The Quran and the Son of God

[Niblo]

That's quite a journey. Thanks for sharing. It must take a lot of courage to move from Christianity to Islam.

I went from being a Christian to becoming a Baha'i in my mid 20s but that was nearly 30 years ago. The Baha'i Faith has Islamic roots to its taken me a while begin studying Islam in more depth.

As I Baha'i I believe the Holy Qur'an to the authenticated repository of the Word of God and Muhammad to be the Messenger of God whom He claims to be.

Thanks again for sharing. It was amazing and inspiring!

Maybe if Wales can beat the All Blacks in my lifetime I could reconsider my allegiances lol.

What caused you to switch?

And yes....I'll be sure to remind you of your promise to reconsider.....

 

[Dawnofhope]

What caused you to switch?

And yes....I'll be sure to remind you of your promise to reconsider.....

I grew up Christian but in my teenage years religion wasn't that important to me. Through my university studies I meet a variety of people from different cultures and religions. When I reconnected with my Christian roots in my early 20s, I struggled to accept the exclusivity of the Christian beliefs based on John 14:6. Having a belief that an All-Loving God would guide all the peoples of the earth made much more sense. As this was a core Baha'i belief and I felt guided by God to become a Baha'i I made the switch. That was nearly 30 years ago.

Argentina almost beat the All Blacks over the weekend so maybe a loss to wales is on the horizon.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I wrote:

For the (Muslim) believers, the Jews, the Sabians, and the Christians – those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and do good deeds – there is no fear: they will not grieve.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 69).

You reply that Al-Ma’ida: 69 contradicts what you’ve heard from Muslims.

Puritans claim that Al-Ma’ida: 69 has been abrogated by the following verse:

‘If anyone seeks a religion other than complete devotion to Allāh, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.’ (Al‘Imran: 85).

The words ‘complete devotion’ are a rendition of ‘islam’; a word that is never capitalised in Arabic. This word can also be rendered ‘submission’.

Puritans take the word ‘religion’, and then capitalise ‘islam’; thus giving the impression that the verse refers to that particular Faith alone.

Islam, they argue, is the only religion acceptable to Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla). At the same time, they claim (correctly) that Islam is not merely a ‘religion’, but a way of life. But so are Christianity and Judaism (and all other religions, too, of course). And the best ‘way of life’ is one spent in complete devotion to God.

Al‘Imran: 85 can safely be rendered: ‘If anyone seeks a way of life other than complete devotion to Allāh, it will not be accepted from him: he will be one of the losers in the Hereafter.’

Consider this:

‘We have assigned a law and a path to each of you. If Allāh had so willed, He would have made you one community, but He wanted to test you through that which He has given you, so race to do good: you will all return to Allāh and He will make clear to you the matters you differed about.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 48);

The message is clear: Whatever path we happen to be on – whatever law we happen to follow – we are each of us tested; we are each of us called to do good.

‘….those who believe in Allāh and the Last Day and do good deeds – there is no fear: they will not grieve.’ This is Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla)’s solemn promise. It has not been abrogated, since He does not renege on His promises.

I understand, however, the Qu'ran doesn't say "how much good, how many deeds," which is why Muslims cannot logically have assurance of eternal life. Christianity offers assurance, via trusting Jesus for salvation.

 

[Muffled]

In the time of Muhammad PBUH, did the NT exist? The answer is not universally agreed upon. Some sources say that all the NT books existed in the 1st century, but it appears as if there was substantial editing until the time of Martin Luther. Muhammad is known to have had long discussions with a Christian Priest, but I do not know more.

For me, I leave the Son issue open, being open to what God reveals in the end time. I've been bitterly criticized over that position, to the point that some have questioned my Salvation. The fact that some conservative Christians are so mean and hateful to those who do not fit in their little boxes makes me not care what they think. I am sure that Allah SWT will be just.

I believe the earliest full bible available today dates to around 300 AD but that does not preclude an earlier existence. I am not familiar with that part of its history.

I believe the word substantial can be misinterpreted as a lot. If there is any change at all, even an iota, it is substantial. The truth is that there are no significant changes.

I believe openness is a good position to take while learning.

I believe any belief other than grace ie some kind of theological litmus test is not what Christianity is all about.

 

[Muffled]

Show it to me then since you "believe."

ﮀ ﮁ ﮂﮃ ﮄ ﮅ
I believe from the site I got it from reads literally "is whatever to him a son for him." That is pretty oblique but basically I believe it means that Jesus is a Son to Allah.

 

[Muffled]

View attachment 23943

Let it be understood that just as an ambassador is such a servant of representative state that the presence of the ambassador is considered representative of the head of state.
Or just as when Iron burns in fire it adopts the color of the fire such that dimwitted people might even think that the iron and the fire are the same being ... but in fact the ambassador is not the head of state and nor is the iron same as the fire but the concept is clear from these two examples.

That is, Jesus Christ was such a servant of God that God bestowed him with the honor of being called the son of God while he was of course not his literal son.
So in the same way Muhammad was such a greatest servant of God that his arrival was called (as in the verse and others show) that his arrival could be considered the arrival of God Himself.

It is a simple concept in the the meaning "Muhammadan Abduhu waRasooluh" ... slavery of Allah lead to Messengership of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) but of course they were and always will be completely different beings.

Does that clear it up?

I believe what you mean by that is that God did not take on human form and procreate with Mary to produce Jesus. I am sure any Christian would agree with you on that.

I believe there is no evidence to support that concept.

I believe that is the way it is for Christians who have the Paraclete (Holy Spirit) operating within them but Jesus did not have a human spirit in Him, only the Spirit of God.

 

[Niblo]

I understand, however, the Qu'ran doesn't say "how much good, how many deeds," which is why Muslims cannot logically have assurance of eternal life. Christianity offers assurance, via trusting Jesus for salvation.

Those who adore the Beloved don't keep a tally of their good deeds; they simply love. No target is set in the Qur'an, simply because pleasing the Beloved should have no limits. Christians trust in a mere mortal for their salvation....Muslim put their trust in the Exalted. That is the difference between us. And the difference is immense.

 

[paarsurrey]

Certainly. The Torah and NT agree, the Torah and Noble Qu'ran have distinct points of disagreement.

Kindly ask the Judaism people, it Torah and NT agree or else quote from a genuine Judaism website that confirms it, please.

Regards

 

[BilliardsBall]

Those who adore the Beloved don't keep a tally of their good deeds; they simply love. No target is set in the Qur'an, simply because pleasing the Beloved should have no limits. Christians trust in a mere mortal for their salvation....Muslim put their trust in the Exalted. That is the difference between us. And the difference is immense.

That's a different issue. I trust the Divine Jesus, who is God.

And it's unfortunate that no target is set in the Qu'ran, because then Muslims have no assurance. Christians have assurance, peace.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Kindly ask the Judaism people, it Torah and NT agree or else quote from a genuine Judaism website that confirms it, please.

Regards

I'm a Jewish Christian, all my family is Jewish, I was circumcised in my home, eight days after birth, and was Bar Mitzvah at 13. I'm a Christian because I saw the Torah/Tanakh and NT agree.

We don't need Jews who deny Christ to tell us differently or "official websites". We both need the Bible, the Word of God.

 

[Niblo]

That's a different issue. I trust the Divine Jesus, who is God.

How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?

 

[BilliardsBall]

How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?

Start with, "How is it possible for God to not be God, wherever He is?"

 

[Niblo]

Start with, "How is it possible for God to not be God, wherever He is?"

That does not address my question at all. But hey!

OK, off you go: 'How is it possible for God to not be God, wherever He is?' Please quote your evidence.

And when you've done with that, perhaps you will do me the courtesy of answering my original question: How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time? (If your response happens to be: 'I don't wish to discuss this' I will respect it).

 

[BilliardsBall]

That does not address my question at all. But hey!

OK, off you go: 'How is it possible for God to not be God, wherever He is?' Please quote your evidence.

And when you've done with that, perhaps you will do me the courtesy of answering my original question: How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time? (If your response happens to be: 'I don't wish to discuss this' I will respect it).

You ask how God could be divine and also human. God is immutable, unchangeable, but He is Spirit. The Spirit of God lived inside human flesh, to execute salvation for us.

I am tempted to ask you, "Why is your god small, and cannot do certain things?" Would it be difficult for God who made human flesh to live in it, the way we dwell in a home, protective suit or tent?

 

[Niblo]

You ask how God could be divine and also human. God is immutable, unchangeable, but He is Spirit. The Spirit of God lived inside human flesh, to execute salvation for us.

I am tempted to ask you, "Why is your god small, and cannot do certain things?" Would it be difficult for God who made human flesh to live in it, the way we dwell in a home, protective suit or tent?

Ahhh. Please will you give me your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation? Are you suggesting that it was, in effect, nothing more than the Exalted moving into a 'home, protective suit or tent' as we might do? I'm intrigued.

We are agreed that He is both immutable and spirit. Are we agreed that He is also infinite?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Ahhh. Please will you give me your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation? Are you suggesting that it was, in effect, nothing more than the Exalted moving into a 'home, protective suit or tent' as we might do? I'm intrigued.

We are agreed that He is both immutable and spirit. Are we agreed that He is also infinite?

The Bible uses this line of argument. People are souls in "tents" and long for "re-tenting" after death, a necessity. Jesus wasn't born on "Christmas" but on the Feast of Tabernacles, when people dwell in TENTS to commemorate the tents we lived in after Egypt.

God is infinite but the Bible teaches His omnipresence. God is not separated from creation in the Bible.

 

[Niblo]

The Bible uses this line of argument. People are souls in "tents" and long for "re-tenting" after death, a necessity. Jesus wasn't born on "Christmas" but on the Feast of Tabernacles, when people dwell in TENTS to commemorate the tents we lived in after Egypt.

God is infinite but the Bible teaches His omnipresence. God is not separated from creation in the Bible.

Thank you. That's very useful. God willing I'll come back with a reply before Thurs next (have business and family stuff to do!). Take care, and again, thank you.

 

[Niblo]

The Bible uses this line of argument. People are souls in "tents" and long for "re-tenting" after death, a necessity. Jesus wasn't born on "Christmas" but on the Feast of Tabernacles, when people dwell in TENTS to commemorate the tents we lived in after Egypt. God is infinite but the Bible teaches His omnipresence. God is not separated from creation in the Bible.

Hello again.

Sorry for the delay.

I asked: ‘How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?’ You will understand, of course, that I was referring to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).

You replied that the ‘Spirit of God lived inside human flesh, to execute salvation for us.’ When asked for your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation you said that people are ‘souls in “tents”, longing for ‘re-tenting’ after death.’

You appear to be saying that the ‘incarnation’ was nothing more than the act of God entering the body of Yeshua, as one might enter a tent; and residing there.

This doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll set that aside for now.

The Dominican theologian (St) Thomas Aquinas writes:

‘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).’ (‘Summa Contra Gentiles’ - Chapter 20).

In a famous ‘proof’ for the existence of God, Aquinas argues that the universe is composed of contingent beings; by which he means beings that cannot bring themselves – or anything else – into existence; and that cannot guarantee their continued existence. Aquinas argues that if contingent beings are the only ones that exist, then nothing could have come into existence at all. There has to be a 'Necessary Being'; one that does not depend on any other for its existence, and which is the ‘First Cause' of all other beings. This 'Necessary Being'......this ‘First Cause' we call God. (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 2; Article 3).

Against Deism, which teaches that God, having created the universe, leaves it to run itself, the Church teaches that He continually preserves in existence all created things. The First Vatican Council declared: ‘God, by His Providence, protects all that He has created. 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).

God’s act of preservation is said to be a continuation of His creative activity. The Church cites a number of biblical verses in support of this doctrine: ‘And how could a thing subsist, had you not willed it? Or how be preserved, if not called forth by you?’ (Wisdom 11: 25); and again: ‘(Jesus’) answer to (the Jews) was: “My Father still goes on working, and I am at work, too.”’ (John 5:17). Paul ascribes the preservation as well as the creation of the world to Christ: ‘He existed before all things and in him all things hold together…’ (Col 1: 17); and again: ‘He is the reflection of God’s glory and bears the impress of God’s own being, sustaining all things by his powerful command.’ (Hebrews 1:3).

God preserves created things by His very presence; and He is present inside every single thing that He has created; and not only inside but outside, of course, since He is omnipresent. But who among the Christians would suggest that God actually becomes that which he sustains; or that they become God because of His presence within them? Why should Yeshua be the one exception?

And how do we reconcile the notion of God residing within Yeshua, as in a tent – and by so doing making him God – with the B’rit Hadashah claim that: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…..(and) the Word became a human being…..’ (Yochanan: 1 and 14; CJB Version)? The emphasis is mine.

As you know, the Church teaches that God is 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 ‘immutable’ is meant that in God there can be no change whatsoever. 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).

How is it possible for God – an immutable Being – to become a human being?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello again.

Sorry for the delay.

I asked: ‘How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?’ You will understand, of course, that I was referring to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām).

You replied that the ‘Spirit of God lived inside human flesh, to execute salvation for us.’ When asked for your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation you said that people are ‘souls in “tents”, longing for ‘re-tenting’ after death.’

You appear to be saying that the ‘incarnation’ was nothing more than the act of God entering the body of Yeshua, as one might enter a tent; and residing there.

This doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll set that aside for now.

The Dominican theologian (St) Thomas Aquinas writes:

‘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).’ (‘Summa Contra Gentiles’ - Chapter 20).

In a famous ‘proof’ for the existence of God, Aquinas argues that the universe is composed of contingent beings; by which he means beings that cannot bring themselves – or anything else – into existence; and that cannot guarantee their continued existence. Aquinas argues that if contingent beings are the only ones that exist, then nothing could have come into existence at all. There has to be a 'Necessary Being'; one that does not depend on any other for its existence, and which is the ‘First Cause' of all other beings. This 'Necessary Being'......this ‘First Cause' we call God. (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 2; Article 3).

Against Deism, which teaches that God, having created the universe, leaves it to run itself, the Church teaches that He continually preserves in existence all created things. The First Vatican Council declared: ‘God, by His Providence, protects all that He has created. 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).

God’s act of preservation is said to be a continuation of His creative activity. The Church cites a number of biblical verses in support of this doctrine: ‘And how could a thing subsist, had you not willed it? Or how be preserved, if not called forth by you?’ (Wisdom 11: 25); and again: ‘(Jesus’) answer to (the Jews) was: “My Father still goes on working, and I am at work, too.”’ (John 5:17). Paul ascribes the preservation as well as the creation of the world to Christ: ‘He existed before all things and in him all things hold together…’ (Col 1: 17); and again: ‘He is the reflection of God’s glory and bears the impress of God’s own being, sustaining all things by his powerful command.’ (Hebrews 1:3).

God preserves created things by His very presence; and He is present inside every single thing that He has created; and not only inside but outside, of course, since He is omnipresent. But who among the Christians would suggest that God actually becomes that which he sustains; or that they become God because of His presence within them? Why should Yeshua be the one exception?

And how do we reconcile the notion of God residing within Yeshua, as in a tent – and by so doing making him God – with the B’rit Hadashah claim that: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…..(and) the Word became a human being…..’ (Yochanan: 1 and 14; CJB Version)? The emphasis is mine.

As you know, the Church teaches that God is 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 ‘immutable’ is meant that in God there can be no change whatsoever. 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).

How is it possible for God – an immutable Being – to become a human being?

The Word = the logos of God, the mind of God. Jesus had a fleshly brain. The mind of God/thought life of God was housed in a human brain.

The "tent" metaphor and language comes from Paul. Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Israelites leave their homes to live in tents to remember moving from Egypt into tents in the wilderness.

God is immutable, in that He never changes, but according to the Noble Qu'ran and Hadith, Allah is transcendent, and removed from creation, but according to the Bible, Jesus is holding all things together in creation, and at the sub-elemental level. He is the "dark matter" that holds all things that no one can see or measure. It would be a small thing for Him to tent in flesh. It is only a big, impossible thing to someone who has a more limited view of God.

Don't limit God's power by saying what God cannot do. As Jeremiah reported, God says, "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all FLESH. Is anything too difficult for me?"

 

[Anthem]

But with some muslims the punishment for doing the offence of claiming jesus to be the son of god is beheading. Obviously they have a problem with it.

And no, they believe god cannot have a son or a wife becaise god is too great for that. Too much higher from us.