Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?Before we start on this response, I'd first like to apologise for its length, and secondly id like to make some ground rules necessary at this stage in our "discussion" in order to let it flow. Bro, your conclusion that the God-man is an amphiboly is based on the assumption that the square-circle is analogous with what the incarnation entails (which is a false dilemma due to the fact you'd be creating a categorical fallacy), and therefore you’re begging the question. The square-circle analogy gives the implication that for a square to “unite” with a circle, one’s properties must inevitably replace the other – and this is true (as my friend noted) due to the fact you’re “overlapping” 2 things of the same category – i.e. shapes. The incarnation didn't compromise God for a human, nor can we logically assume this inevitably needed to be, because theyre of two different categories. You’ve presented a false dilemma based on a false analogy as the result of a categorical fallacy. The rest of this post will not only show this, but will also show why its self contradictory of you to assert that the divine is incompatible with humanity. Nah bro, that’s what you’re deceptively trying to convince our “readers” (if there are any) about what i'm saying. (forgive me) Nice observation bro! I think what you want me to point out to my friend, is the whole basis of his conclusion that your square-circle analogy is a categorical fallacy. “Redness” and “blueness” are defining properties of a COLOUR, something of a different category to a shape, just as man is of a different category to God. So why don’t you point out to yourself, that the whole point that your square circle analogy is of a categorical fallacy, is that you’re trying to provide an analogy between two things of the same category (shapes) uniting (which inevitably means one must ultimately be replaced by the other), to two things of different categories uniting (The divine and the human). I would accuse you of straw mans right now bro…but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and understand why you got confused. The way It was worded does kind of give the impression that all he is saying is that a circle and a square can exist together, not conjoined together. I think the key word bro that you missed, was “ATTACHED”, I emphasize that the point he was making is that you can take a square and attach it to a circle, conjoining a circle and square together. Since this can be done, what logical argument is there against God taking on, attaching to himself a human nature without ceasing to be God? NONE. Response 1: I think I’m providing you with this website for the…3rd time now? http://www.muhammadanism.com/Jesus/JesusInfinite.htm If you cant provide a direct response to the authors reasoning concerning the compatibility of divine infiniteness and the finiteness/temporality of a human being, then don’t bother asserting that its illogical. You can avoid reading the website out of your own ignorance if you want bro; I don’t care, but don’t bother pursuing certain issues ignorant of the responses I give you. Response 2: Orthodox Islamic theology asserts that within the Quran, the infinite and finite did indeed meet, since the Quran is eternal by nature while at the same time it is temporal - contained within the pages of a finite book. So logically speaking, why can't God's Word become a man? Professor Yusuf K. Ibish, in an article entitled "The Muslim Lives by the Quran," writes: I have not yet come across a western man who understands what the Quran is. It is not a book in the ordinary sense, nor is it comparable to the Bible, either the Old or New Testaments. It is an expression of Divine Will. If you want to compare it with anything in Christianity, you must compare it with Christ Himself. Christ was an expression of the Divine among men, the revelation of the Divine Will. That is what the Quran is. If you want a comparison for the role of Muhammad, the better one in that particular respect would be Mary. Muhammad was the vehicle of the Divine, as she was the vehicle... There are western orientalists who have devoted their life to the study of the Quran, its text, the analysis of its words, discovering that this word is Abyssinian, that word is Greek by origin... But all this is immaterial. The Quran was divinely inspired, then it was compiled, and what we have now is the expression of God's Will among men. That is the important point. (Charris Waddy, The Muslim Mind [New York: Longman, 1976], p.14) In his Ideals and Realities of Islam, Seyyed Hossain Nasr writes, The Word of God in Islam is the Quran; in Christianity it is Christ... To carry this analogy further one can point to the fact that the Quran, being the Word of God therefore corresponds to Christ in Christianity and the form of this book, which like the contents is determined by the dictum in heaven, corresponds in a sense to the body of Christ. The form of the Quran is the Arabic language which religiously speaking is as inseparable from the Quran as the body of Christ is from Christ Himself. Arabic is sacred in the sense that it is an integral part of the Quranic revelation whose very sounds and utterances play a role in the ritual acts of Islam. (Op. cit. [London: George Allen & Urwin, 1975], pp. 43-44; emphasis ours.) The Quran is eternal, whereas its form (i.e., the Arabic language and the book in which it is written) is temporal. In fact, in early Islamic history it was considered blasphemous to say that the Quran was created, with the Caliph Al-Mutawakkil (d. A.D. 850) going so far as to "decree the death penalty for anyone who taught that the Word of God (i.e., the Quran) is created." (John Alden Williams, ed., Islam [New York: George Braziller, 1962], p.179) "The Qur'an is God's speech, which he uttered, and it is uncreated. Who holds the opposite is a Jahmit, an unbeliever. And who says: 'The Qur'an is God's speech', and stops at that point without adding 'uncreated', speaks even more infamously than the latter. Also, who maintains our sounds, our Qur'an recitation would be created, the Qur'an itself, however, God's speech, is a Jahmit, too. And who doesn't declare all these people as unbelievers, is like them." (according to Ibn Abu Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al Fiqh, Cairo 1952, vol. I, p. 29; transl. Dr. Christopher Heger) Cyril Glassé continues: "It is a fundamental doctrine of Islam that the Koran, as the speech of God, is eternal and uncreated in its essence and sense, created in its letters and sounds (harf wa jarh). It has been asserted that the doctrine of the uncreated Koran was the result of exposure to the Christian dogma of the Logos; that, as Christians defined Jesus as the Word of God and as having two natures, one human and one Divine in one person, so the Muslims transposed this doctrine by analogy to the Koran as the Word of God made book. The Muslims were indeed aware of the Christian doctrine; the Caliph al-Ma'mun (d. 218/833), who supported the Mu'tazilite theory that the Koran was created, wrote to one of his governors that belief in the uncreatedness of the Koran resembled the Christians when they claim that Jesus was not created because he was the 'Word of God'. During the brief Mu'tazilite ascendancy which began in the Caliphate of al-Ma'mun, belief in the uncreated Koran was temporarily suspended, arousing fierce opposition. The Koran was declared to be created, and those opposed to this view were persecuted during an inquisition called the mihnah (212-232/833-847) into the beliefs of the religious authorities. Yet lawyers and Judges staunchly upheld the dogma of the uncreated Koran, and nurtured it when necessary in secret. Ibn Hanbal went further, and declared that the Koran was uncreated from 'cover to cover', that is, also in its letters and its sounds. In this he was certainly not intending to imitate the Monophysites, but he was flogged for his beliefs. When the mihnah came to an end, the doctrine of the uncreatedness was restored, and has not been challenged since, in the Sunni world. The Kharijites differ from the Sunnis on this point, and in their dogmas the Koran is entirely created, which is also true for the Shi'ites, both Twelve-Imam and Zaydi, whose theology in many ways is an extension of that of the Mu'tazilites." (Glassé, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, [Harper San Francisco, second edition 1991, 1999], pp. 231-232 Thomas W. Lippman says regarding the Mutazilites that: ... They also rejected the dogma that the Koran was the uncreated word of God, coeternal with Him. The Mutazilites said that this view compromised the oneness of God. In the ninth century the Caliph al-Mamun elevated Mutazilism to the status of official creed. He proclaimed that the Koran had been created by God and was not coeternal with Him. The test of orthodoxy was the answer to the question whether God created all things, including the Koran. A "no" answer brought torture and imprisonment, and the Caliph decreed that all judges must subscribe to the new doctrine. Mutazilism which originated in rationalism, thus manifested itself as illiberal and repressive, and after al-Mamun's death his successors repressed it as vigorously as he had imposed it. The argument over the eternality of the Koran is of little relevance to the practice of ordinary Muslims today; but it shows the extent to which Islam, basically a straight forward and unequivocal faith, has undergone the same process of self-analysis as Christianity. The issues of