"Passion of Christ" from a Muslim's perspective
ConvertstoIslam
Mel Gibson since listening to his surprisingly intelligent commentary on the
DVD Brave Heart which he heroically directed and starred in.
The attraction to The Passion was also strong because in a somewhat
sadistic way, I wanted to see all the hype about this film causing a crack in
the Jewish-Christian relationship (which is natural I believe since the two
groups have been ganging up on Muslims for some time now).
The third magnetism of this film was Jesus himself (who is so important to so
many people). Although it is a sin in Islam to see graven images of Prophets,
I have been raised in America, thus it is a sin I commit having been most
recently impressed by Martin Scorsese s The last temptation of Christ .
I often compare our religion with Christians, and as such, I'm often prayed for
to accept Christ much more than the average neighbor. I have felt the spirits
in Churches and once in a while, the images of Jesus pops up in front of me,
all I attribute to the hundreds of Christian scholars I ve debated, and who
pray for Jesus to enter my heart, and I do believe there is power in those
prayers, similar to a clairvoyant conjuring the dead.
Of course as a Muslim, it is very easy to reject Trinity, but the Passion
ambushes a skeptic from an altogether different angle. Mel Gibson s
selective explanation of Salvation through Christ was more powerful and more
clear then any Christian scholar I ve encountered (and I ve dialoged with
Presidents of Christian Universities such as Norman Geisler). Jesus is not
referred to as God at all, (so your defenses are bypassed), instead Jesus is
portrayed as a beautiful volunteer to carry our burdens.
Yes, some parts were so real, I felt I was looking at Prophet Jesus and yes, I
sobbed a few times through the film, which is unavoidable even for a
non-Christian to see the pain and suffering of another human paralleled to his
mother (Mary) watching her son suffer as well.
Other positive parts of the film were that it was in Aramaic, which if you can
speak Arabic, you can understand several words in the film, and one part I was
taken aback on was Jesus predicting Prophet Muhammad by saying the helper
will come to teach you about Allah . (the Arabic/Aramaic name for God)
[Although the overly censored subtitles did not say God, I understood].
I also feel this film will be a good thing for the exterior stereotypes of
Muslim men and women. The image of Muslim men; because Jesus is portrayed as a
dark haired brown eyed man, as well as his companions, so the myth of a blond
haired and blue eyed Jesus is dispelled. Furthermore, it was surprising that
Jews in those days wore Islamic caps similar to Muslims today. For the Muslim
women, this film reaffirms what modern Christians have evolved into denying,
that Mary, the mother of Jesus, wore a veil as well. I would not be surprised
if some Christian women revert to wearing veils after this film.
The last constructive aspect of this film is that those who were causing the
graphic pain to Jesus were so demonized, that this film may very well lower the
rate of violence nationwide. Yes, the message of love was clear in this film
as Jesus prayed for his persecutors.
The Cons; Although I went in wanting to see a clean boxing match between Jews
and Christians, instead it was overly demonizing Jews, in a cursing to
damnation of Hell manner, where Judas is chased by demons into his suicide
for betraying Jesus and the Jews are surrounded by engulfing fire images after
sentencing Jesus to death.
Although I look forward to listening to Gibson s commentary when the DVD of
the Passion is released, I would barely be able to stomach or tolerate
seeing a man forced to bleed for nearly 2 hours again. The graphic violence
added a powerful emphasis on the message like no other Christian film before
it, but I believe can be emotionally and perhaps psychologically distressing if
viewed more than once.
Lastly, as a Muslim who is active in inviting Jews and Christians to Islam, I
believe overall this film is Satanic, yet with the most sincere and divine
intentions. As the devil was tempting Jesus throughout the film to loose his
faith in God, this film too was tempting to loose my sins in Christ. As we all
carry sins, this film was a major invitation to unload your weight on Jesus, as
Jesus volunteered to be tortured for our sins in this film so that we don t
incur the torture in Hell.
It is also very tempting to dump garbage in someone else s property, to blame
others for our actions, or to avoid liability. Instead, I will bear my own
sins and be accountable for the good and bad I have done in this brief life,
and not scapegoat Jesus as I have witnessed why it is so easy to do. Mel
Gibson has made the best effort I ve seen to show how Jesus loved us and died
for the sins of the world, and although it is an enchanting thought, it only
adds sins to this world because Christians no longer feel responsibility, which
is what the Devil wants.
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
founder of Jews for Allah http://www.Jews-for-Allah.org
author of 200+ Ways the Quran Corrects the Bible
BHZellner
Some told me that we really don't know exactly what
Jews wore in the time of Christ.
Ben
JammerJay
like to provide you with a perspective that many christians percieve
when it comes to Jesus Christ.
You see, some believe that Christ was God in human form. Others
believe that Jesus was a man born of the spiritual "loin" of God thus
Christ was indeed the Son of the living God. The bible does indeed
refer to Christ in both manners. Either way, all christians agree that
Jesus, a Jew by birth as well as by belief, had a spiritual /
intellectual connection with the living God which, through his words
and deeds, provided mankind with a much clearer vission never before
unveiled of what it is God asks of us in order for his to bask in his
holy presence here on earth as well as in the afterlife.
While it is true that over the centuries many Jews and Christians have
clashed and, in some cases, racial / spiritual tension has errupted,
no one can deny the lineage shared between Christians and Jews (that
is if you believe Christ to be the Messiah). Jesus was a both a
preacher and tacher and it is clear that his message was one of peace,
love, and spiritual serenity. Christ was sent to earth to be the role
model inwhich all men should mold their lives in order to achieve
holiness.
This of course where the problem lies when it comes to Islamic
beliefs. I do understand that Muslims believe in the "Old Testament".
I also realize that Muslims believe themselves to be the descendents
of Ishmael, son of Abraham. However, if one is to believe that Christ
was indeed ordained by God by any means, one must also believe that
his teachings, the "New Testament", does not allow room for another
religion. You see, Christ tells we Christians to look for HIS return
and not to be fooled by those who profess to be him or weild simular
power.
While Islam does profess a connection and may quite possibly have a
right to do so, Muslim beliefs directly clash with those taught by
Christ. Christ tells us to love, assist, and forgive one another.
Christ teachings tells us not to judge one another and that we should
pray for our enemies rather than trying to extract revenge. One the
other hand, the Koran may profess these things however, the Koran also
teaches various forms of violence, which are in direct violation of
the message of Christ. This is why many Christian question the
validity of Islam and, in some cases, believe Islam to be a perverse
spin on the Judeo-Christian belief system rendered by Satan himself.
Also, the Islamic teaching of a new savior, the Mahdi, resembles much
of what the New Testament warns us about when it refers to who we
Christians call the "Anti-Christ".
It my hope that one day Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike can one
day live in peace. Myself, being a Christian, believe that this can
only be achived only if all sides truely embrace the teachings of
Jesus Christ. While, over the centuries, many Christian sub-cultures
have given both Jews and Muslims plenty of reason to question
Christianity, I ask with all humility that all men read for themselves
those things taught by Christ and ask God Almighty to guide them to
truth.
Regardless of how one feels about Christianity, no one can deny that
the PURE teachings of Christ, unsoiled by the traditions and
perversions of man, can indeed bring peace to this world.
Loren
> The Pros; The draw to this film for me was unavoidable,
SNIP
>Jesus is not
> referred to as God at all, (so your defenses are bypassed), instead Jesus is
> portrayed as a beautiful volunteer to carry our burdens.
>
> Yes, some parts were so real, I felt I was looking at Prophet Jesus and yes, I
> sobbed a few times through the film, which is unavoidable even for a
> non-Christian to see the pain and suffering of another human paralleled to his
> mother (Mary) watching her son suffer as well.
>
Please don't take me as being hard hearted, but when you view Jesus
this way, you are no better off than the Jehovah Witnesses. For you
both have a creature, a finite being, making atonement for your sins.
It could have been you or me as well as this Jesus of yours for it can
never be anything more than a finite death.
However, the Trinitarian view is much more beautiful than this. The
NT reads, "God is love," while the Christian childrens song is "Jesus
loves me, this I know." Can you say that about Mohammad? Jesus said,
"Lo, I am with you always." Does any other "prophet" have that
capacity? To reduce Jesus to anything less than God is to reduce
everything He stand for. You are left in your sins. Your moral guilt
yet resides against you. When you pray to this Jesus, you will be
placed on "hold" because he is finite and can listen to only one
prayer at a time. Because this Jesus is finite, he is spatial meaning
he can only be in one place at a time. So much for "Lo, I am with you
always." He is a liar if he is finite. Nothing but warm fuzzies.
What good does it really do any one if he is but a finite creature
just like you and me?
But because God is a Trinity, we have a basis for real love before the
cosmos ever came into existence. The Father loved the Son and the Son
loved the Father from all eternity. There was communication and
mutual submission. Here the Christian stands apart from all other
religious systems for he has a true basis for the community of man.
No my friend, if Jesus is but another creature, no matter how elevated
you wish to make him, he is yet finite and in his finiteness his blood
is little different than that of bulls and goats. When your Jesus
died on the cross, he did not see you or me. All he saw were those
who either wept or mocked him from below. He died for a faceless
humanity offering only a relativistic hope. I feel sorry for you if
you are satisfied by such a poor picture of Jesus. You do not know
His sweet fellowship as the Christian does. We are His children and
we reside "in Christ Jesus." But your Jesus is finite. Our Jesus
saw each and everyone of us while making atonement for our sin/sins on
the Cross. It was personal and vicarious with infinite value.
I would suggest, my friend, that you take another look at our Jesus.
I would suggest that you place the gauntlet at His feet. Pray to Him
even if but to petition that you are not willing to see Him as God,
but you are willing to be made willing if in fact He is God. Dare to
be different. Dare to see Him as He is seen in Rev 5, where all the
heavens and the earth bow down and worship Him.
ConvertstoIslam
I believe you, I believe your Jesus shines, glows, and radiates love, I've seen
it and felt it.
>Can you say that about Mohammad?
sure, Muhammad was full of love too, making sure those around him ate and had
food before he ate, and forgiving those who tried to kill him as well.
Sure you can pick accounts that did not display love, but Jesus running from
death in Mt2 and leaving the children of Bethlaham to die in his place can be
also be portrayed as a non-loving act.
According to the Quran, Jesus and Muhammad are equal, although a few Muslims
mistakenly claim Muhammad is the greatest.
>You are left in your sins. Your moral guilt
>yet resides against you.
yes, which makes me think twice before committing a similar sin. It is the
people without a conscience that worry me...
>Our Jesus
>saw each and everyone of us while making atonement for our sin/sins on
>the Cross.
then why wasn't Satan forgiven? The original sinner was not forgiven, in fact,
Jesus violently attacked Satan in the film by stomping and apparently killing
Satan's snake.
If Jesus unconditionally loved and died for us, then why aren't we in Heaven,
including Satan. The existance of Satan is proof that the presumed death of
Christ did not atone the world, that theory only made Satan stronger because
now billions don't follow the laws [which even Christ followed].
Satan from the start (with Adam and Eve), tried to get humans not to obey God,
as Satan tricked humans with a brown tree and red apple, it was done again with
a brown cross and red blood.
>Pray to Him
>even if but to petition that you are not willing to see Him as God
if Christ was not God on earth, then his blood could atone the world, right?
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
http://www.Jews-for-Allah.org
ConvertstoIslam
>preacher and tacher and it is clear that his message was one of peace
I agree that his purpose on earth was to be a Prophet, which is why Jesus ran
from death for 33 years, rather than accepting death at the sacrificial lamb
age [Exodus 12:5-7] of one.
Although what does confuse me regarding the movie is, Peter without hesitation,
*pulled out a sword* and attacked a soldier trying to capture Jesus. Now if
Peter was with Jesus for years, why would Peter jump to violence so quickly if
Jesus *all along* taught peace, was peace a new concept after Peter cut the
soldier? Did Christ teach or imply violence for 33 years prior to Peter's
violent attack on the soldier? Although Jesus was submissive, his closest
followers were rather violent.
>Christ was sent to earth to be the role
>model inwhich all men should mold their lives in order to achieve
>holiness.
again I agree, but if Jesus was a role model for Christians, why are the Jewish
laws Jesus followed almost all ignored?
>I do understand that Muslims believe in the "Old Testament".
as did all the Prophets including Christ.
>You see, Christ tells we Christians to look for HIS return
Muslims believe Jesus will return as well.
>and not to be fooled by those who profess to be him or weild simular
>power.
Muhammad never claimed to be Jesus, nor did he display similar powers, except
escaping death as Jesus did often.
>the Koran also
>teaches various forms of violence, which are in direct violation of
>the message of Christ.
well, the Quran teaches self defense, which is what Christ taught as well
because Jesus did say "buy a sword" [Luke 22:36] and again the trigger happy
Peter in the film did not display a disciple full of decorum.
>This is why many Christian question the
>validity of Islam and, in some cases, believe Islam to be a perverse
>spin on the Judeo-Christian belief system rendered by Satan himself.
that is fair since I claim the same origin for the concept that 'there is no
accountability for sin once you accept the blood of Christ', but do you also
believe that Muslims believe to be worshipping the same God of Abraham as I
believe Christians sincerely believe to be following the will of the God of
Abraham. I think both of us being sincere is a start, the rest is only
peaceful dialog.
>Regardless of how one feels about Christianity, no one can deny that
>the PURE teachings of Christ, unsoiled by the traditions and
>perversions of man, can indeed bring peace to this world.
agreed, before Prophet Muhammad, the teachings of Christ were criterion of that
time.
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
----
[Several of the Gospels indicate that the disciples didn't quite get
everything Jesus was trying to teach them, at least not during his
life. Peter's use of the sword seems clearly to be shown as based on
a misunderstanding. --clh]
BHZellner
> reduce everything He stand for.
Certainly. And when even the most devout Christian
commits a sin - as he does daily - he is reducing
everything that Jesus stood for.
But - Praise God! - what ultimately matters is not
what we do for Jesus, but what He does for us.
> You are left in your sins.
In this life, no one can know that about another human
being. My impression was that, to quote St. Paul, the original poster here was
very close to the Kingdom of
Heaven. Maybe he was already there, and just didn't
know it yet!
Ben
Robotrobot
> speak Arabic, you can understand several words in the film, and one part I was
> taken aback on was Jesus predicting Prophet Muhammad by saying the helper
> will come to teach you about Allah . (the Arabic/Aramaic name for God)
> [Although the overly censored subtitles did not say God, I understood].
It sound's like Allah, but Abba translats to "daddy" or "father" in
Aramaic. In the Gospels, the Helper is the Holy Spirit.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> >Can you say that about Mohammad?
>
> sure, Muhammad was full of love too, making sure those around him ate and had
> food before he ate, and forgiving those who tried to kill him as well.
> Sure you can pick accounts that did not display love, but Jesus running from
> death in Mt2 and leaving the children of Bethlaham to die in his place can be
> also be portrayed as a non-loving act.
God told Joseph (by way of an angel) to go into Egypt. It wasn't the
person of Jesus who told them to go; it was the messenger of God,
delivering the official message of God. Thus, you are not questioning
the love of Jesus, but the love of God.
> According to the Quran, Jesus and Muhammad are equal, although a few Muslims
> mistakenly claim Muhammad is the greatest.
According to the Bible, Jesus is the only begotten Son of God (John
1:14; John 1:18; John 3:16, John 3:18, etc.). He could have no equals
among men.
> >You are left in your sins. Your moral guilt
> >yet resides against you.
>
> yes, which makes me think twice before committing a similar sin. It is the
> people without a conscience that worry me...
One need not have committed sin, nor must one be guilty of sin, to
have a conscience. But, those who regret having committed a sin are
still guilty of the sin they committed. No amount of regret can ever
rectify that transgression.
> >Our Jesus
> >saw each and everyone of us while making atonement for our sin/sins on
> >the Cross.
>
> then why wasn't Satan forgiven?
The Redeemer had to be kinsman of those who are to be redeemed.
Leviticus 25:47-49
47 And if a sojourner or stranger wax rich by thee, and thy brother
that dwelleth by him wax poor, and sell himself unto the stranger or
sojourner by thee, or to the stock of the stranger's family:
48 After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren
may redeem him:
49 Either his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or any that
is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be
able, he may redeem himself.
The reason that Jesus had to be born as fully human was so that He
would be our near-kinsman, able to redeem us.
Salvation is not simply a salutation. Sin is a debt against the law of
God, and that debt cannot simply disappear. The debt must be paid in
full. A sinner is a slave to sin, and the slave can only be redeemed
by the near-kinsman. Jesus was not made near-kinsman of Satan.
> The original sinner was not forgiven, in fact,
> Jesus violently attacked Satan in the film by stomping and apparently killing
> Satan's snake.
Genesis 3:15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed
and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his
heel.
> If Jesus unconditionally loved and died for us, then why aren't we in Heaven,
> including Satan. The existance of Satan is proof that the presumed death of
> Christ did not atone the world, that theory only made Satan stronger because
> now billions don't follow the laws [which even Christ followed].
If billions now don't follow the laws, that is no different than in
times past:
John 7:19
Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law?
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God
James 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
he is guilty of all.
The Redeemed are not immediately taken to Heaven because God gave
those on Earth the duty of spreading the Gospel throughout the entire
world. It is the Christian's job to do the work of God, and after that
we enter into our rest.
> Satan from the start (with Adam and Eve), tried to get humans not to obey God,
> as Satan tricked humans with a brown tree and red apple, it was done again with
> a brown cross and red blood.
Hebrews 9:22
And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without
shedding of blood is no remission.
Matthew 26:28
For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for
the remission of sins.
> >Pray to Him
> >even if but to petition that you are not willing to see Him as God
>
> if Christ was not God on earth, then his blood could atone the world, right?
None but God can forgive sins.
Richard Alexander
[snip]
> The third magnetism of this film was Jesus himself (who is so important
> to so many people). Although it is a sin in Islam to see graven images
> of Prophets,
I realize that many people (some Christians and Moslems, if not also
Jews) regard paintings and drawings to fall under the rules for graven
images, but I do not see how these people can consider such to be
graven. A graven image is an image that makes a relief in a surface,
such as through cutting or sculpting. A stone carved into a human
figure is a graven image; a painting of a human figure is not graven
at all, at least not as I understand the term. So, a movie or a flat
graphic image is not a graven image.
> I also feel this film will be a good thing for the exterior stereotypes of
> Muslim men and women. The image of Muslim men; because Jesus is portrayed as a
> dark haired brown eyed man, as well as his companions, so the myth of a blond
> haired and blue eyed Jesus is dispelled.
FWIW, many Christians reject the common images of Jesus, because they
portray Jesus as effeminate, with very long hair. Fundamentalist
Christians, for example, shun images of Jesus, simply because most
images of Jesus portray Jesus with the hair of a woman. So, for these
people, it doesn't matter what color of eyes and hair the image
portrays Jesus having, because these people reject the image, anyway.
> For the Muslim women, this film reaffirms what modern Christians have
> evolved into denying, that Mary, the mother of Jesus, wore a veil as well.
I must say, I've never found anyone making such a denial. I also don't
see why someone would make such a denial, unless you were trying to
build the case that women of today must wear the same garments that
women of 2000 years ago wore.
> I would not be surprised if some Christian women revert to wearing
> veils after this film.
Stranger things have happened. I went to a church in which a group of
women had taken up the practice of waving a handkerchief in the air
when they wanted to show appreciation of a point made by the preacher
during a sermon. Some churches engage in the practice of foot-washing.
However, I don't expect that veil-wearing will become widespread in
the West, no matter how devout the women may be.
> Lastly, as a Muslim who is active in inviting Jews and Christians to Islam, I
> believe overall this film is Satanic, yet with the most sincere and divine
> intentions.
You must have an odd definition of Satanic. When I was taught that
Rock Music is Satanic, it was with the understanding that the music is
like a seance, summoning, invoking or calling for demonic beings to
influence the listeners. Consequently, I would not have anything to do
with it.
I get the impression that your use of the term, "Satanic," is more
generalized and milder than the way that I understand and use the
term.
> As the devil was tempting Jesus throughout the film to loose his
> faith in God, this film too was tempting to loose my sins in Christ. As we all
> carry sins, this film was a major invitation to unload your weight on Jesus, as
> Jesus volunteered to be tortured for our sins in this film so that we don t
> incur the torture in Hell.
That is the message of Christianity. Either Jesus bears the burden of
your sins, or you are damned.
> It is also very tempting to dump garbage in someone else s property, to blame
> others for our actions, or to avoid liability. Instead, I will bear my own
> sins and be accountable for the good and bad I have done in this brief life,
Unfortunately, all who bear their own sins are damned.
> and not scapegoat Jesus as I have witnessed why it is so easy to do.
Where did the concept of a "scapegoat" originate? Why is the word in
our culture?
Leviticus 16:6-10, 20-22
6 And Aaron shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for
himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house.
7 And he shall take the two goats, and present them before the LORD at
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
8 And Aaron shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for the LORD,
and the other lot for the scapegoat.
9 And Aaron shall bring the goat upon which the LORD's lot fell, and
offer him for a sin offering.
10 But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be
presented alive before the LORD, to make an atonement with him, and to
let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness.
20 And when he hath made an end of reconciling the holy place, and the
tabernacle of the congregation, and the altar, he shall bring the live
goat:
21 And Aaron shall lay both his hands upon the head of the live goat,
and confess over him all the iniquities of the children of Israel, and
all their transgressions in all their sins, putting them upon the head
of the goat, and shall send him away by the hand of a fit man into the
wilderness:
22 And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land
not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness.
This is the plan of God, and just as much a part of the law as the Ten
Commandments, that there should be a scapegoat to carry the sins of
the people.
All of the sin sacrifices were analogies forshadowing Jesus. The Jew
who refused these sin offerings was cut off from his people, and died
in his own sins. And so it is today, that anyone who does not cast
their sin debt onto Jesus is damned.
> Mel Gibson has made the best effort I ve seen to show how Jesus
> loved us and died for the sins of the world, and although it is an
> enchanting thought, it only adds sins to this world because Christians
> no longer feel responsibility, which is what the Devil wants.
One need not be guilty of sin to behave responsibly.
You are not advocating responsibility; you are advocating slavery to
guilt.
Romans 6:1, 2
1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may
abound?
2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer
therein?
ConvertstoIslam
>Aramaic.
actually in [John 15:26], the word "God" (Allah), not "Father" (Abba) was used;
"The Helper will come, who reveals the truth about God"
which is the passage I remember quoted in the film's script.
>In the Gospels, the Helper is the Holy Spirit.
that is according to the commentators, but if analyzed in the context of
Trinity, the holy Spirit and Jesus are one, proving the helper is not the holy
spirit otherwise Jesus would have said "I will come to teach you about myself"
rather than referring to the helper as a different entity.
Jesus specified he will return as quoted in [Acts 15:16] "I will return", so it
is uncharacteristic for Jesus to portray himself returning as different
entities at different times.
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
author of 200+ Ways the Quran Corrects the Bible
Loren
> >Can you say that about Mohammad?
>
> sure, Muhammad was full of love too, making sure those around him ate and had
> food before he ate, and forgiving those who tried to kill him as well.
>
I think the emphasis is radically different. Christ's emphasis was
transforming the inward man. The outward will take care of itself.
>
> Sure you can pick accounts that did not display love, but Jesus running from
> death in Mt2 and leaving the children of Bethlaham to die in his place can be
> also be portrayed as a non-loving act.
>
You seem to have the view that is sometimes depicted in certain
renditions of Christ as a child. You think of Him as having a totally
developed adult consciousness and cognizants, standing up in the
manger with a crown on His head, holding a golden orb in His right
hand. Not at all the picture Luke so well describes of this child
growing like other children. Just what was this infant child suppose
to do in Bethlehem?
>
> According to the Quran, Jesus and Muhammad are equal, although a few Muslims
> mistakenly claim Muhammad is the greatest.
>
What creature can be equal with God? The "I AM" statements of John
separate Him from all other humanity. John 1:1-14 separates Him from
all other creation. John 1:1 is written in the imperfect tense
reading: "In the beginning was already the Word." In John 1:14, the
ingressive aorist is used, "became flesh" which illustrates a
completely different mode of existence than before. Phil 2 reveals to
us that His previous mode of existence was being that which He was
from before the foundation of the world, having existence in a full
Trinitarian relationship as God.
> >Our Jesus
> >saw each and everyone of us while making atonement for our sin/sins on
> >the Cross.
>
> then why wasn't Satan forgiven? The original sinner was not forgiven, in fact,
> Jesus violently attacked Satan in the film by stomping and apparently killing
> Satan's snake.
>
The angelic realm is not a race. One death cannot redeem the entire
angelic realm. It would require a death for each and every fallen
angel. But there is something more fundamental to this question. "To
whom much is given, much is expected." Eze 28:12ff reveals Satan as
"full of wisdom," having the "seal of perfection", residing on the
"holy mountain of God" and walking "in the midst of the stones of
fire." Satan's rebellion (Isa 14) is odious because He had it all and
it was not enough.
> If Jesus unconditionally loved and died for us, then why aren't we in Heaven,
Because He is waiting for as many as will to turn to Him and be saved.
Rom. 2:4 Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and
forbearance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads
you to repentance?
Rom. 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you
are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation
of the righteous judgment of God,
> including Satan. The existance of Satan is proof that the presumed death of
> Christ did not atone the world,
No, the proof that His atoning work was acceptable and complete was
His resurrection from the death and His ascention into heaven were
Heb. 10:12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time,
sat down at the right hand of God.
Why did He sit? Because His work is done.
> that theory only made Satan stronger because
> now billions don't follow the laws [which even Christ followed].
>
Christ fulfilled the law and freed us from its condemnation. Because
all the law could do for man was condemn him because none can keep it.
Rather now, for the Christian, he is free from the law and therefore
there is now no condemnation (Rom 8:1). We have the indwelling of the
Holy Spirit, (Jn 14:16ff) by who's benign invasion impresses upon the
believer the good things of God. We no longer need the letter of the
law for we have the Spirit of the law residing within us, working to
present us holy and blameless before the Lord at His coming for His
bride. We are no longer children who need a list of do's and dont's,
we are adult sons, we are the virgin bride who waits for her Lover.
>
> Satan from the start (with Adam and Eve), tried to get humans not to obey God,
> as Satan tricked humans with a brown tree and red apple, it was done again with
> a brown cross and red blood.
>
You must be born again, in Christ, or you will die in your sins and
exist forever in damnation and torment. The choice is yours.
Rom. 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly
seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are
without excuse.
Rom. 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as
God, or give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
Rom. 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
Rom. 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an
image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed
animals and crawling creatures.
Rom. 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts
to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them.
Rom. 1:25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed
forever. Amen.
> >Pray to Him
> >even if but to petition that you are not willing to see Him as God
>
> if Christ was not God on earth, then his blood could atone the world, right?
>
No. No more than your blood or mine could atone for the whole world.
It took the God-man to shed His innocent blood to be both the Just and
the Justifier.
Gilberto Simpson
sprsxs...@aol.com (JammerJay) wrote in message news:<Mkw1c.33948$TF2....@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>...
> This of course where the problem lies when it comes to Islamic
> beliefs. I do understand that Muslims believe in the "Old Testament".
This is a bit complicated. The Quran specifically mentions as
revelation the Torah given to Moses and the Zabur or Psalms given to
David and also something called the suhuf or the scrolls of Abraham
and Moses. Many Muslims (myself included) would assert that these
probably exist *within* the Old Testament in some form, but the texts
aren't necessarily preserved accurately and the Old Testament also
contains texts which aren't revelation.
> I also realize that Muslims believe themselves to be the descendents
> of Ishmael, son of Abraham.
This is actually a pet peeve of mine. Unlike Christianity and Judaism,
ISlam is actually NOT obsessesed with the idea of a God who makes
bloodline covenants with certain groups of people. There are about a
billion Muslims spread out on every continent and race of people. Most
Muslims are NOT Arab. Most Muslims are probably not descended from
Ismael. Islam is not some kind of Arab version of Judaism where the
Arabs become the chosen people. It's not a blood thing at all.
> However, if one is to believe that Christ
> was indeed ordained by God by any means, one must also believe that
> his teachings, the "New Testament", does not allow room for another
> religion.
There is an implicit equation being made between the teachings of
Christ and the New Testament which is not obvious, natural or
necessary. The New Testament did not exist while Christ was on Earth.
He wrote none of it. In fact the plurality of the New Testament were
written by a man who never met Jesus in the flesh and spent a chunk of
his life actively persecuting and seeking the death of Christians. In
fact, even after having a vision and converting to some form of
Christianity, he actually spent many years away from Jerusalem where
Peter and JAmes and the other disciples who actually knew Jesus were
based.
On top of that, we have numerous other ancient records which give
different perspectives on what the early Christians believed and what
Jesus taught in the form of non-canonical scriptures like the Gospel
of Thomas, the Acts of John, the Gospel of Peter, the writings of
Basilides, the Ebionites and others who in various ways give a
different picture of Jesus teachings (in many ways, a picture which
lends support to an Islamic understanding of Christian history)
For example there are many early Christian groups which had "Islamic"
conceptions of the crucifixion the divinity of Christ, the status of
the law, etc.
> You see, Christ tells we Christians to look for HIS return
> and not to be fooled by those who profess to be him or weild simular
> power.
>
Yes, that's a good policy. Muslims believe that as well.
> While Islam does profess a connection and may quite possibly have a
> right to do so, Muslim beliefs directly clash with those taught by
> Christ.
I would actually say the same about much of "Christian" theology
today.
Christ tells us to love, assist, and forgive one another.
> Christ teachings tells us not to judge one another and that we should
> pray for our enemies rather than trying to extract revenge. One the
> other hand, the Koran may profess these things however, the Koran also
> teaches various forms of violence, which are in direct violation of
> the message of Christ.
I've often heard similar claims from Christians and I find the
argument really problematic. And it is based on a really selective
reading of the Bible.
As a Christian, I would assume you believe in the inspiration of the
Bible, in other words, you believe it comes from God and contains his
word. In particular, the following commandments would be divinely
inspired.
When you approach a city to fight it, offer it terms of peace. If it
agrees to make peace with you and opens to you, all the people found
in it shall become your forced labor and shall serve you. However, if
it does not make peace with you, but makes war against you, besiege
it. When the Lord your God gives it into your hand, kill all the men
in it. Take as booty only the women, children, animals, and all that
is in the city, all its spoils. Use the spoils of your enemies which
the Lord your God has given you. . . Only in the cities of these
peoples that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance. Do not
leave alive anything that breathes" (Deuteronomy 20:10-17).
and also
"When the Lord, your God, brings you into the land that you are
entering to possess, and clears away many nations before you, the
Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the
Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and
stronger than you. And when the Lord, your God, delivers them before
you and you defeat them, destroy them utterly. Make no covenant with
them and show no mercy to them" (Deuteronomy 7:1-2).
Now, if you actually look at what Islamic teachings are about the use
of force, and look fairly, you would find that Islamic principles are
not terribly different from reasonable just war doctrines followed by
reasonable nations today.In particular , there is NOTHING in Islam
that would possibly justify the kind of behavior described in the
above two BIBLICAL verses. I'm not a pacifist, I believe that there
are some cases where violence is justified, but conscience sleeps alot
easier knowing that my religion doesn't attempt to justify merciless
genocide.
And any fair comparison between the ENTIRE Bible and the Quran will
clearly reveal that the Biblical view on violence and warfare in the
OT is much more violent and less restrained than the ISlamic view. To
say otherwise, I think you would have to throw out most of the OT
somehow.
Anyway, I think I'll stop there.. take care... peace
-Gilberto
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Mohamed!
I wanted to comment on some of the things you have written in this
thread...
> I have felt the spirits
> in Churches and once in a while, the images of Jesus pops up in front of me,
> all I attribute to the hundreds of Christian scholars I ve debated, and who
> pray for Jesus to enter my heart, and I do believe there is power in those
> prayers, similar to a clairvoyant conjuring the dead.
Do you mean in dreams? Or in visions? I wonder if I'm the only one who
read this and imagined the image of Jesus saying "Mohamed, quid me
persequeris?"
> Jesus is not referred to as God at all, (so your defenses are bypassed),
> instead Jesus is portrayed as a beautiful volunteer to carry our burdens.
Actually, John's depiction of the Priests reacting angrily to Jesus'
radical claims to divinity are depicted in the Sanhedrin trial scene.
> Other positive parts of the film were that it was in Aramaic, which if you can
> speak Arabic, you can understand several words in the film, and one part I was
> taken aback on was Jesus predicting Prophet Muhammad by saying the helper
> will come to teach you about Allah . (the Arabic/Aramaic name for God)
> [Although the overly censored subtitles did not say God, I understood].
With a background in Hebrew, I also was able to pick up chunks of the
Aramaic, but the Aramaic was, in my opinion, stiff and choppy (it
reminded me of the way the Native Americans spoke Lakota in "Dances
With Wolves" - the rhythm was off). All those Italian actors
pronounced the Latin flawlessly... Gibson should have cast Israelis or
Arabs in the roles of the Jews (including Jesus and his disciples). As
for the helper, I couldn't make out what Jesus said, but it sounded
like "peraqleet" was not used, rather something from from the
nun-chet-mem root (like nuchama or menuchama). To cast this as a
prediction of Muhammad is a bit strained...
> Furthermore, it was surprising that
> Jews in those days wore Islamic caps similar to Muslims today.
"Yarmulke" is a Yiddish word... the Hebrew word is kiffa (and I'm
assuming it is from the same cognate as kufi).
> For the Muslim
> women, this film reaffirms what modern Christians have evolved into denying,
> that Mary, the mother of Jesus, wore a veil as well.
The depiction of Mary in the movie reflected the depiction of her in
medieval Catholic art. PBS recently did a special on the subject, and
noted that a number of medieval and renaissance painters went to
Jerusalem to capture what the people look like and lived like. Of
course, by the time they saw Jerusalem, it was distinctly Islamic
(funniest of all, there is a painting of Mary that, purely by
accident, has the words "la ilah ilaa'llaah" printed in Arabic on the
border of her robe - the painter had a girl post in a robe purchased
from Jerusalem, and faithfully duplicated the patterns on the border -
patterns that turned out to be Arabic script). Though in both the Old
and New Testaments there is vague reference to women covering or
uncovering their hair in worship settings, it is not overwhelmingly
clear how first century Jewish women dressed exactly. Christianity,
Judaism and Islam have influenced each other so much it is hard
sometimes to determine where a common practice began (i.e. is the
hijaab an outgrowth of an ancient Jewish or Christian practice? or did
Jewish and Christian women start covering as a result of being
influenced by Islam?).
> I would not be surprised
> if some Christian women revert to wearing veils after this film.
Older Catholic women, particularly widows, and especially in spanish
speaking communities, still cover their hair in public...
Now with regard to comments made by you elsewhere in the thread...
> if Jesus was a role model for Christians, why are the Jewish
> laws Jesus followed almost all ignored?
The sermon on the mount seems to subvert a number of laws (with Jesus
employing the structure "it is written XYZ, but I say ABC...").
Furthermore, you have published books on Christianity... have you not
read Acts 15? It covers one of the first ever council of bishops, the
council at Jerusalem, where it is determined what laws gentile
Christians should have to follow. Gentile believers are only required
to "abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat
of strangled animals and from sexual immorality."
As for issues of God's love, discussed elsewhere in this thread, a
wonderful discussion, on the subject of unconditional love in the
Christian conception of God vis a vis the conditional love in the
Islamic conception of God, is developing in SRI:
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=bac0a2be.0402101209.6120e0f3%40posting.google.com
In a nutshell, if God is the greatest conceivable being, He must have
his attributes in a perpetual state of perfection. So, if God has the
attribute of love, as both the Bible and the Qur'an claim, then he
must be perfectly loving. In the Qur'an, God's love is conditional,
and conditional love is not perfect love. This is roughly an argument
raised by William Lane Craig in favor of the charge that the Islamic
conception of God is morally inadequate when it comes to love.
The discussion is still developing of course (and I have yet to
respond to recent objections by Zain Ali and Abdus-Salaam), but for a
preliminary introduction to a rough notion of perfect love, see the
portion of the Sermon on the Mount covered in Matthew 5:43-48. To only
love those who love or fear you is to love imperfectly.
There is a second argument I plan to introduce to the thread over the
next few days that has been put forth by the great Christian
philosophers William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne that is also an
appeal to the requirement that a loving God necessarily must be
perfectly loving (though I am modifying it slightly). If God is
perfectly loving, then there has to exist at least one being who
serves as an object of His love (because if there is no one else, He
loves nothing, and thus can't be perfectly loving). But this can't be
human beings, because we are created (i.e. there was a time we did not
exist), and that means that prior to our creation God was not
perfectly loving. In other words, for all time there had to be at
least one other being who serves as an object of that love, existing
either beside God or within God. In other words, if love is a
necessary attribute of God, then we must lean in favor of either
polytheism or a multipersonal God (such as the doctrine of the
Trinity, which holds that God is tri-personal). It is, I think, a
powerful argument against the sterile monadic ontology for God that
has developed within Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Islam.
-Denis Giron
BHZellner
John the Baptist's purpose was to be "a prophet,
and more than a prophet." Jesus came to die for
our sins.
> which is why Jesus ran from death for 33 years,
> rather than accepting death at the sacrificial lamb
> age [Exodus 12:5-7] of one.
Ran from death? He was "slain from the foundation
of the world." The sacrifical lamb was only a symbol.
Jesus was the reality.
> Although what does confuse me regarding the movie
> is, Peter without hesitation, *pulled out a sword*
> and attacked a soldier trying to capture Jesus. Now
> if Peter was with Jesus for years ...
Not that many years. And Peter still had lots to
learn, as the Gospels attest.
> ... [Several of the Gospels indicate that the disciples
> didn't quite get everything Jesus was trying to
> teach them ... ]
The Gospels indicate that His disciples, at this point,
hadn't quite got *anything* that Jesus was teaching
them. But this wasn't the end of the story.
>> Christ was sent to earth to be the role
>> model in which all men should mold their lives in
>> order to achieve holiness.
Well, not quite. Moses, and maybe also Buddha,
Zoroaster, and Mohammed came to do that. Jesus
came to save those who failed.
>> ... why are the Jewish laws Jesus followed almost
>> all ignored?
There are complex questions here. Take that up later,
OK?
> ... do you also believe that Muslims believe to be
> worshipping the same God of Abraham ...
Yes. But Jesus asked again and again, how can you
worship God, while rejecting His Son?
> ... no one can deny that the PURE teachings of
> Christ, unsoiled by the traditions and perversions
> of man, can indeed bring peace to this world.
Sure. But, a million years from now, what will that
matter? What matters is peace between each of
us, individually, and Almighty God.
Ben
lamb...@peoplepc.com
> to accept Christ much more than the average neighbor. I have felt the spirits
> in Churches and once in a while, the images of Jesus pops up in front of me,
> all I attribute to the hundreds of Christian scholars I ve debated, and who
> pray for Jesus to enter my heart, and I do believe there is power in those
> prayers, similar to a clairvoyant conjuring the dead.
This is an un-biblical comparison. Deuteronomy 18;1-12 strictly
forbids any such practices.
>
> Of course as a Muslim, it is very easy to reject Trinity, but the Passion
> ambushes a skeptic from an altogether different angle. Mel Gibson s
> selective explanation of Salvation through Christ was more powerful and more
> clear then any Christian scholar I ve encountered (and I ve dialoged with
> Presidents of Christian Universities such as Norman Geisler). Jesus is not
> referred to as God at all, (so your defenses are bypassed), instead Jesus is
> portrayed as a beautiful volunteer to carry our burdens.
There is no ambush here. Mel Gibson was quite accurate, not selective
in portraying the scriptures. As a former Jew I am sure you are
farmiliar with the fact that there are over 24,000 manuscripts dating
from as early as 20 yrs. after the death of Christ, and many are based
on eye witness accounts, and all agree on the relevent aspects of the
events.Solid compelling evidance by any modern standards. Such
evidance prsented in any court of law would be accepted hands down.
The Qu'ran on the other hand has only one manuscript dating from 100
yrs. after the death of Mohammed, and is solely the word of one man.
It now resides in a British museum in London. Hardley enough evidance
of any of the tenats, or claims of the Qu'ran to convince any court,
let alone base a faith on.
These facts have been scientifically examined, and are widely
accepted.
You speak very ellequently, but I would urge you to know more about
your subject matter, and it's historic reliability before you paint a
negative picture of anyone.
>
> Yes, some parts were so real, I felt I was looking at Prophet Jesus and yes, I
> sobbed a few times through the film, which is unavoidable even for a
> non-Christian to see the pain and suffering of another human paralleled to his
> mother (Mary) watching her son suffer as well.
>
> Other positive parts of the film were that it was in Aramaic, which if you can
> speak Arabic, you can understand several words in the film, and one part I was
> taken aback on was Jesus predicting Prophet Muhammad by saying the helper
> will come to teach you about Allah . (the Arabic/Aramaic name for
God)
This prediction, as taught in Acts 1;1-7 reffers to the Holy Spirit,
not Mohammed. If you read the account you will see that it is written
by someone who actually interviewed someone who was there when the
prediction was made.
> > The Cons; Although I went in wanting to see a clean boxing match between Jews
> and Christians, instead it was overly demonizing Jews, in a cursing to
> damnation of Hell manner, where Judas is chased by demons into his suicide
> for betraying Jesus and the Jews are surrounded by engulfing fire images after
> sentencing Jesus to death.
This Biblical account depicts the guilt of all humanity of rejecting
the only real GOD, and Creator. If you actually read the scriptures to
a point of understanding, this message is clear. All humanity is
guilty of the death of Jesus, not the Jews. There are a lot of people
who express their oppinions, but few who sincerely seek real truth.
>
>
> Lastly, as a Muslim who is active in inviting Jews and Christians to Islam, I
> believe overall this film is Satanic, yet with the most sincere and divine
> intentions. As the devil was tempting Jesus throughout the film to loose his
> faith in God, this film too was tempting to loose my sins in Christ. As we all
> carry sins, this film was a major invitation to unload your weight on Jesus, as
> Jesus volunteered to be tortured for our sins in this film so that we don t
> incur the torture in Hell.
>
> It is also very tempting to dump garbage in someone else s property, to blame
> others for our actions, or to avoid liability. Instead, I will bear my own
> sins and be accountable for the good and bad I have done in this brief life,
> and not scapegoat Jesus as I have witnessed why it is so easy to do. Mel
> Gibson has made the best effort I ve seen to show how Jesus loved us and died
> for the sins of the world, and although it is an enchanting thought, it only
> adds sins to this world because Christians no longer feel responsibility, which
> is what the Devil wants.
What the devil wants is for humans to refuse to accept this wonderful
sacrefice, and choose not to seek GOD.
There is no hope in eternity for anyone who does not accept it.
Romans10;13 and John 3;16. Serious seekers will search the scriptures
for themselves Acts 17;11, 2 Timothy 3;6-7,2Timothy 2;18.
GODS Blessings To All
>
>
BHZellner
> sinner was not forgiven, in fact, Jesus violently
So far as we know, salvation is supplied only for
rebellious humans, not for rebellious angels.
Of humans, Jesus said "Forgive them Father, for they
know not what they do." But rebellious angels like
Satan knew exactly what they were doing, and that
seems to make a difference.
But really - whatever ultimate fate may be supplied
for utterly non-human beings, not part of this world's
creation at all, is not a proper subject for our curiousity.
> ... then why aren't we in Heaven, including Satan.
> The existance of Satan is proof that the presumed
> death of Christ did not atone the world, that theory
> only made Satan stronger ...
Because the story isn't over yet. One commentator
said that we are in enemy-occupied territory - But
there is a rumor that the rightful King has landed!
Ben
ConvertstoIslam
>rebellious humans, not for rebellious angels.
according to the Gospel, Christ goes to Hell to try to save the fallen Angels;
"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" (2 Peter
2:4)
It's explained in the NT that Jesus went to those Angels in Hell;
"By which also he [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which
sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls
were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:18-20)
(1 Peter 3:18-20) is reiterated in the (Apostles' Creed) as "[Jesus] who was
conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius
Pilate, was crucified, died, buried and descended into hell."
So obviously salvation is not just for humans according to the Bible, so if
Christ died on the cross for everyone, why were those Angels still chained in
Hell, surely an unconditional love would have saved the first sinners, if Jesus
was God, then surely his blood atoned the angels too?
Another question is, why did Christ go to preach to them, I was under the
assuption that his ministry was completed on the cross, or was Jesus still a
Prophet after the cross?
ConvertstoIslam
>to do in Bethlehem?
according to you, this infant child was also God
>What creature can be equal with God? The "I AM" statements of John
>separate Him from all other humanity. John 1:1-14 separates Him from
>all other creation.
you start your response to this thread pleaing that Jesus was just a helpless
infant, now your saying no one compares to the power of Jesus.
if Jesus and God are one, then Matthew 2 stands as a non-loving act.
>The angelic realm is not a race.
yes they are (1 Peter 3:18-20)
>One death cannot redeem the entire
>angelic realm. It would require a death for each and every fallen
>angel.
even if God was the redeemer? you appear to be fluctuating the power of God to
fit your views...
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
>farmiliar with the fact that there are over 24,000 manuscripts dating
>from as early as 20 yrs. after the death of Christ
the Christian Bible was not cannonized until 300 years after Jesus on a
different continent
>The Qu'ran on the other hand has only one manuscript dating from 100
>yrs. after the death of Mohammed, and is solely the word of one man.
>It now resides in a British museum in London. Hardley enough evidance
>of any of the tenats, or claims of the Qu'ran to convince any court,
>let alone base a faith on.
the Western assumption that Islamic countries don't have museums with earlier
copies is simply ignorant. Your welcome to visit the Egyptian Islamic Museum
and see for yourself.
The Holy Quran was available and memorized by many during the life of Prophet
Muhammad.
>What the devil wants is for humans to refuse to accept this wonderful
>sacrefice, and choose not to seek GOD.
by accepting the sacrifice, you reject the laws that God has spent thousands of
years giving us.
I tend to side with the Christian critics of this film by saying more emphasis
should be given to the years Jesus taught laws rather than the few hours
surrounding the cross.
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
>person of Jesus who told them to go; it was the messenger of God,
>delivering the official message of God. Thus, you are not questioning
>the love of Jesus, but the love of God.
Trinitarian translation;
Jesus told Joseph...it was the messenger of Jesus,
delivering the official message of Jesus. Thus, you are not questioning the
love of Jesus, but the love of Jesus.
It will always amaze me on how Christians can insist Jesus was not God, and a
second later, insist Jesus was God.
>The Redeemer had to be kinsman of those who are to be redeemed.
so gentiles are not saved?
>James 2:10
>For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
>he is guilty of all.
I don't believe all sins are the same and have equal consiquences, for example,
blasphamy against the spirit can not be forgiven while others can...
>Hebrews 9:22
the apple was supposed to upleft Adam and Eve too, but prior to taking the
Apple, they were warned not to, similarly, Jesus and the OT warned not to
abandon the laws.
Peace
rtda...@yahoo.com
> > Our Jesus saw each and everyone of us while
> > making atonement for our sin/sins on the Cross.
>
> If Jesus unconditionally loved and died for us, then why aren't we in Heaven,
> including Satan. The existance of Satan is proof that the presumed death of
> Christ did not atone the world, that theory only made Satan stronger because
> now billions don't follow the laws [which even Christ followed].
>
> Satan from the start (with Adam and Eve), tried to get humans not to obey God,
> as Satan tricked humans with a brown tree and red apple, it was done again with
> a brown cross and red blood.
Since others have already covered some of the ground here, I would
like to apply my piece only to an idea I feel has not been addressed
enough yet, universal atonement. It seems as though "convert" has tied
in Jesus unconditional love and his death. While certainly we can
accept that Jesus unconditionally loves us, the death/atonement could
not be unconditional. There is a definite condition to his atonement
and there must be in order to accomplish its purpose. If there is no
condition, then it would be absolutely useless.
This renders the "existence of Satan as proof that the death of Christ
did not atone the world" moot, since Jesus' atonement was never meant
to universally cover sin. It is however available freely to all who
will accept.
I will need to explain what I believe is a biblical perspective on the
world and Gods purposes for us.
God is perfect, and is in process of creating a perfect society. This
will be called heaven.
All individuals have free-will, and can choose whether to obey or
disobey God.
Disobeying God is sin, and sin is imperfection. God necessarily must
not allow imperfection in his communion presence.
So if God is to create a perfect society, then sin MUST be removed. It
can only be done, however, if the individual willingly submits his own
free-will to God. If God makes a universal atonement, and puts all of
us in "heaven" as we are now, then we will not have heaven, we will
have "here". This part of it is necessary to weed out those that will
not submit to God. On a practical level, a universal atonement
accomplishes nothing. On a metaphysical level, it would render God
imperfect.
"Heaven" will be when all the citizens are voluntarily submitted to
God. But they will also have to have their sins covered. God must
judge sin as part of his perfection. If he forgives sin without the
price being paid, then he is not acting perfectly, and that is not
possible for God. This will be a huge issue between our respective
philosophies, nonetheless this is the biblical view, and it follows
logically as well.
Islam will usually take issue with this on the pretense that Gods
mercy is abolished in favor of bloodlust, but this simply is not the
case. God's mercy is most evident in the length to which he would go
in order to provide a way in which his love is manifest without his
justice being compromised.
Armed with the understanding that God is perfect, his aim is to create
a perfect society, and that any citizen of that perfect society MUST
voluntarily submit, then the proposal of universal atonement simply
doesn't work.
ONLY an effort by which Gods justice could be met and the sin of
humankind covered, could he created a society in which people who have
committed sins could be admitted.
dave
bushbadee
> portray Jesus as effeminate, with very long hair.
Jesus was like Samson, a Nazareen (Not from Nazareth)
He would have had long hair as Nazareen's did not cut their hair..
Matthew Johnson
>
>> It sound's like Allah, but Abba translats to "daddy" or "father" in
>>Aramaic.
>
>actually in [John 15:26], the word "God" (Allah), not "Father" (Abba) was used;
Are you really this seriously confused? I am really amazed. No, it is NOT "God".
It is:
OTAN DE HLQH O PARAKLHTOS ON EGW PEMPSW YMIN PARA TOY PATROS
TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS O PARA TOY PATROS EKPOREUETAI EKEINOS
MARTYRHSEI PERI EMOU (Jn 15:26)
The word "God", i.e. QEOS, does not occur at all. The words PATROS (genitive
case of PATHR) occurs TWICE.
>
>"The Helper will come, who reveals the truth about God"
>
>which is the passage I remember quoted in the film's script.
>
>>In the Gospels, the Helper is the Holy Spirit.
And where did you get this bizarre transation 'helper'? 'Comforter' is much
closer.
>
>that is according to the commentators, but if analyzed in the context of
>Trinity, the holy Spirit and Jesus are one, proving the helper is not the holy
>spirit
You call _this_ 'analyzed in the context of Trinity'? It is NOT. You have to set
aside your gross misconceptions about what 'Trinity' means before you can
analyze anything in its context. Forget what the Quran says about it, since
Mohammed did NOT understand what we meant by 'Trinity'.
[snip]
ConvertstoIslam
pax vobis com Dennis!
(I actually don't know Latin and had to look up the response for your kind
[Catholic?] greeting :-)
>Do you mean in dreams? Or in visions?
oh no, now it's going to get around that I see dead people like in the movie
"sixth sense" ;-)
Well, I presume that I share the experience of half the people in SRC that
Jesus appeared to them but as soon as I said "A3zib'Allah min al shyton al
Rageem" he went away as quickly as he came.
It only happened a couple of times in my 33 years, and I've seen and sensed
other jinn like creatures more often than that :-)
>I wonder if I'm the only one who
>read this and imagined the image of Jesus saying "Mohamed, quid me
>persequeris?"
well, I did not reply as submissive as Saul did; "Quis es, Domine?" instead I
recited the best jinn repeller I know and he was zapped away...
But he did look straight at me and it did look like that question was on his
tongue ;-)
>Actually, John's depiction of the Priests reacting angrily to Jesus'
>radical claims to divinity are depicted in the Sanhedrin trial scene.
good observation but I thought they were angry because he was claiming to be a
Prophet (aka Messiah), I mean they got raging mad if he simply misquoted Moses.
>Gibson should have cast Israelis or
>Arabs in the roles of the Jews (including Jesus and his disciples)
I agree but I think Gibson thinks of both groups as not baptized enough to play
in the film :-)
>As
>for the helper, I couldn't make out what Jesus said, but it sounded
>like "peraqleet" was not used, rather something from from the
>nun-chet-mem root (like nuchama or menuchama). To cast this as a
>prediction of Muhammad is a bit strained...
I will agree with you, but it was hearing the English words "helper to teach
you about.." combined with the Aramayic/Arabic word "Allah" that raised my
brows.
>there is a painting of Mary that, purely by
>accident, has the words "la ilah ilaa'llaah" printed in Arabic on the
>border of her robe
suphon'Allah
>is the
>hijaab an outgrowth of an ancient Jewish or Christian practice? or did
>Jewish and Christian women start covering as a result of being
>influenced by Islam?
hijaabs were a Judeo-Christian rule long before being a Muslim rule, the Bible
speaks about shaving a person's hair off in shame if not covered.
>The sermon on the mount seems to subvert a number of laws (with Jesus
>employing the structure "it is written XYZ, but I say ABC...")
well, Jesus made some laws more strict, rather than abolishing them, and his
actions were of a Jew.
>Furthermore, you have published books on Christianity... have you not
>read Acts 15
Jesus taught damnation towards the people who preached forsaking the laws,
which I feel Paul fits under.
>In the Qur'an, God's love is conditional,
>and conditional love is not perfect love.
actually all three religions portray a conditional love, "if" you don't accept
the blood of Jesus or acknowledge Jesus as your savior, then you go to Hell,
and so on...
We need to love God unconditionally, not the other way around, Christians on
this thread fail to realize what JFK said so eloquently about America:
"ask not what God can do for you, but ask what you can do for God"
it was a pleasure speaking with you again, you almost tempt me to come out of
debate board retirement ;-)
Richard Alexander
> >God told Joseph (by way of an angel) to go into Egypt. It wasn't the
> >person of Jesus who told them to go; it was the messenger of God,
> >delivering the official message of God. Thus, you are not questioning
> >the love of Jesus, but the love of God.
>
> Trinitarian translation;
No, I gave you the Trinitarian version. You are giving me the
anti-Trinitarian version, which has errors.
> Jesus told Joseph...it was the messenger of Jesus,
> delivering the official message of Jesus. Thus, you are not questioning the
> love of Jesus, but the love of Jesus.
>
> It will always amaze me on how Christians can insist Jesus was not God, and a
> second later, insist Jesus was God.
God is an infinite being with three distinct aspects. One of these
aspects is Jesus. Humanity relates to God primarily through Jesus. You
make the error in your re-wording by making Jesus the only aspect of
God. You neglected a very important phrase in my original message;
"the person of Jesus." I chose that wording to convey that it was not
the aspect of Jesus Who sent the heavenly messenger. You have thus
mangled my original statement to mean other than my original statement
stated.
Jesus is not the Holy Ghost.
Jesus is not the Father.
The Father is not Jesus.
The Father is not the Holy Ghost.
All aspects of God are distinct, but each is completely God.
> >The Redeemer had to be kinsman of those who are to be redeemed.
>
> so gentiles are not saved?
All men are related.
Acts 17:26
And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the
face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and
the bounds of their habitation;
> >James 2:10
> >For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
> >he is guilty of all.
>
> I don't believe all sins are the same and have equal consiquences,
> for example, blasphamy against the spirit can not be forgiven while
> others can...
You originally claimed that due to Christianity, billions now do not
keep the law. I need only point out that this is no different than the
situation prior to Christianity, for no mere man has ever kept the
whole law perfectly. Now, you are changing the subject.
> >Hebrews 9:22
>
> the apple was supposed to upleft Adam and Eve too, but prior to taking the
> Apple, they were warned not to,
Adam and Eve were warned of God not to partake of the forbidden fruit.
Incidentally, some theologicans believe that when God walked with Adam
in the cool of the day, it was the aspect known as Jesus who was with
Adam.
> similarly, Jesus and the OT warned not to abandon the laws.
Jesus said the law would not pass away until all was fulfilled. Jesus
fulfilled all the Law by His death on the Cross.
ConvertstoIslam
>accept that Jesus unconditionally loves us, the death/atonement could
>not be unconditional.
I agree that Christian salvation is conditional.
>since Jesus' atonement was never meant
>to universally cover sin.
other Christians will disagree;
"Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." Joh 1:29
>It is however available freely to all who
>will accept.
so is any belief, humans are free to believe in anything, including the
righteousness of the laws.
to accept the guilt of a graphic death commited on our part maybe an equal
burden as accepting the duties of the laws.
Both are free but one has more consistancy than the other.
>Disobeying God is sin, and sin is imperfection. God necessarily must
>not allow imperfection in his communion presence.
God allowed ignorance in His presence, Adam and Eve were not as intelligent as
God and God wanted them that way, God did not want them perfect as He was
perfect, thus the warning not to eat the apple.
>So if God is to create a perfect society, then sin MUST be removed.
Jesus did not make this society perfect, even if you accept Jesus, in turn you
forsake laws that kept the society family oriented.
>nonetheless this is the biblical view, and it follows
>logically as well.
Biblical depending on the passages you choose, logical, no, why would God spend
3,000 years giving laws, allegedly coming down to earth and following the laws
for another 3 decades, then flip the switch in one day?
>God's mercy is most evident in the length to which he would go
>in order to provide a way in which his love is manifest without his
>justice being compromised.
God's love is manifest through the bounty on this earth, the justice is
severely compromised when one freely sins thinking they have a "free" pass
through Jesus.
innocence is not free just like Adam and Eve learned intelligence is not for
free.
Bob Crowley
> Mel Gibson since listening to his surprisingly intelligent commentary on the
> DVD Brave Heart which he heroically directed and starred in.
>
> The attraction to The Passion was also strong because in a somewhat
> sadistic way, I wanted to see all the hype about this film causing a crack in
> the Jewish-Christian relationship (which is natural I believe since the two
> groups have been ganging up on Muslims for some time now).
With all due respect the original conflict between Islam and
Christians, and Jews seems to have originated in Moslem conquests
which covered not only Jerusalem and the surrounding territories, but
eventually moved into Europe. Naturally enough this caused the
Europeans to defend themselves, and it could even be argued that the
Moslem invasions hastened European nationalism, since the feuding
lords of Europe had to band together to drive out the invaders and
then embark on the Crusades.
Modern attitudes are complex, but include resentment of European
colonisation in previous centuries, the "annexation" of Palenstinian
land by the Jews in 1948, and the fact the USA is the main guarantor
of that existence. Personally I think the Americans would be mightily
relieved if the violence stopped and some sort of equitable settlement
was worked out.
>
> The third magnetism of this film was Jesus himself (who is so important to so
> many people). Although it is a sin in Islam to see graven images of Prophets,
> I have been raised in America, thus it is a sin I commit having been most
> recently impressed by Martin Scorsese s The last temptation of Christ .
>
> I often compare our religion with Christians, and as such, I'm often prayed for
> to accept Christ much more than the average neighbor. I have felt the spirits
> in Churches and once in a while, the images of Jesus pops up in front of me,
> all I attribute to the hundreds of Christian scholars I ve debated, and who
> pray for Jesus to enter my heart, and I do believe there is power in those
> prayers, similar to a clairvoyant conjuring the dead.
Spirits exist - simple as that. Christians have spiritual
experiences, Moslems have spiritual experiences, Jews have spiritual
experiences, Buddhists have spiritual experiences, Hindus have
spiritual experiences. The problem is spiritual discernment, as they
can be good, bad or 'neutral'.
> Of course as a Muslim, it is very easy to reject Trinity, but the Passion
> ambushes a skeptic from an altogether different angle. Mel Gibson s
> selective explanation of Salvation through Christ was more powerful and more
> clear then any Christian scholar I ve encountered (and I ve dialoged with
> Presidents of Christian Universities such as Norman Geisler). Jesus is not
> referred to as God at all, (so your defenses are bypassed), instead Jesus is
> portrayed as a beautiful volunteer to carry our burdens.
In a sense He is, yet He is also chosen. The limit of his
"volunteering" is his
'willing' acceptance of the price to be paid.
>
> Yes, some parts were so real, I felt I was looking at Prophet Jesus and yes, I
> sobbed a few times through the film, which is unavoidable even for a
> non-Christian to see the pain and suffering of another human paralleled to his
> mother (Mary) watching her son suffer as well.
In the early days of Australian settlement, pagan Aboriginals used to
sob when they saw 'Christian' white men whipping other white men with
cats of nine tails. The mere fact a society says it is 'Christian'
does not mean a great deal, and human charity is widely spread.
>
> Other positive parts of the film were that it was in Aramaic, which if you can
> speak Arabic, you can understand several words in the film, and one part I was
> taken aback on was Jesus predicting Prophet Muhammad by saying the helper
> will come to teach you about Allah . (the Arabic/Aramaic name for God)
> [Although the overly censored subtitles did not say God, I understood].
The Christian version of the 'helper' is the Holy Spirit who is
RECORDED as coming at Pentecost, as manifested in the fires like
tongues, and the fact the disciples and followers of Christ were
suddenly speaking in human languages not their own, yet understandable
by others.
Claiming the 'helper' is Mohammed is a Moslem slant, not Christian,
nor is it what Christ meant.
> I also feel this film will be a good thing for the exterior stereotypes of
> Muslim men and women. The image of Muslim men; because Jesus is portrayed as a
> dark haired brown eyed man, as well as his companions, so the myth of a blond
> haired and blue eyed Jesus is dispelled. Furthermore, it was surprising that
> Jews in those days wore Islamic caps similar to Muslims today. For the Muslim
> women, this film reaffirms what modern Christians have evolved into denying,
> that Mary, the mother of Jesus, wore a veil as well. I would not be surprised
> if some Christian women revert to wearing veils after this film.
>
Actually all the major religions are Middle Eastern or Equatorial in
origin. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism all
originated in equatorial regions. Partly this is probably due to the
climate, as the far northern regions of Europe required a lot of
devotion to matters of survival due to the bitter winters, giving Thor
and Wodin a doomlike poise. Whereas the sunnier climes of the
religious Middle East and India and even the Philosophical shores of
Greece allowed more time for leisure. It is a lot easier to be a
thinker or a poor man in a sunny climate than an arctic one. This may
also explain in part why modern Christendom is so materialistic, as
its European development is in an area requiring material comforts and
shelter.
> The last constructive aspect of this film is that those who were causing the
> graphic pain to Jesus were so demonized, that this film may very well lower the
> rate of violence nationwide. Yes, the message of love was clear in this film
> as Jesus prayed for his persecutors.
>
I doubt it, as a lot of people won't see it. And humans have short
memories. I remember 'shock' footages of car accidents shown at
school and while it scared the students for a short while, it made not
a whit of difference to the accident rate.
> The Cons; Although I went in wanting to see a clean boxing match between Jews
> and Christians, instead it was overly demonizing Jews, in a cursing to
> damnation of Hell manner, where Judas is chased by demons into his suicide
> for betraying Jesus and the Jews are surrounded by engulfing fire images after
> sentencing Jesus to death.
>
Artistic licence I suppose, although Christ said the night of his
arrest. "Come , let us go, I cannot talk with you much longer, as the
Prince of this world is coming". That is, the Devil was coming in
person as the outcome of the next few hours was of great interest to
him. In doing so, there would have been a spirit of fear to bully the
disciples, a spirit of hatred to stir up the crowd, and a spirit of
cruelty to make the soldiers as cruel as they could be in the short
time allowed them.
> Although I look forward to listening to Gibson s commentary when the DVD of
> the Passion is released, I would barely be able to stomach or tolerate
> seeing a man forced to bleed for nearly 2 hours again. The graphic violence
> added a powerful emphasis on the message like no other Christian film before
> it, but I believe can be emotionally and perhaps psychologically distressing if
> viewed more than once.
Yet that is what the crucifixions were about. We may think it is
terrible and it is, yet to the people of the day, they were almost
everyday occurrences, like going to see people torn to shreds by lions
in the arena, or covered in tar and set alight.
> Lastly, as a Muslim who is active in inviting Jews and Christians to Islam, I
> believe overall this film is Satanic, yet with the most sincere and divine
> intentions. As the devil was tempting Jesus throughout the film to loose his
> faith in God, this film too was tempting to loose my sins in Christ. As we all
> carry sins, this film was a major invitation to unload your weight on Jesus, as
> Jesus volunteered to be tortured for our sins in this film so that we don t
> incur the torture in Hell.
It is, or should have been, an invitation to become like Christ. This
may, and probably will, involve suffering in this life. Paul wrote 'I
fill up in my body the sufferings of Christ." In other words, Christ
expects His disciples to suffer with Him (which of course most of us
don't really want to do, if we're honest about it. We prefer, in our
human frailty, the easy way out, which is to let Christ do it all. I
don't think that is quite what He had in mind.)
>
> It is also very tempting to dump garbage in someone else s property, to blame
> others for our actions, or to avoid liability. Instead, I will bear my own
> sins and be accountable for the good and bad I have done in this brief life,
> and not scapegoat Jesus as I have witnessed why it is so easy to do. Mel
> Gibson has made the best effort I ve seen to show how Jesus loved us and died
> for the sins of the world, and although it is an enchanting thought, it only
> adds sins to this world because Christians no longer feel responsibility, which
> is what the Devil wants.
Christ Himself warned us that "not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will
enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who DOES the will of God".
That's a far cry from assuming it is going to be an easy ride in, on
Christ's back.
> Peace
And to you,
Bob Crowley
rtda...@yahoo.com
> >So far as we know, salvation is supplied only for
> >rebellious humans, not for rebellious angels.
>
> according to the Gospel, Christ goes to Hell to try to save the fallen Angels;
>
> "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and
> delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment" (2 Peter
> 2:4)
>
> It's explained in the NT that Jesus went to those Angels in Hell;
>
> "By which also he [Christ] went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which
> sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
> days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls
> were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:18-20)
> So obviously salvation is not just for humans according to the Bible, so if
> Christ died on the cross for everyone, why were those Angels still chained in
> Hell, surely an unconditional love would have saved the first sinners, if Jesus
> was God, then surely his blood atoned the angels too?
This is interesting. I had never really considered that the spirits
were fallen angels. The word is used in a variety ways, and I had
assumed it was referring to human spirits held in bondage. I had
assumed it was these that Paul had referred to in Ephesians 4.
However, I have no real knowledge of Greek, and to be fair, one note
mentions that the word spirits is not used of humans unless qualifying
terms are used in conjunction.
Perhaps some of you that are more familiar with Greek could confirm or
deny that? (Matthew?)
Even so, I am not sure it would immediately rule out my previous
understanding. For example, lacking external corroboration of the term
being used alone of humans would not necessarily exclude it from
meaning so, would it?
And even further, I am not sure that acceptance of the pneumasin as
angels would be proof that Jesus tried to save them, it is possible
that his message was a proclamation of his victory and not an attempt
to save. As has already been noted, those angels that sinned were cast
down were delivered into chains of darkness"to be reserved unto
judgment"
Certainly the assertion that Christ went to try and save fallen angels
is based on reading the passage a certain way and not absolute.
Even further still, (and I covered this in another post) I would have
to argue against any universal atonement. IF it were possible for
fallen angels to repent, then their individual salvations would have
to be appropriated by individual repentance. Atonement simply cannot
be universally applied without negating the entire reason for
redemption. So that even allowing that some angels repented, those
still left in hell are there because they are unrepentant.
And as I also stated in the other post, while Christ's love can be
unconditional, his atonement must not be. It would be his
unconditional love that would lead him to offer a way out to all, but
he could not thrust it upon all automatically without destroying the
very goal for which he died.
> Another question is, why did Christ go to preach to them, I was under the
> assuption that his ministry was completed on the cross, or was Jesus still a
> Prophet after the cross?
Well, certainly, he finished that work of atonement, but Hebrews 7
mentions that Jesus lives forever to intercede for us. So there is
another sense in which his ministry is not done. Consider John 14,15,
and 16 as well where Jesus promises to dwell within us, "I will do
whatever you ask in my name" etc. ( I am not asking for a debate on
the meaning of the verse at this point, I simply use it to illustrate
that Jesus himself promised to continue to minister to us in these
areas)
But as for why Jesus would be preaching, this question seems rather
short sighted. While under Christian thinking, the cross is a one-time
payment, the event is not immediately and universally known to
everyone. Individuals would still need to hear about it, so
proclaiming it is necessary. It continues to this day. It seems that
if we accept that angels could be redeemed, they too would need to
hear about it, and decide for themselves, hence someone to preach to
them.
dave
John Sparks
news:l7b3c.56545$6c5....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
> >God told Joseph (by way of an angel) to go into Egypt. It wasn't the
> >person of Jesus who told them to go; it was the messenger of God,
> >delivering the official message of God. Thus, you are not questioning
> >the love of Jesus, but the love of God.
>
> Trinitarian translation;
>
> Jesus told Joseph...it was the messenger of Jesus,
> delivering the official message of Jesus. Thus, you are not questioning
the
> love of Jesus, but the love of Jesus.
>
BZZT. Nope. The Father told Joseph, it was a messenger of the Father
delivering the official message of God.
Jesus is God, the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, yet Jesus is not
the Father or Holy Spirit. Three persons, ONE GOD. Like I just posted in
another thread, it is a little (no analogy can be complete) like a person,
for example "you". You have a mind, body and soul. All are "YOU" yet your
mind is not your body or soul, neither is your body your mind or soul, and
neither is your soul your body or mind. Yet all are ONE "YOU" - each has the
identity of "You" (the analogy falls apart in that your mind is a part of
"you" as is your "body" and "soul", where the trinity says that each of the
Father, Son, and holy spirit is "all" God yet are separate "persons" - but
the analogy should be sufficient to give you the gist of what we believe )
> It will always amaze me on how Christians can insist Jesus was not God,
and a
> second later, insist Jesus was God.
The confusion is usually that when we speak the word "God" we mean "God the
Father" - Jesus called the Father "God" in the new testament gospels many
times, because positionally, as a human (as well as God) the Father is
higher "ranked" than he was and was his "God". Again the Father and Jesus
are not the same "person", but the same "God"
>
> >The Redeemer had to be kinsman of those who are to be redeemed.
>
> so gentiles are not saved?
Jesus was made the kinsmen of all humanity, because he was made human. He
could forgive sins because he was God. So he had the power to forgive us,
and the power to redeem us by paying the just penalty of our sins by
substituting his life for ours voluntarily. Like the judge of a murder trial
being the family member of the victim, and loving the murderer so much, he
pays the death penalty himself, so the murderer can go free. The murderer
doesn't deserve to go free (we don't deserve to be saved) and the crime was
against the judges' family (we sinned against God) and yet the Judge (God)
loves the murderer (us) so much, that he will pay the death penalty in (our)
stead. Then the Judge came back to life to show that he really is God and
adopted the murderer into his own family.
The price has been paid and is just waiting for us to pick up the payment.
You just have to ASK the Judge to forgive you based on what he has done for
us all and you are saved. And in order to ASK you have to BELIEVE it is true
and CHOOSE to be in God's family.
>
> >James 2:10
> >For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point,
> >he is guilty of all.
>
> I don't believe all sins are the same and have equal consiquences, for
example,
> blasphamy against the spirit can not be forgiven while others can...
The "blasphemy of the holy spirit" is to reject Jesus and deny who he is:
Our God and Savior. By denying this, you will not accept Jesus' sacrifice as
your own and won't be saved. It's the murderer telling the Judge, "No! I
refuse your act of mercy! I will pay for my crime myself." - and does. If he
dies, he can't be rescued. That is why this is the only sin that cannot be
forgiven. Because you refuse to let God forgive you through what Jesus did
for you.
> the apple was supposed to upleft Adam and Eve too, but prior to taking the
> Apple, they were warned not to, similarly, Jesus and the OT warned not to
> abandon the laws.
The point of Christianity is not to do away with the Law. The Law is there
to show us the "standard" of God - PERFECTION. They point out that we cannot
possibly (and haven't) follow them perfectly. None of us have! Since we have
broken the law, we must pay for them. The penalty of breaking even one is
eternal separation from God.
What are we to do? Nothing. We have each of us already failed. Our only hope
is for someone to pay the penalty for us. The only one who is willing and
did so was Jesus. He was God so he could forgive us. He was human so he
could be our substitution. He was God (infinite) so he could pay the penalty
for ALL humanity. If a normal human volunteered for the substitution he
could only substitute for one human, and since he owed the penalty for
himself, the only person he would be able to pay for would be himself.
Now there are some ceremonial laws that God gave only to the hebrews that he
did not apply to the rest of mankind, and some laws that refer to the method
of the hebrew worship and sacrifice that Jesus ended when he paid the final
sacrifice. We still keep the moral law, the 10 commandments, but we also
know that we do not do it perfectly. Yet we are still forgiven for any
breaking of the law. So does that mean we can break the Law all we want to
and still get into heaven?? Well, logically, yes we can. But to do so on
purpose would be to mock the sacrifice Jesus made for us. And because God
has given us a new spirit, made us part of his family, we do our best to
follow Jesus' commandments even though we mess up from time to time.
Paul said this in Romans 6:1What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning
so that grace may increase? 2By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in
it any longer? 3Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into
Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with
him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from
the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
I urge you to read the book of Romans in the New Testament. The whole book
goes through what the Law means and how Jesus fulfilled the Law so that
those that believe in him no longer have to worry about being condemned for
breaking it (as we all have, including you)
ConvertstoIslam
well, we are talking about the Bible aren't we?
>No, it is NOT "God".
>It is:
>
> OTAN DE HLQH O PARAKLHTOS ON EGW PEMPSW YMIN PARA TOY PATROS
> TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS O PARA TOY PATROS EKPOREUETAI EKEINOS
> MARTYRHSEI PERI EMOU (Jn 15:26)
you seem to have entered the wrong theater, we're talking about what Christ
stated in Aramayic, not the Greek *translation* of what Jesus said.
Logically, saying "from the Father..from the Father" in the same sentance is
repetitive, so perhaps the Greek mistranslated the Aramayic. I don't have an
Aramayic Bible handy so does anyone know what Jn 15:26 says in Aramayic?
>And where did you get this bizarre transation
from the "Good News Translation" which as I understand it, is the Catholic
edition, which is the sect the movie is based on...
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?word=John+15%3A26&s
ection=0&version=gnt&new=1&oq=&NavBook=joh&NavGo=15&NavCurrentChapter=15
>You have to set
>aside your gross misconceptions about what 'Trinity' means before you can
>analyze anything in its context.
so the ice, water, and steam concept is wrong? the three are not one? how else
should I understand Trinity besides the claim that Jesus and the Creator are
one in the same?
>Forget what the Quran says about it, since
>Mohammed did NOT understand what we meant by 'Trinity'.
actually the Quran explains it better than anyone I've ever heard :-)
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
----
[The Greek is the closest we have to Jesus' original words. He may
have spoken in Aramaic, but if so we don't have it. There are Aramaic
versions of the NT, but the concensus is that they were translated
from the Greek.
The Peshitta is the traditional Aramaic translation. Based on an
interlinear English translation, it appears to use Father twice, just
as the Greek does. I haven't been able to find any other Aramaic whose
origin I can determine. (There's a "new covenant" version, which also
has Father twice, but I can't tell what this version actually is based
on.)
The TEV/Good News translation is not Catholic, but rather is from the
American Bible Society. (There is a Catholic edition, but the text
isn't changed. I believe the difference is in notes and other
features.) I like it. However it is not a literal translation, and at
times it tends to paraphrase. That's what is happening here.
There's no difference in the phrases that use "Father". The TEV's use
of "God" is actually a phrase the TEV has added as an explanation.
Here's a comparison:
literal translation of Greek (from Brown and Comfort, with word order
slightly modified in the direction of normal English):
When the paraklete comes whom I will send to you from the Father,
the spirit of truth, which proceeds from the Father, that one
will testify about me.
TEV:
The Helper will come -- the Spirit, who reveals the truth about
God and who comes from the Father. I will send him to you from the
Father, and he will speak about me.
The TEV commonly changes word order to make it better English. If you
swap the order around so that they match, you'll find that TEV has
translated "the spirit of truth" as "the Spirit, who reveals the truth
about God." One can argue whether a translation should do things
like this, but I would say that this is a reasonable explanation of
what "spirit of truth" means in this context. The two references to
the Father: "I will send to you from the Father" and "which proceeds
from the Father" are both in the TEV, although in the opposite order.
The repetition of Father is quite consistent with John's style.
Repetition is a feature of Jewish Greek, i.e. Greek that has been
influenced by Hebrew style.
--clh]
Matthew Johnson
>
>>Are you really this seriously confused?
>
>well, we are talking about the Bible aren't we?
>
>>No, it is NOT "God".
>>It is:
>>
>> OTAN DE HLQH O PARAKLHTOS ON EGW PEMPSW YMIN PARA TOY PATROS
>> TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS O PARA TOY PATROS EKPOREUETAI EKEINOS
>> MARTYRHSEI PERI EMOU (Jn 15:26)
>
>you seem to have entered the wrong theater, we're talking about what Christ
>stated in Aramayic, not the Greek *translation* of what Jesus said.
Nice try, but the _earliest_ and _most reliable_ record of what He said IS in
Greek. The so called "Aramaic Bible" is a late translation of the Greek, despite
what the Assyrians claim.
>Logically, saying "from the Father..from the Father" in the same sentance is
>repetitive, so perhaps the Greek mistranslated the Aramayic.
No, in any language, the Gospels are full of what now strikes us as needlessly
'repetitive'. It was part of the Middle Eastern narrative style.
>I don't have an
>Aramayic Bible handy so does anyone know what Jn 15:26 says in Aramayic?
It doesn't matter, since that would be a late translation of the Greek anyway.
>>And where did you get this bizarre transation
>
>from the "Good News Translation" which as I understand it, is the Catholic
>edition, which is the sect the movie is based on...
The GNT is NOT a 'Catholic edition'. And unless you can do your own translation,
you MUST give credit for the translation in your posts! Please read the FAQ for
this newsgroup for this and other important guidelines.
[snip]
>>You have to set
>>aside your gross misconceptions about what 'Trinity' means before you can
>>analyze anything in its context.
>
>so the ice, water, and steam concept is wrong?
Yes. It is very wrong.
> the three are not one?
Of course they are one. But they are also three. Understanding in what way they
are one, and in what way three is NOT easy. So it cannot be done with such
oversimplified examples.
Instead, consider the example St. Basil the Great gave, which I have already
mentioned often now: the Son and Holy Spirit are perfect images of the Father,
images more perfect than any images we have on earth of anything, even more
perfect than two identical twins (as images).
Thus, when we see the Son, we see the Father. And what worship we offer the Son,
reflects perfectly onto the Father. So that the worship we offer is ONE, and is
offered to ONE undivided Divinity, whether we worship Father, Son or Holy
Spirit. But if you deny any one of these three, then you lose that perfection,
and end up worshipping NONE.
> how else
>should I understand Trinity besides the claim that Jesus and the Creator are
>one in the same?
>
>>Forget what the Quran says about it, since
>>Mohammed did NOT understand what we meant by 'Trinity'.
>
>actually the Quran explains it better than anyone I've ever heard :-)
But what it 'explained' was NOT the Trinity!
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Mohamed!
> >Actually, John's depiction of the Priests reacting angrily to Jesus'
> >radical claims to divinity are depicted in the Sanhedrin trial scene.
>
> good observation but I thought they were angry because he was claiming
> to be a Prophet (aka Messiah), I mean they got raging mad if he simply
> misquoted Moses.
The relevant passage in John which that part of the movie was taken
from has Jesus essentially robbing God of his incommensurateness (if
Jesus was a mere human who said such things). So he was charged with
blasphemy for making himself equal to God.
> >Gibson should have cast Israelis or
> >Arabs in the roles of the Jews (including Jesus and his disciples)
>
> I agree but I think Gibson thinks of both groups as not baptized enough
> to play in the film :-)
Well, there are many Christian Arabs (with Maronites being Catholic!).
Oh well.
> >As
> >for the helper, I couldn't make out what Jesus said, but it sounded
> >like "peraqleet" was not used, rather something from from the
> >nun-chet-mem root (like nuchama or menuchama). To cast this as a
> >prediction of Muhammad is a bit strained...
>
> I will agree with you, but it was hearing the English words "helper to teach
> you about.." combined with the Aramayic/Arabic word "Allah" that raised my
> brows.
Oh. I would also note that I did not here Allaah, but rather
Elaha/Alaha. Now, assuming, as *some* claim, that Allaah is a
compaction of al-Ilah, then certainly it is exactly the same word (as
Elahaa, if I am not mistaken about what I heard, simply has Elah with
the definite article at the end).
> >is the
> >hijaab an outgrowth of an ancient Jewish or Christian practice? or did
> >Jewish and Christian women start covering as a result of being
> >influenced by Islam?
>
> hijaabs were a Judeo-Christian rule long before being a Muslim rule, the Bible
> speaks about shaving a person's hair off in shame if not covered.
There are verses that can be interpreted by a Muslim as employing a
behavior that is similar to Islamic practice, but that does not mean
it is actually the case. For an analogy, there are Biblical verses
that have men prostrating in worship settings, and Muslims may
interpret those verses as evidence that ancient Jews (and Christians?)
prostrated as regularly as Muslims do in worship settings, but the
conclusion would be a leap in logic. With regard to covering hair for
women, the Bible seems vague as to serious this was taken among
ancient Jews and Christians.
> >Furthermore, you have published books on Christianity... have you not
> >read Acts 15
>
> Jesus taught damnation towards the people who preached forsaking the laws,
> which I feel Paul fits under.
The question still becomes if gentiles were required to follow these
laws, and this is not clear at all. Christians take the Bible as a
source of guidance, and the Bible, in Acts 15, has James proclaiming
that the gentile believers need not follow all the laws.
> >In the Qur'an, God's love is conditional,
> >and conditional love is not perfect love.
>
> actually all three religions portray a conditional love, "if" you don't accept
> the blood of Jesus or acknowledge Jesus as your savior, then you go to Hell,
> and so on...
You're mistaking justice (and the punishment of sin) with love. The
issue is that on the Christian conception of God, God loves even those
whom His justice requires that He punish, He loves sinners and
unbelievers, He loves even those who do not love Him. On the Qur'anic
view, however, there is explicit mention of how, while God possesses
the attribute of love, there are certain individuals (particularly
sinners) whom God does not love. So, as per William Lane Craig's
argument, the Christian conception of God presents God's love as
unconditional, while the Islamic counterpart presents God's love as
conditional. Thus the latter presents God as being imperfectly loving,
hence Craig's charge of moral inadequacy.
Quickly, since we're on the subject of the Christian conception of
God, I would like to respond also to what your wrote elsewhere in this
thread in your discussion with Matthew Johnson:
> > You have to set aside your gross misconceptions about
> > what 'Trinity' means before you can
> > analyze anything in its context.
>
> so the ice, water, and steam concept is wrong? the three are not one?
> how else should I understand Trinity besides the claim that Jesus and
> the Creator are one in the same?
One and the same in essence - ice and water are consubstantial, but
are not identical to one another, hence the following three
propositions being true:
(1) Ice is H2O.
(2) Water is H2O.
(3) Ice is not water.
> > Forget what the Quran says about it, since
> > Mohammed did NOT understand what we meant by 'Trinity'.
>
> actually the Quran explains it better than anyone I've ever heard :-)
This too is being discussed in SRI. I'm of the opinion that the author
of the Qur'an does not demonstrate any real familiarity with the
official orthodox doctrine.
> it was a pleasure speaking with you again, you almost tempt me
> to come out of debate board retirement ;-)
It has also been a pleasure conversing with you. As for coming out of
retirement and returning to SRI, I would not recommend such since SRI
has become devoid of Christians. Since you're pretty famous now among
Muslims (at least the portion of the Ummaah with access to the
internet), and you've written books about Christianity, you should
press for a formal debate with one of the more prominent Christian
debaters (which would also increase your name recognition). I'm
assuming your above-mentioned temptation to unretire was motivated by
my noting the employment of William Lane Craig's arguments in SRI.
Rather than debating people like myself, who are simply regurgitating
Craig's arguments, you should push for people to get behind you and
support a formal debate with Craig himself (I would recommend,
however, that you first see his debates with Jamal Badawi and Shabir
Ally before considering). I'm *guessing* if enough Muslims (and a few
non-Muslims) agreed that the debate is a good idea, Craig would accept
(as he accepted the debate with Ally, I assume, purely based on Ally's
fame among Muslims - as Ally has never receieved a doctorate).
-Denis Giron
Matthew Johnson
>
>convert...@aol.com (ConvertstoIslam) wrote in message
>news:<k7b3c.56542$6c5....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
>
>> >So far as we know, salvation is supplied only for
>> >rebellious humans, not for rebellious angels.
>>
>> according to the Gospel, Christ goes to Hell to
>> try to save the fallen Angels;
>>
>> "For if God spared not the angels that sinned,
>> but cast them down to hell, and
>> delivered them into chains of darkness,
>> to be reserved unto judgment" (2 Peter
>> 2:4)
There is nothing here about trying to _save_ the angels that sinned. On the
contrary: it is a harsh picture of uncompromising _punishment_ for them. And
after the judgement, you can expect it will be even worse for them.
>> It's explained in the NT that Jesus went to those Angels in Hell;
No. See below.
>> "By which also he [Christ] went and preached unto the
>> spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient,
>> when once the longsuffering of God waited in the
>> days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein
>> few, that is, eight souls
>> were saved by water." (1 Peter 3:18-20)
But 'spirits in prison' does NOT refer to the angels in hell of 2 Peter.
>> So obviously salvation is not just for humans according to the Bible,
Actually, it is, as explained in Hebrews:
For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come,
of which we are speaking. (Heb 2:5 RSVA)
"World to come" is yet another synonym for 'eternal salvation'.
[snip]
>This is interesting. I had never really considered that the spirits
>were fallen angels.
And you were right not to consider it so;)
> The word is used in a variety ways, and I had
>assumed it was referring to human spirits held in bondage.
That is, in fact, how the native speaker of Koine Greek, first hierarch of the
Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Bulgaria, Blessed Theophylact read it. For he
says (commenting on this 1 Pt 3:18):
For having said, that He died for us, the unrighteous, the Apostle [Paul]
then says that He preached even to those held in hell. Coming to this
topic, the Apostle had to explain how the death of Christ was useful
even for those who died before [this is the passage that makes it clear
that Theophylact refers this passage to humans, not angels] and resolve
the question, "if the Incarnation of the Lord was for the salvation of
_all_, then how do the reposed receive salvation?" He resolves this
at once and answers yet another question, saying that the death of
Christ does both the one and the other together, producing the hope
of resurrection though His Resurrection and the salvation of those
who died before. For those, who spent their time well in life
then received salvation through the descent of the Lord into hell,
as St. Gregory thinks; for he said "Christ, appearing to those
in hell, saves not all of them without distinction, but only
the believers" (http://pagez.ru/lsn/0133.php#03)
The St. Gregory the Theologian quote is from Homily 45.
> I had
>assumed it was these that Paul had referred to in Ephesians 4.
>However, I have no real knowledge of Greek, and to be fair, one note
>mentions that the word spirits is not used of humans unless qualifying
>terms are used in conjunction.
>
>Perhaps some of you that are more familiar with Greek could confirm or
>deny that? (Matthew?)
'Spirits' here really does refer to humans. That is the way the native speaker
read it, as you can see from the Theophylact quote above. As to why the
expression is so _rare_ for humans in the NT, that could be just because they
didn't talk about the topic of humans in hell before Christ very often.
[snip]
ConvertstoIslam
thank you for your reply, it was very pleasant...
>the original conflict between Islam and
>Christians, and Jews seems to have originated in Moslem conquests
>which covered not only Jerusalem and the surrounding territories
that is one view, the other is that it was the mass voluntary conversions from
Christianity to Islam, rather than conquests, and that the crusaders wanted to
convert them back to Christianity through force...
lets remember that before Prophet Muhamamd (one man), the Arabs were all
Christian, Jewish, and pagans.
when I made the generalization that Jews and Christians are ganging up on
Muslims, I meant within the past 50 years or so, for centuries before that, it
was actually a Jewish-Muslim team keeping Christianity at bay.
>Claiming the 'helper' is Mohammed is a Moslem slant, not Christian,
>nor is it what Christ meant.
again that is one view, there are over a dozen predictions of Muhammad in the
Bible, although most of them are based on words with dual meanings and the
Christians tend to choose the meaning not pointing to Prophet Muhammad.
The way I see it, 1.5 Billion Muslims and over 50 Islamic countries later, I
think it's time to start exploring the dual meaning words predicting Muhammad
in the Bible a little closer if your still a Christian.
>We prefer, in our
>human frailty, the easy way out, which is to let Christ do it all. I
>don't think that is quite what He had in mind.)
I agree, and the majority of Christians quote a majority of Gospel passages by
people other than Jesus to take the easy way out.
>Christ Himself warned us that "not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will
>enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who DOES the will of God".
I feel there is still hope when a Christian actually quotes and supports that
passage rather than dodge and excuse it.
>That's a far cry from assuming it is going to be an easy ride in, on
>Christ's back.
ameen.
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
>mind is not your body or soul, neither is your body your mind or soul, and
>neither is your soul your body or mind.
my mind and soul control my body, my body sustains my mind and soul, so what
one does, the rest follow, so when Jesus fled from Herod to Egypt, it was an
action taken by the claimed tri-une god, just the same as the claim that it was
the tri-une god on the cross.
So whether it's embarrasing or glorifying, you aught to be consistant.
>The Law is there
>to show us the "standard" of God - PERFECTION. They point out that we cannot
>possibly (and haven't) follow them perfectly.
"Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your
reach. It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into
heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it? Nor is it beyond the
sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will
cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" No, the word
is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.
See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and
destruction. For I command you today to love the LORD your God, to walk in his
ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and
increase, and the LORD your God will bless you
in the land you are entering to possess. But if your heart turns away and you
are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and
worship them, I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed.
You will not live long.." (Deuteronomy 30:11-18)
Now is God a liar by saying in the Bible that the laws are not too hard to
follow?
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
>make the error in your re-wording by making Jesus the only aspect of
>God.
I shouldn't call God "Jesus"? Ok, Jesus is not the only aspect of God but Jesus
is *a* aspect of God according to you so it's also *not an error* to say Jesus
was responsible for the children dying in his place in Mt 2.
>it was not
>the aspect of Jesus Who sent the heavenly messenger.
you have a concept of God being a part time worker, God is Full Time, if Jesus
is God, then he is either God all the time or not...
>Jesus is not the Holy Ghost.
>Jesus is not the Father.
>The Father is not Jesus.
>The Father is not the Holy Ghost.
>
>All aspects of God are distinct, but each is completely God.
if "they" are completely God, then they are all equal, thus all one in the
same. Here is your own wording with an insertion of one single word to show
you how your explaination actually disproves Trinity;
Jesus is not [God] the Holy Ghost.
Jesus is not [God] the Father.
The Father is not [God] Jesus.
The Father is not [God] the Holy Ghost.
your explaination also conflicts with other Christian claims that God became
flesh and came down to earth in flesh form.
>I need only point out that this is no different than the
>situation prior to Christianity, for no mere man has ever kept the
>whole law perfectly.
no one is perfect, but at least we try rather than throwing in the towel
altogether, if you can not draw a perfect picture or be perfect in school or be
a perfect parent, does that mean you don't try? Who wants you not to try to
obey God? the answer is Satan.
>Jesus said the law would not pass away until all was fulfilled. Jesus
>fulfilled all the Law by His death on the Cross.
Jesus did not fulfill all because Jesus had much more to say even after his
time on earth;
"I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." [John
16:12]
Therefore his alledged death did not remove all burdens, there were still more
for humans to bear after Jesus;
"However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all the
truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever things he hears, he
will speak. He will declare to you the things that are coming." [John 16:13]
Prophet Muhammad glorified Jesus as the Messiah of God and what Muhammad heard
from angel Gabriel, he spoke.
Peace
rtda...@yahoo.com
Hello,
Well the basic thrust of my post is that God is in process of building
a perfect society. This society is what we refer to as heaven. There
have been several areas, this being one of them, where I feel that not
much attempt has been made to understand the basic thrust. For
example: a comment was made that "Jesus did not make this society
perfect". That is a superficial response to what I wrote, and I feel
that a polemic attitude is taking root whereby we don't look to
understand what is really being said, but rather try to exploit any
latitude in the wording in order to render the others statements
in-credible.
As to a final goal of a perfect society, do Muslims seriously
challenge that God is doing this? Certainly they would believe in
paradise, so there are at least similar concepts here. And do you
challenge that God does not want sin there? Would there be sin in the
Islamic paradise?
This much seems fairly standard among our respective world views: God
is building a perfect society, and a perfect society by definition
excludes sin. So IF God is to accomplish this goal, there must be a
way in which sin is dealt with
> > While certainly we can accept that Jesus unconditionally loves
> > us, the death/atonement could not be unconditional.
> > since Jesus' atonement was never meant to universally
> > cover sin. It is however available freely to all who
> > will accept.
>
> so is any belief, humans are free to believe in anything,
> including the righteousness of the laws.
> to accept the guilt of a graphic death commited on our part
> maybe an equal burden as accepting the duties of the laws.
> Both are free but one has more consistancy than the other.
[universal atonement: I will only touch on this in regards to your
quoted verse.
Are really suggesting universal atonement based on that quote of John?
Don't you think that we are evangelizing based on a perceived need for
people to hear and accept it individually? If we believed this, there
is no need to do anything whatsoever. Atonement would be applied to
all no matter what the belief. However, it is simply unreasonable to
read the NT that way. Look beyond one verse.]
I should hardly think they are equal. Failure in the law brings death.
"For the soul that sins shall die". Ezek. 18
But God did not ask us to simply "share in the guilt of a graphic
death". That would simply mean another offense according to the law.
Perhaps I have misunderstood what you wanted to say?
As to the righteousness of the law, I believe it to be perfectly
righteous. What I don't believe in is my ability to uphold it. And if
I don't uphold it, then I sin. And if I sin, then I am deserving of
death.
What we are asked to do is to accept Jesus as the atonement in our
place.
His death was the penalty paid for sin. The law allowed for a
sacrifice to be offered in the place of the sinner. That sin brings
death is a spiritual law. That God allows another to take the place of
the sinner is grace.
Just as the torah sacrifices were an earthly copy of what would take
place in heaven, we are now covered by the sacrifice of the perfect
lamb. The law is "sin=death". Either we pay with our own life, or a
sacrifice takes the place for us.
So the difference is that you will die if you fail in the law,
But with Jesus, your sins are covered for all time.
> >Disobeying God is sin, and sin is imperfection. God necessarily must
> >not allow imperfection in his communion presence.
>
> God allowed ignorance in His presence, Adam and Eve were not as intelligent as
> God and God wanted them that way, God did not want them perfect as He was
> perfect, thus the warning not to eat the apple.
I suppose I knew that perfection would be interpreted in this way. I
was not suggesting that Adam and Eve were as intelligent as God.
Morally perfect is what God demands.
Interesting thought about the apple. But I have to reject this concept
of God. (I will return to the apple shortly)
If God is perfect, then his creation must also be perfect. Why?
A perfect God will not create something imperfect. When Genesis says
that A&E were created in his own image, could we suppose that they
were made morally imperfect?
His standard of conduct for his creation must also be perfect, by the
same line of reasoning.
Isaiah 59 tells us that our iniquities have separated us from God. So
it is sin that removes us from God. Perfection must be the standard of
a perfect God. By his nature, he cannot allow imperfection to be part
of his standard of conduct for us.
Jesus says the same thing in Mathew 5: be perfect, as your heavenly
Father is perfect.
It simply cannot be any other way, without destroying the perfection
of God.
Returning to the apple and its significance, if I remember right,
Muslims typically interpret the scenario as such: The apple
represented full knowledge/wisdom, which is something that God did not
want them to have. And in a sense, this is granted. God would not want
them to have first-hand knowledge of evil.
This is misrepresented as God withholding a good thing from them, when
it is not. First-hand knowledge of evil is not good at all. While God
knows the difference between good and evil, he does not know it in a
firsthand way. To say he does would be to attribute
evil/imperfection/sin to God. While Adam was ignorant of evil, his
becoming aware of it could only happen through performing it, whereas
God has knowledge of it innately. Our lack of omniscience should not
be read as an imperfection, since it is not a moral defect. First hand
knowledge of sin is a moral defect since it is by definition knowledge
gained through moral failure.
So in this sense, saying that God "did not want them perfect, thus
warning them not to eat the apple" means that the apple represented
perfect knowledge, which presumably is a good thing since God has it.
and the only way to get perfection is to disobey God.
That puts us in an awkward position: God not only creates
imperfection, but requires disobedience in order to attain it. How
though can we accept that disobeying God would lead to perfection? And
certainly the results did not lead to perfection at any stretch.
If I have misrepresented this, perhaps you can more fully explain the
Islamic position. I have done my best to try and understand it and
comment fairly.
While I won't pretend that every Christian views the garden in the
same way, I will explain what I believe.
The apple represents a test. It is the knowledge of good/evil, but it
is not a good knowledge.
The test is to trust God, or to take matters in ones own hands. And in
fact, that would be a good definition of sin: putting oneself over the
word of God. Anytime we put our will over Gods, we sin.
With the garden scenario, I believe that God knew we would sin, and
that it was inevitable that we would do so. Even in a perfect society,
we are still necessarily free-willed beings. And eventually, whether
after two days, or a million years and a planet full of people,
somebody is gonna say: "I don't want to obey God". There is no way to
avoid this because our free will is a necessary concomitant of our
being able to act independently. Satan would be an example of this. No
one tempted him, but as a free-willed being, it occurred to him that
he wanted to be independent of God.
So the only way to build a perfect society in which that never
happens, is to let it happen, and deal with it forevermore. And that
is the brilliance of the plan. God set us here, we fall just like he
knew, but now he is in the process of redeeming us. But as I mentioned
in the previous post, he can only have those in the new society that
voluntarily submit to him. Those will 1) want to change their sinful
ways, and 2) be given atonement through the blood of Jesus, and 3) be
covered for eternity.
Note that 1) is necessary. (unlike your proposed "free-pass" to sin)
We must want to change before we can. But it is not hard to see why
God cannot allow people into a perfect society that have no desire to
follow him.
Now, if I consider the biblical viewpoint, I will arrive at it playing
out like this: we either agree to follow God, or not. Eventually we
will all stand before God in judgment. Those that have their sin
covered, will be allowed to partake in the prefect society. Those that
don't, simply can't be in the presence of God. Hab. 1:13
Those that are invited in, will still have free will (that is
necessary) but will avoid sin through a) temptation being removed, b)
having our bodies and minds renewed, c) the blood of Jesus to cover us
for all time, d) full knowledge of the consequence of sin- having seen
both the judgment of those that would not accept, and having had to
stand before a holy, perfect God on our own, and having known that it
was only the atonement sacrifice of that covered us, and e) most
importantly- seeing God in his glory.
I believe these things will keep us in a pure state throughout
eternity. Note that I don't currently accept the metaphysical
impossibility of sin occurring, since free-will is simply a necessity
for independent individual action, but I believe the above reasons
will effectively counter sin. Also interesting to note with regard to
the apple, is that we sinned in ignorance the first time. We were told
we would die, but did not fully understand the meaning. After judgment
we will know what it meant.
I believe this to be a fairly biblically based philosophy of what God
is intending to accomplish with his creation. He is building a perfect
society and sin cannot be a part of that society. Therefore our sin
has to be taken care of by means of an atonement. But the atonement
cannot be universally applied sans repentance, lest the entire goal be
lost. Atonement applied without repentance would mean willful sinners
would inhabit what should be a perfect society which would render the
new society imperfect, and defeat the purpose.
> >nonetheless this is the biblical view, and it follows
> >logically as well.
>
> Biblical depending on the passages you choose, logical, no, why would God spend
> 3,000 years giving laws, allegedly coming down to earth and following the laws
> for another 3 decades, then flip the switch in one day?
This is the second time I have read something like this in the last
few days. I'm not sure why you would think God spent "3000 years
giving laws". He gave the law to Moses. It didn't take 3000 years. He
spent the next 1000 years correcting the Israelites and refining the
vision, but he certainly didn't spend so much time giving laws. He
gave them once.
As to why he would flip the switch? It was prophesied. Jeremiah spoke
of a day when the old covenant would pass away and a new covenant
would be given. So it was not so sudden as portrayed.
Why would he need to introduce a new covenant?
Because the first one was only ever meant to show us that we could not
make it to God by following the law.
The law was never going to get us to God, it was only to show us that
we fail. No matter how you slice it, it is YOU that either acts
correctly or not. A list of commands has no power to produce anything
in us. It only has power to show us what the standard is. But we
either do those things or not. It became apparent that we did not
follow the law.
Jeremiah 13, the prophet muses "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or
the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to
doing evil." (13:23)
What then can be done? He says in 18:31 to "get a new heart and a new
spirit". How will that be done? God says in Ezekiel 36
"I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you; I will
remove from you your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. 27
And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and
be careful to keep my laws. 28 You will live in the land I gave your
forefathers; you will be my people, and I will be your God." Ezekiel
36:26-28
And the result of that is found in the next chapter:
"My dwelling place will be with them; I will be their God, and they
will be my people" Ezekiel 37:27
but note that it was never that the people themselves would be able to
change, but it was God that would put a new heart in them. Jeremiah
calls this new covenant where he would write the laws on the hearts of
the people.
So to sum up, the change was foretold, the reasoning was foretold
> >God's mercy is most evident in the length to which he would go
> >in order to provide a way in which his love is manifest without his
> >justice being compromised.
>
> God's love is manifest through the bounty on this earth, the justice is
> severely compromised when one freely sins thinking they have a "free" pass
> through Jesus.
>
> innocence is not free just like Adam and Eve learned intelligence is not for
> free.
Unfortunately, this is the typical muslim response to the atonement.
It is also a strawman. The NT never says we can sin freely because we
have a free pass, and saying such things only shows massive ignorance.
I really don't even feel the need to defend this scripturally, but
even a light reading of the NT would show your statement to be
unfounded. I wish you had done better than this.
Well, I had hoped to edit this down to a more manageable size, but I
think that I will leave it at this for now.
dave
Steven Spence
the name of god over the last 2000 years, and the resurrection will be
of the spirit that was in Jesus on the morning of the third day. 1000
yrs one day.
www.dnatree.us/pp
ConvertstoIslam
universally known to
>everyone. Individuals would still need to hear about it, so
>proclaiming it is necessary.
well, Satan, an angel according to the Bible, knew about it, and he appeared to
have been foretold.
If one angel knew about it, why not all, since we can not conclusively say what
angels knew or know or don't know, then we can't say Jesus had to go to Hell to
personally tell them he just died for them.
Furthermore, being in Hell is not the place to preach about having died because
the common sense assuption by the chained angels would be that Jesus died and
was put in Hell for his sins as they did.
we don't know the conversation between Jesus and the chained angels and we
don't know what the angels already knew so anything said on this topic is just
speculation.
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
sorry I have not been to SRC in a long time and don't know if Clh is an
abbreviation for Charlie.
as I recall the moderator's name years ago was Charlie [I think] :-)
>He may
>have spoken in Aramaic, but if so we don't have it.
I read on a site that some fragments of the original Aramayic Gospels were
found;
http://www.metamind.net/aradirectory.html
to avoid mis-translations, I think it is one of the most important matters to
have the verbal match the written, for example, if Jesus said "Muhammad" in
Aramayic, imagine all the confused people thinking "Paraklytos" instead.
which is one of the beauties of the Quran, it was recited and written in
Arabic, so there is no confusion between words such as "God" and "Father".
>There are Aramaic
>versions of the NT, but the concensus is that they were translated
>from the Greek.
Yes, I think the motivation of scholars to return to the Aramayic edition is to
turn back the hands of time to seek the original words of Jesus.
>The TEV commonly changes word order to make it better English.
perhaps that is what Gibson did for the script as well, I went to amazon.com
and tried to do a "search inside" for the "passion of Christ" book to look up
the word "helper" and see if the TEV translation was used, but the search
inside option was not available for that book.
I maybe wrong, maybe I did not hear it correctly, I guess I would have to buy
the book to know or wait for the DVD and keep hitting "repeat" on that part :-)
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
----
[From what I know of Gibson, I would be really, really surprised if he
used the TEV. With his orientation I'd expect him to use the
Douay-Rheims, which plays the same role for English Catholics as the
King James. However the TEV was used as the text for another recent
movie, the Gospel of John.
If you wander around the Internet you'll find that it's an interesting
mixture ranging from solid information to crackpots. There are
certainly sites claiming to have the original words of Jesus in
Aramaic, just as there are sites claiming unbelievably early dates for
some of the Gospels, and that Jesus and his disciples are mentioned in
the Dead Sea Scrolls. A few years ago someone claimed that the
original Hebrew version of Matthew had been preserved by Jews. See
http://www.centuryone.com/4470-0.html. (Apparently there is a Hebrew
version of Matthew that was used by Jews as background for their
debates with Christians. The majority view is that it is a
translation of the Greek Matthew for people who understood Hebrew but
not Greek.) While one can't determine truth by vote, I will say that
the idea that we have Aramaic texts earlier than the Greek Gospels is
not widely accepted. If you want to go with fringe scholarship about
Christianity, don't be surprised if I quote back fringe scholarship
about the Quran.
There is an early tradition that the disciple Matthew wrote down
Jesus' words in Hebrew (probably meaning Aramaic). A number of people
think this is a source that lies behind the current Matthew. It's
unlikely that the current Matthew is that document itself, or even
just a Greek translation of that document. I would bet that the
current Gospels were all composed originally in Greek, but that there
were earlier collections of Jesus' sayings, either oral or
written. Those might well have been in Aramaic.
The problem with the Muslim theory about the Paraklete is that John
explicitly identifies him as the Holy Spirit many times. You need to
assume that both Paraklete and this identification is confused. At
that point you've pretty much rejected everything that John says on
the topic. I realize that from a Muslim perspective that may be
OK. But I suggest simply saying that you don't think John is a
reliable source of information about Jesus, rather than trying to make
John say something that he clearly didn't intend to say.
I could just as easily claim that the Quran really teaches the Trinity
but the people who heard Mohammed got it confused. By the time you're
willing to replace all the words with something else that you'd prefer
to hear, it's hard to see how to avoid uncontrolled speculation. People
engaging in Biblical criticism have put a lot of work into
developing approaches that guard against this kind of thing.
My name is Charles Hedrick. I should not be confused with Charles
W. Hedrick, who is an expert in Gnostic Christianity. I'm a computing
center manager.
--clh]
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
>>You make the error in your re-wording by making Jesus the only aspect of
>>God.
>I shouldn't call God "Jesus"? Ok, Jesus is not the only aspect of God
>but Jesus is *a* aspect of God according to you so it's also *not an
>error* to say Jesus was responsible for the children dying in his
>place in Mt 2.
I think there's a confusion in this discussion between two doctines:
the Trinity and the Incarnation.
TRINITY
The Trinity says that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While it's
not standard terminology, I think it's reasonable to say that the Son
is one aspect of God. But the point is that the Trinity really isn't
about Jesus, i.e. the human being. It's about the relationship among
three persons, aspects, parts, or what-have-you, all of whom are
eternal spiritual entities.
While it's difficult to come up with exactly the right terminology,
the real point of the Trinity is to preserve the unity of God. The
Bible clearly refers to each of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in
ways that make them seem to be distinct from each other. But no one
wants more than one God. So the Trinity says that despite this
apparent distinction, they're all parts, aspects, persons, or whatever
of one God. I've always been surprised that Muslims object to this. I
would think you would agree.
Just to be clear, when we speak of "Son" in the Trinity, we're
speaking of the eternal Logos. Of course the Logos became incarnate as
a human, but the Trinity isn't about the relationship between human
and God. One can't entirely separate the Logos from his incarnate
form. But the Trinity is primarily about the Logos seen as an eternal
spiritual entity, not Jesus. Hence when the Trinity speaks of the Son
as begotten from the Father, it's speaking of something that happens
in eternity, having nothing to do with Jesus' conception or birth.
The Father is the source of the Son in a continuing way, as a spring
is the source of a river. How the Son becomes incarnate as a human is
a separate matter.
INCARNATION
It's the Incarnation that speaks of the relationship between the
eternal Logos and his human incarnation. There was a tendency among
some writers to make Jesus some kind of fusion of divine and
human. This was ultimately rejected. It compromised the nature of God,
and led to a Jesus who wasn't really human. Most Muslim attacks
against the Trinity seem to be attacking this rejected view.
The orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation says that however much people
want to talk about Jesus as being God, we have to recognize that God
and humanity are two completely different things, and make sure that
we don't confuse them. Again, this is a concern that one would think
Muslims would share.
I see the basic idea of the Incarnation being that God has chosen to
use a human form to allow him to be with us. I don't quite see why
this is so controversial. No one seems to think the theophanies in the
OT are impossible. In a theophany God creates a human body and uses it
to appear. No details are given, but I don't see anything impossible
in saying that the interaction is two-way. I.e. not only do we see God
in that form, but he sees whatever the body sees. Certainly the OT
accounts look like the people actually interact with God in his human
form.
The difference in the incarnation is that it's not just a body, but a
complete human, with a real human life. But still God uses this human
to let us see what he is like, and he experiences what the human
experiences. In order for the life to be real, his control has to be
more subtle. With a theophany, God presumably manipulates the body
directly. With Jesus, God still makes sure that Jesus shows God as he
wants to be shown, and experiences what he experiences. But if Jesus
is to have a real human life, God has to work with Jesus as he does
through other humans: by seeing to it that Jesus' basic character and
development produce someone who is appropriate to this role, and by
being with him through the Holy Spirit. Can he get good enough results
this way? I think so: I think God is ultimately the Lord of history,
so he can get just as good a representation by working through a human
life as by manipulating a human body directly.
Classically, the Incarnation says that Christ is one person in two
natures, without confusion. This expresses some of the key parts of
the doctrine: That because Jesus is God's way of being with us,
ultimately God intends us to see him as the human form of God, and not
a completely separate person. But that God accomplishes this using
means that maintain Jesus' real humanity, i.e. that human nature and
God aren't confused.
Is Jesus God? Properly speaking, Jesus is the *incarnation of* God,
i.e. God's human form. Christians sometimes say "Jesus is God". I
don't say that this is wrong, but it is likely to be misleading.
IDENTITY OR PREDICATION?
In another posting there is a discussion of whether the incarnation is
a matter of identity or predication. I don't much like either of those
alternatives, at least not if I understand how "identity" is meant. I
assume it's meant in the mathematical sense of being the identical
thing.
Jesus isn't simply identical to God. He is God in human form. But this
isn't just predication. At least not if I understand what predication
is. I take it to mean that Godness is a predicate, which applies both
to God in his usual eternal, invisible form, and to Jesus. I guess in
some sense that has to be true. If Jesus is the human form of God,
then there are things he shares with God, and I guess that could be
the predicate. But thinking of a predicate seems too much like two
gods. Jesus isn't God because he shares certain properties with
God. He's God because he is God's way of appearing to us. This is a
matter of personal identity. Classically, one speaks of a personal
("hypostatic") union.
-----------------------------------
Note for Christians interested in doctrine:
Am I properly representing the Incarnation? I think so. Athanasius'
descriptions of the Incarnation suggest to me that the Logos
directly manipulates body, soul and other parts. Thus it looks like
a more complete version of a theophany. In Athanasius' model
there is no actual human being that one might call Jesus. All the
parts of a human being are there, but they apply directly to the
Logos. So the Logos works through a human body, mind, soul, etc.
that are his. There's no actual human being.
However in dealing with the monothetlite controversy, the doctrine is
somewhat clarified. It is now said that there is a true human will,
and that Jesus lives a real human existence. It is still not quite
said that there is a human being, because the basic model of the
Incarnation is that there is only one hypostasis, which is the
hypostasis of the Logos.
What I've tried to do is to tease out the meaning of having the Logos
take to himself a whole human existence with its own human will,
rather than just the parts of a human. Just as in the original model
the Logos animated the body, mind, etc, the Logos now has to have
similar presence through a complete human life. But if we're going to
maintain the two-nature model, this has to happen without disturbing
its integrity as a real human existence. I think that commits us to
the two things I maintain above: that the Logos' control over the
human life has to be limited to the way God works with all humans, but
that he to have just as much responsibility for what happens, so that
Jesus' life can be seen as just as much God's presence as a theophany.
Bob Crowley
> Hi Bob,
>
> thank you for your reply, it was very pleasant...
>
> >the original conflict between Islam and
> >Christians, and Jews seems to have originated in Moslem conquests
> >which covered not only Jerusalem and the surrounding territories
>
> that is one view, the other is that it was the mass voluntary conversions from
> Christianity to Islam, rather than conquests, and that the crusaders wanted to
> convert them back to Christianity through force...
Well, it looks like it boils down to which side of the fence you're
sitting on. I suppose the new concrete wall in Israel typifies this -
on one side are a bunch of Jews determined to keep the 'Moslem'
Palestinians out on teh grounds they can't be trusted, and on the
other side a bunch of Palestinians determined to maintain Palestine as
their ancestral home. It seems very much that which 'side' we'll be
on depends on where we're born, and the culture we're brought up in.
> lets remember that before Prophet Muhamamd (one man), the Arabs were all
> Christian, Jewish, and pagans.
My understanding was that paganism was predominant, particularly
amongst the free ranging desert tribes. Frankly it is not an area I
know much about, but I believe one of the reasons for the very
hardline monotheism, which is similar to Judaism and Christianity, but
more insistent on the singularity of God, is that Mohammed was
offended by the polytheistic attitudes of Arab tribes at the time.
> when I made the generalization that Jews and Christians are ganging up on
> Muslims, I meant within the past 50 years or so, for centuries before that, it
> was actually a Jewish-Muslim team keeping Christianity at bay.
For a long time Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire, was regarded as an ever
present threat in Europe. Then it receded, mainly because the Western
Europeans industrialised more rapidly than Turkey. Then the European
colonists encroached on Muslim countries, as well as Asian, South
American etc. After World War I most of these countries had
nationalistic movements of their own, but of course there was the new
determining factor of "King Oil". Lawrence of Arabia pleaded with the
governments of England, France and the big business (mainly oil)
interests of the USA as well to grant the Arab nations sovereignty,
but vested interests prevailed. He gave up and retired to become a
motor bike mechanic.
Had they done so, I suspect that the whole of Middle Eastern history
would have been different. As for the Exodus from Europe to Israel
from 1948 on, this probably would not have happened if Hitler had not
almost destroyed European Jewry. Thus not only did Europeans provoke
the demand for a Jewish state, but they also had antagonised the Arabs
by refusing to grant sovereignty when they should have. What we are
seeing today is the chickens coming home to roost.
> >Claiming the 'helper' is Mohammed is a Moslem slant, not Christian,
> >nor is it what Christ meant.
>
> again that is one view, there are over a dozen predictions of Muhammad in the
> Bible, although most of them are based on words with dual meanings and the
> Christians tend to choose the meaning not pointing to Prophet Muhammad.
As I said before, it all depends on which side of the fence you're
sitting, and that usually has a lot to do with your own culture.
The way I see it, 1.5 Billion Muslims and over 50 Islamic countries
later, I
> think it's time to start exploring the dual meaning words predicting Muhammad
> in the Bible a little closer if your still a Christian.
I don't think Mohammed was predictred in the Bible. On hte ohter hand
I've read where medieval Christians thought he was the false Prophet
of Revelation, but I don't agree with that either. In what would
appear to be blasphemy to hardline Protestants, I suspect Martin
LUther fulfilled that role, by dividing the church in the most violent
upheaval Christendom has ever experienced.
> >We prefer, in our
> >human frailty, the easy way out, which is to let Christ do it all. I
> >don't think that is quite what He had in mind.)
>
> I agree, and the majority of Christians quote a majority of Gospel passages by
> people other than Jesus to take the easy way out.
I am a Catholic, and Catholics do not have quite the same viewpoint as
Protestants, who stress 'salvation by faith'. They're right, but at
the same time Christ demands a few other things as well - obedience
for one, suffering as part of His body for another, and holiness
(another thing we are not good at). But because we in the West have
had it so good since the Second World War, we have all grown
materialistic, even Christians, and so there is an emphasis on
"blessedness". That can be taken away very quickly if God so decides.
Secondly Christianity insists on a personal judgement, and despite the
fact the door has been opened by Christ, I still suspect it will be
searching and rather tough. (eg. "A man will account for every
useless word".) I'm not looking forward to it.
> >Christ Himself warned us that "not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will
> >enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but only he who DOES the will of God".
>
> I feel there is still hope when a Christian actually quotes and supports that
> passage rather than dodge and excuse it.
>
> >That's a far cry from assuming it is going to be an easy ride in, on
> >Christ's back.
>
> ameen.
>
> Peace
My views of history are a bit unorthodox. I am not a Moslem, and were
I to experss my full opinion in a Moslem nation, I'd be hanged or
stoned. But I suspect God, the Christian God, is going to use Islam
for one simple reason.
You take him seriously.
Secondly you have a theocratic state ideal, which I suspect God
wanted, and always did want, for His own Church. AFter all if the
Church was established by Christ, the Son of God, why would God want
His own church to play second fiddle to a much more powerful state?
But we lost it in the Reformation and handed over the real power to
the State. In the West now, the Church is no longer taken seriously,
despite lip service by the establishment, and I suspect God is getting
sick of it. So while I most certainly do not believe in Islam, I do
believe God (the Christian God) is going to use Islam partly as a
judgement against the West. But history will decide if I am right or
wrong.
Peace also.
Bob Crowley.
Matthew Johnson
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu says...
>
>convert...@aol.com (ConvertstoIslam) writes
>
>>>You make the error in your re-wording by making Jesus the only aspect of
>>>God.
>
>>I shouldn't call God "Jesus"? Ok, Jesus is not the only aspect of God
>>but Jesus is *a* aspect of God according to you so it's also *not an
>>error* to say Jesus was responsible for the children dying in his
>>place in Mt 2.
>
>I think there's a confusion in this discussion between two doctines:
>the Trinity and the Incarnation.
It would not be surprising to find such confusion. But the two dogmas _are_
closely linked.
>
>TRINITY
>
>The Trinity says that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While it's
>not standard terminology, I think it's reasonable to say that the Son
>is one aspect of God.
You are right, that is not 'standard terminology'. But why are you glossing over
the reason for this? The reason it is not 'standard' is because that sounds too
much like Sabellianism. And Sabellianism is a _disastrous_ misunderstanding of
Trinity.
> But the point is that the Trinity really isn't
>about Jesus, i.e. the human being. It's about the relationship among
>three persons, aspects, parts, or what-have-you, all of whom are
>eternal spiritual entities.
This terminology too, is non-standard, also for very good reason. For example,
the moment you call them 'entities', you have already trampled upon the
distinction between 'essence' and 'person' (or hypostasis). For 'entity' clearly
derives from 'essence', yet we know there is only ONE essence. So how can you
avoid confusion once you allow 'three entities'?
>While it's difficult to come up with exactly the right terminology,
Of _course_ it is difficult. But that is WHY we should NOT be doing this!
Instead, we must stick to the terminology the Fathers used, and learn it well.
>the real point of the Trinity is to preserve the unity of God.
How can you SAY this? If that were the 'real point', then the Church would have
been happy to settle on Sabellianism, wherethe unity is certainly preserved. But
the diversity was trampled on, so the true servants of God, the Orthodox
Fathers, rebelled against Sabellianism and defined the true dogma.
No, the 'real point' of the Trinity is to preserve the unity, but AT THE SAME
TIME preserve the diversity. If you lose either one, you lose the truth of
Christianity.
[snip]
>Classically, one speaks of a personal
>("hypostatic") union.
Yet that term was always more popular with the Monophysites than with the
Orthodox. This is because although it _is_ correct, it is too easily
misunderstood in the Monophysite way.
>
>-----------------------------------
>
>Note for Christians interested in doctrine:
>
>Am I properly representing the Incarnation? I think so.
I don't.
> Athanasius'
>descriptions of the Incarnation suggest to me that the Logos
>directly manipulates body, soul and other parts.
How did you get _this_ out of Athanasius? I have read and re-read "De
Intarnatione" several times, and I just don't see it there.
> Thus it looks like
>a more complete version of a theophany. In Athanasius' model
>there is no actual human being that one might call Jesus.
This one is even more shocking! Again: how did you get _this_ out of Athanasius?
I have read and re-read "De Intarnatione" several times, and I just don't see it
there.
And there is another passage from Athanasius you have to be aware of when
interpreting this (at least, I think it was from him): in a lost treatise,
quoted by another saint later on, he said that every act (of Jesus) pertaining
to our salvation was done by BOTH the human will and the divine will, acting
analogously to a sword heated in the fire, which both cuts and burns at the same
time. The cutting is according to the nature of the sword, the burning according
to the nautre of the fire.
No mere 'direct manipulation' here! Nor is it consistent with this image of the
heated sword to say "there is no actual human being that one might call Jesus".
> All the
>parts of a human being are there, but they apply directly to the
>Logos. So the Logos works through a human body, mind, soul, etc.
>that are his. There's no actual human being.
>
>However in dealing with the monothetlite controversy, the doctrine is
>somewhat clarified. It is now said that there is a true human will,
>and that Jesus lives a real human existence. It is still not quite
>said that there is a human being, because the basic model of the
>Incarnation is that there is only one hypostasis, which is the
>hypostasis of the Logos.
But you have _completely neglected_ all they said about the THEANDRIC will!
ConvertstoIslam
wa alykum asalam Dennis :-)
>The question still becomes if gentiles were required to follow these
>laws, and this is not clear at all.
Jesus told potential converts, the way to be saved is to follow the laws, even
to this day, if a gentile converts to Judaism, they have to follow the laws.
>Christians take the Bible as a
>source of guidance, and the Bible, in Acts 15, has James proclaiming
>that the gentile believers need not follow all the laws.
OTJ, other than Jesus :-) just like in court, hear say is not as valid as what
the source (Jesus himself) said.
what is humanly different between a Jew and a Gentile? if swine and
menstruation are dirty for a Jew, why wouldn't they be dirty for a Gentile? The
laws were made to keep us healthy and righteous, why wouldn't God want the
Gentile to be healthy too?
>The
>issue is that on the Christian conception of God, God loves even those
>whom His justice requires that He punish, He loves sinners and
>unbelievers, He loves even those who do not love Him.
if you focus on the crucifixion as Mr. Gibson did, then you can claim that, but
if you made a movie focusing on the wrathful Jesus;
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... Ye blind guides ...
Ye fools and blind .... Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye
serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
(Matthew 23:13-33)
that does not sound like a God who loves sinners, esspecially the way Jesus
squashed the "serpent" that slid out of the devil in the movie.
In fact, no escape from hell was a common theme of speeches by Jesus;
"..How can ye escape the damnation of Hell? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you
prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and
*crucify*; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute
them from city to city: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth, from the *blood of Innocent* Abel unto the blood of Zacharias
son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. *Verily I say
unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation* ." (Matthew
23:33-36)
And in many places, Jesus spoke of self amputations to avoid Hell (which I
think the eunuch monks followed for centuries).
If Jesus was God, many of his teachings were wrathful and even heartless;
"Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your
name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' Then I will
tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!' (Matthew
7:22-23)
That does not sound like a very loving God to me, those believers in Jesus seem
to be pleading with him and Jesus is kicking them to the corner. I have heard
of bouncers with more heart than that ;-)
>On the Qur'anic
>view, however, there is explicit mention of how, while God possesses
>the attribute of love, there are certain individuals (particularly
>sinners) whom God does not love.
well, the majority of the individuals punished in the Bible are also punished
in the Quran, except the Quran is much more loving in many instances, for
example, in the flood of Noah, God in the Bible commited a mass genocide
against the entire human race, while in the Quran, only a few cities were
flooded.
Also, in the Gospel, *once* you stray, your cursed forever (Hebrews 6:4-6),
while in the Quran, Allah loves the sinners by forgiving them and giving them
more than one chance (Quran 4:137).
>(1) Ice is H2O.
>(2) Water is H2O.
>(3) Ice is not water.
Ice is water in a differt form, thus Jesus was God in Matthew 2 if you follow
trinity.
In a way, I'm happy that you became a Christian? At least your closer to Islam
again.
>I'm
>assuming your above-mentioned temptation to unretire was motivated by
>my noting the employment of William Lane Craig's arguments in SRI.
it was you :-) you make me nostalgic for the Jochen Katz days :-) I don't
know WLC, shows you how much distanced I've become from debates
>you should push for people to get behind you and
>support a formal debate with Craig himself
I was invited by some Christian group to debate Robert Morey a while back, but
I was just in my mid-twenties at the time and never responded. I'm between
writing books at the time, I would love to publically debate Geisler some day,
but he is 70 now, maybe Craig and I would do a public debate but I would have
to prepare like Sylveter Stalone in Rocky :-)
Those public debaters throw out passages like they got a computer chip in their
heads.
But if Craig wants to join this thread or make a seperate one here in SRC then
I would be happy to reply, is Catherine still shielding Christians in SRI? You
can't have indepth discussions about the Bible there...
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
Charles Hedrick
>This terminology too, is non-standard, also for very good reason. For
>example, the moment you call them 'entities', you have already
>trampled upon the distinction between 'essence' and 'person' (or
>hypostasis). For 'entity' clearly derives from 'essence', yet we know
>there is only ONE essence. So how can you avoid confusion once you
>allow 'three entities'?
Actually, I use "entity" as an English translation of hypostasis.
As you know, the history of words can be misleading when we get
into technical theology. The dictionary definition of entity is
en.ti.ty \'en(t)-*t-e-\ n [ML entitas, fr. L ent-, ens existing thing, fr.
coined prp.]of esse to be 1a: BEING, EXISTENCE; esp : independent,
separate, or self-contained existence 1b: the existence of a thing as
contrasted with its attributes 2: something that has separate and distinct
existence and objective or conceptual reality
No English word is going to be perfect, but this seems a tolerable
equivalent.
>>the real point of the Trinity is to preserve the unity of God.
>How can you SAY this? If that were the 'real point', then the Church
>would have been happy to settle on Sabellianism, wherethe unity is
>certainly preserved. But the diversity was trampled on, so the true
>servants of God, the Orthodox Fathers, rebelled against Sabellianism
>and defined the true dogma.
Oh, come now. Would you try to read what I say with at least the
possibility in your mind that I am orthodox. Clearly I was saying that
the point of the Trinity is to maintain the unity of God in a context
where Scripture talks about the persons as in some way distinct.
But at Nicea I believe the main issue with the unity. Neither side
doubted that the Father and Son were distinct. However Arius say the
Son as a separate preexistent creature. To my mind that is a challenge
to monotheism. Nicea chose to interpret the Father and Son as the same
God, thus protecting the unity of God.
>> Athanasius'
>>descriptions of the Incarnation suggest to me that the Logos
>>directly manipulates body, soul and other parts.
>How did you get _this_ out of Athanasius? I have read and re-read "De
>Incarnatione" several times, and I just don't see it there.
I'm speaking of what is called "anhypostasia." I have been attacked in
the past by those claiming to be orthodox for using the term "human
being" in reference to Christ. The Logos supposedly took on humanity,
but was not actually a human being. In the Incarnation Athanasius
speaks throughout of the Logos being in the body and acting through
the body. There is no sign of an actual human will or
existence. Here's a typical passage:
"His body was for Him not a limitation, but an instrument, so that He
was both in it and in all things, and outside all things, resting in
the Father alone."
"...we say that the Word has been manifested in a body"
"The Word of God thus acted consistently in assuming a body and using
a human instrument to vitalize the body."
In fact in Orations against the Arians he is more willing to speak of
Christ as a human being, but even there it's clear that he is a human
being in the sense that the Logos took on a human body.
Norris, in the preface to "the Christological Controversy", argues
that Athanasius disagrees with the Arians about the Logos, but
agrees with them on "the constitution of Jesus' person. He argues
explicitly that it is wrong to preceive the incarnation as the
Logos' indwelling of a whole human being. That, he thinks, would make
the incarnation a case of mere inspiration. No, in the incarnation
what happened was that the Logos took to himself -- made his own --
"flesh" or "body" or what we might call "the human condition""
and so became the self or subject in Jesus. Naturally enough,
therefore, Athanasius does not mention a human soul -- a conscious
human selfhood -- in Jesus. For practical purposes, he regards
Jesus, as the Arians did, as Logos plus body of flesh (though
he nowhere openly denies that Jesus had a human soul)."
Thus he believes that Athanasius suggests, but does not quite
positively teach, the Apollinarian view.
> And there is another passage from Athanasius you have to be aware of
> when interpreting this (at least, I think it was from him): in a lost
> treatise, quoted by another saint later on, he said that every act (of
> Jesus) pertaining to our salvation was done by BOTH the human will and
> the divine will, acting analogously to a sword heated in the fire,
> which both cuts and burns at the same time. The cutting is according
> to the nature of the sword, the burning according to the nautre of the
> fire.
That would be a considerable improvement. If you can find something
definitely written by Athanasius where he refers to a human will, I
would be greatly encouraged. I definitely agree that everything done
by Christ is done both by the human will and the divine will.
>>somewhat clarified. It is now said that there is a true human will,
>>and that Jesus lives a real human existence. It is still not quite
>>said that there is a human being, because the basic model of the
>>Incarnation is that there is only one hypostasis, which is the
>>hypostasis of the Logos.
>But you have _completely neglected_ all they said about the THEANDRIC energy!
I wasn't trying to give a review of every theologian that wrote on the
Incarnation. I was contrasting Athanasius with the 6th Ecumencial
Council. The Council's statements clarify the Alexandrian approach
sufficiently to resolve most of the problems with Athanasius. However
as I note, there is still a certain abstractness to their descriptions
of Jesus.
--clh]
ConvertstoIslam
>
>But 'spirits in prison' does NOT refer to the angels in hell of 2 Peter.
here is a paraphrase from a *Christian* site I feel makes an irrefuteable case
that those imprisoned spirits can not be anything else other than angels;
http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append194.html
{Men are never spoken of in Scripture as "spirits". At death this spirit
"returns to God Who gave it" (Ps. 31:5. Eccles. 12:7. Luke 23:46. Acts
7:59).
Angels are "spirits", and are so called (Heb. 1:7, 14). Cp. Jude 6.}
As I understand it, there are different views by Christians regarding who those
spirits were, but the fact that men are never called spirits and angels were,
sort of clinches it.
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
>challenge that God is doing this?
Heaven is already available. In Islam, there are different levels (seven) of
Heaven. So the not so perfect but sincerely tried, would find a place in lower
Heaven, while the ultra orthodox righteous would be in upper heaven.
Judaism also teaches levels of Heaven;
seven realms for the righteous, and afterwards they shall be gathered
into their habitations (4 Ezra 7:100-101)
and Jesus seemed to also hint at different ranks in Heaven;
"Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men
so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and
teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:19)
>Certainly they would believe in
>paradise, so there are at least similar concepts here. And do you
>challenge that God does not want sin there?
humans, like Jesus, get tempted, and although we are not perfect, God is
forgiving for those who sincerely repent, I'm sure the lower Heaven will be
much more filled than the upper Heaven.
>Would there be sin in the
>Islamic paradise?
In Islam, humans pay for their sins in this life and - or in the next, as I
understand it, believers in Hell can go to Heaven once they fully repent, which
is why it's best to commit as few as possible sins in this life.
I think Catholicism (Gibson's religion) has a similar system called Purgatory.
I respect that about Catholicism but I don't understand why they would still
need to remove sin if they claim Jesus already removed all their sins.
Islamic paradice is sin free, but we are responsible for our own sins on the
way there.
>So IF God is to accomplish this goal, there must be a
>way in which sin is dealt with
well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think the stories of Pharaoh
to the Flood, shows how God deals with sinners.
>What I don't believe in is my ability to uphold it. And if
>I don't uphold it, then I sin. And if I sin, then I am deserving of
>death.
people think they can't quit smoking, so they continue to smoke, but if you
sincerely try, you can do it.
>So the difference is that you will die if you fail in the law,
>But with Jesus, your sins are covered for all time.
that is a claim by Paul, the Bible taught that most laws can be broken without
a death sentance, in fact, Bible prophets who sinned were still spiritually
connected with God.
>If God is perfect, then his creation must also be perfect.
I disagree, God did not make other gods.
>It simply cannot be any other way, without destroying the perfection
>of God.
this reminds me of when Christians used to tell me;
"God turned away from Jesus because Jesus was filled with the sin of the world
and God could not *bear* to look."
When I asked "why did God forsake Jesus"
I think it is insulting to God to claim that God can not bear anything, I
believe God can bear all the sins of this world and a million like it. If we as
humans (imperfect physically, mentally, and spiritually), stand before God, it
will not "destroy the perfection of God", God can tolerate anything and
everything.
>Our lack of omniscience should not
>be read as an imperfection, since it is not a moral defect.
It causes moral defect, if Adam and Eve knew the serpant was Satan, they may
not have sinned. So God tolerated ignorance in His presence, not to mention
Satan there as well.
>How
>though can we accept that disobeying God would lead to perfection?
In Islam, the goal is to obey God, Islam teaches we were created to obey God.
To become gods [perfect] is an ancient Greek concept.
>With the garden scenario, I believe that God knew we would sin
or that Adam and Eve were the first sacrifices, as a warning to the rest of
humanity not to take short cuts and that above all, obeying God is the key.
>Why would he need to introduce a new covenant?
>Because the first one was only ever meant to show us that we could not
>make it to God by following the law.
First, the covenant was repeatedly called "everlasting/forever", second, God in
the Bible actually increased the laws if He saw humans not following them;
because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutes and
had polluted My Sabbaths, and their eyes were after their fathers' idols.
Therefore I gave them also statutes (Laws) that were not good and judgments
whereby they should not live; and I polluted them in their own gifts, in that
they caused to pass through the fire all who openeth the womb, that I might
make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the LORD.
(Ezekiel 20:24-26)
Therefore God increases laws against sinners, not decreases the laws.
>A list of commands has no power to produce anything
>in us.
this reminds me of a missionary I met headed to my native country (Egypt).
This missionary told me he keeps pictures of Jesus to remember God, while in
the Bible, God explains that the -laws- are to remember God.
If breaking the laws brings spiritual death, then imagine the spiritual life
keeping the laws can bring :-)
Peace
Richard Alexander
> >You make the error in your re-wording by making Jesus the only
> >aspect of God.
>
> I shouldn't call God "Jesus"? Ok, Jesus is not the only aspect of
> God but Jesus is *a* aspect of God according to you so it's also
> *not an error* to say Jesus was responsible for the children dying
> in his place in Mt 2.
Scripture says that the times of man are determined by the Father.
That means that you are attributing the work of one aspect of God to
another aspect of God. Of course, in either event, you are still
blaming God for the slaughter, when Herod bears the blame for his own
actions, even as humanity is accountable for its actions.
> >it was not
> >the aspect of Jesus Who sent the heavenly messenger.
>
> you have a concept of God being a part time worker, God is Full Time,
> if Jesus is God, then he is either God all the time or not...
You are ignoring the nature of God's attributes, again. It was not the
Father who died on the cross; it was the Son. It is not the Son who
ordained the list of the redeemed; it was the Father. The aspects of
God work different roles.
> >Jesus is not the Holy Ghost.
> >Jesus is not the Father.
> >The Father is not Jesus.
> >The Father is not the Holy Ghost.
> >
> >All aspects of God are distinct, but each is completely God.
>
> if "they" are completely God, then they are all equal,
They are not all equal, for Jesus said the Father is greater than he;
nor are they all equivalent, for each aspect has distinct roles.
> thus all one in the same.
Non sequitur.
> Here is your own wording with an insertion of one single word to show
> you how your explaination actually disproves Trinity;
>
> Jesus is not [God] the Holy Ghost.
Trinitarians don't claim that Jesus is God the Holy Ghost. We claim
that Jesus is God the Son.
> Jesus is not [God] the Father.
Trinitarians don't claim that Jesus is God the Father. We claim that
Jesus is God the Son.
> The Father is not [God] Jesus.
Trinitarians don't claim that the Father is God the Son. We claim that
God the Father gave His only begotten Son to save mankind from their
sins.
> The Father is not [God] the Holy Ghost.
Trinitarians don't claim that the Father is God the Holy Ghost. We
claim that God the Father sent the Holy Ghost to comfort the church
after Jesus was taken up to Heaven.
> your explaination also conflicts with other Christian claims that God became
> flesh and came down to earth in flesh form.
God the Son indeed became flesh, lived among us, and died. God the
Father is a spirit, and cannot die; Jesus could die only because God
the Father prepared a body for the Son.
Hebrews 10: 4, 5
4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should
take away sins.
5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
> >I need only point out that this is no different than the
> >situation prior to Christianity, for no mere man has ever kept the
> >whole law perfectly.
>
> no one is perfect, but at least we try rather than throwing in the towel
> altogether, if you can not draw a perfect picture or be perfect in school
> or be a perfect parent, does that mean you don't try?
If such a person tries to pass off his pictures as the works of a
master, he would be a fraud.
> Who wants you not to try to obey God? the answer is Satan.
Jesus said,
"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye
hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."
John 14:24
We obey God by obeying Jesus, as no man can obey the Law.
> >Jesus said the law would not pass away until all was fulfilled. Jesus
> >fulfilled all the Law by His death on the Cross.
>
> Jesus did not fulfill all because Jesus had much more to say even after his
> time on earth;
>
> "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." [John
> 16:12]
The verse you quoted was of Jesus before He died on the cross (a few
chapters prior to the crucifiction). Jesus fulfilled all the Law, as I
said, when he died on the cross. Thus, you are incorrect in your
chronology. Moreover, the things Jesus had to say to His disciples
were not matters of fulfilling the Law.
> Therefore his alledged death did not remove all burdens, there were
> still more for humans to bear after Jesus;
If you were correct, that would be a disaster for humanity, for it is
impossible for humanity to bear the burden of their sin, because no
flesh can be just before God.
> "However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all the
> truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever things he hears, he
> will speak. He will declare to you the things that are coming." [John 16:13]
>
> Prophet Muhammad glorified Jesus as the Messiah of God and what
> Muhammad heard from angel Gabriel, he spoke.
If Muhammad had received his message from the Angel Gariel, he would
not have considered Jesus less than the only begotten Son of God.
Richard Alexander
> >>(1 Peter 3:18-20)
> >
> >But 'spirits in prison' does NOT refer to the angels in hell of 2 Peter.
>
> here is a paraphrase from a *Christian* site I feel makes an
> irrefuteable case that those imprisoned spirits can not be
> anything else other than angels;
>
> http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append194.html
>
> {Men are never spoken of in Scripture as "spirits".
He is incorrect:
Hebrews 12:23
"To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are
written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and TO THE SPIRITS OF
JUST MEN MADE PERFECT"
> At death this spirit "returns to God Who gave it" (Ps. 31:5.
> Eccles. 12:7. Luke 23:46. Acts 7:59).
But that spirit does not lose its identity at that time, which is the
point this sect tries to make.
> Angels are "spirits", and are so called (Heb. 1:7, 14). Cp. Jude 6.}
Ironically, men can be angels too, for the word, "angel," merely
means, "messenger."
> As I understand it, there are different views by Christians
> regarding who those spirits were, but the fact that men are never
> called spirits and angels were, sort of clinches it.
It might, if it were true.
bushbadee
> think the eunuch monks followed for centuries).
Actually Jesus was talking about the garbage dump and not Hell.
Better to cut off an offending limb than go out and steal with it, get
caught, executed and have your body tossed into the garbage dump which had
fires burning all the time or landing on one of the ledges where the worms
crawled in and the worms crawled out.
ConvertstoIslam
there is a Catholic edition of the GNT.
>consider the example St. Basil the Great gave, which I have already
>mentioned often now: the Son and Holy Spirit are perfect images of the
>Father,
>images more perfect than any images we have on earth of anything, even more
>perfect than two identical twins (as images).
if Jesus was a mirror image of God above, then that is even a worse concept
because as Jesus died below, I had some hope for Christianity that your God
above was still alive?
>Thus, when we see the Son, we see the Father. And what worship we offer the
>Son,
>reflects perfectly onto the Father.
sorry to say but that is a horrible thought, esspecially after seeing Gibson's
film, I think that's blasphamy to say God looked like Jesus did in Gibson's
film.
I believe in the God of Moses, where God was so great that Moses could not even
bear to see God, just like Jesus said "no one at any time has seen God". (John
1:18)
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
you make some very good points
>My understanding was that paganism was predominant, particularly
>amongst the free ranging desert tribes.
well, the Quran was given to us 600 years after Christ, so Judaism and
Christianity were already very well established and still growing as the Quran
was florishing as well. I would assume the ratio world wide *was* 1,000,000
Christians for ever 1 Muslim, while now it's 2 to 1.5
> am a Catholic, and Catholics do not have quite the same viewpoint as
>Protestants, who stress 'salvation by faith'. They're right, but at
>the same time Christ demands a few other things as well - obedience
>for one
through your response, I understood why Catholics have Purgatory, although I
still feel it conflicts with the Christian concept that Christ removed all
sins. Does the atonement remove all your sins or reset your sins to zero?
>So while I most certainly do not believe in Islam
Islam means obediance/submission to God which is what you explained Catholics
believe.
> I do
>believe God (the Christian God) is going to use Islam partly as a
>judgement against the West. But history will decide if I am right or
>wrong.
well, the history of Israel has shown that it's neighbors were always used as a
judgement against Israel;
"And Samuel said to him, "The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this
day, and has given it to a neighbor of yours, who is better than you." (1
Samuel 15:28, and (jos 13:1)
It always amazes me how Israel is surrounded by believers of God (Muslims) who
are very sensitive to sins commited by Israel.
Just to be clear, I don't support or encourage violence, but like you said, a
judgement waiting to happen.
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
rtda...@yahoo.com
The site (under point 7) clearly states that
"The word rendered "preached" is not the usual word euangelizo (Ap.
121. 4), but the emphatic word kerusso (Ap. 121. 1); which means to
proclaim as a herald. Even so Christ heralded His victory over death,
and the proclamation of this reached to the utmost bounds of creation"
So in making your point of who the spirits were, you have as well
undercut what you supposed Christ to be doing. Jesus didn't go there
to save them through evangelizing, he went to declare his victory over
them.
dave
Matthew Johnson
>
>>>(1 Peter 3:18-20)
>>
>>But 'spirits in prison' does NOT refer to the angels in hell of 2 Peter.
>
>here is a paraphrase from a *Christian* site I feel makes an irrefuteable case
>that those imprisoned spirits can not be anything else other than angels;
>
>http://www.angelfire.com/nv/TheOliveBranch/append194.html
Instead of putting 'Christian' in asterisks, you should have put it in
quote-marks, to indicate that it is QUESTIONABLE. ANYTHING found on
'www.angelfire.com' is questionable!
>{Men are never spoken of in Scripture as "spirits".
That, of course, is the very contention in question. We say they _are_ spoken of
as 'spirits' in exactly this passage;)
> At death this spirit
>"returns to God Who gave it" (Ps. 31:5. Eccles. 12:7. Luke 23:46. Acts
>7:59).
>
>Angels are "spirits", and are so called (Heb. 1:7, 14). Cp. Jude 6.}
>
>As I understand it, there are different views by Christians
> regarding who those spirits were, but the fact that men
> are never called spirits and angels were, sort of clinches it.
No, it does not. In fact, the context really makes it IMPOSSIBLE that 'spirits'
refers to angels in this passage. That is WHY many of us would rather assume
that this is the one place in Scripture where 'spirits' refers to men (which, by
the way, is not so very uncommon in Hellenistic Greek outside of the NT).
<Matthew_member@newsguy.com>"@lara.pathlink.com
>
>is Catherine still shielding Christians in SRI? You
>can't have indepth discussions about the Bible there...
And how can _you_ have 'in depth discussions' at all when you are willing to
violate every rule for carrying them out by flinging an accusation like this? Do
you understand USENET moderation? Have you read the FAQ for either that NG or
this?
I really doubt she is 'shielding Christians in SRI'. Rather, she is more likely
doing what a moderator is _supposed_ to do [are you reading, Charles?],
rejecting posts that are OFF TOPIC for the NG.
----
[My experience with SRI is that the rules there are slightly tighter
than here. This is due to the history of the groups, and the desires
of the people involved in creating SRC (and presumably SRI).
I don't post in SRI often enough to have a view of the policies of
the individual moderators.
At any rate, discussions of moderation policy of SRI (or SRC for that
matter) are not on topic here.
--clh]
ConvertstoIslam
>So the Trinity says that despite this
>apparent distinction, they're all parts, aspects, persons, or whatever
>of one God. I've always been surprised that Muslims object to this.
Muslims would agree that God has many aspects, but none of those would be a
mortality, fear, temptation, pain, etc...
The idea of humans capturing and killing God is unimaginably insulting to
Muslims, and I am surprised that Christians do not object to this in greater
masses.
>No one seems to think the theophanies in the
>OT are impossible.
the theophanies got the respect they deserved, for example, the bush was not
put through a wood chipper.
If Moses uprooted the bush and used it to roast pork, then you would get the
same objections. But the theophanies in the OT were unapproachable,
undefeatable, superior to their audiances. Jesus was none of those.
>But still God uses this human
>to let us see what he is like, and he experiences what the human
>experiences.
I don't think our Creator needs to know what we experience, just like our
parents already know what we've gone through.
God created our ability to think, so knowing what and how we think is not
beyond God's ability without becoming a human.
Peace
<Matthew_member@newsguy.com>"@lara.pathlink.com
>
[snip]
>For a long time Turkey, or the Ottoman Empire, was regarded as an ever
>present threat in Europe. Then it receded, mainly because the Western
>Europeans industrialised more rapidly than Turkey.
Of course, as a Westerner, you find this view appealing. But that _could_ be
just the same cultural bias you have already mentioned several times in this
thread. I prefer to believe that a more important factor was the wars between
Russia and Turkey. After all, Russia was industrializing barely faster than
Turkey. Yet Russia was winning against Turkey, until the great treachery of the
British led by Disraeli into supporting Turkey against the Christian Emperor
(the Tsar of Russia).
[snip]
>I suspect Martin
>LUther fulfilled that role, by dividing the church in the most violent
>upheaval Christendom has ever experienced.
I tried pointing that out to Bart Goddard in s.r.c.-b.s. a little while ago. You
can imagine the reaction;)
[snip]
Matthew Johnson
>
>From: Matthew Johnson <Matthew...@newsguy.com>
>
>>This terminology too, is non-standard, also for very good reason. For
>>example, the moment you call them 'entities', you have already
>>trampled upon the distinction between 'essence' and 'person' (or
>>hypostasis). For 'entity' clearly derives from 'essence', yet we know
>>there is only ONE essence. So how can you avoid confusion once you
>>allow 'three entities'?
>
>Actually, I use "entity" as an English translation of hypostasis.
>As you know, the history of words can be misleading when we get
>into technical theology. The dictionary definition of entity is
>
>en.ti.ty \'en(t)-*t-e-\ n [ML entitas, fr. L ent-, ens existing thing, fr.
> coined prp.]of esse to be 1a: BEING, EXISTENCE; esp : independent,
> separate, or self-contained existence 1b: the existence of a thing as
> contrasted with its attributes 2: something that has separate
> and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality
>
>No English word is going to be perfect, but this seems a tolerable
>equivalent.
But WHY does it seem to you to be a 'tolerable equivalent'? I certainly don't
see it that way. On the contrary: in that dictionary definition, I see
equivalents for SEVERAL terms which Trinitarians need to keep distinct, such as
'hypostasis' and 'enhypostaton'. And 1b really does sound more like 'ousia' than
like 'hypostasis'.
>>>the real point of the Trinity is to preserve the unity of God.
>
>>How can you SAY this? If that were the 'real point', then the Church
>>would have been happy to settle on Sabellianism, wherethe unity is
>>certainly preserved. But the diversity was trampled on, so the true
>>servants of God, the Orthodox Fathers, rebelled against Sabellianism
>>and defined the true dogma.
>
>Oh, come now. Would you try to read what I say with at least the
>possibility in your mind that I am orthodox.
There are two reasons why I did not do this when reading your post. 1) I _know_
what you said will be misunderstood all too easily in a heterodox manner 2) last
I checked, you were still a Calvinist, and Calvinism really is under heavy (and
bad) influence from 'neo-nestorianism'. So why admit the possibility under such
circumstances?
>Clearly I was saying that
>the point of the Trinity is to maintain the unity of God in a context
>where Scripture talks about the persons as in some way distinct.
No, that was not clear at all. It still isn't, although including the clause
'persons as in some way distinct' is a vast improvement.
>But at Nicea I believe the main issue with the unity.
Ah, that is different from what you actually said. And it is true. Yet East and
West _still_ came away from Nicea with different ideas of what the 'unity' IS.
In fact, this is why the West never understood why Arianism was such a
persistent temptation for the East.
> Neither side
>doubted that the Father and Son were distinct. However Arius say the
>Son as a separate preexistent creature. To my mind that is a challenge
>to monotheism. Nicea chose to interpret the Father and Son as the same
>God, thus protecting the unity of God.
So far so good...
>>> Athanasius'
>>>descriptions of the Incarnation suggest to me that the Logos
>>>directly manipulates body, soul and other parts.
>
>>How did you get _this_ out of Athanasius? I have read and re-read "De
>>Incarnatione" several times, and I just don't see it there.
>
>I'm speaking of what is called "anhypostasia."
Who used this term and where? I can't find anything like it in "De
Incarnatione". And no, I don't have a concordance to St. Athanasius handy!
> I have been attacked in
>the past by those claiming to be orthodox for using the term "human
>being" in reference to Christ.
Oh, well...
> The Logos supposedly took on humanity,
>but was not actually a human being.
Already I see a problem here: how can anyone or anything take on humanity
without becoming a human being? You must be using the word 'humanity' in a
different sense than Athanasius did to come up with this one.
>In the Incarnation Athanasius
>speaks throughout of the Logos being in the body and acting through
>the body. There is no sign of an actual human will or
>existence. Here's a typical passage:
>
>"His body was for Him not a limitation, but an instrument, so that He
>was both in it and in all things, and outside all things, resting in
>the Father alone."
The real point of this passage is to show that even as He was in the body, He
was still everywhere present as God. No doubt you will recall several of us had
to make this same point recently to refute the misplacing of the comma in Lk
23:43.
Besides: the very next sentence shows how wrongly you read him: for it reads:
At one and the same time, wonderfully, as Man he lived a human life,
and as Logos, He contained the life of all the universe, and as Son,
He was in constant union with the Father.
(De Incarnatione, ch. 3.17, xlate from
http://www.ccel.org/contrib/ru/Other/Athanasius/athanasy-1.htm)
How does anyone 'livea human life' unless he has a fully human soul and spirit
as well as a human body?
>"...we say that the Word has been manifested in a body"
I see no implication here of a 'lack of human will or existence'. Especially not
after reading the sentence you omitted above!
>"The Word of God thus acted consistently in assuming a body and using
>a human instrument to vitalize the body."
Now here I think you misunderstood what he means by 'human instrument'. For how
could it _vitalize_ the body unless it had true, fully human life itself? And
this in turn implies human will.
It is important to notice here that he did NOT say it was the LOGOS that
'vitalizes the body'; he said it was the 'human instrument' that 'vitalizes the
body'.
Now perhaps you read the translation differently; but this is an example of why
it is important to give credit to the translator, as well as indicate more
precisely where the quote is from.
So let's see if the Russian translation is any clearer: it has:
So no one of those who acknowledge the existence of the Word of God
in all of Creation needs to think that it was not fitting for Him
to be in a separate human body so that it [the body] be led by Him
[the Word] in activity and be enlightened.
(Ibid, ch 7.42)
It is different enough I am not absolutely sure it is the same passage! But even
it it is not, it does shows that he must not be taken too literally when he says
"using the human body as an instrument", since if that body has no human will,
no human mind, what is there to be 'enlightened'?
>In fact in Orations against the Arians he is more willing to speak of
>Christ as a human being, but even there it's clear that he is a human
>being in the sense that the Logos took on a human body.
Well, I don't find that 'clear'. I wonder if you are relying on the same sort of
misunderstanding as of 'human instrument' above?
BTW: which translations are you quoting and from which chapters? Surely as an
experienced moderator you realize you are NOT helping the discussion by quoting
them without even mentioning the chapter numbers, much less attributing the
translators!
>Norris, in the preface to "the Christological Controversy", argues
>that Athanasius disagrees with the Arians about the Logos, but
>agrees with them on "the constitution of Jesus' person.
He does? Well, he is wrong.
> He argues
>explicitly that it is wrong to preceive the incarnation as the
>Logos' indwelling of a whole human being. That, he thinks, would make
>the incarnation a case of mere inspiration. No, in the incarnation
>what happened was that the Logos took to himself -- made his own --
>"flesh" or "body" or what we might call "the human condition""
>and so became the self or subject in Jesus.
Well, that really _would_ make St. Athanasius a Monophysite, not an Orthodox.
But he is Orthodox, despite the Monophysite _flavor_ to his language. This was
shown in the discuttions of his writings in the _following_ councils. It was not
clear at the time, which is why Monophysites referred to St. Athanasius so
often. The Orthodox had an 'uphill battle' to show that the saint really was
Orthodox, not Monophysite, but it _was_ achieved.
> Naturally enough,
>therefore, Athanasius does not mention a human soul -- a conscious
>human selfhood -- in Jesus.
This would be so much easier to disproved if your ancestors and mine had not
burned so many Greek libraries -- destroying the last copy of that lost treatise
I mentioned.
> For practical purposes, he regards
>Jesus, as the Arians did, as Logos plus body of flesh (though
>he nowhere openly denies that Jesus had a human soul)."
>
>Thus he believes that Athanasius suggests, but does not quite
>positively teach, the Apollinarian view.
But that is a -l-o-o-n-g- way from saying that he actually believed the Logos
used the soulless human body as in instrument! Let's not forget that his
language is easily misunderstood, which is why he was accused of siding with the
Sabellians.
Let's not also forget that he called St. Basil a true brother in the faith
(Kartashev "The Ecumenical Councils", ch.1) , and Basil criticized the
Apollinarian error mercilessly. Now how could he have done that if he was even
_close_ to claiming that Christ used the soulless human body as an instrument?
>> And there is another passage from Athanasius you have to be aware of
>> when interpreting this (at least, I think it was from him): in a lost
>> treatise, quoted by another saint later on, he said that every act (of
>> Jesus) pertaining to our salvation was done by BOTH the human will and
>> the divine will, acting analogously to a sword heated in the fire,
>> which both cuts and burns at the same time. The cutting is according
>> to the nature of the sword, the burning according to the nautre of the
>> fire.
>
>That would be a considerable improvement. If you can find something
>definitely written by Athanasius where he refers to a human will, I
>would be greatly encouraged.
Have you read his ascetic writinss? It is there, not in his polemical writings,
where one should expect to find such references.
In the meantime, the only such reference I know of off the top of my head is to
the lost treatise.
> I definitely agree that everything done
>by Christ is done both by the human will and the divine will.
>
>>>somewhat clarified. It is now said that there is a true human will,
>>>and that Jesus lives a real human existence. It is still not quite
>>>said that there is a human being, because the basic model of the
>>>Incarnation is that there is only one hypostasis, which is the
>>>hypostasis of the Logos.
>
>>But you have _completely neglected_ all they said about the THEANDRIC energy!
>
>I wasn't trying to give a review of every theologian that wrote on the
>Incarnation.
I am not asking you to do that; I am asking you to take into account that not
everything the Fathers said was clear, often you must resort to later
theologians to clarify their language. That is why was done here, by introducing
the term 'theandric energy'.
Also, remember that there polemical works concentrated on the theological
dispute at hand; they did NOT try to cover all theology! So to find out what
they thought about the issues that had not yet come up, you _must_ turn to their
other writings as well. But this is more difficult, so don't be afraid to call
upon the later theologians (such as St. John of Damascus) for help.
Also, we need to look at his Letters. Those to Maxim the Philosopher, to
Epictetus the Bishop of Corinth, and to Adelphius the Confessor, are on
_Christological_ topics.
If Norris did not look at these, then you should throw away his book.
> I was contrasting Athanasius with the 6th Ecumencial
>Council.
But you drew the contrast as far more radical than it really was. That way lies
madness.
[snip]
Gilberto Simpson
> TRINITY
> While it's difficult to come up with exactly the right terminology,
> the real point of the Trinity is to preserve the unity of God. The
> Bible clearly refers to each of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in
> ways that make them seem to be distinct from each other. But no one
> wants more than one God.
Well it would be more accurate to say that the orthodox doctrine of
the Trinity is an attempt to walk on a tight rope. On the one hand it
insist (verbally) that there is one God. (which Muslims, Christians,
Jews, Bahais and others all would assent to.) But it also insists that
there are real differences between the persons of the Trinity. There
is a rejection of polytheism, but also a rejection of
Sabellianism,Modalism, or most appropriately for this discussion would
be the name Patripassionism. ( i.e. Christians believe that the God
who died and suffered on the cross is distinct from the God who was in
heaven forsaking the God who died on the cross). And the way I do
math, you have to admit that sounds like at least two Gods, no? be
truthful.
> So the Trinity says that despite this
> apparent distinction, they're all parts, aspects, persons, or whatever
> of one God. I've always been surprised that Muslims object to this. I
> would think you would agree.
Well, it is kind of a complicated issue in some sense. I've tended to
think it odd that historical Christian creeds seem to insist that a
requirement of salvation would include asssent to (even in the absence
of complete understanding of) rather murky and abstract theological
doctrines. I'm not sure how a just and merciful God would insist on
T.C. (theological correctness) to the extent required by the general
run of Christians.
But in any case, on the Muslim side there are multiple reasons to
reject the Trinity. I understand that you sincerely believe yourself
to be monotheistic, but I think that (especially given the fact that
orthodox-with-a-small-o Christianity specifically rejects
Modalism/Sabellianism) it is hard not to believe that Christianity
teaches that there are three entities, which are distinct, each of
whom is God, (i.e. tritheism).
But the simplest reason why a Muslim would reject the Trinity is that
along with other Christian doctrines, the Trinity is specifically
alluded to in the Quran and rejected.
in the fourth surah of the Quran there is a specific instruction to
the People of the Book (a category which specifically includes Jews
and Christians) which says:
"say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God;
far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the
heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient
for a Protector."
> Just to be clear, when we speak of "Son" in the Trinity, we're
> speaking of the eternal Logos. Of course the Logos became incarnate as
> a human, but the Trinity isn't about the relationship between human
> and God. [...]
> Hence when the Trinity speaks of the Son
> as begotten from the Father, it's speaking of something that happens
> in eternity, having nothing to do with Jesus' conception or birth.
At least when I read the Quran, I think it is pretty decisive and
clear in terms of rejecting the Trinity and Incarnation. At the very
least, it certainly suggests that at the level of language, at the
level of God-talk, these are not useful or valuable ways of talking
about God. And so from an Islamic perspective, it is much more simple
and insightful to just say "Jesus is not God" and say "God is one" and
to not presumptuously delve into God's anatomy and instead to deal
with the much more relevant matter of how to live on earth as a
righteous, compassionate, humane, spiritually-healthy god-fearing
human being.
> INCARNATION
>
> It's the Incarnation that speaks of the relationship between the
> eternal Logos and his human incarnation. There was a tendency among
> some writers to make Jesus some kind of fusion of divine and
> human. This was ultimately rejected. It compromised the nature of God,
> and led to a Jesus who wasn't really human. Most Muslim attacks
> against the Trinity seem to be attacking this rejected view.
I think most Christian discussions of the Islamic view of the Trinity
tend to limit the breadth and scope of the discussion in ways which
sort of baffle me. I'm always tempted to say something along the lines
of pointing again to:
(4:171)
"say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God"
and ask which part of "say not three" don't you understand? Some
translations actually render this "say not Trinity"!
Besides, if you did want to limit the scope of the verse, intead of
trying to emphasize this or that theological nuance, the only way of
doing so (as far as I can understand) which would be in line with
Islamic principles is to emphasize the fact that the quran commands
*say* not three.
In other words, to allow for the possibility that God has a nature
which is mysterious and ultimately beyond human understanding, and
that in some incomprehensible way, there *may* actually be some kind
of threeness to God on *some* level, and some kind of oneness on
*some* other level. But in any case, we are not going to delve into
God's anatomy because it is not useful. And that even if the Trinity
may be true in some strange sense, we are still not going to *say*
three, what we are going to *say* is that "God is one" and move on to
more important matters. What I have in mind is a kind of pragmatism
applied to spiritual matters, perhaps similar to the Buddhist
rejection of certain questions tending not towards edification.
> I see the basic idea of the Incarnation being that God has chosen to
> use a human form to allow him to be with us. I don't quite see why
> this is so controversial.
Well it depends on how far you want to go with it. Even in the Quran
it says that:
[23.50] And We made the son of Marium and his mother a sign, and We
gave them a shelter on a lofty ground having meadows and springs.
So Islamically, Jesus was certainly a "sign of God" (which is what the
title 'ayatollah' literally means) along with many such signs which
exist in the cosmos.
And the Bible as well indicates that the universe contains many
manifestations and signs of God's reality... from the statement that
the heavens declare the handiwork of God to the idea that ALL human
beings are made inthe image of God to the passage in Romans which says
"Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely,
his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things
that have been made"
So if all you are saying is that Jesus is one sign of God out of many,
then I don't think there would be any disagreement with what Islam
teaches. But in my experience, what Christians are saying is something
distinctively more. Especially when they insist on certain verbal
formulations.
(have to so i will cut this short)
Peace
Gilberto
----
[Well, the West has tended to start from one God and then look at how
to understand statements about the distinction. I'm part of that
tradition. So I see the Trinity as saying something about God, but not
as describing three separate of anything. As I read Augustine (whose
discussion of the Trinity tends to be most influential in the West),
the Persons reflect the fact that God has enough complexity in himself
to experience personal relationship.
Actually I agree that one should not say three with respect to God.
I've said many times that the Trinity is not about the number 3.
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are important to understanding God, but I
think it's really dangerous to count them. You can say that one
Father, one Son, one Holy Spirit, are one God, but the moment you try
to count them as three, you have to say three what, and any answer I
know is problematical.
I hope your statement "Christians believe that the God who died and
suffered on the cross is distinct from the God who was in heaven
forsaking the God who died on the cross" is a description of a
heresy. It implies that Jesus was God independently of the God in
heaven. In fact the standard doctrine says that the heavenly God took
to himself a human being to be his own presence with us. That is,
Jesus is God only because this human was taken to himself by God. If
we could view Jesus apart from his union with God (a perspective that
may ultimately not make sense), he would be just a normal human being.
As I've said in the past, I think the Trinity is precisely a defense
of the unity of God. The Arians saw Christ as a separate being, not
fully God (because they didn't want more than one God either), but
still eternal. The Trinity rejects the concept of a separate divine or
even semi-divine entity, preferring to see any distinction as being
within a single God. Similarly, the Incarnation rejects any concept of
Christ as being God independently from the One.
I also would not say that God was forsaking Jesus. I think it's a
possible reading of that passage that as Jesus took on our sin he also
experienced our alienation from God. But that would be on Jesus' side
due to his humanity, or more precisely, due to his unity with our
humanity. The quotation from Ps 22 would certainly express his
experience. But it would not indicate that God actually forsook
him. And most commentators believe that in quoting from the beginning
of Ps 22, Jesus intended us to look at the whole thing. Despite an
experience suggesting that God has forsaken the author, that is not
the final message of the Psalm.
--clh]
Joseph T. Adams
> But I suspect God, the Christian God, is going to use Islam
> for one simple reason.
> You take him seriously.
I wish more Christians understood this.
Many Muslims detest our culture not because we follow God differently
than they do, but because from their perspective we do not follow Him
at all, even though we claim to.
> Secondly you have a theocratic state ideal, which I suspect God
> wanted, and always did want, for His own Church. AFter all if the
> Church was established by Christ, the Son of God, why would God want
> His own church to play second fiddle to a much more powerful state?
> But we lost it in the Reformation and handed over the real power to
> the State. In the West now, the Church is no longer taken seriously,
> despite lip service by the establishment, and I suspect God is getting
> sick of it.
I certainly am sick of it, and I'm not nearly as just or holy as He
is.
Most people obey the State, and disobey God, without the slightest
thought. And they have done it for so long that their conscience no
longer even bothers them about it.
> So while I most certainly do not believe in Islam, I do
> believe God (the Christian God) is going to use Islam partly as a
> judgement against the West. But history will decide if I am right or
> wrong.
I don't think it's hard for people in New York or Istanbul or Madrid
to see that what you describe is already happening.
(My heart goes out to all of them BTW . . especially those in Madrid
. . I wish it were possible for me to do something to help, and if
someone knows a way we can, from here in the U.S., I and I'm sure many
others would welcome this information.)
But it is not all Muslims that are responsible for these atrocities -
it is a tiny minority who have chosen to use violence against innocent
people, something which I understand is equally as repugnant to Islam,
as understood by most Muslims, as to any other faith.
Similarly, I hope Muslims can understand that it is not a majority of
Israelis or Americans who commit equally heinous acts of terror, such
as bombing civilian neighborhoods in Gaza or Baghdad. Only a small
handful of Americans support such actions, and even fewer do so
knowingly (most of us have not experienced war, nor are we aware of
the extent to which media is censored and sanitized so we cannot see
the full impact of our political decisions on innocent Arab, Muslim,
and other people).
I would prefer a dialogue between people of peace and good will on all
sides. We will not agree on everything. But I believe we could live
at peace, if not for those on all sides who prefer violence and hate
to peace and love.
Joe
ConvertstoIslam
[snip]
he was different, he was different, he was different, = he was the same (that's
your explanation of Trinity.)
>Jesus said,
>
>"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye
>hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."
>
>John 14:24
and also "do as I do" which was to follow the laws of Moses, with a couple of
modifications.
one thing I'd like to make clear is, that Islam does not teach salvation by
works as many Christians assume.
Jesus came to teach Jews to be more spiritual, have more love, not just go
through the motions, then Christians became too spiritual, and threw away most
of the laws. Islam teaches to be *both* faithful and obedient, it's works and
grace, not one or the other.
>If you were correct, that would be a disaster for humanity, for it is
>impossible for humanity to bear the burden of their sin
people bear their sins whether they are Christian or not, it depends on the
person's conscience, but I believe God set an afterlife conscience limit,
meaning, if you commit too many sins, you go to Hell, whether your flesh
conscience bears it or not.
>If Muhammad had received his message from the Angel Gariel, he would
>not have considered Jesus less than the only begotten Son of God.
Angel Gabriel told Muhammad that Jesus is no less than the Messiah of God, but
as far as being begotten, most Bible translations removed that phrase, and
regarding being the son, as I understand it, in Hebrew that means "Servant".
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
ConvertstoIslam
>> {Men are never spoken of in Scripture as "spirits".
>
>He is incorrect:
>
>Hebrews 12:23
>
>"To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are
>written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and TO THE SPIRITS OF
>JUST MEN MADE PERFECT"
you misunderstand, the spirits of men can be referenced, but men are not
referenced as spirits.
for example, the Bible can say "the gold of men", but does not call men "gold"
Peace
Omar Mirza
<snip>
> There is a second argument I plan to introduce to the thread over the
> next few days that has been put forth by the great Christian
> philosophers William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne that is also an
> appeal to the requirement that a loving God necessarily must be
> perfectly loving (though I am modifying it slightly). If God is
> perfectly loving, then there has to exist at least one being who
> serves as an object of His love (because if there is no one else, He
> loves nothing, and thus can't be perfectly loving).
Whoa there Denis!!!!
Why can't God love HIMSELF? Where is there a requirement that love has
to be directed only towards OTHERS?
I can't believe Swinburne or Craig would have overlooked this obvious
objection to their argument. Where does this argument occur in their
work?
I would counter this argument as follows:
If God is perfectly loving, he loves in accordance with the worth of
the object of his love. That which is intrinsically more loveable is
loved by God more than that which is intrinsically less loveable. To
say otherwise would be to accept that God's love is not proportioned
to its object, and thus defective, and thus imperfect.
Now the being who is most worthy of love is surely God himself, since
He is maximally perfect. Thus, if God is infinitely more perfect than
creation (which is what most theists would say), he loves Himself
infinitely more than any of his creatures. And so it is impossible for
God not to love Himself. Since God is never without an object of love
(himself), the argument you have presented doesn't work.
> It is, I think, a
> powerful argument against the sterile monadic ontology for God that
> has developed within Orthodox Judaism and Orthodox Islam.
Orthodox Jews can speak for themselves, but the richness suggested by
the orthodox Muslim doctrine of the "ninety-nine names" of Allah is
hardly "sterile".
ConvertstoIslam
>So in making your point of who the spirits were, you have as well
>undercut what you supposed Christ to be doing. Jesus didn't go there
>to save them through evangelizing, he went to declare his victory over
>them.
1. Thank you for affirming they were angels
2. as I said elsewhere, we don't know what they said to each other, so any
claims is just speculation.
But your point that Jesus "heralded His victory over death" is a good one,
especially since the word "preached" was used in a way to suggest that.
very good investigation work to find how the word "preached" was used to give
us a better idea as to what or how Jesus spoke to the angels.
Peace
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
>Angel Gabriel told Muhammad that Jesus is no less than the Messiah of God, but
>as far as being begotten, most Bible translations removed that phrase, and
>regarding being the son, as I understand it, in Hebrew that means "Servant".
Recent translations tend to translate as simply "only son." It's not
so much that "only begotten son" is wrong, as that it's an
overtranslation. I.e. it suggests that there's more there than
actually is. The phrase is a normal one used of only sons. On the
other hand, since sons are begotten, adding the word doesn't seem to
change the meaning significantly.
It seems to bother Muslims because some think it means that God was
sexually involved with Mary. But that's not the case. Even when
"son" is figurative, the term "begotten" can be used, in a suitably
figurative way. See e.g. Ps 2:7, where it's used of the King.
Standard Trinitarian theology speaks of the Son as "begotten of the
Father before all worlds." Remember, this is the relationship between
the Father and the eternal Logos, not a human birth. In this context I
would say that the Father is the source of the Son continuously, as a
spring is the source of a river. The phrase "before all worlds"
clearly meant outside of time, since it was intended as a rejection of
Arius' view.
Son has a variety of non-literal meanings. E.g. the term "son of man"
is one that you can't really make sense of literally. But as used by
Jesus, son means more than servant. In John 15:12 ff he distinguishes
between servants and friends, in a way that makes it really unlikely
that he sees himself primarily as a servant of God.
In John (which is the Gospel you're quoting), Jesus saw his
relationship with the Father as a unique one, in which he brought
others into relationship with the Father by virtue of being in
relationship with him. Jesus has the same honor as the Father, and
the Father is glorified in him. The Father identified himself so
closely with Jesus that Jesus acted for him and showed us the Father.
I understand that Muslims don't accept this, but again I say that
you're better off simply rejecting John than trying to read him in odd
ways to avoid what he clearly intended to say.
Michael S. Pearl
>... the orthodox doctrine of
>the Trinity ...
>
>insists that
>there are real differences between the persons of the Trinity
>
>... sounds like at least two Gods ...
>
Michael's comment:
The primary issue is not really so much what it "sounds like" but,
rather, what is meant (especially in consideration of the fact that
"orthodox" does NOT mean "necessarily true" - and this is an oft
forgotten point which is as applicable to Islam as to Christianity).
Only after the meaning is understood will it be possible to determine
how best to express the supposed fact of the matter.
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>I've tended to
>think it odd that historical Christian creeds seem to insist that a
>requirement of salvation would include asssent to (even in the
absence
>of complete understanding of) rather murky and abstract theological
>doctrines. I'm not sure how a just and merciful God would insist on
>T.C. (theological correctness) to the extent required by the general
>run of Christians.
>
Michael's response:
It seems clear that some very common forms of Islam have similar
requirements - from the proclaimed acceptance of Muhammad as the
"seal" (the last) of the prophets to the Qur'an as the dictated and
inerrant word of God and the "rather murky" notion of the Sunnah as
yet another part of "Scripture" despite the fact that the Sunnah
consists of the sayings and practices of a mere man, a plain warner.
Do you not find that limiting information about God to a select,
relatively few, "prophets" - especially when there will supposedly be
no more such prophets - to be a matter of mere "T.C. (theological
correctness)" inasmuch as it is a notion fully insulated from the
testing which makes possible an improved understanding?
Do you think that it reflects the being of a just, compassionate,
merciful, and personal God to insist (via the above notion of
prophethood) that God is so informatively remote that humans are left
merely to haggle over the minutia of societal laws (as seems to be the
position of many of the more prominent sects - or, if you prefer,
schools - in Islam today)?
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>... on the Muslim side there are multiple reasons to
>reject the Trinity ...
>
>... the simplest reason why a Muslim would reject the Trinity is that
>along with other Christian doctrines, the Trinity is specifically
>alluded to in the Quran and rejected.
>
>in the fourth surah of the Quran there is a specific instruction to
>the People of the Book (a category which specifically includes Jews
>and Christians) which says:
>
>"say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God;
>far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in
the
>heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient
>for a Protector."
>
Michael's response:
First of all, the Qur'anic renditions of the Trinity do not equate to
Christian descriptions of the Trinity (this has been brought up on
SRI, and no Muslim has been able to demonstrate that the Qur'an
properly references the Christian Trinity). Accordingly, if Muslims
are going to maintain that the Qur'an is the actual inerrant word of
God, then the Muslims are either going to have to restrict the
application of those Qur'anic pronouncements to the context of some
obscure mistaken or heretical Christian sects rather than to all
Trinitarian descriptions, or the Muslims will have to find some other
basis (philosophy? logic?) by which to object to the Trinity concept.
Secondly, with regards to it being "better for you" to "say not, Three
[or Trinity]", this may well be so - but until a reasoned explanation
is made available, then how is the proscription against Trinitarian
understanding any more justified than an insistence on Trinitarian
expression? I think the points made in SRI discussions regarding the
unethical nature of fideism were sufficiently clear.
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>... At the very
>least, [the Qur'an] certainly suggests that at the level of language,
at the
>level of God-talk, [the Trinity and the Incarnation] are not useful
or valuable ways of talking
>about God.
>
Michael's response:
I do not recall the Qur'an ever addressing the matter of the meaning
of the Trinity or the possible contexts which would have made
Trinitarian expression especially useful.
Had the Qur'an undertaken such a task, then - and only then - might it
have been able to provide a rationale for its claim that "it is better
for you" to "say not, Three".
The usefulness or value of "ways of talking about God" pertains at
least to the intended meaning, the matter of whether that meaning
corresponds in some way to reality, and the successful communication
of the held beliefs being expressed.
Do the ninety-nine names of Allah provide a superior or more useful
way of understanding God?
I think a very good case could be made for saying that this way of
understanding God is at best no more successful; just look at the
difficulty many Muslims on SRI had in appreciating that the attribute
"ar-Rahman" (the Compassionate) indicates an unconditional regard,
tenderness, benevolence, love that God has for each of us, and
consider the difficulty those same participants had in associating
ar-Rahman with the Christian notion of an unconditional love.
On the face of it, and limiting the discussion to the present, I think
a case could be made that the Christian way of talking about God
(including Trinitarian expressions) has more successfully communicated
God as ar-Rahman than have the most common Muslim ways of thinking and
talking about God - but this is *not* to say that a coherent,
systematic way of thinking about God is impossible based on the
ninety-nine names (attributes) of Allah; it is just that relatively
few prominent Muslim scholars have concerned themselves with such
coherence over the past millennium and such a pursuit is considered
"unlawful knowledge" by many Muslim scholars (see _Reliance of the
Traveller_ ).
The point here is that you have done absolutely nothing to justify
your assertion that the Trinitarian way of speaking about God is "not
useful or valuable".
Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>... from an Islamic perspective, it is much more simple
>and insightful to just
>
>... not presumptuously delve into God's anatomy and instead to deal
>with the much more relevant matter of how to live on earth as a
>righteous, compassionate, humane, spiritually-healthy god-fearing
>human being.
>
Michael's response:
Trinitarian expression does not have to be thought of as a matter
pertaining to Divine anatomy, but I would agree that "the much more
relevant matter" pertains to our beings. On that topic, I would say
that the Islamic emphasis on the "Oneness" of God seems anything but
more successful at ensuring that our beings become more Godly - not
because of the emphasis on the "Oneness" of God but, more likely,
because of the long-standing dearth of philosophical inquiry in Islam
(essentially self-criticism regarding basic assumptions, meaning that
fideism - no matter how systematic - does not qualify as "philosophy"
in the current context). Many, if not most, Muslim schools of thought
seem to have effectively replaced philosophical pursuit with an
insistence that ritualism and legalism are sufficient (despite the
fact that the Qur'an explicitly dissociates ritualism - and, it could
be argued, thereby legalism - from righteousness, from the development
of a more Godly being). It could even be argued that on this matter
Christian teaching more effectively emphasizes - or is more suitable
for recognizing - the fact that justice is incidental to law and that
Godliness is likewise incidental to ritual.
Do these criticisms apply to all Muslims or to all forms of Islam?
Certainly not, but it is anything but proper to subject others'
religions to a scrutiny to which we do not subject our own as well.
And this means that rather than casting the issue in terms of
Christianity vs. Islam, Christians vs. Muslims, it will be likely more
productive to discuss these matters in terms of individuals' beliefs
(especially since neither Christianity nor Islam are monolithic belief
systems - there are many differing versions).
Charles Hedrick - as well as others - have provided ample evidence
that Trinitarian expression is not limited to that which you have
characterized. Again, this recommends concentrating on the meaning -
not the words - so that we can actually focus on being, the "much more
relevant matter" as you said. Accordingly, a more suitable way to
pursue this issue might be to attempt to see to what extent Christian
expression and Muslim expression might be equated as regards the being
of God as well as the relationship between God and each of us.
Michael
Gilberto Simpson
> convert...@aol.com (ConvertstoIslam) writes
>
> >Angel Gabriel told Muhammad that Jesus is no less than the Messiah of God, but
> >as far as being begotten, most Bible translations removed that phrase, and
> >regarding being the son, as I understand it, in Hebrew that means "Servant".
>
> Recent translations tend to translate as simply "only son." It's not
> so much that "only begotten son" is wrong, as that it's an
> overtranslation. I.e. it suggests that there's more there than
> actually is. The phrase is a normal one used of only sons. On the
> other hand, since sons are begotten, adding the word doesn't seem to
> change the meaning significantly.
> It seems to bother Muslims because some think it means that God was
> sexually involved with Mary. But that's not the case. Even when
> "son" is figurative, the term "begotten" can be used, in a suitably
> figurative way. See e.g. Ps 2:7, where it's used of the King.
Another implicaiton with using "son" type language is the nature of
the implied relationship. For example:
[5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah
and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your
faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He
forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is
the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and
to Him is the eventual coming.
So it isn't just the crudely physical (and therefore radically
erroneous) idea of God having sex, but the son language implies a
certain unconditional approval and support for ones actions which
would be inappropriate. God is not your drinking buddy.
That's not to say that it is not possible to have an intimate
relationship with God. The Quran also says that "God is closer to you,
than you are to your own jugular vein" and there are some deeply
moving and intimate portrayals in Islam of God's mercy and compassion
(especially among the category of hadith called "hadith qudsi").
But to take the position that one is free to do what you want, without
facing any consequences at all seems immature and presumptuous.
> Standard Trinitarian theology speaks of the Son as "begotten of the
> Father before all worlds." Remember, this is the relationship between
> the Father and the eternal Logos, not a human birth.
Talking with certain Christians over the years (definitely including
communications through postings with charles) I tend to see certain
differences between Muslims and Christians matters of language and
emphasis rather than actual irreconcilable disagreements. Even so, I
think that the language makes a difference. And given the fact that
Christian use of theological language has a rather high propensity to
be misunderstood, I am not sure what is wrong with avoiding it and
using different formulations.
The first line of the Tao Te Ching is that "the way that can be named
is not the eternal way". And one of the things that really appeals to
me about Islamic theology is the recognition that God is too big to
fit inside our categories. One of the first passages of the Quran that
a Muslim would learn is:
[112.1] Say: He, Allah, is One.
[112.2] Allah is He on Whom all depend.
[112.3] He begets not, nor is He begotten.
[112.4] And none is like Him.
Allah ultimately beggars all language about him. But on the other
hand, the classical Christian creeds actually claim to get a good
handle on what God is actually like. They claim to describe God's
innards with a surprising degree of detail, and such confidence (or
never) that some are willing to add anathemas and curses to those who
don't believe in God thus and so.
-G
----
[Actually, being God's children tends to subject us more to God's
discipline. I hope Christians don't take it as implying God's
unconditional support. His unconditional love, yes, but God's love is
compared by Malachi to a refiner's fire. I certainly hope no one
thinks I believe we are free to do what we want without facing any
consequences. God as my good buddy is generally recognized as a
serious misunderstanding of Christianity.
There are plenty of Christian theologians who describe God in more
detail than I think is justified. The actual creeds however are less
specific. The primary creeds in this area, Nicea and Chalcedon, are
both compromises, designed specifically to accept moderate versions of
more than one theological tradition. They set some broad limits, but
do not actually specify particular models either of the Trinity or the
Incarnation.
--clh]
Matthew Johnson
>
>>The GNT is NOT a 'Catholic edition'.
>
>there is a Catholic edition of the GNT.
How 'Catholic' is it really? Does it have an Imprimatur? Whose? Unfortunately,
some bishops give out Imprimaturs like hotcakes.
>>consider the example St. Basil the Great gave, which I have already
>>mentioned often now: the Son and Holy Spirit are perfect images of the
>>Father,
>>images more perfect than any images we have on earth of anything, even more
>>perfect than two identical twins (as images).
>
>if Jesus was a mirror image of God above, then that is even a worse concept
>because as Jesus died below, I had some hope for Christianity that your God
>above was still alive?
This sentence does not quite make sense. Try again.
>>Thus, when we see the Son, we see the Father. And what worship we offer the
>>Son, reflects perfectly onto the Father.
>
>sorry to say but that is a horrible thought,
No, it is not. Try reading the passages I cited in context.
> esspecially after seeing Gibson's
>film, I think that's blasphamy to say God looked like Jesus did in Gibson's
>film.
Then maybe Gibson made a poor choice of actor;)
>I believe in the God of Moses, where God was so great that
> Moses could not even bear to see God, just like Jesus said
> "no one at any time has seen God". (John
>1:18)
First of all, those words are never attributed to Jesus. They are the author's,
(whoever wrote the Prologue to John).
If you really believe in the God of Moses, then you believe in His Son as His
perfect image (Jn 5:23). And remember: the Apostles could barely withstand
looking at Him when He was transfigured on the Mountain, in the pericope that
shows that He is the God of the Old Testament:
And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother,
and led them up a high mountain apart. And he was transfigured before them,
and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. And
behold, there appeared to them Moses and Eli'jah, talking with him. And
Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish,
I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses
and one for Eli'jah." He was still speaking, when lo, a bright
cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said,
"This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him."
When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled
with awe. But Jesus came and touched them, saying,
"Rise, and have no fear." And when they lifted up their eyes,
they saw no one but Jesus only. (Mat 17:1-8 RSVA)
Sure, they were "filled with awe" only when the voice of the Father spoke, but
they were already amazed to the point of being confused when Peter made his
out-of-place suggestion. This was because His glory was still only partially
revealed to them, only as much as they could bear being revealed.
BTW: this brings up another important point: just because we see the Father when
we see the Son does not mean we see _everything_ about Him. Why, throughout most
of His earthly ministry, very few saw His glory, yet he _never_ set it aside.
Rather, it was an act of special dispensation on His part that allowed the
Apostles to see it in Mt 17:1-8.
----------------------------
Asceticism is a life that has as its goal the destruction of passions:
lust, self-love, hatred, envy, gluttony, laziness etc., and filling your
own soul with the spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love, which
last is NEVER a lonely virtue, but is the companion and perfecter of the
preceding qualities of the soul. (Metr. Khrapovitsky)
----
[As far as I know, the Catholic edition of the Good News Bible has
an imprimature, and minor adjustments in the notes. I wouldn't
call it a Catholic translation in the same sense as the Jerusalem
Bible. --clh]
Denis Giron
> ...
Pax Vobis Mohamed!
Sorry for the delay...
> >The question still becomes if gentiles were required to follow these
> >laws, and this is not clear at all.
>
> Jesus told potential converts, the way to be saved is to follow the laws, even
> to this day, if a gentile converts to Judaism, they have to follow the laws.
Is it clear that this was said at any time specifically to gentiles? I
would imagine it more plausible that the gentiles would, roughly
speaking, have to follow the same laws (the Noachide mitzvot) that
they had to follow prior to the coming of Jesus, plus whatever new
laws Jesus' coming may have introduced.
> >Christians take the Bible as a
> >source of guidance, and the Bible, in Acts 15, has James proclaiming
> >that the gentile believers need not follow all the laws.
>
> OTJ, other than Jesus :-) just like in court, hear say is not as valid as what
> the source (Jesus himself) said.
Again, Christians use *the Bible* as a source of guidance, and the
Bible, in Acts 15, clearly lays out what the gentiles are required to
do.
On a side note, I think Acts 15 makes a great model for the approach
that the Catholic and Orthodox churches take, vis a vis the
Evangelical approach, where bishops and leaders of councils help to
properly interpret the law so that it is applicable to new problems.
This seems to uobviously be a law determined via a decree from a
council of bishops, though it is a council that just happens to be
recorded in the Bible.
> >The
> >issue is that on the Christian conception of God, God loves even those
> >whom His justice requires that He punish, He loves sinners and
> >unbelievers, He loves even those who do not love Him.
>
> if you focus on the crucifixion as Mr. Gibson did, then you can claim that,
> but if you made a movie focusing on the wrathful Jesus;
>
> "But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! ... Ye blind guides ...
> Ye fools and blind .... Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye
> serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"
> (Matthew 23:13-33)
>
> that does not sound like a God who loves sinners, esspecially the way Jesus
> squashed the "serpent" that slid out of the devil in the movie.
I think Craig explained this best:
"[God] loves even those whom His justice requires that He punish. And
so, on the Christian view, in contrast to the Qur'anic view, God loves
even those who reject Him. He loves even sinners and unbelievers who
refuse Him; He has no pleasure in their death or in their judgement.
They bring it upon themselves by refusing His love, but that does not
mean that God ceases to love them."
Punishment does not negate love. In fact, if we presuppose God to be
both perfectly loving and perfectly just, then God must necessarily
punish those whom He loves when their behavior warrants punishment. As
for harsh words, that came up in Craig's debate with Shabir Ally on
the subject of what we must do to be saved, where Ally cited a passage
in Psalms which is strikingly harsh. However, harsh words do not
negate love either (and I could give examples if you'd like).
> >On the Qur'anic
> >view, however, there is explicit mention of how, while God possesses
> >the attribute of love, there are certain individuals (particularly
> >sinners) whom God does not love.
>
> well, the majority of the individuals punished in the Bible are also punished
> in the Quran, except the Quran is much more loving in many instances, for
> example, in the flood of Noah, God in the Bible commited a mass genocide
> against the entire human race, while in the Quran, only a few cities were
> flooded.
With all due respect akhi, this is more due to duplicitous exegesis
than anything else. In the past, many Muslims (before it became an
issue) interpreted the Qur'anic flood as global (at-Tabaree comes to
mind). Now, there are Christians who interpret the flood locally
rather than globally. For an example of how exegesis can be applied to
the Bible to find a local flood, consider the following post by me to
alt.bible.errancy:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=gpqvovke7phjtapqkkhkdm6oqjnm2mlkjm%404ax.com
[scroll down to the part on the flood]
Regardless, the issue again, is not punishment, rather the issue is
how the Qur'an, numerous times, states that God does not love certain
individuals, making His love conditional. The Christian conception,
contains no verses that specifically state that God does not love
certain individuals. On the contrary, the Sermon on the Mount
specifically presents God's love as being "perfect," and one in which
He loves even those who do not love Him.
> >(1) Ice is H2O.
> >(2) Water is H2O.
> >(3) Ice is not water.
>
> Ice is water in a differt form, thus Jesus was God in Matthew 2 if you follow
> trinity.
The ice-water analogy explains how things of different forms can be of
the same essence. Furthermore, the three statements above help to
elucidate the distinction between identity and predication. On Craig's
explanation of the Trinity, Jesus is not identical to the Godhead in
toto, rather he is God in a sense of predication, he is divine, he
possesses the attributes of deity, he is of the same essence as God
the Father, or is consubstantial with him.
> In a way, I'm happy that you became a Christian? At least your closer to Islam
> again.
I haven't become a Christian. I'm just a lot more open to certain
arguments. For example, I don't believe the Trinity is true, but I do
believe it is logically coherent after hearing/reading the
explanations of Christian philosophers like Craig, Swinburne, Moreland
and Morris. As for Christianity in general, I have found Craig's
arguments for the faith *very* persuasive; however, I have not
converted because there are a number of problems I also see with the
faith (as well as theism in general).
> But if Craig wants to join this thread or make a seperate one here in SRC then
> I would be happy to reply,
He's a professional philosopher, univerity professor and professional
debater, as well as a much sought after public speaker across this
nation, so there is practically zero chance that he'd engage in a
debate over usenet. When he debates atheists, he only debates the
cream of the crop, in his debates in general (i.e. against atheists or
non-atheists) he apparently prefers men who have PhDs. For Shabir Ally
he apparently made an acception since he is so prominent among
Muslims, and you're popularity among Muslims is increasing so much
that you could probably pull a similar deal off (the fact that people
have asked you to debate Robert Morey is a testament to this).
> is Catherine still shielding Christians in SRI? You
> can't have indepth discussions about the Bible there...
I currently don't believe that Catherine ever shielded Christians in
SRI (though admittedly, when I first started posting to SRI in 1998, I
used to think the SRI moderation team was biased in favor of Jochen
Katz, but I have since come to consider such a belief absurd).
However, to answer your question indirectly, the moderation team has
become considerably more lenient, as can be seen in what gets through
these days.
-Denis Giron
Denis Giron
> so much that "only begotten son" is wrong, as that it's an
> overtranslation. I.e. it suggests that there's more there than
> actually is. The phrase is a normal one used of only sons. On the
> other hand, since sons are begotten, adding the word doesn't seem to
> change the meaning significantly.
As I recall, the critical Greek text edited by Metzger et. al. (i.e.
the Nestle-Aland text) has "monogenes theos" in John 1:18, which would
be "the only begotten God" (or roughly along the lines of the NIV
translation, "God the one and only" - the NAB seems to also side with
something analogous). So, if I'm not mistaken about my understanding
here (i.e. what I recall appearing in the most recent versions of the
Nestle-Aland textus criticus, and what it literally means), it would
seem the cream of NT scholarship favors a reading that is a rather
explicit reference to Jesus' divinity as both God and the son of God
(i.e. as God the Son).
I'm curious about the comments of those who are more well-versed in
the subject than I.
-Denis Giron
----
[There are two issues here, text and translation. The textual issue is
whether the text is /monogenes theos/ or /monogenes uios/. The best
evidence now favors /monogenes theos/. The balance was probably tipped
by P66 and P75, both manuscripts from ca. 200, though these are far
from the only early evidence of that text. There's also a question of
whether the article is present. I believe current translations assume
not, though some manuscripts have it.
Next, the meaning of /monogenes/. It has often been translated
only-begotten, on the grounds that the root genes is associated with
generation. However it is also the root of "genus," i.e. kind. TDNT
says that compounds of -genes normally indicate nature, not origin,
and that /monogenes/ means "unique", i.e. literally "one of a kind."
It is the standard term used for an only child.
The phrase /monogenes theos/ is sort of an odd one. It would seem at
first to be something like "only God." However (this according to
Comfort) most translators treat monogenes as a substantive rather than
an adjective, so the statement describes Christ as both the Only and
God. The TEV shows this most clearly: "the only One, who is the same
as God." [This understands /theos/ as not having the article, in
which case it is qualitative, hence "the same as God" rather than
simply "God." TEV does the same in John 1:1.] NRSV and Anchor Bible
translate "God the only Son." This understands /monogenes/ alone as
meaning "only Son", which apparently is a possible reading. (See the
NET Bible note below.)
NET Bible translates "the only one, himself God", which is similar to
TEV, though in my opinion less clear about the qualitative force of
/theos/.
However one chooses to translate /monogenes theos/, if that's the
right text, it's a pretty direct identification of Jesus as God,
though if it's without the article, it has the same issues as John
1:1.
Here's the commentary on this phrase from the NET Bible. (You may
prefer to look directly at www.bible.org, since translating to ASCII
has made hash of some of this.)
12 tc The textual problem monogenhV" qeov" (monogenh" qeo", "the only
God") versus oJ monogenhV" uiJov" (Jo monogenh" Juio", "the only son")
is a notoriously difficult one. Only one letter would have
differentiated the readings in the mss, since both words would have
been contracted as nomina sacra: thus qMs or uMs. Externally, there
are several variants, but they can be grouped essentially by whether
they read qeov" or uiJov". The majority of mss, especially the later
ones (A C3 Q E1,13 I lat), read oJ monogenhV" uiJov". I 33 pc have oJ
monogenhV" qeov", while the anarthrous monogenhV" qeov" is found in *
B C* L pc. The articular qeov" is almost certainly a scribal
emendation to the anarthrous qeov", for qeov" without the article is a
much harder reading. The external evidence thus strongly supports
monogenhV" qeov". Internally, although uiJov" fits the immediate
context more readily, qeov" is much more difficult. As well, qeov"
also explains the origin of the other reading (uiJov"), because it is
difficult to see why a scribe who found uiJov" in the text he was
copying would alter it to qeov". Scribes would naturally change the
wording to uiJov" however, since monogenhV" uiJov" is a uniquely
Johannine christological title (cf. John 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). But
qeov" as the older and more difficult reading is preferred. As for
translation, it makes the most sense to see the word qeov" as in
apposition to monogenhv", and the participle oJ w[n (Jo wn) as in
apposition to qeov", giving in effect three descriptions of Jesus
rather than only two. (B. D. Ehrman, The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture, 81, suggests that it is nearly impossible and completely
unattested in the NT for an adjective followed immediately by a noun
that agrees in gender, number, and case, to be a substantival
adjective: "when is an adjective ever used substantivally when it
immediately precedes a noun of the same inflection?" This, however, is
an overstatement. First, as Ehrman admits, monogenhv" in John 1:14 is
substantival. And since it is an established usage for the adjective
in this context, one might well expect that the author would continue
to use the adjective substantivally four verses later. Indeed,
monogenhv" is already moving toward a crystallized substantival
adjective in the NT [cf. Luke 9:38; Heb 11:17]; in patristic Greek,
the process continued [cf. PGL 881 s.v. 7]. Second, there are several
instances in the NT in which a substantival adjective is followed by a
noun with which it has complete concord: cf., e.g., Rom 1:30; Gal 3:9;
1 Tim 1:9; 2 Pet 2:5.) The modern translations which best express this
are the NEB (margin) and TEV. Several things should be noted:
monogenhv" alone, without uiJov", can mean "only son," "unique son,"
"unique one," etc. (see 1:14). Furthermore, qeov" is anarthrous. As
such it carries qualitative force much like it does in 1:1c, where
qeoV" h\n oJ lovgo" (qeo" hn Jo logo") means "the Word was fully God"
or "the Word was fully of the essence of deity." Finally, oJ w[n
occurs in Rev 1:4, 8; 4:8, 11:17; and 16:5, but even more
significantly in the LXX of Exod 3:14. Putting all of this together
leads to the translation given in the text.
--clh]
Denis Giron
>...
Pax Vobis Omar Mirza!
Thank you very much for this thought provoking response. I'm actually
supposed to be studying, so I will make this short - thus I would ask
that you pardon the rushed manner of my reply.
> > There is a second argument I plan to introduce to the thread over the
> > next few days that has been put forth by the great Christian
> > philosophers William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne that is also an
> > appeal to the requirement that a loving God necessarily must be
> > perfectly loving (though I am modifying it slightly). If God is
> > perfectly loving, then there has to exist at least one being who
> > serves as an object of His love (because if there is no one else, He
> > loves nothing, and thus can't be perfectly loving).
>
> Whoa there Denis!!!!
>
> Why can't God love HIMSELF? Where is there a requirement that love has
> to be directed only towards OTHERS?
Well, I would say this is one of two objections. The other objection
being one that you sort of approached in your post in SRI which raised
a number of good points: does it necessarily follow that if God
possesses the attribute of love, He must be perfectly loving? I would
actually say no, because it only follows if we assume an Anselmian
conception of God. As various philosophers have noted, if you had a
less than Anselmian being (i.e. a being who was not omniscient, or not
omnipotent, or not perfectly loving, or not morally perfect, et
cetera) who created the universe, spoke to Abraham and Moses, sent
Jesus, revealed the Torah and the Gospel and would reward and punish
humans on the day of judgement, Christians would call that being
'God.'
So the two objections are that either (1) the Anselmian conception is
not necessarily true, or (2) God could simply love Himself.
With regard to (1), it would seem better to believe in an Anselmian
God than a non-Anselmian one (i.e. if my choice was between two
coherent religions, one which posited an Anselmian God and the other
positing a less-than-Anselmian being, I would lean towards the
former).
With regard to (2), I think it is a wonderful point, but it seems to
approach vanity rather than love. Is a being who is *only* self-loving
really/truly perfectly loving? I would have to think not, which is why
I would lean towards this argument in favor of a multipersonal
ontology of God.
> I can't believe Swinburne or Craig would have overlooked this obvious
> objection to their argument. Where does this argument occur in their
> work?
Both men presented it *very* tentatively. Craig raised it in his
debate with Shabir Ally, I believe, on the subject of the Christian
conception of God vis a vis the Islamic conception of God (and he made
passing reference to Swinburne). I have not seen this argument appear
in any of Craig's published works, however. As for Swinburne, it
appears in his book "The Christian God," though at the moment I am not
sure about page numbers (I think, however, that it was roughyl around
pp. 177-181). Keep in mind, however, that I sort of paraphrased and
altered the argument, so their respective versions may be weaker or
stronger than the version I have presented here and in SRI.
> I would counter this argument as follows:
>
> If God is perfectly loving, he loves in accordance with the worth of
> the object of his love. That which is intrinsically more loveable is
> loved by God more than that which is intrinsically less loveable. To
> say otherwise would be to accept that God's love is not proportioned
> to its object, and thus defective, and thus imperfect.
I would strongly disagree here (and I'll try to be more eloquent when
I attempt a response to your wonderful points in SRI over the next
couple days) on the grounds that you seem to be speaking of
conditional love. I would argue that God's *justice* would be
proportionate to the object receiving it, but God's love, being
perfect, is unconditional, and thus meted out even to those who are
the lowest and most base. In other words, a perfectly loving God would
be, as the Sermon on the Mount seems to argue, one who loves even
those who do not love Him, even those who reject His love.
Think of the love a father has for a son. Can you imagine if a father
told his sons that he would only love them if they measured up to his
standard? Can you imagine if his love for the more accomplished,
well-behaved son was greater than that afforded to his
less-accomplished, less-well-behaved son? It would cause a lot of pain
I would think. Indeed, such father-son relationships do exist (and
have often caused psychological and emotional scarring for the
less-loved son), but they exist precisely because the father in such
instances is *imperfectly* loving. This is why I think conditional
love is imperfect love (though I apologized if my argument crossed the
line into an appeal to emotion).
> Now the being who is most worthy of love is surely God himself, since
> He is maximally perfect. Thus, if God is infinitely more perfect than
> creation (which is what most theists would say), he loves Himself
> infinitely more than any of his creatures. And so it is impossible for
> God not to love Himself. Since God is never without an object of love
> (himself), the argument you have presented doesn't work.
This is a wonderful point assuming I didn't consider such a being to
be imperfectly loving (for reasons noted towards the top) or even
approaching vanity.
It is for these reasons that I find the Craig's appeal to divine love
to be quite persuasive with regard to establishing the superiority of
the Christian conception of God over the Islamic conception of God.
However, let me say now that you should not take my admittedly brusque
responses in this post as a sign of disdain for your arguments. I
actually have great respect for you and the arguments you have
presented, but I am unfortunately strapped for time, and this is the
root of my curt manner. When I do have more time, I will try to
approach your respective arguments in a more thorough, accomodating,
and even genteel way. I do realize that there is a great deal more to
be said, and I will try to get to your points in SRI within the next
couple days.
-Denis Giron
rtda...@yahoo.com
> >As to a final goal of a perfect society, do Muslims seriously
> >challenge that God is doing this?
> >Would there be sin in the Islamic paradise?
> Heaven is already available.
> Islamic paradice is sin free, but we are responsible
> for our own sins on the way there.
But what will make heaven "heaven"? Will it be the same as here?
That certainly would not make sense. There must be something
fundamentally different about Heaven that makes it worthy of attaining
to. You note the reason in the next line: there will be no sin in
paradise.
We do sin here on earth. In fact I do not know anyone that is free
from sin.
Put it together: we sin, there will be no sin in paradise. But if it
is us in paradise, what will keep us from sinning? What is the
difference, between paradise and earth? What will keep it sin-free?
And IF one were to sin, in paradise, would one get kicked out?
Why should we think that we will change, when we change addresses?
> >So IF God is to accomplish this goal, there must be a
> >way in which sin is dealt with
>
> well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I think the stories of Pharaoh
> to the Flood, shows how God deals with sinners.
Noted. And that "is" bad news. So why did God deal with sin that way?
Wouldn't it be because sin is an offense to him? Enough of an offense
to where he would destroy those involved in certain levels of it?
As of now, you seem to accept that God is building a perfect society
called paradise, which will be free of sin. And that God judges
sinners.
> > What I don't believe in is my ability to uphold it. And if
> > I don't uphold it, then I sin. And if I sin, then I am deserving of
> > death.
>
> people think they can't quit smoking, so they continue to smoke, but if you
> sincerely try, you can do it.
I am NOT arguing for a metaphysical impossibility of us doing good.
Only that we don't. Sin and what it means is notoriously hard to pin
down, mainly on the account of what sin is: a corruption of the good.
We take things that are meant for good and misuse/misappropriate/twist
the intention, etc. and it is likewise notoriously difficult to pin
down exactly why we do these things.
We of course are going to disagree on the nature of humanity here. I
will assert that human nature is sinful. While this may be
philosophically difficult to explain, it is manifestly evident in
everyday life. The Islamic assertion that human nature is basically
good is easier to stomach, but pure fiction. Life itself would seem to
argue against it. We are almost purely self-concerned rather than
God-concerned.
But whatever the reason, we all pervasively sin. This is simply true.
There is no one that does not sin.
> > So the difference is that you will die if you fail in the law,
> > But with Jesus, your sins are covered for all time.
>
> that is a claim by Paul, the Bible taught that most laws can be broken without
> a death sentance, in fact, Bible prophets who sinned were still spiritually
> connected with God.
I'm not talking about immediate physical death for all sins. I am
talking about Gods innate response to sin.
And ultimately death; separation from God is the only response of God
to sin.
Now it would seem to me that this is not wholly unacceptable to you.
You believe in a God that judges sin, believe that his place for a
reward: paradise, is a sin free environment. So those that are there
must be those that are not sinning.
Put it together. God is not allowing sin in his perfect society.
How is that going to happen? It just will?
The law set a standard, but there was also a sacrificial system to
restore the sinner to standing. And the price was life/blood. Ki
nefesh habasar, badam [hu]. Va'ani nethativ lakhem 'al hamizbeach
lekafar al nefshoteykhem. Ki hadam hu' banefesh yekafar. Vayikra 17:11
"for the life of the flesh is in the blood"
God isn't after "blood" per se, it is that sin costs a life. And the
life is in the blood.
"and I have given it to you to on the altar to make atonement for your
souls. Because it is the blood, as life, that makes atonement."
Blood=life, so it is life that has been given to make atonement.
How often this gets misunderstood as "blood lust" only serves to
illustrate how little it is understood. Paul didn't invent the idea of
this death sentence, it is the penalty God gives in the law. Sin will
cost a life. God graciously allows it to be transferred to another,
but sin=death is an irrevocable spiritual law.
The entirety of the law was to show this: You will not live by the
standard, you will sin, and sin is a problem. God must be maintained
as holy in his place, and the only way by which he would dwell with
his people is when they cleansed themselves and had their sins
covered. The concept of atonement courses the pages of Leviticus. IF
all we do is try and follow the law without understanding the
sacrificial system, then we have missed the other half of it. The
standard is still to be maintained, but we have forgotten what must
happen when it is not.
> >If God is perfect, then his creation must also be perfect.
>
> I disagree, God did not make other gods.
Never said he did. When Jesus said "be perfect as your father in
heaven is perfect" did he mean be a God like God is God? Doubtful.
You seem insistent that perfection must include the omnis that we
attribute to God, and there is no reason to think it should.
Perfection is that we act perfectly in accordance with what we are
supposed to do.
If I buy a car, I expect it to run. I don't expect it to make toast
for me. But I do expect it to run exactly as it should. I won't take a
car analogy any further here since they are made humanly and therefore
not perfect.
BUT, God is perfect. He does not expect us to be omni, but he can,
does and MUST expect us to perform up to a certain standard. And that
standard MUST be moral perfection. If we are told to obey, then we
must obey. IF not, then you have a God with an imperfect standard, and
that is a God that is imperfect within himself.
He of course forgoes judgment until we have lived a life, but
eventually actions must be judged. IF God does not judge and do it
perfectly, then his own standard is imperfection. We cannot maintain
that God is perfect and at the same time maintain that his standard of
conduct is imperfect. It would be an imperfection in God.
> > It simply cannot be any other way, without destroying the perfection
> > of God.
>
> this reminds me of when Christians used to tell me;
>
> "God turned away from Jesus because Jesus was filled with the sin of the world
> and God could not *bear* to look."
>
> When I asked "why did God forsake Jesus"
>
> I think it is insulting to God to claim that God can not bear anything, I
> believe God can bear all the sins of this world and a million like it. If we as
> humans (imperfect physically, mentally, and spiritually), stand before God, it
> will not "destroy the perfection of God", God can tolerate anything and
> everything.
I readily admit God can be in the "presence of sin" as long as we
understand that it is not communion fellowship presence. If God is
omnipresent, then in that sense he is in the "presence" of sin given
that he is everywhere. But that is not the type of presence we are
speaking of here. This is Gods communion fellowship. And No, God will
not tolerate "anything and everything". Even Islam holds to a judgment
day. Why is God judging actions and sending people to Hell, if he can
tolerate anything and everything? He may be able to tolerate it for a
time, (in fact, how else could it be? IF he were to judge sin
immediately, no one would be alive to repent) but his perfection will
demand that he judge sin eventually. Justice is a necessary part of
perfection and God, being perfect, must judge perfectly. He cannot let
it slide, he cannot just forgive without denying his own perfect
nature.
If he is smart, and he is, then he will have a way whereby he can
offer forgiveness, without denying justice.
> >Our lack of omniscience should not
> >be read as an imperfection, since it is not a moral defect.
>
> It causes moral defect, if Adam and Eve knew the serpant was Satan, they may
> not have sinned. So God tolerated ignorance in His presence, not to mention
> Satan there as well.
It does not "cause" imperfection, it allows that it could happen. And
this free-will is a necessary concomitant of creating independent
creatures. God himself is free, but he freely chooses not to do evil.
Yes his omniscience would mean that he has full knowledge of the
consequences whereas we do not have that. but A&E had a choice and
they chose to disobey.
> >How can we accept that disobeying
> > God would lead to perfection?
>
> In Islam, the goal is to obey God, Islam teaches we were created to obey God.
But we can obey imperfectly? Sometime obeying is OK? Sometimes
disobedient is OK?
Of course the goal is to obey God. It is a sin to not obey God. That
has been my point for some time now.
Christianity teaches we were created to obey God too. It also
acknowledges the rather obvious fact that we're not doing it.
> > Why would he need to introduce a new covenant?
> > Because the first one was only ever meant to show us that we could not
> > make it to God by following the law.
>
> First, the covenant was repeatedly called "everlasting/forever", second, God in
> the Bible actually increased the laws if He saw humans not following them;
It was God that said he would give a new covenant. I didn't make this
up. I quoted both Jeremiah and Ezekiel.
> >A list of commands has no power to produce anything
> >in us.
> If breaking the laws brings spiritual death, then imagine the spiritual life
> keeping the laws can bring :-)
Once dead, how can we bring ourselves back to life?
And did you understand what I was saying?
How does a list "change" us? It only makes us aware of the rightness
of our actions. It can produce guilt I suppose, or maybe a pride in
following. But it will not change anything about our nature.
Now of all the people on the earth, the Jews were the only ones to
have received the laws. They were privileged to have been the
recipients of the law. Did it produce exceptional righteousness in
them? Not to hear the prophets speak. To be sure there were righteous
men among them, but why didn't the law produce more righteousness in
them? Why does God tell them to get a new heart?
Far from producing righteousness, the law only served to show the
standard. We are either righteous or not. The witness of the OT is
that Israel sunk further away from God despite being the one people
God had poured the most into.
dave
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
or the discussion will be so complex than no one will read it.
>>Oh, come now. Would you try to read what I say with at least the
>>possibility in your mind that I am orthodox.
>There are two reasons why I did not do this when reading your post. 1)
>I _know_ what you said will be misunderstood all too easily in a
>heterodox manner 2) last I checked, you were still a Calvinist, and
>Calvinism really is under heavy (and bad) influence from
>'neo-nestorianism'. So why admit the possibility under such
>circumstances?
Sure, I'm aware that the underlying issue is that I am Antiochene.
I'm not sure whether this is a characteristic of Calvin himself. I've
seen his Christology characterized as being orthodox through its very
unoriginality: he basically just repeated standard views (not that
this is always a bad thing). Christology wasn't at issue, and he
didn't seem to have spent much attention on it. Luther is a different
story. He gave lots of attention to the incarnation, and came up with
some interesting ideas.
On Calvin's theology, you might find it interesting to look at
http://www.quodlibet.net/tan-union.shtml
I'm well aware that the 5th and later Councils rejected major
representatives of Antiochene theology. You obviously accept all of
the ecumencial councils as authoritative. I'm more critical. In order
to follow Chalcedon -- which I do -- I think one has to see the
Antiochene model, and the Alexandrian model as clarified by the next
few councils, as saying the same thing from different viewpoints. I
believe that can be done, although I prefer the Antiochene version as
closer to Scripture.
The discussion of Athanaius is really a side issue. I mentioned it
as part of a discussion of how we got to the later councils. But I
still don't see in him what you do.
>> The Logos supposedly took on humanity,
>>but was not actually a human being.
> Already I see a problem here: how can anyone or anything take on humanity
> without becoming a human being? You must be using the word 'humanity' in a
>different sense than Athanasius did to come up with this one.
See below. That's certainly what many Alexandrian thinkers are
represented as saying. Perhaps a bunch of church historians are wrong
about that. I'd be very pleased if that's true.
I certainly don't know patristic authors as you do, so perhaps there's
some wonderful solution to this. But an example of the danger can be
seen in a site that claims to be Orthodox, http://orlapubs.com/AR/R154.html.
(ii) Think of the two wills (as in the Monotheletist controversy):
Christ has the divine will of the divine essence and a human will of
His human nature--but there is one Willer (hence the wills don't
contradict), and that Willer is the Person of the Logos (called
"Jesus" in His created human nature). I'm not sure what "inhere in
one hypostasis" means; perhaps you are speaking of perichoresis or of
Leontios' doctrine of enhypostasis. But you say later: "I do not see
how we can unite two natures in one entity." While it could seem that
the Willer is in the natures as much as the natures are in the Willer,
I concede that you are expressing the matter in no novel way. But I
also take note that the Willer is not a human Person; He is the
uncreated Logos-Creator of the world, according to one or more
ecumenical Synods, and is as Such hardly to be bound to what a human
person can do.
Now I don't know for sure that this is official Orthodox doctrine, but
it expresses something that I've seen elsewhere: that ultimately
there's only one person there, who is not a human person but the
Logos. This is what I was talking about when I said that it leaves the
humanity somewhat abstract.
>Besides: the very next sentence shows how wrongly you read him: for it reads:
>
> At one and the same time, wonderfully, as Man he lived a human life,
> and as Logos, He contained the life of all the universe, and as Son,
> He was in constant union with the Father.
>(De Incarnatione, ch. 3.17, xlate from
>http://www.ccel.org/contrib/ru/Other/Athanasius/athanasy-1.htm)
ccel.org has an English translation, which doesn't seem to differ in
sense from your Russian reference. It's been too many years since I
read Russian for me to try to plow throught that at the moment --
particularly since the original is in Greek. Let's look at the whole
section in ccel's English translation:
(17) There is a paradox in this last statement which we must now
examine. The Word was not hedged in by His body, nor did His presence
in the body prevent His being present elsewhere as well. When He moved
His body He did not cease also to direct the universe by His Mind and
might. No. The marvelous truth is, that being the Word, so far from
being Himself contained by anything, He actually contained all things
Himself. In creation He is present everywhere, yet is distinct in
being from it; ordering, directing, giving life to all, containing
all, yet is He Himself the Uncontained, existing solely in His
Father. As with the whole, so also is it with the part. Existing in a
human body, to which He Himself gives life, He is still Source of life
to all the universe, present in every part of it, yet outside the
whole; and He is revealed both through the works of His body and
through His activity in the world. It is, indeed, the function of soul
to behold things that are outside the body, but it cannot energize or
move them. A man cannot transport things from one place to another,
for instance, merely by thinking about them; nor can you or I move the
sun and the stars just by sitting at home and looking at them. With
the Word of God in His human nature, however, it was otherwise. His
body was for Him not a limitation, but an instrument, so that He was
both in it and in all things, and outside all things, resting in the
Father alone. At one and the same time--this is the wonder--as Man He
was living a human life, and as Word He was sustaining the life of the
universe, and as Son He was in constant union with the Father. Not
even His birth from a virgin, therefore, changed Him in any way, nor
was He defiled by being in the body. Rather, He sanctified the body by
being in it. For His being in everything does not mean that He shares
the nature of everything, only that He gives all things their being
and sustains them in it. Just as the sun is not defiled by the contact
of its rays with earthly objects, but rather enlightens and purifies
them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a
body, but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling,
"Who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth."[7]
This certainly refers to him living a human life. But I think the
overall sense of the paragraph is that the Logos lived a human life in
the sense that he used a human body as his instrument. He was in a
body, but the experience didn't really affect him. The overall
impression is not one of an actual human being.
I certainly agree with you that one can't have a human life without a
human will. But so far I haven't seen much suggestion in Athanasius'
writings that he understands that.
I agree with you that later councils interpreted his writings in a
more satisfactory sense. However in rejecting Theodore, rather than
trying to interpret him in a satisfactory sense as well, I believe the
councils exhibited an unbalanced view that ultimately calls into
question whether they actually accepted Chalcedon. I'm at least as
suspicious of anyone who accepts Constantinople II as you are of
anyone who is a Calvinist. I certainly accept that Theodore said some
things that can be misunderstood, but no more so than Athanasius did.
I think of the Alexandrian model as representing the Incarnation seen
from the point of view of the Logos, and the Antiochene model as seeing
it from the point of view of humans.
From the point of view of the Logos, he took to himself a human being,
in such a way that this human is the human form of the Logos. His acts
are the Logos' acts, and the Logos experienced everything the human
does, because he is the Logos' human life.
Looking at this from a human perspective, we have a human being who
has been given a special role by virtue of having been united to the
Logos. If he is a real human being with a real human life, then he
experiences God through prayer just as we all do, though no doubt he
also has a more direct experience corresponding to the experiences of
the mystics. His human mind is finite, and thus no more has infinite
understanding than ours. Of course through his union with the Logos
he has access to all of God's knowledge, but when viewing him as a
human being this would look like inspiration.
The point is that these are descriptions of the same thing from two
different perspectives. As you said in a previous posting, everything
Christ did must be seen at the same time as the act of a human and an
act of the Logos.
As you may know, I believe there are often multiple levels of
explanation for the same thing. In science, the same thing may be
understood by physics, chemistry or biology. They each have their own
principles, and each can in principle produce a complete
explanation. But different levels are often more useful for
understanding certain things.
In theology a similar thing occurs in discussions of will and
responsibility. As Calvin points out, the same event may be understood
as resulting from decisions made by people or as part of God's plan.
Both explanations are correct. They don't compete with each other.
I see the same thing here, with the Alexandrian model and the
Antiochene model being descriptions of the same thing at different
levels.
I think it makes sense to say that the Logos assumed an actual human
person, and not just humanity. To me this is simply a full working out
of the fact that there is a separate human will and energy. I'm using
the common-language sense of person. I leave it to others how this
maps to hypostases and physis. I'm not convinced that the sort of
analysis that uses these concepts makes any sense. The kind of knots
that the Church tied itself up in for several centuries suggests to me
that the overall conceptual structure being used just wasn't
appropriate for the subject matter.
I haven't read as much of the Fathers as Matthew has, but what I have
seen doesn't suggest that either Nestorius or his archenemy Cyril were
heretical, at least until they started into controversy. I've looked
at the exchange of letters between Nestorius and Cyril (in Norris, the
Christological Controversy). I found both Nestorius' original letter
and Cyril's original response to be OK. They were coming at things
from a different viewpoint, but I wouldn't have classified either as
heretical. However Nestorius' response to Cyril seems to come
completely out of left field, and when it got to mutual anathemas, it
doesn't seem that either was properly representing the
other. Summaries I've seen of the Bazaar of Heracides (which is a
later defense by Nestorius) also seem tolerably orthodox.
When you look at the whole history of the 4th through 6th Cent, it
sort of looks like the Church was possessed by some kind of demon of
controversy. Many historians believe the demon is a familiar one:
greed, i.e. many of the controversies were motivated by power
struggles. Again, I'm not in a position to assess this myself, but
accounts such as W.H.C. Frend's "The Rise of Christianity" say this,
and are consistent with what else I know of the period. It's also
clear that the situation was complicated by popular hysteria, sort of
the equivalent of current concerns about "family values," which are
often more about appearences than reality. I think more charity and
fewer anathemas would have done a world of good.
bushbadee
His
> perfect image (Jn 5:23).
Can you point to any contempory historic text which says that or is that
your own theological view.
John never viewed Moses or Jesus so how would he knew.
Perhaps he dreamed it, like that 18th century nun.
ConvertstoIslam
>Sorry for the delay...
no prob, the wait adds to the anticipation
I think that's why I started debating Jews, Christians no longer gave me that
special feeling ;-)
since you hover around all three religions, your triple the excitement to
debate :-)
>> to this day, if a gentile converts to Judaism, they have to follow the
>laws.
>
>Is it clear that this was said at any time specifically to gentiles?
Yes, Bilaam was a gentile convert to Monotheism and even a Prophet in the OT
who led others to follow the OT.
Jews claim there are 7 gentile prophets, citing that gentile nations needed the
OT too, Islam teaches much more than 7 gentile prophets, since there were much
more than 7 nations, while Christianity seems to ignore any gentile Prophets in
an effort to contrast the Jewish vs. Gentile behavioral expectations.
While Christians, based on Paul's claims, try to site ethnic differences to
avoid the laws, reality is, there is no difference biologically between Jews
and Gentiles, a gentile man being with another gentile man is just as much a
sin if it was between two Jewish men.
>I think Craig explained this best:
>
>"[God] loves even those whom His justice requires that He punish.
The Bible God does not love sinners, to claim so as Craig does is a blatant
denial of various passages stating otherwise;
"These six things doth the Lord *Hate*: yea, seven are an abomination unto
him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart
that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A
false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren."
(Proverbs 6:16-19)
God in the Bible hates, burns, smites, and eradicates the sinners.
Unconditional love means unconditional Mercy and none of the Abrahamic
religions teach that, otherwise we'd all be in Heaven right now.
>Punishment does not negate love.
Love taps? Being put in Hell eternally is not a loving act, at least in Islam,
God loves us enough to let us out if we fully repent.
>With all due respect akhi, this is more due to duplicitous exegesis
>than anything else. In the past, many Muslims (before it became an
>issue) interpreted the Qur'anic flood as global (at-Tabaree comes to
>mind). Now, there are Christians who interpret the flood locally
>rather than globally.
What Muslims and Christians say is different than what the Bible and Quran
says, the Quran says local while the Bible says global.
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=gpqvovke7phjtapqkkhkdm6oqjnm2mlkjm%4
04ax.com
>[scroll down to the part on the flood]
The Hebrew word for "world" may have dual meanings but the context "I will wipe
from the face of the earth every living creature I have made." Makes it clear
that it was global, because "everything" except the boat, was wiped in the
Bible.
>how the Qur'an, numerous times, states that God does not love certain
>individuals, making His love conditional.
Again, the Bible does the same thing (Proverbs 6:16-19, 8:13, Isaiah 61:8, Amos
5:21, Zechariah 8:17)
>I haven't become a Christian. I'm just a lot more open to certain
>arguments.
Cool dat
>For example, I don't believe the Trinity is true, but I do
>believe it is logically coherent after hearing/reading the
>explanations of Christian philosophers like Craig, Swinburne, Moreland
>and Morris.
Trinity is an impossibility because it is more than just different aspects
between the two entities, it is a case of going from immortal to vulnerable.
Trinitarians are saying God stopped being God. Although some Christians get a
kick out of the Master becoming their servant, this notion ignores thousands of
years of God not doing such a thing and stating He would not do such a thing:
"God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should
repent" (Nu 23:19)
>As for Christianity in general, I have found Craig's
>arguments for the faith *very* persuasive
Anyone can claim unconditional love about anything, those who are honest with
you are the ones that tell you all three religions teach conditional love, or
in other words, conditional salvation.
Regarding Craig's or Gibson's persuasiveness, I'd like both of them to focus or
make a short clip about how the hungry Jesus dealt with the fig tree (Mark
11:12-14; 20-21), then lets see how loving Jesus is portrayed.
>He's a professional philosopher, univerity professor and professional
>debater, as well as a much sought after public speaker across this
>nation, so there is practically zero chance that he'd engage in a
>debate over usenet.
Oh, sorry, I got the impression he was trolling in SRI, but oh nooo, he's mr.
big shot ;-)
> When he debates atheists, he only debates the
>cream of the crop, in his debates in general (i.e. against atheists or
>non-atheists) he apparently prefers men who have PhDs. For Shabir Ally
>he apparently made an acception since he is so prominent among
>Muslims, and you're popularity among Muslims is increasing so much
>that you could probably pull a similar deal off
No big deal, I'm probably a decade away from public debates insha'Allah, Dedaat
and Geisler were in their 40+'s, besides, I'd be more interested in publicly
debating a Rabbi more than a Christian, the Rabbis debate logic, the Christians
conclude (no spirit = no understand).
>However, to answer your question indirectly, the moderation team has
>become considerably more lenient, as can be seen in what gets through
>these days.
I posted there last week an article "Love of Christ Vs. Love of Allah" based on
the claim by Craig you repeated. The article did a straight side by side
comparison, it was rejected.
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
Omar Mirza
> omar...@yahoo.com (Omar Mirza) wrote in message news:<TnO5c.25332$Eg3....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> >...
>
> Pax Vobis Omar Mirza!
Et Vobis!
DENIS:
> > > There is a second argument I plan to introduce to the thread over the
> > > next few days that has been put forth by the great Christian
> > > philosophers William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne that is also an
> > > appeal to the requirement that a loving God necessarily must be
> > > perfectly loving (though I am modifying it slightly). If God is
> > > perfectly loving, then there has to exist at least one being who
> > > serves as an object of His love (because if there is no one else, He
> > > loves nothing, and thus can't be perfectly loving).
OMAR:
> > Whoa there Denis!!!!
> >
> > Why can't God love HIMSELF? Where is there a requirement that love has
> > to be directed only towards OTHERS?
DENIS:
> Well, I would say this is one of two objections. The other objection
> being one that you sort of approached in your post in SRI which raised
> a number of good points: does it necessarily follow that if God
> possesses the attribute of love, He must be perfectly loving?
OMAR:
For the purposes of this argument, this isn't the relevant objection.
I am happy to grant an Anselmian conception of God, and I am happy to
grant that God is perfectly loving (whatever exactly that means).
Hence in this post I will focus on the second of the two objections
you attributed to me, namely that
> (2) God could simply love Himself.
DENIS:
> With regard to (2), I think it is a wonderful point, but it seems to
> approach vanity rather than love.
OMAR:
Well, the notion of "vanity" is applicable only if the self-love is a
*defect*. If self-love is appropriate (or at least not inappropriate),
then there need not be anything wrong with it.
In the case of humans, self-love MAY be a defect if it is imbalanced
or excessive: those are the cases in which it is reasonable to talk of
"vanity". But there can be a healthy self-love, a self-love which is
manifested in a deep concern for one's own health, well-being, and
prospects without leading to any inappropriate self-aggrandizement and
without being excessive (e.g. a person who loves himself in my sense
may nevertheless recognize that there are causes for which he would
sacrifice his life or well-being.)
So in the case of human beings, self-love is not a defect as long as
it is not excessive or misplaced. Now in the case of God, God is a
maximally perfect being, and is therefore maximally worthy of being an
object of love. Thus, God is worthy of a maximal degree of love. Thus,
it is impossible for God to love Himself excessively, and thus it is
impossible for God to be vain.
DENIS:
Is a being who is *only* self-loving
> really/truly perfectly loving?
OMAR:
You are committed to the claim that
"For all beings B, if there exists a time t such that B loves only
himself at time t, then B is not perfectly loving." (**)
Now I would like to see a defense of this claim before I can accept
the Swinburne-Craig argument. It is not obvious, and it is not a claim
that every reasonable person would accept after reflection.
Even if we accept this claim, however, there is a further very severe
difficulty with the Swinburne-Craig argument. And this is that just
because only God exists at some time, it does not follow that God only
loves himself at that time.
God is omniscient, so God knew even before the creation of the world
that he would create beings, and he knew even then what they would be
like and what they would do. These beings did not exist in actuality
before the existence of the world, but they did have some sort of
existence as possibilities in God's mind. Now love is just a mental
state, and God's love could be directed towards the possible beings
who He knew He would cause to exist at some time in the future. On
this picture God would have loved us all perfectly even before we were
born, from all eternity.
DENIS:
I would have to think not, which is why
> I would lean towards this argument in favor of a multipersonal
> ontology of God.
OMAR:
As an aside, it would be necessary for you to also consider the
coherence of a multipersonal but monotheistic God. If there is one
point on which I have seen even the most devout Christians start to
have some doubts, it is this one.
I had written:
> > If God is perfectly loving, he loves in accordance with the worth of
> > the object of his love. That which is intrinsically more loveable is
> > loved by God more than that which is intrinsically less loveable. To
> > say otherwise would be to accept that God's love is not proportioned
> > to its object, and thus defective, and thus imperfect.
I now think that this argument, and Denis' reply to it, are not
strictly relevant to the Swinburne-Craig argument that Denis is
defending. I will say no more about it here.
I introduced it only because I wanted to show that God loves himself.
However, this claim follows more simply just from the idea of perfect,
unconditional love: if God loves perfectly and uncoditionally, without
regard to the worth of the object of his love, then He is also
included in the scope of that love.
So anyone committed to the idea of perfect love in Denis' sense must
accept that God loves himself, and therefore that He loved Himself
before the creation of other beings.
So the challenge for Denis in defending the Swinburne-Craig argument
is two-fold. He needs to show that (**) above is true, and he needs to
explain why God could not love us before He created us.
Matthew Johnson
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu says...
>
>I'm only going to select a few things from Matthew Johnson's posting,
>or the discussion will be so complex than no one will read it.
And even with those select few things, it had become too complex:-( And it
really doesn't fit under the Subject of this thread. So expect me to respond
soon in separate threads, where we can treat these in more detail without
writing overly long posts.
[snip]
BTW: you questioned whether one site was really Orthodox. This is always an
important question. The easiest way to resolve it (when it can be easily
resolved) is to see if it [the site] was published with the blessing of a
canonical Orthodox Bishop. The sites http://www.goarch.org/,
http://www.wco.ru/biblio/, http://www.pagez.ru and http://www.kosovo.com all
meet this qualification. The latter has much material in English, but alas, many
out-dated links!
But if you have been following the news, you know that there has been a lot of
rioting in Kosovo lately, as the Kosovars ran wild beating as many Serbs as they
could and burning churches. So get what you need from it now, before it goes
down for good!
Gilberto Simpson
> ti...@umich.edu (Gilberto Simpson) wrote in message news:<v2v5c.16942$Eg3....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> >... the orthodox doctrine of
> >the Trinity ...
> >insists that
> >there are real differences between the persons of the Trinity
> >... sounds like at least two Gods ...
> Michael's comment:
> The primary issue is not really so much what it "sounds like" but,
> rather, what is meant
And I would say, it is not *only* what is meant, but what is actually
said. Especially if what some Christians *say* may have logical
implications which actually contradict what they *mean*. And if that
is the case, then Christians should say something different.
> Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> >I've tended to
> >think it odd that historical Christian creeds seem to insist that a
> >requirement of salvation would include asssent to (even in the
> absence
> >of complete understanding of) rather murky and abstract theological
> >doctrines. I'm not sure how a just and merciful God would insist on
> >T.C. (theological correctness) to the extent required by the general
> >run of Christians.
> Michael's response:
> It seems clear that some very common forms of Islam have similar
> requirements - from the proclaimed acceptance of Muhammad as the
> "seal" (the last) of the prophets to the Qur'an as the dictated and
> inerrant word of God and the "rather murky" notion of the Sunnah as
> yet another part of "Scripture" despite the fact that the Sunnah
> consists of the sayings and practices of a mere man, a plain warner.
Firstly, in my experience I think mainstream Muslims have a mellower
approach towards the salvation of non-Muslims than evangelical
Christians have about the salvation of non-Christians. And I realize
that other people might have different impressions, but I was raised
evangelical Christian and am Muslim now so that is the basis for my
comparison.
Secondly, there is a very big difference between a doctrine being
murky and a doctrine being rejected on other grounds. Whether you
believe it or not, I don't think you need to have a deep philosophical
discussion to understand the *content* of the statement "Muhammad is
the last prophet". On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians
who have trouble understanding the Trinity and even admit that it is a
mystery, maybe even beyond all human understanding.
So that's the point I was getting it. One of the more minimal creeds
in Islam says that Muslims are supposed to believe in God, angels, the
prophets, the scriptures, the last day, and the qadr of Allah (some
translate this as predestination). To a large degree these concepts
are pretty understandable and Christians might actually believe alot
of this already (while disagreeing on the details). But analagous
statements from the Christian side tend to include incomprehensible
mysteries like the Trinity and the Incarnation. And again, it is hard
for me to understand a just and merciful God sending someone to hell
for not believing in something which no human being could possibly
understand.
Secondly, there is a very big difference between
> Do you not find that limiting information about God to a select,
> relatively few, "prophets" - especially when there will supposedly be
> no more such prophets - to be a matter of mere "T.C. (theological
> correctness)" inasmuch as it is a notion fully insulated from the
> testing which makes possible an improved understanding?
No. I actually find the Christian perspective limiting. Where God,
more or less, whispers into the ears of one group of people and every
other nation finds out about God second hand.
Many Muslims teach that there have actually been 124,000 prophets sent
throughout human history all over the world.
[10.47] And every nation had an apostle; so when their apostle came,
the matter was decided between them with justice and they shall not be
dealt with unjustly.
[16.36] And certainly We raised in every nation an apostle saying:
Serve Allah and shun the Shaitan. So there were some of them whom
Allah guided and there were others against whom error was due;
therefore travel in the land, then see what was the.end of the
rejecters
So even before Muhammad (saaws) God didn't leave whole nations out in
the dark with no guidance. In fact the Quran also says:
[4.164] And (We sent) apostles We have mentioned to you before and
apostles we have not mentioned to you; and to Musa, Allah addressed
His Word, speaking (to him):
So in addition to the prophets mentioned in the Quran, Muslims should
also be open to the possiblity that the religious figures of other
religions around the world may have also been sent by God and not
reject them outright. So to make a contrast (to some degree) when
Christians encountered non-Christian religions they would tend to
think that since they differed from their own path, they were satanic
in nature and literally demonized them. But for Muslims, it was
possible to see them as Muslims before Muhammad. (because they could
have been founded by one of the many messengers NOT mentioned in the
Quran) So, for example, there are plenty of Muslims who believe that
Buddha and Zoroaster and Krishna were possibly prophets from God. And
hold out some hope for the salvation of their followers.
> Do you think that it reflects the being of a just, compassionate,
> merciful, and personal God to insist (via the above notion of
> prophethood) that God is so informatively remote that humans are left
> merely to haggle over the minutia of societal laws (as seems to be the
> position of many of the more prominent sects - or, if you prefer,
> schools - in Islam today)?
I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say. But it seems like it
rests on some flawed assumptions. Even with the end of prophethood,
God in Islam isn't "informatively remote". If you are hung up on the
idea of having living guides, then both in sunni islam and in shia
islam there several different concpets of guides who aren't prophets
but are nevertheless still connected in one way or another to God's
grace. (mujadids in the case of sunni islam. imams in the case of
shias. sufi shaykhs and the mahdi in the case of both)
But secondly, even if the above weren't the case, I don't see why you
would find a lack of prophets so clearly problematic. The most
compelling argument I've heard for why prophethood *could* end with
Muhammad is that human civilization had evolved enough on its own, to
the point that with the Quran and sunnah, and human efforts and reason
we have a sufficent basis to make our decisions and prophets actually
weren't necessary. Why would that be a bad thing?
> Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>
> >... on the Muslim side there are multiple reasons to
> >reject the Trinity ...
> >
> >... the simplest reason why a Muslim would reject the Trinity is that
> >along with other Christian doctrines, the Trinity is specifically
> >alluded to in the Quran and rejected.
> >
> >in the fourth surah of the Quran there is a specific instruction to
> >the People of the Book (a category which specifically includes Jews
> >and Christians) which says:
> >
> >"say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God;
> >far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in
> the
> >heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient
> >for a Protector."
> >
>
> Michael's response:
> First of all, the Qur'anic renditions of the Trinity do not equate to
> Christian descriptions of the Trinity (this has been brought up on
> SRI, and no Muslim has been able to demonstrate that the Qur'an
> properly references the Christian Trinity).
I think this is actually a really annoying game. The above passage
from the Quran which references the Trinity is clearly more explicit
than any Biblical "affirmations" of the Trinity.
More importantly on the Christian side, there are many different
formulations of the Trinity and it is silly beyond reason to suggest
that in order to coherently express disbelief in the Trinity, the
Quran should one-by-one catalog all the different theories
(Catholic/Orthodox along with the filloque contravery, modalism,
tritheism, dynamic monarchism, Adoptionism etc... and specifically
state how each one is false in turn)
Why not just cut the weed at the root? Brevity is the soul of wit
right?
"say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God"
Maybe I'm a little dense but could you please please explain to me
which version of the Trinity is not included in this passage? And if
you want to say it doesn't refer to the Trinity, what other kind of
Three could possibly be meant?
If that wasn't convincing what about the following?
112.1] Say: He, Allah, is One.
[112.2] Allah is He on Whom all depend.
[112.3] He begets not, nor is He begotten.
[112.4] And none is like Him.
So which orthodox version of the Trinity does NOT say that the Son is
Eternally begotten of the Father? That the Father eternally begets the
Son?
> Secondly, with regards to it being "better for you" to "say not, Three
> [or Trinity]", this may well be so - but until a reasoned explanation
> is made available, then how is the proscription against Trinitarian
> understanding any more justified than an insistence on Trinitarian
> expression?
Because the Trinity is clearly a topic, a stumbling block, a "mystery"
which has divided the Church from itself and has kept people from
accepting the clear message of Jesus. Probably of greatest historical
significance: One of the sticking points between to major Christian
communities, the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church lies in an
understanding of a trivial technical point of difference in
understanding the Trinity. (whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the
Father alone or the Father and the Son). But Trinitarian contraversies
have come up in other times and places. Even in more modern times
Pentecostals are divided over the issue and so you have Oneness
Pentecostals (who are apparently Modalists) and the others who seem
relatively orthodox.
> Gilberto Simpson wrote:
>
> >... At the very
> >least, [the Qur'an] certainly suggests that at the level of language,
> at the
> >level of God-talk, [the Trinity and the Incarnation] are not useful
> or valuable ways of talking
> >about God.
> Michael's response:
>
> I do not recall the Qur'an ever addressing the matter of the meaning
> of the Trinity or the possible contexts which would have made
> Trinitarian expression especially useful.
I'm not sure what you mean. I think what the Quran says about the
Trinity is dealt with above.
> Had the Qur'an undertaken such a task, then - and only then - might it
> have been able to provide a rationale for its claim that "it is better
> for you" to "say not, Three".
I don't think that the Quran debates with the reader or seeks to prove
itself to you in the way that you demand. If you want to cling to your
own beliefs and stick with them, it's not going to force the truth
down your throat. When I first read the Quran, I already found the
Trinity to be a problematic doctrine.. so I already had plenty of
rationale to accept it's advice to "say not three". And the more I've
studied the Trinity even after being Muslim, the more convinced I am
of the truth of its advice.
> Do the ninety-nine names of Allah provide a superior or more useful
> way of understanding God?
Sure. But I don't think of the questions as really comparable. The 99
names doesn't really have that much theological baggage attached to
it. There is nothing theologically special about 99. God has more
names than that. The 99 names are just a certain traditional list
culled from the Quran and hadith (and they aren't even all the names,
I've seen longer lists of different attributes taken from the Quran) I
think of the 99 names as primarily a liturgical device. Sometimes
people would recite them in some form as a kind of meditation, not
unlike the rosary. If Christians really wanted to, they could probably
find a comparable list of names in the Bible, El Shadai, Jealousy,
Father, Rose of Sharon, Elohim, Adonai, YHWH, etc...
So the 99 names is the wrong comparison. The proper comparison is
between Christian Trinitarian theology and the the Islamic
understanding of God's oneness.
> I think a very good case could be made for saying that this way of
> understanding God is at best no more successful; just look at the
> difficulty many Muslims on SRI had in appreciating that the attribute
> "ar-Rahman" (the Compassionate) indicates an unconditional regard,
> tenderness, benevolence, love that God has for each of us, and
> consider the difficulty those same participants had in associating
> ar-Rahman with the Christian notion of an unconditional love.
I don't know who you are talking about or what was the background of
those discussions. And what you *mean* with the above is unclear from
your words.
There are certainly Muslims who misunderstand Christian concepts. And
there are also certainly Christians who misunderstand Islamic
concepts. I think that although there are obvious similarities between
Islamic understanding of Ar-Rahman, and the Christian understanding of
a loving God, there are also differences to be discussed as well. For
example some of the other 99 are ar-Rahim (the merciful) or al-Wadud
(which is actually often translated "Loving") or Al-Halim (the
Forbaring). So among the different names there are shades and nuances
of meaning which could be brought into the picture.
But that's a whole other discussion which seems seperate from the
Trinity topic.
> On the face of it, and limiting the discussion to the present, I think
> a case could be made that the Christian way of talking about God
> (including Trinitarian expressions) has more successfully communicated
> God as ar-Rahman than have the most common Muslim ways of thinking and
> talking about God
It seems like you are blowing a certain discussion out of proportion.
> Gilberto Simpson wrote:
> >... from an Islamic perspective, it is much more simple
> >and insightful to just
> >
> >... not presumptuously delve into God's anatomy and instead to deal
> >with the much more relevant matter of how to live on earth as a
> >righteous, compassionate, humane, spiritually-healthy god-fearing
> >human being.
> Michael's response:
>
> Trinitarian expression does not have to be thought of as a matter
> pertaining to Divine anatomy, but I would agree that "the much more
> relevant matter" pertains to our beings.
How is the anatomy analogy inappropriate?
On that topic, I would say
> that the Islamic emphasis on the "Oneness" of God seems anything but
> more successful at ensuring that our beings become more Godly - not
> because of the emphasis on the "Oneness" of God but, more likely,
> because of the long-standing dearth of philosophical inquiry in Islam
> (essentially self-criticism regarding basic assumptions, meaning that
> fideism - no matter how systematic - does not qualify as "philosophy"
> in the current context).
I think now you are doing a kind of bait-and-switch. It is certainly
not the case that if Muslims all over decided to believe in the
Trinity they would suddenly become deep philosophers. The Trinity
didn't prevent Christendom from falling into its own fideistic Dark
Ages. And a belief in God's oneness did not prevent Muslims from
preserving and interacting with the Greek philsophical tradition and
creating new systems of thought.
> Many, if not most, Muslim schools of thought
> seem to have effectively replaced philosophical pursuit with an
> insistence that ritualism and legalism are sufficient (despite the
> fact that the Qur'an explicitly dissociates ritualism - and, it could
> be argued, thereby legalism - from righteousness, from the development
> of a more Godly being).
I think that is extreme as a characterization but in any case, it's
not intrinsic to Islam in general.
It could even be argued that on this matter
> Christian teaching more effectively emphasizes - or is more suitable
> for recognizing - the fact that justice is incidental to law and that
> Godliness is likewise incidental to ritual.
I certainly agree that Jesus put those two principles in a better
balance but I think that he also understood that the rituals and laws
had a goal and a function which was still sound and ought to be
respected.
The Law was a means to an end. And having a law certainly does leave
one open to the possibility of falling into legalism, but at the other
extreme, it is very hard to eat soup without a bowl. And I think that
in a balanced understanding of Judaism and Islam, the laws are seen as
a means to an end.
As a guide to become more spiritual. While Christians try to achieve a
spiritual state without such guidance.
> Do these criticisms apply to all Muslims or to all forms of Islam?
> Certainly not, but it is anything but proper to subject others'
> religions to a scrutiny to which we do not subject our own as well.
> And this means that rather than casting the issue in terms of
> Christianity vs. Islam, Christians vs. Muslims, it will be likely more
> productive to discuss these matters in terms of individuals' beliefs
> (especially since neither Christianity nor Islam are monolithic belief
> systems - there are many differing versions).
I totally agree in general. I recognize that there is more than one
formualtion. But I just believe that in this particular issue, my
comments actually do cover most mainstream Christian formulations of
the Trinity and that I actually understand what
orthodox-with-a-small-o Christianity asserts about the subject.
> Charles Hedrick - as well as others - have provided ample evidence
> that Trinitarian expression is not limited to that which you have
> characterized.
I'm not sure what that means exactly. Maybe I really am dense about
something (and I mean it non-facetiously this time). So am I wrong in
seeing Trinity-like doctrines as being either, trithesitic,
modalistic, or orthodox? Is Charles a modalist and also claiming that
modalism is actually orthodox? I'm not sure.
My honest understanding of Charles' beliefs is that he believes that
Jesus is not God but is willing to say that Jesus reflects God or
shows us God somehow. I said in an earlier post that he seems to be an
Adoptionist of sorts. But I haven't seen a response yet. And that when
it comes to the Trinity he is actually a modalist but isn't so gung ho
about it that he wants to belabor the point. So maybe I shouldn't
"pick on" him because compared to many other Christians I actually
feel that that the difference in Christology and theology between he
and I is more linguistic than substantial (considering we don't have
the same religion)
> Again, this recommends concentrating on the meaning -
> not the words - so that we can actually focus on being, the "much more
> relevant matter" as you said. Accordingly, a more suitable way to
> pursue this issue might be to attempt to see to what extent Christian
> expression and Muslim expression might be equated as regards the being
> of God as well as the relationship between God and each of us.
I think I've done that more clearly in other posts. In one post I
actually suggested that the Bahai concept of Manifestation actually
provides an interesting middle ground for a common language but I
haven't seen any responses to that point yet. (where God is like the
sun, Jesus and Muhammad are polished mirrors. So it gives a way of
talking about how Christians see the sun in Jesus, even though for
Muslims, he was clearly not the sun)
Do you think that is an anaology which captures what you believe about
the incarnation? Why or why not?
Peace
Gilberto
Michael S. Pearl
>
>
>or (2) God could simply love Himself.
>
>... but it seems to
>approach vanity rather than love. Is a being who is *only*
self-loving
>really/truly perfectly loving?
>
Hello, Denis,
I was glad to see Omar Mirza provide the Divine self-love response to
what, if I recall correctly, you elsewhere referred to as the "cute"
argument for at least a "multipersonal" God.
Love of self is certainly not prohibited in Christianity, and,
furthermore, love of self is not necessarily vanity, nor does love of
self necessarily even "approach vanity". While, colloquially, the
words "vain" and "vanity" often seem to get applied to any person who
is clearly pleased with anything about his own person, these words -
when used more precisely - actually are supposed to indicate either a
superficiality (such as with appearance) or possibly even a tendency
toward self-praise or self-promotion (especially when not commensurate
with objective truth about the person).
Accordingly, God can be self-loving without being vain, but God likely
cannot be "perfectly loving" if God only loves Himself in the context
of there being at least other existent selves (given the understanding
that whatever "love" is, it contains at least some kind of
unconditional aspect - such as seems to be the case with compassion).
In addition, by any definition of "vain" and "vanity", which is more
likely an occasion of vanity - for God to love Himself, or for God to
*insist* or command that others worship Him?
Denis also wrote:
>Is a being who is *only* self-loving
>really/truly perfectly loving? I would have to think not, which is
why
>I would lean towards this argument in favor of a multipersonal
>ontology of God.
>
Michael's response:
First of all, if God were all that existed, then for God to be "*only*
self-loving" would not make God less than "perfectly loving" (whether
being "perfectly loving" *necessitates* that God create could be an
interesting - but separate - topic).
Furthermore, even if the "cute" argument were to still somehow
recommend a "multipersonal ontology", the fact is that the
"multipersonal" God of Christianity is still only one God, one actual
being; hence, God would still be self-loving even if all that existed
were this "multipersonal" God.
Michael
Gilberto Simpson
> the implied relationship. For example:
>
> [5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah
> and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your
> faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He
> forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is
> the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and
> to Him is the eventual coming.
> So it isn't just the crudely physical (and therefore radically
> erroneous) idea of God having sex, but the son language implies a
> certain unconditional approval and support for ones actions which
> would be inappropriate. God is not your drinking buddy.
>
> That's not to say that it is not possible to have an intimate
> relationship with God. The Quran also says that "God is closer to you,
> than you are to your own jugular vein" and there are some deeply
> moving and intimate portrayals in Islam of God's mercy and compassion
> (especially among the category of hadith called "hadith qudsi").
> > ----
>
> [Actually, being God's children tends to subject us more to God's
> discipline.
I accept that you are not claiming that God treats you with
favoritism. But is there really a basis for saying that Christianity
teaches that Christians are treated more harshly or are disciplined
more than non-Christians? That seems kind of odd. Not the kind of
thing I've ever heard in a church.
> I hope Christians don't take it as implying God's
> unconditional support. His unconditional love, yes, but God's love is
> compared by Malachi to a refiner's fire. I certainly hope no one
> thinks I believe we are free to do what we want without facing any
> consequences. God as my good buddy is generally recognized as a
> serious misunderstanding of Christianity.
What about "What a friend we have in Jesus?"
or John 15:15?
No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what
his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I
have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
This is sort of an odd discussion to have because it centers on an
analogy and it is kind of ambiguous what the exact content of the
analogy is. Different people are going to read different connotations
into certain teachings.
I guess I would just say that some Christians probably have a more
mature notion of "child of God" but that some also definitely have an
immature notion of "child of God" and that those are the people being
refered to especially in the Quranic verse above. And like in the case
of the Trinity, I would say that personally it would be better to
avoid the problematic language.
> There are plenty of Christian theologians who describe God in more
> detail than I think is justified. The actual creeds however are less
> specific. The primary creeds in this area, Nicea and Chalcedon, are
> both compromises, designed specifically to accept moderate versions of
> more than one theological tradition. They set some broad limits, but
> do not actually specify particular models either of the Trinity or the
> Incarnation.
>
> --clh]
I was primarily thinking of the Athanasian Creed which starts:
1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he
hold the catholic faith;
2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without
doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity,
and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and
another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit
is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
and then after going on for a few more propositions:
28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
and then after another sequence of sentences on the Incarnation:
44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully
he cannot be saved.
I'm not sure.. are you saying that the Athanasian Creed gives a
specific model or is a framework which allows for several possible
models. From my perspective it seems pretty specific.
Peace
Gilberto
----
[Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment. When I objected to the
idea that God played favorites, I was actually thinking of this life.
Saying that God favors his children in eternity seems to be close to a
tautology. Being a child of God would seem to be pretty much
synonymous with being saved, and going to heaven. So by definition
God's children are treated better in eternity.
The only non-tautological question I can see here is whether God
favors Christians. I hope there is some advantage to being Christians,
since in general one would hope that correct understanding would be
more likely to lead us down the right path. However we should be wary
of being overly confident just on the basis of being Christian. Jesus
was clear that saying Lord, Lord isn't the issue: following him is.
Many that think they are Christians will find themselve excluded, and
many that don't will turn out to have actually been his followers.
There are also some warnings that those who know the truth may be
held to a higher standard, e.g.
James 3:1 Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and
sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater
strictness.
The parable of the talents and Luke 12:47-48 are similar.
47 That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare
himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating. 48 But
the one who did not know and did what deserved a beating will receive
a light beating. From everyone to whom much has been given, much will
be required; and from the one to whom much has been entrusted, even
more will be demanded.
Jesus is certainly our friend. But that doesn't mean he makes no
demands. In fact John 15:14 defines what Jesus means by friend in
15:15: "You are my friends if you do what I command you." In 15:13 he
says that he lays down is life for his friends. So this sets a very
standard indeed for what he means by being a friend. 15:15 describes
his disciples as friends because they now understand what Jesus is
about and will act as real partners with him.
I do agree that some Christianity, maybe even much Christianity, takes
God too lightly. However the fear of God is a part of real
Christianity.
* * *
First, the Athanasian Creed is not an official standard, so I wasn't
thinking of it. A number of people use it. But the anathemas are
controversial, so it gets less use than it might. The official
standard on the Trinity is Nicea. However even the Athanasian Creed
permits both the Eastern and Western models of the Trinity. If you
look carefully at what all the verbiage means, it's just saying that
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are distinct, yet one God. That's a
pretty minimal definition of the Trinity. It makes no attempt to
explain what that might mean or how it might be the case. So I'd say
all that precision is more apparent than real. There are at least two
major approaches, both of which would be consistent with it. But I
think it is narrower than Nicea. It wasn't written to allow moderates
who leaned in the direction of Arius, as the Nicene Creed was.
--clh]
Richard Alexander
One can take gold from a man, and the man will remain a man. Scripture
identifies the spirit with the man.
Numbers 16:20-22
20 And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying,
21 Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may
consume them in a moment.
22 And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the
spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with
all the congregation?
Luke 23:46
46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into
thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the
ghost.
Acts 7:59
59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit.
There are many other examples throughout Scripture. Man without his
spirit is dead, that is, we only have a dead body with us, not the
person. Man only lives with his spirit. The man and his spirit are
synonymous.
Matthew Johnon
[snip]
>I certainly agree with you that one can't have a human life without a
>human will. But so far I haven't seen much suggestion in Athanasius'
>writings that he understands that.
In previous replies to this post, but under different Subject headers, I gave
Athanasius citations that suggest that he does understand it. But at long last,
I found the quote I referred to before, which proves it most directly. It turns
out it was NOT from a lost treatise, it is from the Third Oration against the
Arians, PG 26:1021, (or chapter 3 paragraph 57 in some editions):
Begin quote-------------
KAI OTAN O XRISTOS LEGHi "PATER, EI DYNATON, TO POTHRION TOUTO PARELQETW AP'
EMOU, PLHN MH TO EMON QELHMA GENHTAI, ALLA TO SON [Mt 26:39]; KAI; "TO MEN
PNEUMA PROQYMON, H DE SARJ ASQENHS" [Ib 41; Mk 14:38] DUO QELHMATA ENTAUQA
DEIKNYSI, TO MEN ANQRWPINON, OPER ESTI THS SARKOS, TO DE QEIKON, OPER QEOU. TO
GAR ANQRWPINON DIA THN ASQENEIAN THS SARKOS PARAITEITAI TO PAQOS. TO DE QEIKON
AUTOU PROQYMON. WSPER DE O PETROS AKOUSAS PERI TOY PAQOYS EDEILIASE, KAI EIPEN
"ILEWS SOI KYRIE" EPITIMWN DE AUTWi O KYRIOS LEGEI "YPAGE OPISW MOY, SATANA,
SKANDALON MOY EI, OTI OU FRONEIS TA TOU QEOU, ALLA TA TWN ANQRWPWN. [Mt 16:22+];
OYTWS KAI ENTAYQA NOEITAI; GENOMENOS GAR EN OMOIWMATI ANQRWPWN, PARAITEITAI TO
PAQOS WS ANQRWPOS; QEOS DE WN KAI KATA THN OUSIAN THN QEIKHN APAQHS YPARXWN,
PROQYMWS YPEDEJATO TO PAQOS KAI TON QANATON.
End quote----------------
I really don't liek the ECF translation, so using that dislike as an excuse for
my laziness, I will leave you to look it up there if you must; in the meantime,
I will translate the _key_ phrases:
Begin translate of above quote--------
And when Christ says "Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass me by,
but not my will, but thine be done", and "the spirit is eager, but the flesh is
weak", he exhibits TWO WILLS here, the first a human will, which is of the
flesh, and second the divine, which is of God. For the human will through the
weakness of the flesh asks that the Passion pass by. But the divine will is
eager for it.
End translate of above--------------
BTW: the phrase OPER ESTI THS SARKOS (which is of the flesh)shows that
Meyendorff & Florovsky were quite right to claim that 'flesh' in Athanasius
means the _entire_ human nature, not just the carnal aspects.
[snip]
So is there any doubt remaining now, about whether or not St. Athanasius taught
taht Christ had a human will? If Norris failed to understand this, and claimed
his Christology was the same as Arius's, it is time to throw out his book! Read
Quasten instead. Both Orthodox and non-Orthodox Patristics scholars have praised
Quasten to the skies for decades now.
Asceticism is a life that has as its goal the destruction of passions:
lust, self-love, hatred, envy, gluttony, laziness etc., and filling your
own soul with the spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love, which
last is NEVER a lonely virtue, but is the companion and perfecter of the
preceding qualities of the soul. (Metr. Khrapovitsky)
----
[Very interesting. I would never see this in the CCEL translation.
57. And as to His saying, 'If it be possible, let the cup pass,'
observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked406 Peter, saying, 'Thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.'
For He willed407 what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but
His was the willing (for for it He came), but the terror belonged to
the flesh.
John Henry Newman's translation is nearly identical --
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/volume1/
But the Greek seems clear enough. Is there a textual issue, or is this
just sloppy translation?
Norris certainly didn't say that Athanasius' Christology is the same
as Arius'. That's absurd. What he did say is that he shares certain
assumptions with Arius, and that he can be read as implying (though
not saying) that Jesus was less than a complete human being. He
mentions that Athanasius doesn't say that Jesus has a human soul,
though he also doesn't say that he doesn't. This is in constrast with
Apollinarius, who doesn't just leave one wondering, but specifically
says that there is no human soul.
--clh]
Richard Alexander
> he was different, he was different, he was different, = he was the
> same (that's your explanation of Trinity.)
I never said that God the Son is the same as God the Father. As I
said, God the Son is a different aspect of the same Being. The role of
God the Son is not the same as the role of God the Father. The role of
God the Son is to effect the redemption of man by paying the price for
man's sin. That is not the Father's role.
> >Jesus said,
> >
> >"He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye
> >hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me."
> >
> >John 14:24
>
> and also "do as I do" which was to follow the laws of Moses, with a couple of
> modifications.
Neither Jesus nor Moses taught us to bow toward a lifeless rock in
Meccah. Further, Jesus and the Scriptures clearly stated to us that
our religious life would be different, because Jesus ushered in a new
era.
> one thing I'd like to make clear is, that Islam does not teach salvation by
> works as many Christians assume.
Not intentionally, for Islam does not have the same concepts of
damnation and salvation as Christianity has. Generally, a Moslim with
good intentions and no particularly bad deeds will live a happy life
after death. However, it is clearly the efforts of the individual, the
works he does, that will determine his fate after death.
"If we nourish the spirit through prayer to God and, with the strength
we get from this, do good and righteous deeds, the spirit will develop
and grow properly. But if the spirit is neglected, and bad deeds are
done, it suffers harm. It is as if God has given each person a piece
of soft clay. It is then up to the individual to shape it into
something beautiful or ugly by his deeds."
The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement: 3.5 Life after death
http://www.muslim.org/islam/int-is35.htm
The idea that a man's sin--any sin--puts him into a debt that is
impossible for him to pay, is unknown in Islam. Scripture tells the
Christian that the wages of sin is death, but Islam does not believe
so. Instead, the Moslim believes that he can work off his debt,
improve himself by his efforts, and death is just another part of his
growth. In this way, Moslims can be bribed into doing works, believing
they are aiding their well-being in the after life, no less than the
Roman Catholics believed that by giving money to the church, they were
working off their sin.
> Jesus came to teach Jews to be more spiritual, have more love, not just go
> through the motions, then Christians became too spiritual, and threw away most
> of the laws. Islam teaches to be *both* faithful and obedient, it's works and
> grace, not one or the other.
Christianity teaches that faith is revealed by works. Christians
testify of God through their works, but those works can never pay off
our sin debt. Only Jesus Christ can pay humanity's sin debt, and we
live through Him.
> >If you were correct, that would be a disaster for humanity, for it is
> >impossible for humanity to bear the burden of their sin
>
> people bear their sins whether they are Christian or not,
They will be crushed under by their sin debts. They cannot pay the
debt they owe.
> it depends on the person's conscience, but I believe God set an
> afterlife conscience limit, meaning, if you commit too many sins, you
> go to Hell,
Islam does not have a literal Hell, as Christianity does. Hell in
Islam is a condition of the individual.
> whether your flesh conscience bears it or not.
You are talking of merely being aware of one's sins. I am talking
about actually paying one's sin debt. When you can die and lie in the
grave and then bring yourself back to life at your own will, then you
will be able to pay off your sin debt.
> >If Muhammad had received his message from the Angel Gariel, he would
> >not have considered Jesus less than the only begotten Son of God.
>
> Angel Gabriel told Muhammad that Jesus is no less than the Messiah of God, but
> as far as being begotten, most Bible translations removed that phrase, and
> regarding being the son, as I understand it, in Hebrew that means "Servant".
I don't see much point in trying to delve deeply into the meaning of
Scripture from any translation. If I want to know what the Scripture
means, I go to the source texts (which, in this case, are in Greek,
not Hebrew), or someone who is familiar with the source texts and can
comment wisely on them.
"Only Begotten Son"
Begotten = monogenes (mon-og-en-ace')
1. single of its kind, only
1. a. used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their
parents)
1. b. used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God
The KJV New Testament Greek Lexicon: Monogenes
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3439&version=kjv
However, I have access to several Bible translations, and will provide
their text of John 3:16:
John 3:16 :: New International Version (NIV)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[1] that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
Footnotes
[1] 3:16 Or his only begotten Son
John 3:16 :: New American Standard Bible (NASB)
"For God so (1) loved the world, that He (2) gave His (3) only
begotten Son, that whoever (4) believes in Him shall not perish, but
have eternal life."
John 3:16 :: The Message (MSG)
"This is how much God loved the world: He gave his Son, his one and
only Son. And this is why: so that no one need be destroyed; by
believing in him, anyone can have a whole and lasting life."
John 3:16 :: Amplified Bible (AMP)
"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even]
gave up His only begotten ([1] unique) Son, so that whoever believes
in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to
destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life."
Footnotes
[1] James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary.
John 3:16 :: New Living Translation (NLT)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that
everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life."
John 3:16 :: King James Version (KJV)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting
life."
John 3:16 :: New Life Version (NLV)
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son. Whoever puts
his trust in God's Son will not be lost but will have life that lasts
forever."
John 3:16 :: English Standard Version (ESV)
"For God so loved the world,[1] that he gave his only Son, that
whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
Footnotes
[1] Or For this is how God loved the world
John 3:16 :: Contemporary English Version (CEV)
"God loved the people of this world so much that he gave his only Son,
so that everyone who has faith in him will have eternal life and never
really die."
John 3:16 :: New King James Version (NKJV)
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
John 3:16 :: 21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting
life."
John 3:16 :: American Standard Version (ASV)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life."
John 3:16 :: Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE)
"God loved the world so very, very much that he gave his only Son.
Because he did that, everyone who believes in him will not lose his
life, but will live for ever."
John 3:16 :: Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
"for God did so love the world, that His Son -- the only begotten --
He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but
may have life age-during."
John 3:16 :: Darby Translation (DARBY)
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that
whosoever believes on him may not perish, but have life eternal."
John 3:16 :: Wycliffe New Testament (WYC)
"For God loved so the world [Forsooth God so loved the world], that he
gave his one begotten Son, that each man that believeth in him perish
not, but have everlasting life."
John 3:16 :: New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
"God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone
who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life."
John 3:16 :: New International Version - UK (NIV-UK)
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
ConvertstoIslam
>Put it together: we sin, there will be no sin in paradise. But if it
>is us in paradise, what will keep us from sinning? What is the
>difference, between paradise and earth? What will keep it sin-free?
Great question, I'm not aware of a specific Scriptural answer, though through
the descriptions of Heaven in Scriptures, we know that Heaven would be free
from greed, (everyone will have what they want) and it will be free from hate
and suffering (being so close to the Love of God) did I miss any other causes
of sin?
>And IF one were to sin, in paradise, would one get kicked out?
>Why should we think that we will change, when we change addresses?
Another great question, it's happened before with Adam and Eve, although I
presume no one will be that indifferent since the only other abode would be
Hell because the earth would be destroyed by then.
We're a little careless now, but when your in Heaven and Hell is at your feet,
I don't think you'd be as lackadaisical as you were on earth.
>The Islamic assertion that human nature is basically
>good is easier to stomach, but pure fiction.
I've seen what you call fiction, if you go to an Islamic country, or a really
close knit small Christian town, or look at a 1950's film, the vast majority of
the people are good, with good family values, morals, and ethics.
There is a film that does a nice survey called
http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com
It shows how the vast majority of the world is good by nature.
>Put it together. God is not allowing sin in his perfect society.
>How is that going to happen? It just will?
The Crucifixion did not stop sin, if anything, when the crime rate ratio is
compared to non-Christian countries, we see that the Crucifixion increased sin.
At least without the crucifixion, one makes a valid effort to stop the sins,
so you go into Heaven sincere, not dependant.
>The law set a standard, but there was also a sacrificial system to
>restore the sinner to standing.
So what happens when you sin again after your standing was restored, who is
your Savior then?
>> If breaking the laws brings spiritual death, then imagine the spiritual
>life
>> keeping the laws can bring :-)
>
>Once dead, how can we bring ourselves back to life?
be born again through behaving as Jesus did, as a Muslim.
>Far from producing righteousness, the law only served to show the
>standard.
The laws of God saves lives and souls. Think of the laws of traffic, should we
not obey traffic laws because we're gentile or because you can't do them 110%
perfectly?
Compare the laws from God and traffic laws and you will notice a lot of
similarities, they are both made to help you travel safely through life and
reach Heaven but you must also have Faith that God is leading you.
Faith and Works, not one or the other.
"O ye Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you, in the same manner as He got
your parents out of the Garden, stripping them of their raiment, to expose
their shame: for he and his tribe watch you from a position where ye cannot see
them: We made the evil ones friends (only) to those without faith." (Quran
7:27)
Peace
Mohamed Ghounem
Matthew Johnson
[snip]
>Sure, I'm aware that the underlying issue is that I am Antiochene.
Well, I suppose that is an improvement over the FAQ's old line, "I am a
Vulcan";) At least, it would be an improvement if you really do realize how
incompatible these two statements are. BTW: That FAQ really does need to be
updated, even if you really did finally delete the "Vulcan" statement; it still
refers to Dejanews!
But frankly, I don't think you describe yourself accurately. After all, St. John
Chrysostom was indisputably Antiochene, yet you differ from him in radical ways,
don't you? So, for example, all the Antiochenes accepted the use of icons in
worship of God.
Secondly, even if the description was accurate, it would not be so very useful,
since just as in the Alexandrian school, there was _great variety_ within the
Antiochene school. Just look at the difference, for example, between Chrysostom
and Theodore of Mopsuestia(who knew each other well).
[snip]
>I'm not sure whether this is a characteristic of Calvin himself.
I am. Compare his doctrine of the Eucharist to Nestorius's!
> I've seen his Christology characterized as being orthodox through its very
>unoriginality: he basically just repeated standard views (not that
>this is always a bad thing).
View standard among WHOM?
> Christology wasn't at issue, and he didn't seem to have spent much
> attention on it. Luther is a different story. He gave lots of attention
> to the incarnation, and came up with some interesting ideas.
>
>On Calvin's theology, you might find it interesting to look at
>http://www.quodlibet.net/tan-union.shtml
Thanks for the link. But I am afraid the author's thinking is severely vitiated
by such howlers as:
Hence, the more universal, cosmic emphasis[111] of salvation in the Greek
patristic notion of theosis is not evident in Calvin as he sides with the
Augustinian-Thomistic soteriological construal of double predestination.
What "Augustinian-Thomistic soteriological construal of double predestination"??
First of all, the two did NOT think the same thing about predestination. More
importantly, Thomas _rejected_ double predestination, as all competent Roman
theologians have ever since the Council of Orange, where Augustine's extreme of
'double predestination' was REJECTED. Yet Calvin insisted on reviving this
error.
Finally, without that "universal cosmic emphasis of salvation as theosis", you
cannot really be either Alexandrian OR Antiochene. For as Pelikan points out,
this idea of theosis was fundamental to both.
>I'm well aware that the 5th and later Councils rejected major
>representatives of Antiochene theology. You obviously accept all of
>the ecumencial councils as authoritative.
You need to state that more carefully: Rome considers a great many more Councils
"ecumenical" than we do, for example. We have only seven. And accepting it as
'authoritative' should be no barrier to recognizing that there were shortcomings
in both that Council AND in Chalcedon: if Chalcedon had done things differently,
II Constantinople would not have been necessary.
> I'm more critical.
But perhaps you are only "more critical" because it IS the Protestant Tradition
to accept the first three Ecumencial Councils as 'normative' (whatever that
means) and downgrade (even to the point of neglect) the rest.
>In order
>to follow Chalcedon -- which I do
I know you think you do, but you do not. If you did, you would have to reject
Calvin's position on the Eucharist, since the doctrine of the Real Presence
follows from Chalcedon. Perhaps this is why your quodlibet article passes over
the doctrine of the Eucharist with the brief dismissal expressed in dry
language:
Hence, though he rejects the notion that we physically
partake of the substance of Christ s exalted flesh, nonetheless,
in Calvin s view, we do really partake of the essence of his
humanity, as we are nourished by Christ s body through its
natural energies
But to reject this physical partaking IS to reject Chalcedon! For the
physicality of the Body of Christ in the host is the human nature, and its
presence on altar tables around the word upon Epiclesis is made possible by the
divine nature. And because the two are inextricably joined, when we swallow the
material, we receive the divine as well. But denying the Real Presence denies
this inextricable joining.
For that matter, surely you have noticed that ALL the parties present at
Chalcedon accepted the use of icons (the Assyrians have icons of St.
Nestorius;). This was no accident; as the Fathers of the Seventh Council argued,
the righteous use of icons in true worship of God really _does_ follow from the
Incarnation as expressed at Chalcedon.
So to follow Chalcedon, you would have to reject Calvin's position on icons.
This would certainly surprise me.
[snip]
>As you may know, I believe there are often multiple levels of
>explanation for the same thing. In science, the same thing may be
>understood by physics, chemistry or biology. They each have their own
>principles, and each can in principle produce a complete
>explanation. But different levels are often more useful for
>understanding certain things.
>
>In theology a similar thing occurs in discussions of will and
>responsibility. As Calvin points out,
Where did he say this?
> the same event may be understood
>as resulting from decisions made by people or as part of God's plan.
>Both explanations are correct. They don't compete with each other.
Actually, they _do_ compete with each other. That is why we are warned in
Scripture never to attribute our good deeds to ourselves. How could Calvin miss
this? As St. John of Tobolsk says
(http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/russian/iliotropion.htm):
For we have received all things from God, whether physical or
spiritual gifts, and which one of these gifts could possibly
be an exception to this rule, such that we would have a right
not to give it back to God? (Bk IV Ch. 1)
And why isn't it obvious, that St. Paul is saying the same thing when he says:
...What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it,
why do you boast as if it were not a gift? (1Co 4:7 RSVA)
[snip]
Nor is this a side topic: as St. John points out elsewhere in the same book, it
is central to ALL Christian spirituality to accept all things that happen to you
as from the hand of God, considering only sin truly evil, attributing only sin
to yourself, not attributing your righteousness to yourself. Without this, there
is no progress. But this in turn demands a radically different Theodicy from
Calvin!
Michael S. Pearl
>I don't think you need to have a deep philosophical
>discussion to understand the *content* of the statement "Muhammad is
>the last prophet".
>
Michael's comment:
You do not need "to have a deep philosophical discussion to
*understand*", but is there any way for us to determine the fact of
such a matter without philosophy?
What if Muhammad were not a prophet (in the way that you understand
this term), or what if Muhammad were not the last prophet?
If either of these possibilities were true, would that make Islam
*essentially* false?
Gilberto wrote:
>On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians
>who have trouble understanding the Trinity and even admit that it is
a
>mystery, maybe even beyond all human understanding.
>
Michael's response:
Should a person abandon a belief simply because that person cannot
express it with sufficient clarity or coherence?
If one does not understand a concept in which one believes, then it is
irrational to proclaim that concept to be certainly true. Similarly,
it is irrational to proclaim a statement about a mystery to be
certainly true, and it is an egregious error to insist that a mystery
should not be subject to further inquiry, testing, or even improved
expression.
It is likewise irrational to abandon a belief, to treat a belief as if
it were certainly false, simply because one cannot yet express the
belief adequately.
Do most Christians even actually need a coherent explanation of the
Trinity?
I know Christians who are mystified when they are told that there are
plenty of people who think that Trinitarian expression seems, on the
face of it, tri-theistic, and these Christians' responses are
generally along the lines of: "The one God is the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost; therefore, what's the problem?"
So, when does coherence (in statements) become essential?
I would say that coherence is critical for learning (but even more so
for discovering) and for problem solving (of course, avoiding a
problem - including by refusing to acknowledge a problem - does not
make an actual problem cease to be real).
Michael had previously written:
>... to insist (via the above notion of
>prophethood) that God is so informatively remote ...
>
Gilberto responded:
>... it seems like it
>rests on some flawed assumptions. Even with the end of prophethood,
>God in Islam isn't "informatively remote".
>
Michael's current response:
The issue was NOT whether "Islam [is] ... informatively remote"; the
issue was whether God is informatively remote given a context of there
being no further prophets and, thereby, no further revelations (where
revelations are understood as the only possible source of genuine
information about God).
Gilberto also wrote:
>... If you are hung up on the
>idea of having living guides
>
Michael's response:
No, I am not "hung up" on such an idea. My question to you is this:
What makes you think, what makes you certain, that information about
God is available only via revelation such that if there has been a
"last" prophet then there actually is no new information to be had?
Gilberto wrote:
>I don't see why you
>would find a lack of prophets so clearly problematic.
>
Michael's response:
Actually, I do not find "a lack of prophets" to be problematic at all;
the problem pertains to facts about God if information about God stems
only from revelation.
Gilberto wrote:
>The most
>compelling argument I've heard for why prophethood *could* end with
>Muhammad is that human civilization had evolved enough on its own, to
>the point that with the Quran and sunnah, and human efforts and
reason
>we have a sufficent basis to make our decisions and prophets actually
>weren't necessary. Why would that be a bad thing?
>
Michael's response:
This sounds a lot like Muhammad Iqbal in (what I think of as) the
apologetics section of his _The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in
Islam_ - except that, if I recall Iqbal's argument correctly (and it
has been quite a few years since I read the book), he was actually
claiming that humankind could be thought of as having progressed to
the point where scientific inquiry (meaning philosophical inquiry
which is not to be confused with strictly physicalist inquiry) was all
that we needed to further improve our understanding about God.
In other words - and this is, admittedly, just the impression or the
interpretation I have stuck in my memory of what Iqbal said -
religious belief systems are still not fully formed despite any
cessation in the string of prophets.
Oh, and one other thing, the Sunnah is not revelation per se, is it?
Gilberto wrote:
>The ["say not, Three"] passage
>from the Quran which references the Trinity is clearly more explicit
>than any Biblical "affirmations" of the Trinity.
>
Michael's response:
Irrelevant.
The Trinity concept does not have to be explicit in the Bible for the
Trinity concept to either correspond to facts about God or to serve a
legitimate or informative function.
Furthermore, you take the cited Qur'an passage to be a command from
God, but you utterly fail to demonstrate that this Qur'anic "Three"
refers to any recognizably Christian Trinity; you *seem* to come
closest with this:
>[112.3] He begets not, nor is He begotten.
>
However, this passage provides a statement with no context, and other
sections of the Qur'an suggest that the Qur'anic understanding of
"begotten" seems limited to the product of sexual union (or to the
idea of the "Son" as a wholly separate being) - which is clearly not
what the Christian creeds intend to communicate. Accordingly, even
Christians would agree that God does not beget through sexual union,
and even the Qur'an proclaims the Virgin Birth such that Jesus could
NOT have been the product of sexual union.
Let us take a look at a couple of other Qur'an verses that are often
understood as supposedly referring to Christian Trinity concepts:
[5.73] "They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of
three; when there is no god save the One God."
If "Allah" and "God" are interchangeable terms (as even this verse
suggests), then this verse most definitely does not reference a
Christian Trinity; so far as I am aware, all Christians would agree
that God is not the third of three in a/the Trinity.
[5.116] "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, 'Worship me
and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?"
Regardless of to whom any Christians might pray, no Christian worships
in order to derogate God, and Christians do not consider Mary to be
either a god or an ontological aspect of God.
Gilberto wrote:
>... the Trinity is clearly a topic, a stumbling block, a "mystery"
>which has divided the Church from itself and has kept people from
>accepting the clear message of Jesus ...
>
Michael's response:
Is it really "the Trinity" that has impeded the message, or is it
other matters such as confusing orthodoxy for truth and the apparent
insistence that there can be only one correct expression of any fact
about God? (By the way, these are philosophical matters that pertain
to all religions - not just to the Trinity and not just to
Christianity.)
Michael had written:
>> I do not recall the Qur'an ever addressing the matter of the
meaning
>> of the Trinity or the possible contexts which would have made
>> Trinitarian expression especially useful.
>
Gilberto responded:
>I don't think that the Quran debates with the reader or seeks to
prove
>itself to you in the way that you demand.
>
Michael's current response:
But you did argue that:
>> >... At the very
>> >least, [the Qur'an] certainly suggests that at the level of
language, at the
>> >level of God-talk, [the Trinity and the Incarnation] are not
useful or valuable
>
and my point was that since the Qur'an does not address the matter of
meaning, the suggestion which *you* take from the Qur'an regarding the
uselessness of the Trinity and Incarnation concepts does call for some
argued support which you have not provided.
Gilberto wrote:
>And the more I've
>studied the Trinity even after being Muslim, the more convinced I am
>of the truth of its advice.
>
Michael's response:
The following might seem to be a technical philosophical point (I will
not go into the details, however, unless you want me to later), but
even technicalities are occasionally helpful/useful.
Instead of saying, "the more convinced I am of the truth of its
advice", your position would seem to be better represented by the
following: "the more convinced I am of the *wisdom* of its advice."
(In the alternative, you might say something like "usefulness", but
"wisdom" seems less mundane.)
"Wisdom" would seem more appropriate than "truth" because what has
been alleviated is the problem you have had with Trinitarian
expression. Thinking only in terms of "God" rather than bothering with
"Father", "Son", and "Holy Spirit" apparently has been useful to you;
such a way of thinking may have been necessary for you to move on to
the more important matter of proper being, but this has been
accomplished without having been concerned with whether any truth may
be associated with Trinitarian thought. That is why "wisdom" rather
than "truth" seems the more appropriate word for your statement.
Gilberto wrote:
>The proper comparison is
>between Christian Trinitarian theology and the the Islamic
>understanding of God's oneness.
>
Michael's response:
For the sake of brevity, I will note that the ninety-nine names of
Allah are attributes - attributes that are not identical and yet must
cohere.
If God can have so many attributes and still be "One", then given
Charles Hedrick's reference to "aspects" of God (and that is NOT
necessarily a modalist position) as well as the Christian claim that
there is only one God, we are left to conclude that my ninety-nine
names reference was valid and that the proper comparison is between
the Trinity and the ninety-nine names.
Furthermore, with regards to your claim that "The 99 names doesn't
really have that much theological baggage attached to it", if true,
this lack of "baggage" may well be the result of a lack of concern
with coherence in regard to beliefs held about God (and this pertains
to my point about the relative paucity of philosophy in Islam today).
Gilberto wrote:
>But that's a whole other discussion which seems seperate from the
>Trinity topic.
>
Michael's response:
My comments about ar-Rahman and the SRI discussions did not pertain to
"the Trinity topic"; my comments were in response to your unsupported
claim that Trinitarian language is neither useful nor valuable.
I referred to an instance (see Google Search: g:thl3617102469d )
where if the ar-Rahman attribute were so perfectly communicated via
the ninety-nine names approach, then it would be very easy indeed for
Muslims to rebut the claim that the Muslims' Allah does not exhibit an
unconditional love - and, yet, reliance on this very important
attribute did not readily occur to the discussion participants while
the unconditional aspect of God's regard for us is very much at the
forefront of most Christian thought about God.
The point was that not only did you fail to support your claim about
the uselessness of the Trinity concept, but I also indicated a way in
which the Trinitarian approach might be found to have been more useful
than the "Oneness" or the "ninety-nine names" approach (but only
generally speaking).
Now, do I think that what I have written amounts to a "proof" of
either the superiority of Trinitarian expression or the inferiority of
the ninety-nine names approach? Certainly not (nor do I think that the
philosophically-inclined Muslim participants' failure to invoke Divine
compassion serves as an indictment against those participants'
philosophies or intellects), but I do think that conventional Islam
today over-emphasizes God as ar-Rahim (the Merciful) to the point that
the Divine compassion is inappropriately subordinate in most
expressions of Muslim thought regarding God.
This point also relates to the SRI discussion inasmuch as the argument
presented against Islam actually referred to God as depicted in the
Qur'an rather than to "the Muslims' Allah" as I described it above,
but, as I noted in a separate SRI posting, all this does is introduce
questions of exegesis and scriptural context without denying the
argumentative validity of relying on the ar-Rahman attribute.
Gilberto wrote:
>How is the anatomy analogy inappropriate?
>
Michael's response:
Again, taking the Trinity in terms of "aspects", the Trinity concept
and Trinitarian expression are no more a matter of anatomy than are
the ninety-nine names of Allah.
Gilberto wrote:
>I think now you are doing a kind of bait-and-switch.
>
Michael's response:
What you call "bait-and-switch" was no such thing; at this point in
the previous posting I was still addressing your claim that the
Trinity concept is useless and valueless, and to indicate a possible
apparent failing of the Muslims' non-Trinitarian approach was
certainly relevant.
Michael had written:
>> Many, if not most, Muslim schools of thought ...
>
Gilberto responded:
>I think that is extreme as a characterization but in any case, it's
>not intrinsic to Islam in general.
>
Michael's current response:
What is so "extreme" in what I said? Neither "many" nor "most"
indicates "all", and it would have to be the case for "all" before
there could be a claim regarding something "intrinsic to Islam"? In
addition, you should have noted that I did not simply say "Islamic
thought".
Do you think it is only a few inconsequential schools of thought in
Islam that seem concerned more (or primarily) with ritual and law
rather than meaning, truth, and justice?
Gilberto wrote:
>Do you think that is an anaology which captures what you believe
about
>the incarnation? Why or why not?
>
Michael's response:
To give you some introduction regarding how I think, let me note that
even if the Trinity does not truthfully describe the "anatomy" of God,
Christianity is still true; even if Jesus was not the Son (Christ)
person/aspect/expression of God incarnate, Christianity is still true;
even if Jesus never really existed, Christianity is still true. If you
want an explication, just let me know.
Michael
Matthew Johnson
>or the discussion will be so complex than no one will read it.
And now I am replying in detail on why St. Athanasius really _is_ Orthodox on
the Incarnation, despite the deficiencies of his language to express it. But I
am doing this as a reply to your article, though I am changing the Subject
header, in the hope that most people's newsreaders will handle the headers
correctly, rather than relying solely on the Subject header to decide hat thread
the article is in.
[snip]
>The discussion of Athanaius is really a side issue.
No, I don't think it is. How else will you learn to read him as an Alexandrian,
not an Antiochene?
>I mentioned it
>as part of a discussion of how we got to the later councils. But I
>still don't see in him what you do.
And if you can't see that in him, you cannot understand the councils. It really
is that simple.
>>> The Logos supposedly took on humanity,
>>>but was not actually a human being.
>
>> Already I see a problem here: how can anyone or anything take on humanity
>> without becoming a human being? You must be using the word 'humanity' in a
>>different sense than Athanasius did to come up with this one.
>
>See below. That's certainly what many Alexandrian thinkers are
>represented as saying. Perhaps a bunch of church historians are wrong
>about that.
Yes, they are. They are wrong because they keep on repeating the same
fundamental mistake, that of failing to approach the Fathers on their own terms.
And those terms are unwavering commitment to expressing what the Church has
_always_ taught, and expressing it in _apophatic_ language. Lossky did this,
Kartashev did this, Pelikan and Quasten at least sympathized with this attitude
and understood it. But after seeing your Norris quotes, and after looking at
Norris myself, I have concluded that he had no clue about this.
> I'd be very pleased if that's true.
Well, perhaps we can keep this thread up for long enough to achieve such a thing
(as showing this). But I make no promises.
>I certainly don't know patristic authors as you do, so perhaps there's
>some wonderful solution to this. But an example of the danger can be
>seen in a site that claims to be Orthodox, http://orlapubs.com/AR/R154.html.
>
> (ii) Think of the two wills (as in the Monotheletist controversy):
> Christ has the divine will of the divine essence and a human will of
> His human nature--but there is one Willer (hence the wills don't
> contradict),
So far so good, although he sweeps far too much under the rug when he says,
"there is one Willer, hence...".
> and that Willer is the Person of the Logos
I can see how one might think this denies a human person, and the language _is_
shocking, but it is not necessarily incorrect (it does not necessarily deny a
human person).
> (called
> "Jesus" in His created human nature).
And I am not sure what this _in_ is supposed to mean. The Greek Fathers tended
to use 'kata' here, not 'en'. I always found that easier to understand.
> I'm not sure what "inhere in
> one hypostasis" means; perhaps you are speaking of perichoresis or of
> Leontios' doctrine of enhypostasis.
But Leontios's doctrine could not be called fully Orthodox either. It had to be
reworked before St. Maximos or St. John of Damascus, for example, would accept
it. See De Fide, Book II, chapter 11 and Book III chapter 9. For full details on
how it was 'reworked', though, see Meyendorff's "Christ in Eastern christian
Thought", or Lossky's "The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church", ch. 6,
which, however, at least in the Russian edition at
http://www.vehi.net/vlossky/06.html, has a typo in the footnote 15 for the
second De Fide reference above.
> But you say later: "I do not see
> how we can unite two natures in one entity."
And we _can't_ see it! But assert it we must, as it is central to the Economy.
Asserting what we ourselves cannot see is _central_ to the apophatic method.
> While it could seem that
> the Willer is in the natures as much as the natures are in the Willer,
What was that supposed to mean?
> I concede that you are expressing the matter in no novel way. But I
> also take note that the Willer is not a human Person; He is the
> uncreated Logos-Creator of the world, according to one or more
> ecumenical Synods, and is as Such hardly to be bound to what a human
> person can do.
>
>Now I don't know for sure that this is official Orthodox doctrine,
And you should not be sure; for it is not even clear what he is really saying!
Whoever wrote this is being _really_ unclear about 'will'. Unfortunately, he has
simply failed to take advantage of all the excellent work clarifying this topic
St. Maximos did.
> but it expresses something that I've seen elsewhere:
And I see it as suggesting that, but NOT as expressing it unequivocally. It all
hinges on what the author means by "Willer is the Person of the Logos" and on
whether he really meant what he said (or was just being sloppy) when he said
"not a human Person" (he could have meant "not a _mere_ human Person").
Unfortunately, people really did, even in Patristic times, say "person
(anqrwpos)" when they meant "mere person (psilos anqrwpos)". Those who are slow
to learn from the quarrels of these centuries still repeat the mistake today:-(
There is no substitue for knowing what a writer is talking about. Alas, often
their isolated words are unclear. Here, it is hard to be sure what he is really
talking about. Best to skip over him and go straight to the source, the Fathers.
> that ultimately
>there's only one person there, who is not a human person but the
>Logos. This is what I was talking about when I said that it leaves the
>humanity somewhat abstract.
And that _may_ be accurate for the person posting in
http://orlapubs.com/AR/R154.html. But it is NOT accurate for St. Athanasius. As
Lossky points out, the Fathers are NOT 'abstract'. Reading them as writing in
abstract terms is a _Western_ error. Their language is apophatic, not abstract.
Ch. 1 & 2 of "Mystical Theology" are dedicated to explaining the difference.
>>Besides: the very next sentence shows how wrongly you read him: for it reads:
>>
>> At one and the same time, wonderfully, as Man he lived a human life,
>> and as Logos, He contained the life of all the universe, and as Son,
>> He was in constant union with the Father.
>>(De Incarnatione, ch. 3.17, xlate from
>>http://www.ccel.org/contrib/ru/Other/Athanasius/athanasy-1.htm)
>
>ccel.org has an English translation, which doesn't seem to differ in
>sense from your Russian reference.
Well, _I_ see a difference. I thought I described it well enough in my previous
post. If it wasn't clear then, it should be substantially clearer now, since I
have explained (see below) how 'instrument' was a case of overtranslation.
> It's been too many years since I
>read Russian for me to try to plow throught that at the moment --
>particularly since the original is in Greek. Let's look at the whole
>section in ccel's English translation:
I did already. I still read the tone of the passage differently from your
reading.
[citation snipped]
>This certainly refers to him living a human life.
Yes... so far we agree. But again: how does anyone or anything live a human life
without a human will??
> But I think the
>overall sense of the paragraph is that the Logos lived a human life in
>the sense that he used a human body as his instrument.
But here is where you go too far. For I got a different 'overall sense', namely,
that his overriding concern in this section is NOT to describe the human nature
of Christ, NOT to describe the perichoresis or the communication idiomatum, but
to allay the pagan concern (remember this was the second part of a treatise
against paganism) over the impassibility of the divinity. They could not
understand how the infinite and impassible could dwell in a body (much less any
other mode of being incarnate). That should remind you of the Antiochene allergy
to anything that threatens divine impassibility.
So since his overriding concern was that pagan objection, it is unreasonable to
expect a full, exact description of the mode of incarnation. That is why you are
going too far.
Also, you are being mislead by CCEL's 'overtranslation'. 'Instrument' is not
quite right here. The Greek was 'organon'.
Recall the definition of this words in LSJ: organon: instrument, implement, tool
for making or doing at thing; organ of sense or apprehension; the hand is called
organon organwn, the word is also used for: organs of respiration, locomotion,
digestion.
So you see, the choice of 'instrument' for 'organon' is questionable. It
certainly does have a major impact on the _tone_ of the passage, making it sound
Monophysite by pushing the human nature into the background, allowing it only
such a limited role, that of mere 'instrument'.
>He was in a
>body, but the experience didn't really affect him. The overall
>impression is not one of an actual human being.
But this "overall impression" comes NOT from the actual text of what St.
Athanasius wrote, but from somewhere else. Where? Possibly from your strong
sympathies with the Antiochene attitude? I can't be sure. What I _can_ be sure
of though, is that if you knew what Florovsky tells us, you could have guarded
yourself from this error in interpretation. For as Florovsky tells us
(describing St. Athanasius's Soteriology):
The word became man, in all things like us. St. Athanasius usually
speaks about the "Incarnation", but by 'flesh', he _always_ means
the _entire_ man, an animated body with all the senses and passions
that belong to it... By the union with the Word, the body is freed
from its own weakness and corruptibility "by reason of the Word being
in the body".
(fm http://orthlib.narod.ru/Fathers/florovsk01.html)
Unfortunately, Florovsky does not indicate where the quote comes from. It is
_probably_ from De Incarnatione.
But while looking for the quote in De Incarnatione, I found another gem:
3.16 When people's minds were finally at the leve. of earthly
perception, the Word appeared in a body, so that He, AS A MAN,
could concentrate their senses on Himself and persuade them
through HIS HUMAN DEEDS, that He is Himself
not JUST a man, but also God, the Word and Wisdom of the true God.
The point of these quotes is to show that 1) St. Athanasius's language elsewhere
(e.g. 'human deeds' here in 3.16) rules out your interpretation, and 2)
understanding what he is really talking about, namely, that it is the
Incarnation that regenerates human nature itself (ALL of it), so that we may
become deified, makes it clear that he CANNOT mean 'body as an instrument'; he
must have meant as Florovsky says, 'flesh' or 'body' meaning ALL of human
nature.
>I certainly agree with you that one can't have a human life without a
>human will. But so far I haven't seen much suggestion in Athanasius'
>writings that he understands that.
Well, if it is not clear from St. Athanasius mentioning His "human deeds" in De
Incarnatione, then you need to check out the Epistles I already mentioned. Those
are the writing where he goes into detail on _Christological_ topics.
There is no point in insisting on clear expressions of such details in works
that are NOT on Christological topics!
>I agree with you that later councils interpreted his writings in a
>more satisfactory sense. However in rejecting Theodore, rather than
>trying to interpret him in a satisfactory sense as well, I believe the
>councils exhibited an unbalanced view
Now that may be close to the truth...
> that ultimately calls into
>question whether they actually accepted Chalcedon.
But this is not. Of _course_ they accepted Chalcedon! It was out of zeal for
Chalcedon that they condemned Theodoret & Theodore of Mopsuestia posthumously
and rejected the writings. This posthumous condemnation was a _very_ bold move,
it is why Rome rejected Constantinople II for so long. Yet they eventually came
to accept it anyway, when they saw the theology was sound. So why won't you?
> I'm at least as
>suspicious of anyone who accepts Constantinople II as you are of
>anyone who is a Calvinist. I certainly accept that Theodore said some
>things that can be misunderstood, but no more so than Athanasius did.
>
>I think of the Alexandrian model as representing the Incarnation seen
>from the point of view of the Logos, and the Antiochene model as seeing
>it from the point of view of humans.
But where _did_ you get this idea? And why do you maintain it when neither
Posnov, nor Kartashev, nor Pelikan, nor Quasten will support you? Neither 'point
of view' can express the Incarnation satisfactorily, that is WHY the Tome of Leo
replaced them both.
And yes, all these historians of the Councils do not support you. In the case of
Posnov, for example, if the quote about Leo is not enough to show it to you,
perhaps the following will do the trick:
All the Christology of Athanasius can be expressed in one
position: "God (the Son of God, the Word) became man, in
order to raise man to God, to deify him." "The Word was
dressed in a mortal body, so that we would be able, in
Him, to be renewed and deified". "He became man, so that
in Him, He could deify us".
OK, it is a little odd that Posnov says "one position" and then gives us three
quotes! But I think you can see that they are saying the same thing, from
slightly differing aspects and in slightly different wording. And alas, he
didn't say _where_ the quotes are from. But some of them are famous enough, I
think you can recognize them without knowing where they are from.
Again: understanding that this _was_ the central statement of his Christology
makes it clear that he _had_ to mean "ALL of human nature" when he said 'body'.
Otherwise his entire Christology breaks down.
Similarly, Pelikan does not support you, but he says that the conflicts
surrounding the Fourth and Fifth councils are NOT best understood as conflicts
between 'Antiochene' and 'Alexandrian' schools, but between the theology of the
'hypostatic union' and that of the 'indwelling logos'; the former was vindicated
as the expense of the latter at Chalcedon, but _only_ because both were
superceded by the theology of "preexistence, kenosis and exaltation", whose
outstanding spokesman was Pope Leo I. (p256).
(fm Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of
Doctrine", Vol I; this volume titled: "The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition")
I'm running out of time, so I won't reproduce the Kartashev quotes here.
>From the point of view of the Logos, he took to himself a human being,
>in such a way that this human is the human form of the Logos.
But what does "human form of the Logos" MEAN? The difficulties of deciding what
such language really means was _central_ to the debates around this Council.
>His acts
>are the Logos' acts, and the Logos experienced everything the human
>does, because he is the Logos' human life.
This is, at best, only a partial answer to the question. At worst, it is
interpreting the words of Athanasius as if he _were_ an Antiochene, when you
know full well he is not!
>Looking at this from a human perspective, we have a human being who
>has been given a special role by virtue of having been united to the
>Logos.
But this sounds like it means "there was this human being, and at some point in
time, probably after his conception, he was given this special role". I doubt
you really meant to say that, but that is the _tone_ of your sentence. That is
the kind of tone the Alexandrians objected to so violently. It is one of the
reasons the "theology of the indwelling Logos" was _retired_ at Chalcedon (think
of it as analogous to Khrushcev's retirement;).
> If he is a real human being with a real human life, then he
>experiences God through prayer just as we all do, though no doubt he
>also has a more direct experience corresponding to the experiences of
>the mystics. His human mind is finite, and thus no more has infinite
>understanding than ours. Of course through his union with the Logos
>he has access to all of God's knowledge, but when viewing him as a
>human being this would look like inspiration.
And the danger of looking like mere inspriation was what prompted much of the
criticism of Nestorius. But accepting the Tome of Leo preserves you from this
danger.
>The point is that these are descriptions of the same thing from two
>different perspectives. As you said in a previous posting, everything
>Christ did must be seen at the same time as the act of a human and an
>act of the Logos.
And the difference between this and what you wrote is that it insists on both
perspectives at once. This _IS_ the only sure way to avoid the misunderstandings
that plagued the heated discussions leading to the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
[snip]
>I see the same thing here, with the Alexandrian model and the
>Antiochene model being descriptions of the same thing at different
>levels.
They are not. They are _complementary_ descriptions, not descriptions of the
same thing at different levels. That is why the Tome of Leo was so necessary.
Think of the Tome as the theological equivalent of the Copenhagen interpretation
in Quantum Mechanics, finally uniting the wave and particle duality into a
single theory. And just as Nestorius never accepted Chalcedon, Einstein never
accepted Copenhagen;)
Indeed, Posnov sees the Tome as the intermediary between Antiochene and
Alexandrian schools. More precisely:
Begin quote---------
The Antiochene exposition of the faith and the Tome of Leo the Great are related
to each other, like a schematic plan and its artistic fulfillment. Leo the Great
is the intermediary between Alexandrian and Antiochene theology and gives a
harmonic union to the best results of the one and the other. Antioch brought
forward the activity of the human element too energetically; in Alexandria, by
contrast, they left this aspect in second place. ... And all this is expressed
by Leo I with classical beauty and elegance.
End quote-------------
(fm
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/russian/history_posnov.htm#_Toc536360352,
ch. 4 under heading, "The Council of Chalcedon in 451")
Finally, going back to a yet earlier post of yours in this thread, I finally
_did_ use a Lexicon to Athanasius, and found that the ONLY time he ever used the
word "anhypostatos" was to _criticize_ heretical theology. He never used it to
describe orthodox theology. So why _do_ you want to use it?
---------------------------------
Charles Hedrick
church historian myself, so I use terms as I find them commonly used.
>But frankly, I don't think you describe yourself accurately. After
>all, St. John Chrysostom was indisputably Antiochene, yet you differ
>from him in radical ways, don't you? So, for example, all the
>Antiochenes accepted the use of icons in worship of God.
>Secondly, even if the description was accurate, it would not be so
>very useful, since just as in the Alexandrian school, there was _great
>variety_ within the Antiochene school. Just look at the difference,
>for example, between Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia(who knew
>each other well).
First, the context of calling myself Antiochene is this discussion,
which is clearly focused on the incarnation. I'm clearly not saying
that I agree with every view of everyone who lived in Antioch.
The term Antiochene is used in every source I have describing the
history of this period. This includes the description by Kallistos
Ware (which is relevant because he's an Orthodox bishop) in his
chapter of the Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. [This is a
less than ideal reference because I can't currently find my copy of
the Orthodox Faith.] See particularly p 140 ff.
Now, we come to the supposed "howler":
> Hence, the more universal, cosmic emphasis[111] of salvation in the Greek
> patristic notion of theosis is not evident in Calvin as he sides with the
> Augustinian-Thomistic soteriological construal of double predestination.
The issue of predestination is, as we all know, highly contentious.
What predestination actually means is subject to debate. However it
appears that Aquinas agreed that ultimately God decided who is saved
and who is damned. One can see this in the Summa, but the clearest
discussion is in the Summa Contra Gentiles. See
http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc3_164.htm
Some writers say that this isn't double predestination, distinguishing
reprobation, which he held, from predestination to damnation. However
if that distinction holds, then I suspect no one teaches double
predestination. All writers of which I am aware were anxious to deny
that God is the author of sin, and thus saw a distinction between what
God does with respect to those who are saved and what God does with
respect to those who are not. There isn't a negative equivalent of the
Holy Spirit that he sends to degenerate people. This is true in Calvin
just as much as in Aquinas. So if the term double predestination is to
apply to anyone, one needs to understand it in a way that I think
would reasonably include Aquinas. That need not mean that what they
taught is identical. Even within the same school of thought, views
aren't always the same, as you point out with respect to Antioch.
James Akin has an interesting assessment of Calvinism from a Catholic
perspective, http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/TULIP.htm
Incidentally, I'm not sure I agree with his analysis of the Reformed
doctrine of Perseverence. I believe his description of the Catholic
view is acceptable in Reformed theology.
>If you did [accept Chalcedon], you would have to reject
>Calvin's position on the Eucharist, since the doctrine of the Real Presence
>follows from Chalcedon. Perhaps this is why your quodlibet article passes over
>the doctrine of the Eucharist with the brief dismissal expressed in dry
>language:
I can see the analogy. If God is truly committed to being present
physically, then we have not just the incarnation but the real
presence, icons, Mary and the rest. This is a consistent view. But I
don't think it follows necessarily. God can choose which ways he will
be present. But just because God has chosen to join us as a human
doesn't commit him to these other things, and there may be good
reasons why he would confine his physical presence to Christ.
My reference to multiple levels of explanation was Institutes
2.4.2. This describes the plundering of Job as due the wickedness of
the Chaldeans, Satan's plot, but ultimately God's own plan.
"We thus see that there is no inconsistency in attributing the same
act to God, to Satan, and to man, while, from the difference in the
end and mode of action, the spotless righteousness of God shines forth
at the same time that the iniquity of Satan and of man is manifested
in all its deformity."
Of course this was for an evil action. As noted above, God does
not inspire evil actions, although he permits them and they are
part of his plan. God is present through his Holy Spirit moving
people to do good, so the description applying to a good act would
be different, because in that case God would be active at all levels.
That's the answer to your comment
>Actually, they _do_ compete with each other. That is why we are warned
>in Scripture never to attribute our good deeds to ourselves. How could
>Calvin miss this? As St. John of Tobolsk says
Obviously Calvin didn't miss this. Few readers of Calvin think that he
attributes good deeds to ourselves. The usual critique is the reverse.
Although it's from a different message, I will also respond here on
/anhypostasia/. I don't think I've ever said that Athanasius used the
word, just that he taught the concept. I think it's quite possible
that this use of the term is recent. See e.g.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/mcgrath/textbook/chap1Q_A/chap0011a.htm,
question 3. Incidentally I'm citing this to show word usage, not
because I agree with everything it says. [This is part of a set of
answers to the discussion questions in of McGrath's book "Christian
Theology". Note that McGrath himself isn't the author of these
answers.]
It seems that anyone holding Alexandrian views, and probably even
anyone fully accepting Chalcedon is committed to anhypostasia to some
degree. After all, Chalcedon says that there is just one
hypostasis. Logically, this has to be the hypostasis of the Logos,
since the one hypostasis of Christ existed before the human nature.
Thus the human nature is a nature without a directly corresponding
hypostasis.
At the very least this constitutes a danger to the reality of Jesus as
a human being. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's a challenge
that requires great care to make sure that Christ's humanity is
treated convincingly.
Michael S. Pearl
>
>
>Firstly, in my experience I think mainstream Muslims have a mellower
>approach towards the salvation of non-Muslims than evangelical
>Christians have about the salvation of non-Christians.
>
Michael's comment:
"Mellowness", of course, is a matter of style, and "mainstream" can be
a rather difficult term to define precisely, but I find this
discussion from about two years ago on the Muslimphilosophy sight (
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=4 )
to be relevant to our own discussion.
You will note that the last posting in that discussion is from the
Forum Administrator who says, "there is one path to Paradise and it is
through the Prophet (SAW), by loving him, by believing in his message
and following his commandments."
Now, whether or not this particular quoted comment represents
"mainstream" Islamic thought is not my interest here, but what I am
suggesting is that if we take this comment along with the Forum
Administrator's remark that "the Messenger was ... Perfect/complete
Human" (which seems like it might be related to a commonly expressed
Muslim notion about prophets, including Muhammad, being sinless -
despite Qur'anic verses that would seem to indicate otherwise), then
we have a belief which in substance - even if not in style - is
notably similar to the way in which many Christians regard Jesus.
I bring this up just to once again emphasize the importance of
investigating the substance (or meaning) of beliefs (and, yes, this
includes the consequences that affect systematic coherence as a result
of holding to any particular belief) regardless of the style of
communication or the words used to communicate (even though such an
undertaking is often very difficult).
Michael
Matthew Johnon
[snip]
>I certainly agree with you that one can't have a human life without a
>human will. But so far I haven't seen much suggestion in Athanasius'
>writings that he understands that.
In previous replies to this post, but under different Subject headers, I gave
End quote----------------
[snip]
Asceticism is a life that has as its goal the destruction of passions:
lust, self-love, hatred, envy, gluttony, laziness etc., and filling your
own soul with the spirit of chastity, humility, patience and love, which
last is NEVER a lonely virtue, but is the companion and perfecter of the
preceding qualities of the soul. (Metr. Khrapovitsky)
----
Richard Alexander
Richard Alexander
hed...@geneva.rutgers.edu
passage which Matthew Johnson quoted, in the 3rd Discourse Against the
Arians. See
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/original/discourse3-5.html
Newman is using a text like the one I originally quoted from CCEL. It
speaks of the Logos' will, but not a human will. Newman attributes
Matthew's wording to a different work. I'm not in a position to
account for the difference.
D. It is observable that, as elsewhere we have seen Athan. speak of
the nature of the Word, and of, not the nature of man as united to
Him, but of flesh, humanity, &c. (vid. p. 345, note G.) so here,
instead of speaking of two wills, he speaks of the Word's willing and
human weakness, terror, &c. In another place he says still more
pointedly, "The will was of the Godhead alone; since the whole nature
of the Word was manifested in the second Adam's human form and visible
flesh." contr. Apoll. ii. 10. Yet elsewhere he distinctly expresses
the Catholic view; "When He says, 'Father, if it be possible, &c.' and
'the spirit is willing, &c.' He mentions two wills, the one human,
which belongs to the flesh, the other Divine, which belongs to God;
for the human, because of the weakness of the flesh, prays against the
passion, but His divine will is ready." de Incarn. c. Ar. 21. S. Leo
on the same passage begins like Athan. in the text vaguely, but ends,
as in Athan.'s second passage, distinctly; "The first request is one
of infirmity, the second of power; the first He asked in our
[character], the second in His own ... The inferior will gave way to
the superior, &c." Serm. 56, 2. vid, a similar passage in
Nyssen. Antirrh,. adv. Apol. 32. vid. also 31. An obvious objection
may be drawn from such passages, as if the will "of the flesh" were
represented as contrary (vid. foregoing note) to the will of the
Word. It is remarkable, as Petavius observes, Incarn. ix. 9. that
Athan. compares (as in the text) the influence of our Lord's divine
will on His human, in the passage from the Incarn. quoted above, to
His rebuke of S. Peter, "Get thee behind Me, &c" vid. supr. p. 477,
note A. But this is but an analogous instance, not a direct
resemblance. The whole of our Lord's prayer is offered by Him as man,
because it is a prayer; the first part is not from Him as titan, but
the second which corrects it is from Him as God; but the former part
is from the sinless infirmity of our nature, the latter from His human
will expressing its acquiescence in His Father's, that is, in His
Divine Will. "His Will," says S. Greg. Naz. "was not contrary to God,
being all deified, [theothen holon]."
ConvertstoIslam
>One can take gold from a man, and the man will remain a man. Scripture
>identifies the spirit with the man.
the "gold" was just an example, I'll try to be even more clear...
the Bible can talk about your head, but does not call you "a head".
you right in that you can't live without your head, but the Bible still does
not call humans "heads", just like the Bible does not call humans "spirits"
>The man and his spirit are
>synonymous.
according to Paul, a man and his sins are synonymous, and in that case, men are
called "sinners", but they are never called "spirits"
Peace
ConvertstoIslam
>I never said that God the Son is the same as God the Father.
so they are not the same person? Trinity is a circular argument, you can argue
they are and they're not all day long, I would rather get off that merrygoround
here.
>Neither Jesus nor Moses taught us to bow toward a lifeless rock in
>Meccah.
it's very niaeve to think we're praying to a rock, but I suppose that if
someone really niaeve looked into a Church, they would think that Christians
are bowing their heads to dead wooden benchs or to the dead brick wall infront
of them. Or even worse, that they're idol worshipping the cross on their walls
and statues in the Catholic Churches.
>Generally, a Moslim with
>good intentions and no particularly bad deeds will live a happy life
>after death. However, it is clearly the efforts of the individual, the
>works he does, that will determine his fate after death.
so you know more about Islam than me? so because a Christian source told you
about Islam, that source is right and what the Muslim tells you is wrong?
That's fine, I feel I know more about Christianity than you ;-)
To set the record straight, the Quran in several places states that works
without Faith is futile, so go take that to your evangilists.
>The Lahore Ahmadiyya Movement
Quote the Quran, not some heritics, or would you rather I quote Jehovah
Witnesses to teach you about Christianity?
>Instead, the Moslim believes that he can work off his debt,
>improve himself by his efforts, and death is just another part of his
>growth.
sure, while all the time having faith, works without faith is futile.
Now, the Christians make no efforts? or do you just sit in bed stareing at the
cross?
"faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26)
I read that Martin Luther denied that James belonged in the Bible because he
couldn't reconcile James's emphasis on works with Paul's emphasis on faith.
>Jesus Christ can pay humanity's sin debt, and we
>live through Him.
but it wasn't paid, we're still on earth for the presumed sin of Adam and Eve,
if it was paid, we'd be in Heaven.
>Islam does not have a literal Hell, as Christianity does. Hell in
>Islam is a condition of the individual.
where do you get this stuff?
I did a comparative study here:
http://www.Jews-for-Allah.org/Jews-and-Muslims-Agree/afterlife/heaven.htm
on the Judaic and Muslim Heaven, a comparison on Hell is upcoming, but who
taught you it's a condition of the individual???
Where does it say that in the Quran?
regarding the sonship of Jesus to God (aka; his other aspect), I would not base
such thoughts on a possible mistranslation, I would take the advice of the
Hebrew speaking Jews that it meant servant since other Prophets were translated
into son;
Jacob God's firstborn son (Exodus 4:22)
Solomon is God's son (2 Samuel 7:13-14)
Ephraim is God's firstborn son (Jeremiah 31:9)
Adam is the son of God [first born too] (Luke 3:38)
and it's understood by the Jews that son means servant in those passages too.
Peace
Gilberto Simpson
I think alot of my last post was deleted in the new one and so my
comments and questions probably seemed a little sparse and out of
context unless someone was really following the discussion very
closely. Hopefully the flow will still make sense. I'll just focus
on what I think are the most central points.
mpe...@clarkrd.com (Michael S. Pearl) wrote in message news:<gKv7c.17653$GT2....@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> ti...@umich.edu (Gilberto Simpson) wrote in message news:<pIu6c.32056$Eg3...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...
> >I don't think you need to have a deep philosophical
> >discussion to understand the *content* of the statement "Muhammad is
> >the last prophet".
> Michael's comment:
>
> You do not need "to have a deep philosophical discussion to
> *understand*", but is there any way for us to determine the fact of
> such a matter without philosophy?
Perhaps but that is a seperate question. I think in both religions,
trying to defend the truth of Islam or Christianity (assuming you
are trying to use objective arguments often requires a mix of
historical, psychological, scientific and literary information along
with philosophical arguments. But the main point of the above
comment was that some of the basic teachings of Christianity can be
philosophically convoluted to even state properly, while I think
you couldn't say the same thing to the same degree regarding Islam.
> Gilberto wrote:
> >On the other hand, there are plenty of Christians
> >who have trouble understanding the Trinity and even admit that it is
> a >mystery, maybe even beyond all human understanding.
> Michael's response:
>
> Should a person abandon a belief simply because that person cannot
> express it with sufficient clarity or coherence?
That's not what I'm saying. I think that it is definitely the case
that there are true things which are difficult to state suitaably and
are difficult for people to understand.
But there are also phrases that are so problematic on logical
grounds that they imply a contradiction and basically have no
content at all. Such phrases are basically meaningless.. like
"married bachelor" or "4-sided triangle" if we are speaking in
precise logical language.
And I would say that if a particular religious community is going to
say that a particular doctrine is so essential that people are going
to be damned to hell in the afterlife, or burned at the stake
in this one, for not believing it then that doctrine ought to
be a logically coherent one and not just some contradictory bunch
of words.
> If one does not understand a concept in which one believes, then it is
> irrational to proclaim that concept to be certainly true.
In my experience, that's what Christianity does.
> Similarly,
> it is irrational to proclaim a statement about a mystery to be
> certainly true, and it is an egregious error to insist that a mystery
> should not be subject to further inquiry, testing, or even improved
> expression.
Ok.
> It is likewise irrational to abandon a belief, to treat a belief as if
> it were certainly false, simply because one cannot yet express the
> belief adequately.
But it is totally appropraite to reject the "belief" as meaningless
and perhaps find a different religious community where the
theology doesn't have the same problems.
> Do most Christians even actually need a coherent explanation of the
> Trinity?
I'm not sure what you mean. Earlier I tried to say that the Trinity
wasn't useful and yo useemed to be giving me a hard time about it. Do
you agree that the Trinity is an unnecessary doctrine?
> I know Christians who are mystified when they are told that there are
> plenty of people who think that Trinitarian expression seems, on the
> face of it, tri-theistic, and these Christians' responses are
> generally along the lines of: "The one God is the Father, Son, and
> Holy Ghost; therefore, what's the problem?"
>
> So, when does coherence (in statements) become essential?
>
At least by the time they are declared fundamental dogmas for a
religious community and people are burned at the stake (like Michael
Servetus was by Calvin) or otherwise persecuted or excommunicated for
rejecting them. At that point, your statements should most
definitely be very coherent and logical.
[Concerning the issue of "informational remoteness" of God in Islam]
I'll just stick by my comments in the previous post (much of which,
were deleted] and leave the matter there.
More on the Trinity: I pointed out that the Quran tells people of
the book to "say not three, it is better for you. Lo! God is
one"' Michael's response was that the Quran wasn't specific
enough. You were saying the Quran only criticizes heretical versions
of the Trinity but not the orthodox version.
> Gilberto wrote:
>
> >The ["say not, Three"] passage
> >from the Quran which references the Trinity is clearly more explicit
> >than any Biblical "affirmations" of the Trinity.
> Michael's response:
> Irrelevant.
It's relevant in that it shows that you are being partial and
inconsistent in how you are chosing to read the respective
religious texts. Or maybe he just didn't understand what I said and
should read it over.
> The Trinity concept does not have to be explicit in the Bible for the
> Trinity concept to either correspond to facts about God or to serve a
> legitimate or informative function.
But you *are* saying that the Quran should be *more* than explicit
in rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity?? That's what I find
unnfair. And more importantly it causes you to misread the Quran.
Again, if the Quran says "say not three", then which version of the
Trinity is left out?
> Furthermore, you take the cited Qur'an passage to be a command from
> God, but you utterly fail to demonstrate that this Qur'anic "Three"
> refers to any recognizably Christian Trinity;
I don't mean to be insulting. I'm sure you are a knowledgable
intelligent person with a rational mind. But whenever I hear such a
comment from a Christian I honestly wonder if they believe what they
are saying are just being deliberately obtuse. I think it is
blindingly obvious that
say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God;
far be It from His glory that He should have a son
is reference to the Trinity that I start to feel insulted. The
question I asked the last time I posted this wasn t meant to be
rhetorical. If this is NOT a reference to the Trinity then WHAT kind
of three is being refered to in that passage. Please, tell me. I
think the burden of proof is on you to provide an alternative
explanation. Because I think it is clearly the Trinity and would be
hardpressed to find another explanation. If you sincerely think that
some other concept is being refered to, then by all means help me out
here.
you *seem* to come
> closest with this:
>
> >[112.3] He begets not, nor is He begotten.
> However, this passage provides a statement with no context,
Most Muslims would be comfortable saying that the passage is very
general in application since Christianity isn t the only religion
which refers to God having sons or daughters. The earlier Arab
paganism had this feature as well. As do other faiths, past and
present.
I think this is actually a pretty clear example of how some
Christians tend to read the Quran crudely and uncharitably. The Bible
has language saying that God begets, and you read it in the most
lofty spiritual terms. The Quran has language criticicizing the
use of this begetting-begotten language, and you insist on
reading it literally and physically.
and other
> sections of the Qur'an suggest that the Qur'anic understanding of
> "begotten" seems limited to the product of sexual union
That would be a limitation you are imposing on the text for your own
purposes. The Quran doesn t limit the use of son or daughter that
way. In fact, in another recent post I pointed out the passage
[5.18] And the Jews and the Christians say: We are the sons of Allah
and His beloved ones. Say: Why does He then chastise you for your
faults? Nay, you are mortals from among those whom He has created, He
forgives whom He pleases and chastises whom He pleases; and Allah's is
the kingdom of the heavens and the earth and what is between them, and
to Him is the eventual coming.
That use of the phrase sons of Allah is clearly metaphorical
and still criticized.
Accordingly, even
> Christians would agree that God does not beget through sexual union,
> and even the Qur'an proclaims the Virgin Birth such that Jesus could
> NOT have been the product of sexual union.
And even Muslims would say that even in eternity, God does not
beget, nor is he begotten. Which I think in a very deep way rejects
even the most basic elements of Trinitarian Incarnational theology.
>
> Let us take a look at a couple of other Qur'an verses that are often
> understood as supposedly referring to Christian Trinity concepts:
Now I feel comfortable saying QED with the two main passages I
brought up above. If you are bringing up passages which I didnt
bring upp and you are saying they are possibly refering to the
Trinity, what are you saying
> [5.73] "They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of
> three; when there is no god save the One God."
>
> If "Allah" and "God" are interchangeable terms (as even this verse
> suggests), then this verse most definitely does not reference a
> Christian Trinity; so far as I am aware, all Christians would agree
> that God is not the third of three in a/the Trinity.
>
Another way to think about this issue is that the Son and the Holy
Spirit are fundamentally not divine. And Allah is then identified
with God the Father. And so the standard Trinitarian formula would
in effect bring God together with these two other entitues and put
them all on par with one another as if they were equal. Which would
be shirk from a Muslim perspective.
But still the criticism would apply to any Trinitarian formula.
> [5.116] "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, 'Worship me
> and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?"
> Regardless of to whom any Christians might pray, no Christian worships
> in order to derogate God, and Christians do not consider Mary to be
> either a god or an ontological aspect of God.
Firstly, this is a seperate issue from the Trinity so in some sense
it is a distraction. But secondly, I think Islam has a stricter
notion of Gods onesness than does Christianity and Muslims are more
zealous to avoid idolatry. So I think that some of the devotion
which some Christians give to the blessed mother of Jesus
certainly crosses the line for Islamic standaards, even if
Christians feel that what they do is ok by their standards.
>
> Gilberto wrote:
>
> >... the Trinity is clearly a topic, a stumbling block, a "mystery"
> >which has divided the Church from itself and has kept people from
> >accepting the clear message of Jesus ...
> Michael's response:
> Is it really "the Trinity" that has impeded the message, or is it
> other matters such as confusing orthodoxy for truth and the apparent
> insistence that there can be only one correct expression of any fact
> about God?
I think they are all intimately related. Historically, I think that
insisting that there is only one God has certainly been less
divisive or contraversial than insisting on the Trinity. Personally
Ill say that the doctrine of the Trinity is one of the things which
lead me to reject confessional Christianity, and is commonly cited by
many non-Christians as problematic whether or not they came from
Christian backgrounds.
(By the way, these are philosophical matters that pertain
> to all religions - not just to the Trinity and not just to
> Christianity.)
There definitely are some philosophical challenges which all
monotheists have to address. But the Trinity is rather uniquely a
Christian problem, which other monothesists have been able to avoid
by simply rejecting the doctrine.
> Michael had written:
>
> >> I do not recall the Qur'an ever addressing the matter of the
> meaning
> >> of the Trinity or the possible contexts which would have made
> >> Trinitarian expression especially useful.
> >
>
> Gilberto responded:
>
> >I don't think that the Quran debates with the reader or seeks to
> prove
> >itself to you in the way that you demand.
'your resonse to this just missed the point, i think
> Gilberto wrote:
> >The proper comparison is
> >between Christian Trinitarian theology and the the Islamic
> >understanding of God's oneness.
> Michael's response:
> For the sake of brevity, I will note that the ninety-nine names of
> Allah are attributes - attributes that are not identical and yet must
> cohere.
>
> If God can have so many attributes and still be "One", then given
> Charles Hedrick's reference to "aspects" of God (and that is NOT
> necessarily a modalist position) as well as the Christian claim that
> there is only one God, we are left to conclude that my ninety-nine
> names reference was valid and that the proper comparison is between
> the Trinity and the ninety-nine names.
I addressed this in the previous post. You just deleted or ignored
the relevant passages. Explaining the role of the 99 names in Islam
and how they were used. And pointing out how a comparable set of
names exists in Christianity. If anyone wanted to, they could go
through the Bible, and find a list of different names of God. Elohim,
YHWH, Jealous, Rose of Sharon, Mighty Father, Wonderful Counselor,
Prince of Peace, El Shaddai, the Good Shepherd, the Lord of Hosts,
etc...
the different names would emphasize different aspects of God as He
appeaars in the Bible. Thats basically all the 99 names in Islam are,
different names used to refer to Allah, culled from the Quran and
Hadith, the Merciful, the Compassionate, the Loving, the Forebearing,
the Forgiver, the Provider, etc..
In other words, if you sincerely find the 99 names something to
criticize, then it is something to be criticized in Christianity )or
Judaism for that matter= as well.
The question of whether the different attributes of God cohere or
not, is totally seperate from the question of the Trinity. So again,
the Trinity shouldnt be compared to the 99 names of Allah, the
Trinity should be compared to the Islamic concept of tawhid, the
oneness of God.
> Furthermore, with regards to your claim that "The 99 names doesn't
> really have that much theological baggage attached to it", if true,
> this lack of "baggage" may well be the result of a lack of concern
> with coherence in regard to beliefs held about God (and this pertains
> to my point about the relative paucity of philosophy in Islam today).
>
> Gilberto wrote:
>
> >But that's a whole other discussion which seems seperate from the
> >Trinity topic.
> >
>
> Michael's response:
>
> My comments about ar-Rahman and the SRI discussions did not pertain to
> "the Trinity topic"; my comments were in response to your unsupported
> claim that Trinitarian language is neither useful nor valuable.
I understand that, but the fact that this is a seperate discussion
means that what you are saying about the 99 names is actually
totally irrelevant to the Trinity topic.
>
> I referred to an instance (see Google Search: g:thl3617102469d )
> where if the ar-Rahman attribute were so perfectly communicated via
> the ninety-nine names approach, then it would be very easy indeed for
> Muslims to rebut the claim that the Muslims' Allah does not exhibit an
> unconditional love - and, yet, reliance on this very important
> attribute did not readily occur to the discussion participants while
> the unconditional aspect of God's regard for us is very much at the
> forefront of most Christian thought about God.
>
I think this discussion could go in a more complicated direction. But
I think your claim above is based on some false assumptions. The
Quran actually says quite cleaarly My mercy includes all things.
And the Bible equally cleaarly has God say Jacob I loved, but Esau
I hated. And in fact, several other passages of the Bible also
refer to the idea that God actually hates certain groups of
sinners.
I think bottom line, the Quran and the Bible clearly paint a
picture who has in some sense an unconditional positive regard and
concern for humanity, while at the same time making distinctions
)conditional= among either good people or bad people, or among
believers or disbelievers. )actually both==
> Gilberto wrote:
>
> >Do you think that is an anaology which captures what you believe
> about
> >the incarnation? Why or why not?
> >
Here you just deleted the whole reference to the Bahais and ignored
it.
> Michael's response:
>
> To give you some introduction regarding how I think, let me note that
> even if the Trinity does not truthfully describe the "anatomy" of God,
> Christianity is still true; even if Jesus was not the Son (Christ)
> person/aspect/expression of God incarnate, Christianity is still true;
> even if Jesus never really existed, Christianity is still true. If you
> want an explication, just let me know.
I think if that is what you feel then our respective assumptions
about Christianity are so fundamentally different that you could
have saved alot of time by just explaining all this upfront. If you
dont believe that the Trinity is an essential doctrine of
Christianity or even a necessaarily true one, then why bother to
defend it If you want to explain yourself, feel free, knock
yourself out. Im sure other people would like to hear you out.
Peace
-G
>
> Michael
Matthew Johnson
[snip]
>Begin translate of above quote--------
>And when Christ says "Father, if it is possible, let this chalice pass me by,
>but not my will, but thine be done", and "the spirit is eager, but
> the flesh is weak", he exhibits TWO WILLS here, the first a human
> will, which is of the flesh, and second the divine, which is of God.
> For the human will through the
>weakness of the flesh asks that the Passion pass by. But the divine will is
>eager for it.
>End translate of above--------------
>
>BTW: the phrase OPER ESTI THS SARKOS (which is of the flesh) shows that
>Meyendorff & Florovsky were quite right to claim that 'flesh' in Athanasius
>means the _entire_ human nature, not just the carnal aspects.
>
>[snip]
[snip]
>[Very interesting. I would never see this in the CCEL translation.
>
> 57. And as to His saying, 'If it be possible, let the cup pass,'
> observe how, though He thus spake, He rebuked406 Peter, saying, 'Thou
> savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.'
> For He willed407 what He deprecated, for therefore had He come; but
> His was the willing (for for it He came), but the terror belonged to
> the flesh.
>
>John Henry Newman's translation is nearly identical --
>http://www.newmanreader.org/works/athanasius/volume1/
>
>But the Greek seems clear enough. Is there a textual issue, or is this
>just sloppy translation?
It sounds like a textual issue to me. Unfortunately, it is also possible that
the ECF authors (or even some other textual critic, since Newman seemed to do
the same) boldly and rashly assumed the pasasge about "two wills" had to be a
later interpolation. I was following the Enchiridion Patristicum, an early 20th
century Catholic publication (which in turn follows Migne's Patrologia Graeca),
so I am surprised that Newman's translation follows that other text.
Since St. Maximus used this passage to support "two wills", it seems pretty
clear that he followed a text closer to the Enchiridion than to Newman.
Then again, it may be both text AND translation, since Newman admits:
I did not follow Athanasius's text sentence by sentence,
allowing myself in abbreviation where he was diffuse,
and in paraphrase where he was obscure.
He even calls it a "free translation". So really, we cannot use his translation
to decide which text is original. And do we really know that the ECF translation
was any less free? Newman's comments about the Pusey translation appear to imply
we should not assume this.
Finally, even if we do accept the assumed text of ECF instead of the
Enchiridion's, the phrase 'terror of the flesh' _still_ implies that 'flesh'
means ALL of human nature, not just the body. For it is the soul that feels
terror, not the body. But it then lacks the clarity and decisiveness of the
Enchiridion text.
[snip]
----------------------------
Save yourself, and thousands around you will be saved
-St. Seraphim of Sarov.
BHZellner
> Jesus taught laws rather than the few hours
> surrounding the cross.
Well, no. Jesus didn't come primarily as a teacher.
"They have Moses and the prophets." Jesus came
primarily to die.
Ben
Denis Giron
> > Pax Vobis Omar Mirza!
>
> Et Vobis!
HA! I suppose this is in keeping with Islam. If I were a Muslim, would
a "Pax" be thrown in there as well? I assure you there was no hidden
insult in my greeting, and I personally cannot think of a Latin
equivalent to the phoenetic similarities between "as-salaam alayka"
and "as-samu alayka" (the latter being uttered by Jews when in the
presence of Muhammad, at least according to the aHaadeeth which serve
as the primary reason to meet every greeting from the kuffaar with "wa
alayka"). Though I guess if I tried hard enough in combing a Latin
dictionary I could find a rough equivalent, I have no intention of
doing such. Anyway, let me get to your comments and thus begin the
post...
Pax Vobis Omar Mirza!
I would also like have this robust "Pax Vobis" which I am sending out
to include Michael Pearle, as his wonderful points overlapped with
your own, thus this post should stand as a response to him as well (I
hope neither of you mind my grouping together of your posts).
Regarding the second objection to my rough reworking of the
Craig-Swinburne argument for rational shirk (i.e. the objection that
God could simply love himself), I will concede to you (and Michael) on
the issue of vanity, and retract that counter.
That leaves us with my question of whether a being who is *only*
self-loving can really/truly be perfectly loving. You responded as
follows:
> You are committed to the claim that
>
> "For all beings B, if there exists a time t such that
> B loves only himself at time t, then B is not
> perfectly loving." (**)
>
> Now I would like to see a defense of this claim before
> I can accept the Swinburne-Craig argument. It is not
> obvious, and it is not a claim that every reasonable person
> would accept after reflection.
Well, I would argue that love entails sharing and/or giving of one's
love. Roughly agreeing with this position, Swinburne wrote the
following:
"There is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately
divine in a solitary divine individual. If such an individual is love,
he must share, and sharing with finite beings such as humans is not
sharing all of one's nature and so is imperfect sharing. A divine
individual's love has to be manifested in a sharing with another
divine individual, and that (to keep the divine unity) means (in some
sense) within the godhead, that is, in mutual dependence and support."
[Richard Swinburne, "The Christian God," (Oxford, 1994), p. 190]
While I admit that Swinburne is saying something roughly different
from what I am arguing here, I would focus on the emphasis on sharing
that is entailed by love. How can you truly be loving if you are not
sharing that love? And how can one only share with themself? It seems
to me that to share only with oneself is to be an example of almost
the very negation of sharing. Thus a being who is only self-loving is
not perfectly loving, which entails sharing.
This also answers your point about God loving us even as we existed
only in his mind as possibilia. How can you share with beings that
only exist in your mind, beings that don't actually exist? It would
seem that the entailment of sharing is compromised, and thus, while I
agree that God could have feelings of love towards beings He intended
to create, such love is not an example of perfect love.
> > I would have to think not, which is why
> > I would lean towards this argument in favor of
> > a multipersonal ontology of God.
>
> As an aside, it would be necessary for you to also
> consider the coherence of a multipersonal but
> monotheistic God. If there is one point on which I have
> seen even the most devout Christians start to
> have some doubts, it is this one.
I agree that contemplating the multipersonal, triune ontology for God
that is affirmed on the Christian model has caused many to doubt. In
fact, what I perceived to be the logical incoherence of the doctrine
of the Trinity was one of the major factors in my apostatizing from
Christianity years ago (which, I must admit, puts me in a bit of an
existential crisis as an atheist who now considers the doctrine of the
Trinity to be logically coherent).
Nonetheless, as I just noted, I presently see nothing rationally
objectionable about the doctrine. In fact, as has been the point in
this thread, I actually think that if I came to believe in God, I
would find a multipersonal ontology to be the more reasonable
conception of God to lean towards (as I would, I think, want to
believe in an Anselmian being, and in a perfectly loving God).
Well, what kind of God is this perfectly loving multipersonal God that
is affirmed by Craig, Moreland and Swinburne? Michael noted that even
a multipersonal God would still only be self-loving if He were all
that exists. I would note, however, that a mulipersonal God would be
comprised of different centers of identity (as is the case with the
three persons that make up the Trinity), and thus actual sharing could
take place. Their sharing would predate/precede all of Creation, thus
the persons would be engaged in a glorious relationship since before
the very cosmos began (which is essentially how John 17:5 describes
Jesus' relationship to God). One person of the Godhead could be within
the other in the sense that they would not be separated by any
spaciotemporal distance (analogous to how Jesus was "in the bosom of
the Father" according to John 1:18). Thus, while the argument does not
affirm specifically Christianity (I'm sure there could be a model of
Hinduism that would fit as well), it does seem to grind rather close
to a Johanine theology of God. In a nutshell, if I were to believe in
God's existence, I would believe in a multipersonal Godhead, and I
guess that, mixed with a little tribal allegiance, would result in me
leaning heavily in favor of a Christian worldview.
-Denis Giron
http://www.geocities.com/freethoughtmecca/home.htm