nature, not two. The ordinary soul/body unity is in Hypostatic Union. To be technical, Christ has three natures: the Divine, the soul, and the body all united in his One Nature.

In Christianity, Christ's actions are not attributed to his divine nature (remember that the essence of the Father of all ages descended from heaven to become Incarnated) or human nature (born within Mary's womb) alone, but to that One Nature. Granted, in ordinary man souls are thought to depart from the body after death. However, in Christ's case this union is inseparable and behind the phrase that his "Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye."

During the virgin birth, Mary is believed to have given birth not to God, or only a human child, but the "Incarnate God," the inseparable union. Hence the hymn: "Holy is God, Holy is the Almighty, Holy is the Ever-living, who was born of the Virgin, have mercy upon us". Technically, claiming that the worship of Jesus is "shirk" doesn't hold water in Christianity because it fails to recognize this inseparable unity unique in the Christ incarnation.

I think a lot of this confusion comes from the differences between Christianity and Islam. In Islam, God is somewhat distant from mankind and reveals himself through intercessors. In Christianity, God is immanent and can reveal himself directly, such as through Christ.

 

[F0uad]

Taking the reality of both transcendent and immanent divinity seriously, the best approach to understanding this is the Hypostatic Union.

I am fully aware of it.

Asking this is exactly like asking how one can be a soul and body at the same time. Both are different entities, how exactly do they mix/interact? [By the way, this is another obvious contradiction for spirituality, Islam included, but that's for later].

Wow Islam has definitely many problems according to you i cant find one single post where you did not include Islam. Your mixing the argument a spirit is not all-powerful, all-knowing and unlimited but God is him becoming limited makes him no longer god. Its like saying if a spirit became flesh would it still be a spirit? The obvious answer is No.

For the sake of the discussion, typically we see a soul and body as one person and his or her actions as coming from one nature, not two. The ordinary soul/body unity is in Hypostatic Union. To be technical, Christ has three natures: the Divine, the soul, and the body all united in his One Nature.

And now its three that's new for me. We don't see a body as a person but the soul alone your conscious is your soul and the body is only a shell so your comparison is flawed again. Your conclusion still doesn't make sense you technically said they are three natures (not supported by Christian theories) and these three natures are one nature.. Since when does 1 equal 3 or the other way around? You again changed the subjects to something entirely differently.

In Christianity, Christ's actions are not attributed to his divine nature (remember that the essence of the Father of all ages descended from heaven to become Incarnated) or human nature (born within Mary's womb) alone, but to that One Nature. Granted, in ordinary man souls are thought to depart from the body after death. However, in Christ's case this union is inseparable and behind the phrase that his "Divine nature never departed the human nature for one single moment nor for a twinkle of an eye."

Clarify the essence of the father what is it according to you? Being Unlimited, All knowing and these kind of traits right?
Now if he stops being those traits (that essence) does he still remain being god? Or does he become a lesser-god?

During the virgin birth, Mary is believed to have given birth not to God, or only a human child, but the "Incarnate God," the inseparable union. Hence the hymn: "Holy is God, Holy is the Almighty, Holy is the Ever-living, who was born of the Virgin, have mercy upon us". Technically, claiming that the worship of Jesus is "shirk" doesn't hold water in Christianity because it fails to recognize this inseparable unity unique in the Christ incarnation.

I am not sure what your trying to say here if we looked at this in the biblical scriptures its clear that Jesus(pbuh) and the Father are two different persons.
Your also contradicting the Quicunque Vult if you belief what you just said.

I think a lot of this confusion comes from the differences between Christianity and Islam. In Islam, God is somewhat distant from mankind and reveals himself through intercessors. In Christianity, God is immanent and can reveal himself directly, such as through Christ.

Yet the Gospels are written by unknown authors and not Jesus(pbuh) himself see the hypocrisy here let alone the OT. Its well recorded in the OT that previous prophets (peace be upon them) got there revelations true "intercessors'' and Angels are called Messengers in the bible and even Mary(pbuh) the mother of Jesus(pbuh) got her news by a Angel. You keep stepping on your own traps please learn your own religion before judging or making statements about a other.

 

[Kemble]

F0uad, you think of yourself as one person right now even though you believe you have both a soul and body. So you believe the soul/body is united at this moment into one person/nature ("F0uad"). The idea of God becoming a lesser god because he descended from heaven is refuted by the story of God who descended into a burning bush to speak with Moses. Did he become a lesser god then, and was heaven empty?

As a side note:

I'm fully aware from the get-go we are discussing logical impossibilities (God, souls, angels, devils) and ultimately fairytales. I'm an atheist. I think the belief in God or souls are meaningless in the real world. However, I "get" the Christian theology, mostly because that is my native religious "language." Sometimes it is difficult to bridge the gap between religious understanding simply because religions are very much like different languages: you have one person with a native religious background who didn't really have to work hard in learning to navigate it. You have another person with a different "first-language" religion that has somewhat of a grasp of the first guy's worldview as a second language, may have even adopted it or just trying to understand it, but still can't quite bridge the gap to fluency. I think that's a good chunk of the reason folks of different religions continually talk past each other.

Anyway, if you still think the two natures is a logical impossibility check again on the logical impossibility of God in all three monotheistic traditions. I am still unconvinced you are genuinely trying to understand another religious tradition, rather trying to find holes in it to strengthen your own religious beliefs. But given the benefit of the doubt and whether you realize it or not, you are still using the "linguistic" rules of your native religion and improperly trying to fit it into a different religious language. Probably because you are a true believer and you still think you've got The Truth, which is unfortunate.

 

[F0uad]

F0uad, you think of yourself as one person right now even though you believe you have both a soul and body. So you believe the soul/body is united at this moment into one person/nature ("F0uad"). The idea of God becoming a lesser god because he descended from heaven is refuted by the story of God who descended into a burning bush to speak with Moses. Did he become a lesser god then, and was heaven empty?

As a side note:

I'm fully aware from the get-go we are discussing logical impossibilities (God, souls, angels, devils) and ultimately fairytales. I'm an atheist. I think the belief in God or souls are meaningless in the real world. However, I "get" the Christian theology, mostly because that is my native religious "language." Sometimes it is difficult to bridge the gap between religious understanding simply because religions are very much like different languages: you have one person with a native religious background who didn't really have to work hard in learning to navigate it. You have another person with a different "first-language" religion that has somewhat of a grasp of the first guy's worldview as a second language, may have even adopted it or just trying to understand it, but still can't quite bridge the gap to fluency. I think that's a good chunk of the reason folks of different religions continually talk past each other.

Anyway, if you still think the two natures is a logical impossibility check again on the logical impossibility of God in all three monotheistic traditions. I am still unconvinced you are genuinely trying to understand another religious tradition, rather trying to find holes in it to strengthen your own religious beliefs. But given the benefit of the doubt and whether you realize it or not, you are still using the "linguistic" rules of your native religion and improperly trying to fit it into a different religious language. Probably because you are a true believer and you still think you've got The Truth, which is unfortunate.

So to make it short because my English is not fluent i cannot understand the theory about the two-natures nor the trinity.
Thats quite odd since many English speakers, scholars, writers and so forth don't get it either and it means that God choose English that the prophets(peace be upon them) did not speak to define the true teachings.

Now if this is the only reply you can come up at the end just leave it alone.

 

[Kemble]

Not surprised the analogy went over your head.

 

[Shermana]

F0uad, you think of yourself as one person right now even though you believe you have both a soul and body. So you believe the soul/body is united at this moment into one person/nature ("F0uad"). The idea of God becoming a lesser god because he descended from heaven is refuted by the story of God who descended into a burning bush to speak with Moses. Did he become a lesser god then, and was heaven empty?

As a side note:

I'm fully aware from the get-go we are discussing logical impossibilities (God, souls, angels, devils) and ultimately fairytales. I'm an atheist. I think the belief in God or souls are meaningless in the real world. However, I "get" the Christian theology, mostly because that is my native religious "language." Sometimes it is difficult to bridge the gap between religious understanding simply because religions are very much like different languages: you have one person with a native religious background who didn't really have to work hard in learning to navigate it. You have another person with a different "first-language" religion that has somewhat of a grasp of the first guy's worldview as a second language, may have even adopted it or just trying to understand it, but still can't quite bridge the gap to fluency. I think that's a good chunk of the reason folks of different religions continually talk past each other.

Anyway, if you still think the two natures is a logical impossibility check again on the logical impossibility of God in all three monotheistic traditions. I am still unconvinced you are genuinely trying to understand another religious tradition, rather trying to find holes in it to strengthen your own religious beliefs. But given the benefit of the doubt and whether you realize it or not, you are still using the "linguistic" rules of your native religion and improperly trying to fit it into a different religious language. Probably because you are a true believer and you still think you've got The Truth, which is unfortunate.

It was an Angel that appeared as a Burning Bush, delivering God's message.

 

[Kemble]

It was an Angel that appeared as a Burning Bush, delivering God's message.

The Bible and Quran say otherwise.

 

[Sleeppy]

The Bible and Quran say otherwise.

You sure? What do they say?

 

[Kemble]

Sleeppy, I'd appreciate a google search attempt at least before asking.

 

[Shermana]

The Bible and Quran say otherwise.

Ummm no, the Bible specifically says "The angel of the LORD appeared to him". So I'm not sure if you're even familiar with the passage you speak of.

Now with that said, the Quran also seems to indicate it was an Angel bearing His message.

Now in Sura 27:8, what does "Blessed are those in the fire and those around" mean? Does Allah say Glory to Himself?

But when he came to the (fire), a voice was heard: "Blessed are those in the fire and those around: and glory to Allah, the Lord of the worlds.

And of course there's always Acts 7:30

New International Version (©1984)
"After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai.

 

[Kemble]

Ummm no, the Bible specifically says "The angel of the LORD appeared to him". So I'm not sure if you're even familiar with the passage you speak of.

Now with that said, the Quran also seems to indicate it was an Angel bearing His message.

Now in Sura 27:8, what does "Blessed are those in the fire and those around" mean? Does Allah say Glory to Himself?

Ah, OK. Apparently it is a contradiction in the Bible:

Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush?

For the Quranic [27:8] verse, 28:9 explains goes on to say: "O Moses, this is Me, GOD, the Almighty, Most Wise."

And down to 28:29-30:

"And when Moses had completed the term and was traveling with his family, he perceived from the direction of the mount a fire. He said to his family, "Stay here; indeed, I have perceived a fire. Perhaps I will bring you from there [some] information or burning wood from the fire that you may warm yourselves. But when he came to it, he was called from the right side of the valley in a blessed spot - from the tree, "O Moses, indeed I am Allah , Lord of the worlds."

So embodying an object isn't an impossibility in monotheistic theology.

 

[Shermana]

There's no contradiction, apparently whoever wrote Acts 7:30 went with the Angel account too. The word "Angel" means "Messenger", which implies the Angel is speaking a message God gave him to say.

If a messenger from the King came and said "I am the King, you have not paid your taxes, kiss my ring" and the servant extends his pinky ring for you to kiss, does that mean the Servant is the King?

You didn't answer my question, you simply repeated the assertion that it's God himself talking, rather than the Angel bearing the message.

I can just as easily say that 27:8 indirectly implies its an Angel bearing God's message, even if it says "I am God", just like how a messenger would say "I am the King".

 

[Kemble]

If a messenger from the King came and said "I am the King, you have not paid your taxes, kiss my ring" and the servant extends his pinky ring for you to kiss, does that mean the Servant is the King?

Yes, it would, since the sentence is out of place if the speaker wasn't the King.

You didn't answer my question, you simply repeated the assertion that it's God himself talking, rather than the Angel bearing the message.

As said in the scripture.

I can just as easily say that 27:8 indirectly implies its an Angel bearing God's message, even if it says "I am God", just like how a messenger would say "I am the King".

Again, saying "I am the King" is out of place if the speaker wasn't directly the King.

 

[Shermana]

Yes, it would, since the sentence is out of place if the speaker wasn't the King.

Well you'd be wrong if the Messenger is reading the message he was given to say.

As said in the scripture.

That's twice in a row you dodged my question which specifically says "Blessed are those in and around the Fire" and if Allah says Glory to Himself, and insisted that your interpretation s correct without addressing them.

Again, saying "I am the King" is out of place if the speaker wasn't directly the King.

Not if he was directly told to read that from the message.

 

[Kemble]

Well you'd be wrong if the Messenger is reading the message he was given to say.

I guess the angel was reading a spiritual tablet, then. Seriously, every other instance when angels deliver messages they directly declare the message is from the Lord. They don't pretend to be voice answering machines.

That's twice in a row you dodged my question which specifically says "Blessed are those in and around the Fire" and if Allah says Glory to Himself, and insisted that your interpretation s correct without addressing them.

So the angel is blessing himself "in and around the fire?" It honestly could be saying that an angel directed Moses' attention to God in the bush.

Not if he was directly told to read that from the message.

God's answering machine...

Honestly I'd just give this one up.

 

[Shermana]

I guess the angel was reading a spiritual tablet, then. Seriously, every other instance when angels deliver messages they directly declare the message is from the Lord. They don't pretend to be voice answering machines.

Or he was simply saying what he was told to say?

I like the Douay Rheims version footnote:

“The Lord [Jehovah] appeared. That is, an angel representing God, and speaking in his name.”

So the angel is blessing himself "in and around the fire?"

No, he is saying they are blessed. "Blessed are we" is said by people. With that, you are dodging once again the question if Allah says he himself is glorified. The Arabic version of Psalm 115:15 says "We are blessed".

It honestly could be saying that an angel directed Moses' attention to God in the bush.

No, it says the Angel appeared IN the Bush. So does Acts 7:30.

I'd just give this one up.

I'd just give up on insisting that the Angel couldn't possibly be bearing a message from God and "speaking in His name" as the Douay Rheims admits.

 

[Kemble]

“The Lord [Jehovah] appeared. That is, an angel representing God, and speaking in his name.”

Ironically the all-mighty God couldn't speak for himself from a simple bush.

No, it says the Angel appeared IN the Bush. So does Acts 7:30.

Contradicted by Exodus 3:4:

"So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God."

I'd just give up on insisting that the Angel couldn't possibly be bearing a message from God and "speaking in His name" as the Douay Rheims admits.

There are no other instances of angels speaking in such a fashion.

 

[Shermana]

Ironically the all-mighty God couldn't speak for himself from a simple bush.

Couldn't is not wouldn't. Why even talk from a Bush to begin with?

Contradicted by Exodus 3:4:

Nope. It's the Angels speaking in His name, just like how the Trinitarian Douay Rheims admits.

"So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.” Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father; the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God."

Basically it's a matter of your presumption assuming so.

There are no other instances of angels speaking in such a fashion.

So?

Thanks for dodging my question four times in a row though. So who were those in and around the Bush, and does Allah ever say Glory to Himself like that in any other instance? Looking forward to your answer, hope I don't have to ask again...and again and again.