rationalism and spirituality, divine omniscience and human freedom, have never been finally settled. (Lippman, Understanding Islam: An Introduction To The Muslim World [ A Plume Book: October 2002, third revised and updated edition ], p. 74; Finally, Annemarie Schimmel writes: The problem of the nature of Christ, so central in the dogmatic development of the early church, has also influenced, in a certain way, the development of Islamic dogma. Christ's designation as logos, as the Word of God, "born not created," has most probably influenced Islamic theories about the Koran, which is regarded by the Muslim as the uncreated Word of God. Phenomenologically seen, the Koran has the same position in Islamic dogmatics as has Christ in Christianity. Harry A. Wolfson therefore coined the term "inlibration," the "Word become Book," in contrast to the Christian concept of incarnation, "the Word became Flesh." That explains why theologians emphasized the designation ummi for Muhammad; this term, first probably meaning "the prophet sent to the gentiles" was interpreted as "illiterate." The Prophet had to be a vessel unstained by external knowledge for the Word's inlibration, just as Mary had to be a virgin in order to be a pure vessel for the Word's incarnation. That is, the Koran is much more than simply a book ... (Schimmel, Islam - An Introduction [State University of New York Press, Albany 1992], pp. 74-75; Hence, there should be no problem for Muslims in accepting the fact that the eternal united with the temporal since this is what is believed about the Quran. To conclude, I reiterate that there are simply no good reasons to reject the biblical witness that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself..." 2 Corinthians 5:19. AMEN Central questions/issues: 1) Just as a circle cannot be a square, God cannot be a man. – Analogy proven to be fallacious. 2) How can God’s attributes co-exist with human attributes? Issues i brought up concerning your theology must be addressed first, to prove to me that your arguments are not contradicting your own beliefs, and then you can pursue to respond to my comments concerning this. Minor AND irrelevant issues (simply pursued for interests sake): 1) Is the iron-fire a plausible analogy. (irrelevant because im not using it as a proof of the incarnation, but merely to give you an adequate and reasonable natural representation of what the hypostatic union entails) 2) The philosophical issue of what defines what something is. (irrelevant due to the fact I never asserted that Christ’s divine attributes ever ceased to exist in the first place, but rather that he voluntarily chose to live within the limits of his humanity whilst in union with his divinity). I apologise, next time you want to repeat an argument despite the fact its already been answered (such as above when you asked concerning the compatibility of Christ’s infiteness with his humanity – despite the fact ive provided a website 2 times already explaining that), I’ll re-paste my reply, until you can directly respond to it, Yes, technically speaking. If by "define" you mean determining "what" God essentially is. Affirmative. We identify Him by his secondary characteristics, which distinguish him as God apart from His creation. Which admittedly no one knows. What is God? Is he something material? Christ affirms that God is spirit. But then again, what exactly is a Spirit? What kind of spirit is He? Whatever He is…that is what makes Him who He is. These questions aim at identifying what God’s nature is, and whatever the answer is – it must be a primary characteristic. If you can define God for me by His primary characteristics, in the same way I can define a chair by its primary characteristics – i.e. a wooden base supported by 4 wooden sticks - and THEN prove to me that the incarnation must have inevitable taken away from God’s primary characteristics (like taking away the 4 stick supports of the chair) – THEN we can conclude as an absolute fact, that God ceased to be what he is, the same way a chair ceases to be a chair once it no longer has supports for its base. God’s secondary characteristics allow us to distinguish God, but they do not essentially make God. In any event, ive never asserted that God’s attributes (secondary characteristics) CEASED at any time. That gets discussed further on this post. What does this prove? The fact is, there is a “Godly” divine nature – that no one can describe with human language. This divine essence never to ceased to be, and consequently His divine attributes never ceased to be. In the case of Christ He is eternally existent as a hypostasis of God (God’s eternal word) which means he is of this divine essence which consequently gives him the attributes of God as well. I never said that the self-propellancy issue defines the car, I simply said its a unique attribute to the car. Your really getting ridiculous bro - let me keep modifying this analogy until it becomes clear to you what I’m implying. A car is a “body of metal” on four wheels with a motor etc. etc. (These are PRIMARY characteristics). Lets assume for arguments sake, the only thing that fits this description (a body of metal supported by 4 wheels, with a motor etc. etc.) is this “thing” we call a “car”. Lets also then consequently assume for arguments sake that the property of being able to be self-propelled (a SECONDARY characteristic) is unique to a car alone - the only "thing" in the world capable of being self-propelled (all boats, planes etc have jus completely disappeared off the face of the earth). In light of all this the fact the car is not being-self propelled (an attribute and secondary characteristic unique only to a car) does NOT indicate that we no longer have a car – due to the ESSENTIAL FACT that the CAR is defined by its primary characteristics I.E. the fact we still have a body of metal, with four wheels, and a motor etc. etc. means this “thing” is still a car nonetheless. Yes that’s right its an incomprehensible aspect of Christian theology, not an illogical one. Also, I pasted a whole list of verses from the Quran that show your Allah is not all-knowing (which you conveniently avoided answering), and this is far from what the Bible portrays concerning God. The Bible portrays God’s eternal will adding a human nature to His divine, and voluntarily choosing to retain his knowledge of certain things in his waking consciousness as a man according to His humanity, whilst His divinity and consequent omniscience always existed along side his humanity – allowing him to make comments explicitly revealing His omniscience. The Bible reveals an incomprehensible apparent paradox, whilst the Quran just blatantly reveals an ignorant God – an ignorant God my friend, is a square-circle. So again i refer you to all those verses i pasted in my previous post, and i patiently await your response. In addition to those 10 or so problematic verses, i refer you to Surah 2:30-35. There are 2 theological problems that arise from this passage, but i'll simply raise questions concerning the problem relevant to this discussion. First, how did the angels know what the condition of man would be prior to his creation, a fact obviously not known by Allah since he rebukes the angels for their statements by declaring his omniscience. And yet still the angels were correct. Are the angels also omniscient, or even worse, is Allah not omniscient since the angels were obviously right? Yes bro, Amen. Subjugated in terms of hierarchy within the God-head, not subjugated in terms of nature/esence – it was a voluntary act of humbleness and love that allowed The eternal Logos to experience humanity - which in effect made him even lower than the angels, more on this in my post “The non-correlation between “submission” and ‘inferiority’”. This explains why some certain things are known by the Father, yet according to Christ’s humanity these things were not known. It also explains all the submissive-type verses in the light of all the parity-type verses. First of all, the definition you quoted (that i gave in a previous post) does not contradict the dictionary definition I gave, since I believe that the primary characteristics ARE these ESSENTIAL qualities and characteristics. Note that the way I defined the essential qualities of fire were based on its primary characteristics – chemical reaction, fuel, oxygen - which are nouns (in contrast to secondary characteristics of fire –hot, illuminant etc which are adjectives and do not essentially define what fire is - regardless of whether these secondary characteristics are unique or not). As for Iron its essential characteristic/quality is that it is a metal. The attributes – secondary characteristics of this particular metal then go on to distinguish it apart from other metals. Second of all, I wasn’t using my analogy to say “since God can will this, he can than will anything upon himself” – like I said, I cant logically prove the incarnation, it is one of God’s great perplexing mysteries (And that’s far from accepting a square-circle as a great mystery) i can simply argue that it is intellectualy tenable with the presupposition that its the action of an infinite complex omnipotent being – I was simply using it as a plausible analogy to the doctrine of the Incarnation (which you have yet to logically disprove): 2 “natures” united – without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration, whilst retaining their properties/attributes. (Please remember the ground rules in your response) Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame