Christian/Muslim ThreadsWhy wont Muhammed come back at Judgement?HUMBLE_GUEST: THIS POST SERVES TO COMPLEMENT THE PROCEEDING POST, AS A RESPONSE TO YOUR PREVIOUS REPLY. Yeah bro, that’s exactly what I thought, until these orthodox Muslim scholars cleared up the misconception I had concerning your own Qu’ran, and that’s when it all made sense and became very clear (and once we clear up the misconception you have regarding Christ and the Bible it will all become clear to you - hopefully - God-willing). I didn’t even realize there was a comparison before it was pointed out by the ISLAMIC resources (resources promoting the orthodox Islamic view) that I’ve been quoting from. Here let me quote what the orthodox MUSLIM scholars who made this comparison had to say again, and after this I’ll give you a little comment and question to think about, which I address later on during the course of this response: Professor Yusuf K. Ibish: "It [the quran] 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." In his Ideals and Realities of Islam, Seyyed Hossain Nasr: "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." Here is what id like you to ponder upon until the issue comes up again later in my response: The first quote, in its context is addressed to “westerners” specifically (as the wider context reveals) to clear their misconception of what the Quran represents. He tried to find the one thing in Christian theology that is comparable to what the Quran is in Islamic theology...now, the question id like you to think about is, why didn’t they use The Bible as the perfect comparison to the what the Quran is, instead of Christ? There is a very good reason this, which i'll briefly comment upon later. Whether you “worship” it or not is irrelvent. How you can conclude that the “will” of your own God is eternal yet not divine is beyond me – also given the fact that the word divine is defined as anything EMANATING from God. And if God’s own will does not emanate from Him, then WHERE DOES it emanate from?? Logically speaking, maybe you guys should start worshipping your Quran – or deem yourselves polytheists, defined by the fact you believe in two separate eternal divine entities – one living in the heavens, and the other temporarily manifest in the form of a book. Thank God for Christian logic that acknowledges that the eternal and thus divine will of God (directly expressed through Christ) is essential to His being, allowing us to label Him a “hypostasis” of God – which does not compromise His monotheistic existence. Yes and one of your arguments against the idea that the DIVINE cannot unite with the HUMAN was in fact concerned with the ETERNAL becoming the TEMPORAL/FINITE. Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 02:03 pm: humble_guest said: These properties ARE incompatible, as are eternality, omnipotence, and independence of creation with finiteness, temporality, and being a creation. The quotes i pasted to you emphasize that the orthodox Muslim belief is that the eternal DIVINE will of GOD is expressed through the finite in the form of a book which parallels to Christ (as noted by your own scholars) who as the eternal DIVINE WILL of God became finite in the form of a man. Christ was a revelation of the eternal & temporal - which is essentially what you were trying to argue as impossible from your above comment taken from a previous post. Actually the issue of The eternal divine Word/Will being directly expressed (manifest/revealed) to mankind through some “form” of creation, is an issue that has nothing to do with the Jews – your above comment is made in ignorance of the differences in the concept of scripture as "the word of God", between the Muslims, Christians, and Jews – but I explain this for you near the end of this post, don’t fret. For now, I will briefly comment concerning Christianity, which has no problem with this issue at all – we deal with it very simply: It is Christ that is the direct expression of God’s eternal word/will. Since God’s eternal word/will is eternal it is indeed divine, and since it emanates from God, it is thus a hypostasis of God, and since it is a hypostasis of God it thus has the same nature/essence of God, and since this essence/nature is what makes God who He is therefore he IS GOD. (btw I didn’t throw a book at you concerning the deep philosophical argument behind the nature of Christ – yet I managed to simplify things in one sentence for discussion’s sake, why don’t you try doing the same thing). Our SCRIPTURES are a completely different story - but i'll get to that soon. The fact that God’s eternal divine will/word is united temporarily with the finite/creation in the form of a book? Nah bro. That’s what your ORTHODOX Islamic scholars have asserted and what the Mutazallites rejected. I think its quite obvious that im emphasizing a parallel (noted by your own Orthodox Islamic scholars) between orthodox islam and orthodox Christianity on a concept that you are trying to attack. The fact is, Orthodox Islam DOES compare the Christian concept of Christ to the ORTHODOX concept of the Quran (as noted above) in the sense that Christ and the Quran in their respective religions are considered direct manifestations of God’s eternal word/will. This is the PROBLEM the Mutzallites had, they didn’t want to associate aspects of their religion with Christian concepts and so they decided to take the easy way out and assert that the Quran is created. Well since as your Islamic scholars assert that the Quran was eternally existent as God’s divine will, then it is "claiming" the attribute of eternality which IS an attribute of God alone, with the attribute of a book – finite creation – by being expressed through the arabic language, confined within the pages of a book. First of all I never said that the Quran was “created”, i simply repeat what your orthodox Islamic scholars assert, that the eternal will was directly expressed through creation. Your Islamic scholars assert the Quran is the finite/temporary manifestation of God’s divine will in the form of a book. Obviously to say that God’s will began existing at a certain point in time, when God Himself is eternally existent, would be to assert something rather absurd. That’s why your scholars acknowledge that the divine word is eternal, and it is simply expressed in the form of a created book, just as Christians assert Christ is God’s eternal divine word/will who 2000 years ago expressed Himself in the form of a created human being (obviously the flesh he took upon himself was not eternal). The fact is, if you assert that God’s divine will is eternal (which is absolutely logical), then you are asserting that God’s divine will coexisted with God – which is absolutely fine. The issue which our discussion at this stage is concerned with, is that yor Islamic scholars assert that this eternal divine will, is united with the finite creation in the form of a Book, just as Christians believe that Christ - who is God’s eternal divine will, united with the finite creation in the form of a human being. He was the walking, talking, loving, caring – direct expression of God’s divine will, in contrast to the Islamic belief of the Quran - a literary direct expression of God’s divine will. (Again let me remind you of the very important reason why your Islamic scholars emphasized that the ONLY thing in Christianity that parallels to what the Quran is in Islam - is Christ, note how they did not say the Bible - or the NT or the OT or any form of Christian/Jewish scripture.) Then don’t bother trying to use it as the basis of your whole argument concerning the issue of Allah’s ignorance. I doubt id have the “philosophical skills or understanding to paraphrase” the Apostolic Fathers apologetics concerning the incarnation or the hundreds of schorlarly books written concerning the issue (despite the fact I haven’t read any of them yet), but ive at least managed to and attempted to simplify things, on an issue no less complex, perplexing, or philosophical than any Muslim doctrine you feel is too much for you to discuss. So far on this forum people have asked regarding some of the most perplexing and philosophical doctrines including the Trinity, the relationship between the Father and Son etc. and I don’t think ive ever seen a Christian just brush off their questions by referring them to any one of the almost unlimited schorlarly resources concerning such issues. The question was simple, give me a simple, plain answer, and then see how it progresses from there. Here let me ask you again: “If Allah is all-knowing, why does he speak with un-certainty, and even absolute ignorance at times, as those verses portray?” Haha You serious bro? You think the concept of the Incarnation and the Trinity is something people aren’t taught through “courses in university” – I mean is this seriously your qualifier that an issue is out of league to discuss?? We might as well throw this whole discussion from its inception out the drain under those circumstances. Ive at least attempted to simplify things for discussions’ sake, you can show the same courtesy bro, or else don’t bother using the book as a form of defense – simply because it’s a response - that’s just ridiculous. Here let me apply the same standards you’re trying to apply to me: You cannot make any further objections regarding the incarnation of Christ until you’ve read all of the below 7 books. Actually just read 1,3,4,5,6 - ive cut it down for you, how kind I am. And if you choose not to, than im afraid im going to have to accuse you, in your words, of “A cop out”. 1) "On the Incarnation: The Treatise De Incarnatione Verbi Dei" by Athanasius, St. Anhanasius, St. Athanasius, Saint Anthanasius, C. S. Lewis http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 3?v=glance 2) S. Davis, Logic and the Nature of God (London: Macmillan, 1983); http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books 3) D. Brown, The Logic of God Incarnate (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1986); 4) T. Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846 5) R. Sturch, The Word and the Christ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... ce&s=books 6) The Incarnation: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God by Stephen T. Davis (Editor), Daniel Kendall (Editor), Gerald O'Collins (Editor), Incarnation Summit2000 Dunwoodie, Yonkers, N.Y. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... 3?v=glance 7) R. Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). If you cant manage a discussion, then don’t come in the discussion forum. We can exchange lists of books all day if you want bro, im happy to do that if that’s what turns your dial. I haven’t evaded your question bro, I am simply making sure your arguments are not in conflict with your own doctrine, I don’t understand why you think that’s so unreasonable or “evading the question”. The way it seems, which is something that the writings of your own Islamic scholars contend to, is that your Quran is a temporal/finite – direct expression of the eternal divine will in the form of a created thing – a book. Therefore the concept of something “independent of creation, being creation”, and the concept of “eternal becoming finite” (which you explicitly labeled as incompatible) is a concept that orthodox Islam shares with Christianity, a concept your orthodox Islamic scholars assert is evident in the Quran. Im not trying to bro, if I feel that there is something in your dogma that is in contradiction to your arguments; it is only fair that that issue be dealt with first before your pursuit continues. And if you are unable to defend your case, except by referring me to a book (irrelevant to one of my arguments) for reasons that are just as equally applicable to my case (i.e. issue difficult to grasp – too philosophical etc), then it is you who have just brought this discussion to a halt by playing the fool, not me. P.S. I emphasise once again that the book is irrelevant to what im saying, because you are referring it to me on the assumption that I am arguing Mutazallite doctrine, when in fact all my conclusions were simply restating exactly what your orthodox Islamic resources say. I wasn’t conjecturing conclusions from them, they were very direct when they exclusively paralleled Christ to the Quran, and they were very direct in their reasons for making that exclusive comparison. Actually bro, the Bible (which contains both the Jewish scriptures and the Gospels, and epistles) is not considered a “direct expression of the divine will”. What your problem is, you don’t understand what it means when the Jew or Christian labels their scripture as “the word of God”, its in a very different sense to how orthodox Islam regards the Quran as “the word of God”. The Jews recognize that there is something called “The Word (God’s divine will)” – they call it “The Memra” – they recognize this as The active agent/principle of God, but they don’t believe it was manifest directly through their scriptures, nor do Christians believe “The Memra” was manifest through our scriptures. Christians maintain (as the Bible points out) that Christ Himself was the direct expression of this divine active principle - The Word/Memra. The Jewish and Christian scriptures are indirect revelations of the God’s word – the concept of divine inspiration of scripture between the Jews/Christians and Muslims is completely different to what your assuming it to be – and the concept of divine scripture is completely different to the Islamic concept. Why is it different? Because according to orthodox Islamic theology (as the Muslim scholars assert in the passages I showed), the divine word is directly expressed in the form of a book – the Quran, and that’s why your scholars parallel the nature of the Quran with Christian view of the nature of Christ, and not with the Gospels, or the epistles, or even the Jewish scriptures. No bro, only Muslims assert that their scripture (the quran) is a direct expression of the eternal divine will. Jews don’t believe that the divine word/will was ever directly expressed through anything (except maybe as "The Angel of the Lord" in the OT - read my post "God,HisWisdom,&HisWord), and Christians believe that it was directly expressed through The Christ. Read the above. Thank’s bro, I appreciate any insult given as a result of defending my Lord. If you don’t think it is reasonable that I feel the need to clarify whether your arguments are hypocritical before I continue to answer them, then fine – accuse me of “ducking out” or whatever bro, I don’t care. The only thing I claimed was, that the Mutazallite doctrine was irrelevant to my argument, they were only mentioned to show what mainstream Islam considers heretical – in order to maintain the validity of my argument which utilizes the idea that orthodox Islam maintains – that the Quran is eternal and a direct expression of the divine word/will just as the Christian concept of Christ. The comparison once again, was one stressed by your Islamic scholars. The Muslims believe the Quran is a direct expression of the divine word/will – the Christians believe Christ (not the Bible) was the direct expression of the divine word/will – The Jews also believe in The divine word/will (known as The Memra) which was an active principle/agent in many of God’s activities including the creation, however, they don’t assert it was ever directly expressed through a man, a book, or anything. You need to do some research to discover in what sense Jewish/Christian scripture is considered “the word of God” and what It means to be an indirect revelation of “The divine Word”, as opposed to your Quran which your scholars maintain is a direct expression of this eternal active principle/agent that we call “The divine Word” - which i believe according to your belief was also the command of creation. I seriously hope you reconsider and make at least some sort of an attempt to go over this book yourself, and try integrate its ideas into the discussion. So far ive maintained a discussion without referring you to any schorlarly work or even using it – on an issue which is no less philosophical and difficult to grasp then what you maintain the concept this book discusses is – which I still emphasise seems only relevant to this issue of Allah’s ignorance. I hope ive made it clear that I am using the concept of the Quran that mainstream Orthodox Islam maintains, to show how this parallels to the nature of Christ in terms of The eternally divine will/word being directly expressed through a finite/temporal form of creation (as the above orthodox muslim scholars emphasize). Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame