Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumCurrently responding to>>> Quran vs. ChristPeace humble_guest, That’s absolutely irrelevant. The fact it is a “limited record” does not change the fact it is considered eternal in essence and thus divine which is what is essential to this discussion and is what you keep evading. Here read again: Mahmoud Ayoub: ”Muslims have also for the most part affirmed that the Qur'an IN ITS ESSENCE IS THE ETERNAL AND UNCREATED WORD OF GOD.” 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). Muhammad ‘Abduh, plainly states that the Qur'an recognizes itself to be the Word of God, "ETERNALLY OF HIS ESSENCE".[21] On the other hand the Qur'an is created in the sense that it is manifest in the world of creation through writings and sounds.[22] “... 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.” The comparison is based on their essence which in each respective religion is believed to be pre-existing as eternally divine before they were expressed through a finite form of creation. I don’t even need your scholars to draw this comparison, because it is the only tenable comparison between the Islamic belief concerning the Quran and any Christian concept. The only way you can invalidate this comparison is if a) you want to start making up your own views concerning the Quran – i.e. to assert other than the orthodox Muslim belief that it is a created expression of the eternal essence of the divine will, or b) you start conjecturing about what Christian theology entails concerning the relationship between the person of Christ, the Holy Scriptures, The Holy Spirit, and The eternal Word (The Memra). You’ve already tried b) numerously and failed miserably, and your new conclusions about the Bible drawn from my comments concerning what scripture is, prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you can only attack what you misunderstand (especially the Jewish/Christian concept of “Divine inspiration”) and misrepresent – I will talk further about this soon. The comparison they drew is the ONLY tenable comparison you can possibly draw between the orthodox Muslim belief in the Quran and anything in orthodox Christianity. Orthodox Islam asserts the Quran is uncreated in essence, and ONLY Christ is uncreated in essence according to Christianity: Mahmoud Ayoub: ”Muslims have also for the most part affirmed that the Qur'an IN ITS ESSENCE IS THE ETERNAL AND UNCREATED WORD OF GOD.” 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). Muhammad ‘Abduh, plainly states that the Qur'an recognizes itself to be the Word of God, "ETERNALLY OF HIS ESSENCE".[21] On the other hand the Qur'an is created in the sense that it is manifest in the world of creation through writings and sounds.[22] The only thing they’ve emphasized through their comparison is that the Quran is eternal in essence and expressed through the finite creation in the form of a book. From my understanding – this is the orthodox belief reflected by the Hanbali and Ashari thought, as noted by the 5 scholars already. I hope that’s clear, or else why don’t YOU bring evidence from the Quran itself or your prophetic tradition that tells you otherwise. a) Christian creed directly reflects scripture (the divinely inspired word of God) because it is derived from scripture. You pick out any line from the Nicean creed and I will show you the verses that support this. b) Haha! how you take Muslim scholars drawing a comparison for Christians to better understand the orthodox Islamic belief of the Quran as “formulating creed” is beyond me – and beyond any sound minded person for that matter. A Creed is any system of principles or beliefs. I don’t see them deriving new religious principles from the comparison, on the contrary, they were using the existing religious principles concerning Quran in order to draw that very comparison. c) If your orthodox religious principles and beliefs asserted that the Quran is eternal, merely because it reflects the “eternal truth”, then they would have had no problem in comparing the Quran to the Bible – because all true Christians believe in the innerancy of Biblical scripture, and the “eternal TRUTH” it holds as a result of its DIVINE inspiration. (This last post of yours LOVED to dwell upon the fact the Bible is not the direct expression of the eternal word – The Memra, as if this somehow declares it as the mere thoughts and words of a man. You held on this like a string from a cliff without ANY understanding whatsoever of the Jewish and Christian concept of “divine inspiration” – very foolish. I hope that next time a Jewish/Christian concept comes up that you have a very vague understanding about – that you show some wisdom and ask before foolishly jumping to conclusions.) So what you are saying is that because the Quran only represents a “part” of the eternally divine that this “part” suddenly and ENTIRELY became non-divine and created when this “portion” was expressed through these 600 pages. This is in absolute contradiction to everything these following scholars have said: they maintain that the Quran RETAINS its eternal divine essence whilst being expressed through “600 pages” that’s why they talk about the Quran’s eternality in terms of essence in present tense and not past. Here take your argument up with the following people: Fazlur Rahman: ”... the moral law and religious values are God's command, and although they are not identical with God entirely, they are part of Him. The Qur'an is, therefore, PURELY DIVINE. ... [T]he Word was given with the inspiration itself. The Qur'an IS THUS THE PURE DIVINE WORD "The Qur'an IS God's speech, which he uttered, AND IT IS UNCREATED. Who holds the opposite is a Jahmit, an unbeliever. ….Also, who maintains our sounds, our Qur'an recitation would be created, the Qur'an itself, however, God's speech, is a Jahmit, too. (according to Ibn Abu Ya'la, Tabaqat al-Hanabila, ed. Muhammad Hamid al Fiqh, Cairo 1952) According to the above your arguments you are a *Jahmit* Thanks for repeating this irrelevant piece of information for the 10th time bro! My reply: SO WHAT? Does this change the fact this portion, despite the fact being expressed through the created Arabic language and the created pages of a book, is eternal in essence and divine?? According to your orthodox scholars and according to the logic which they rightfully used - No it doesn’t. Im sorry too bro, but its quite OBVIOUS they’re not deriving any new religious principle or telling you to incorporate this metaphor into your faith. They have used the existing religious principle that the Quran is uncreated/eternal in essence expressed through the finite creation, in order to rightfully draw an exclusive parallel to Christ, whom reflects this same religious principle in Christianity. Lets remind ourselves that this eternal/uncreated divine essence does not change merely because it is “portionally” represented in the form of a creation. The comparison they drew was to help Christians understand that the only thing in our belief which reflects what orthodox Islam asserts about the Quran is Christ Himself – this is to throw off the misconception that many Christians would have concerning how Muslims view their Quran as “the word of God” (an expression which has thrown you into the deep sea of confusion). What are you even talking about? What does the command of not killing have to do with my point that the Bible is not divine in nature (divine in the sense that it is uncreated, not that it isn't divine in the sense that it is God's revealed word – Which I talk about more thoroughly later on in this post)? And if you want to talk about " irreparable paraphrases", we can start another post where we can then examine the textual evidence for the Holy Bible and the Quran. Then we will be able to see which book has been "irreparably paraphrased." But for now, let us stick to the topic. What do I care what the Quran does or does not state concerning Jesus. I don’t believe the Quran to be the word of God in any sense of the term so that’s irrelevant. We are dealing with the Christian Christ and the Islamic Quran. No problem bro, I see you’re a little slow and ignorant, I’ll try not to assume that you’ve educated yourself on such issues before you decide to comment on them next time. I never asserted the Bible was not the word of God. In fact, I was very careful with my wording. By stating that the Bible is not a "direct expression of the eternal word" I was simply and rightfully stating that it is not a direct expression, (“incarnation” if you will), of the divine hypostasis who existed alongside God from eternity – known as The Memra (The eternal Logos/word) - who represents the wisdom/logic/will/divine reason/plan etc. So, the question is, in what sense is the Bible considered authoritative scripture authored by God? Please read the following in its entirety - i spent my time making this summary for you: The basis on which Christians accept the “divine inspiration” of Scripture as the word of God is because the Scriptures themselves make that claim. This is significant because if they did not claim divine inspiration for themselves then we would have no right to claim it for them. The divine inspiration of Scripture starts with God. The words of the Bible were not self-initiated by the writers. Peter wrote: “Concerning this salvation, the prophets, who spoke of the grace that was to come to you, searched intently and with the greatest care, trying to find out the time and circumstances to which the Spirit of God in them was pointing when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow.” (1 Peter 1:10,11). In 2 Peter 1:20-21, the apostle writes: ‘But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.’ Peter is unequivocally claiming that the prophetic Scriptures are not a human but a divine work, that the authors wrote under the control of the Holy Spirit, and therefore that the Scriptures come from God. The fullest statement on the divine inspiration of Scripture, however, is found in Paul’s second letter to Timothy (3:15-17): “From childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Paul clearly states here that all Scripture is inspired by God. The apostles were confident to make such claims for their own writings because Jesus had promised them that the Holy Spirit would guide them in all truth, thereby enabling them to write the New Testament Scriptures (John 16:13). “Inspiration” is a translation of the Greek word theopneustos. Theopneustos literally means “God-breathed.” This translation was derived from the Latin Vulgate Bible where the word inspiro is used in 2 Timothy 3:16 to translate the word theopneustos. The emphasis is that Scripture has been breathed-out by God. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted. By their own testimony the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. This does not mean that men are not intimately involved in the process but rather that God, working through the personalities of the authors, so controlled the process and the individuals that the final product was exactly what he wanted said. The author was guided to go where God wanted him to go, not where he wanted to go. Thus the Spirit of God guaranteed the accuracy of every thing that was written. This process extended until the time the document was written. The divine author of Scripture is God the Holy Spirit. Exactly how this process worked is a mystery. Scripture asserts that this did happen without explaining exactly how it happened. And therefore, the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they are given by God and are an authoritative expression of his will and truth. In addition, the Lord divinely selected the writers of Scripture – there was no volunteering for the job. The ultimate source of scripture is God the Holy Spirit, yet God used human instruments to compose the books. When one reads the Scriptures, it immediately becomes apparent that the various authors employed different writing styles and different vocabularies. This gives evidence of the human side of Scripture. The writers of the Old and New Testament were not merely stenographers who mindlessly wrote what God dictated to them. Their own experiences and personalities were involved when the various books were being composed. Ultimately, however, the final result was supernaturally guided by God. Therefore, it is proper to say that the divine inspiration of the Bible has its source in God but that human instruments were used in writing and recording God’s Word. This is the biblical teaching on the subject. Christ’s attitude to the Scriptures is also supremely important. Since he is God, then all that he teaches must be true and authoritative. Jesus clearly taught that Scripture is inspired by God. He regarded it as truth—infallible, inerrant, historically reliable, authoritative for living, and an all-sufficient rule of faith. He could say, for example, when speaking with the Pharisees or Sadducees, ‘Have you not read what God said?’ and then quote from Scripture (Matt. 22:31-32). In Matthew 4:4-10, Jesus repeatedly answers Satan by using the Old Testament as the Word of God, saying, ‘It is written.’ He maintained that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was accomplished (Matt. 5:17) and that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). In the prayer to his Father on the night before he was crucified, Jesus declared that ‘Thy word is truth’ (John 17:17). Jesus also used the Word of God as an ultimate standard of authority when he came into conflict with other people. He rebuked men with Scripture; correcting their false concepts, teaching and misinterpretations of Scripture by using scriptural proofs. Matthew 22:23-33, for example, describes how Jesus told the Sadducees that they were greatly mistaken in their denial of the resurrection because they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. Then he quoted a passage from the book of Genesis as an authoritative declaration from God to correct them. It is highly significant that Christ never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority; instead he used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition. His entire life was submitted to the authority of Scripture. In quoting passages from the Old Testament during his conflict with Satan in the wilderness, Christ was applying them to his own life and thereby demonstrating that he was under the authority of Scripture. His victory was accomplished through obedience to the Scriptures, as he used them as the ultimate authority for every area of his life. At another time, speaking of his relationship with his Father, Jesus said, ‘I know him and keep his word’ (John 8:55). From beginning to end, Christ’s life and ministry were governed by the authority of Scripture. As well as testifying to the truth of the Scriptures by submitting himself to their authority, Christ also declared their inspiration as he fulfilled in his life, death and resurrection the Messianic prophecies they contained. Over and over again he said, ‘This is being done in order that that which is written might be fulfilled.’ Christ’s perfect fulfilment of the Old Testament Scriptures can be seen in any cursory examination of some of the more prominent Messianic prophecies: I HOPE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS. Well we’ve established now, that both the Quran and the Jewish/Christian scriptures make the claim to be “the word of God” (though in different senses of the term, both usages of the term essentially claim the text to be ultimately authored by God: Quran – directly, Bible – through human instruments) NOW…The fact YOU believe the Quran is divine revelation is irrelevant to this discussion. The Quranic Jesus is NOT the historical Jesus, He doesn’t even fit a first-century background like Jesus of the gospels, he is a literary product of the 5th – 6th century, resurrected in an environment where he is all of the sudden a Muslim prophet. There is a large amount of historical writings on the first century from primary sources like Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the intertestamental literature, to Roman material like Tacitus and Pliny, to world-class scholars such as Wright, Witherington, Meier, etc. which give us an incredible amount about the Second Temple Jewish context in which Jesus operated. The Quran provides absolutely no context for the true historical figure of Christ. For example, look at what we don't find in the Qur'an: * Place names (Galilee, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Jerusalem) connected with Jesus. * Religious groups he engaged with (Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots) * The political situation of the day (Judea ruled as a Roman client state under the Herodians) * Names of key people (Pilate, the Herods, Caiaphas, Caesar, the 12 apostles, Lazarus etc.) * The Old Testament passages on which Jesus drew in his preaching and teaching, and fulfillment! * The social context in which he lived * The reasons why he was considered crucifiable (even the Qur'an admits he did stuff that made people want to crucify him) And so on. Yet all of this information is in the gospels. This raises an interesting question: The question YOU have to ask yourself is, If the Jesus of the Qur'an does not fit a first-century background, unlike the Jesus of the Gospels, then what context does he fit? Here are some clues: + The Qur'an quotes legendary stories about Jesus that date from circa fifth-century Syriac Christianity. + The Qur'an quotes beliefs held by one or two heretical groups dating to this period. + Several scholars have shown that behind large sections of the Qur'an lies a Syriac substratum. Syriac was, of course, the language of eastern Christianity. In short, the Qur'anic Jesus is a product of the 5th-7th century; he is not a historical figure. Muslim scholar, Prof. Tarif Khalidi of Cambridge University, England. In his book The Muslim Jesus (2001) makes some very interesting points: "The Qur’anic Jesus is in fact an argument addressed to his more wayward followers [he has] little in common with the Jesus of the Gospels, canonical or apocryphal." "He was created in a Muslim environment, for Muslims: 'he is, after all, a figure molded in an Islamic environment" Khalidi tries to have his cake and eat it: 'The Islamic Jesus of the Muslim gospel may be a fabrication. We may even come to discover who fabricated him and why, as the preceding pages have attempted to do. Nevertheless, he remains a towering religious figure in his own right.' In short, even leading Muslim scholars recognise that the Islamic Jesus is not historical after all, we have shown how the Qur'an knows nothing of his first century context. Rather he is a product purely of faith, a character designed to be an argument, not a person. Hopefully your not so thick and can understand by now that Jewish and Christian scriptures do claim to be God-breathed scripture – nothing more and nothing less, inspired by the Spirit of God. The fact created Human language and speech was utilized by God Himself to convey His truth and His will contrary to the language being God’s direct eternal speech does not invalidate it as “the word of God"– it remains the truth of God and portrays the facts and wisdom revealed to the prophets/apostles by God. The whole concept of a scripture manifesting God’s direct eternal word – The Memra is purely Islamic – another innovation of this so called religion which “began with Abraham and ended with Muhammed”. (Its funny how Christianities claim to the continuity of Judaism, and fulfillment of Jewish scriptures as evidence of its validity, can be proven until this day and was proven by the apostles as the Holy Spirit revealed to them all the things that came to pass during the advent of The Christ. The Jewish and Christian scriptures are so intricately woven and Christ constantly referred to the OT as proof of his identity and things to come to pass during his ministry. The Muslim has no proof of continuity or fulfillment, you take a mere mans word for it – and that’s why Muslims have to start conjecturing about the historicity of Jewish/Christian scriptures although the figures supporting its authenticity and reliability are far greater than any other historical text in the world). Christians believe Jesus IS THE eternal Word of God and therefore God, because this what our God-breathed, divinely inspired scripture authored by God through the intermediary prophets and apostles, when His Spirit dwelt upon them said. He used the elect to reveal His truth, including Saint John the apostle when he opened his gospel account with the words: “In the beginning was The WORD, and The WORD was with God, and The WORD WAS GOD, He was in the beginning with God, and all things were made through Him, and without Him, nothing was made that was made….and THE WORD BECAME FLESH, and DWELT AMONG US, and WE BEHELD HIS GLORY, the GLORY AS OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER…” It is said in the very scriptures written by the chosen apostles and prophets who were inspired by the Spirit of God – the very Spirit of God whom Christ Himself sent to the apostles to “teach them all things and bring to their remembrance all things”. This is the Christian belief concerning scripture – this belief leaves no room for a mans error, or a mans influence on the truth or facts, or a mans ignorance, because the only thing these elect men did was use their way of expression to express the very truth and will of God divinely revealed to them. In your own words:
You keep repeating the assertion that the Quran does not contain all of God's will, which does absolutely nothing to undermine the point I made. The Quran is God's Speech, which means that the Quran is uncreated (unless you assume that God created his Speech). At the same time, the Quran has a temporal, created apsect to it, i.e. the pages, the ink etc. Hence, the Quran corresponds perfectly to Christ who, in Christian understanding, is God's eternal Logos/Word that united to himself a temporal, finite aspect by becoming flesh. So please, enough of the red herrings and false dichotomies and let us stay on topic. Here we go again..im sorry, but your assertion is not consistent with what these scholars are saying - and if you feel you’re more qualified then all 4-5 of them who are essentially promoting the same orthodox view of the Quran, then id like to see YOUR support for why we should believe that the Quran is considered uncreated merely and SOLELY because it represents “the exact truth” as opposed to the view that the Quran is eternal in ESSENCE because it expresses what is ETERNALLY DIVINE, and that this essence is expressed through a temporal essence of creation – The Arabic language and the pages of a book. And again, it is for this very reason that the comparison was made directly to Christ – if the Quran was eternal merely because it represented the truth which is eternal, they would have no problem comparing the Quran with the Bible on that basis. I think you’re getting carried away with this whole “oh its only a PORTION of the divine will”. Does the fact it’s a portion change the fact this portion that is expressed through the Quran is the eternal and divine speech of Allah? Your scholars don’t seem to think so, they stress the Quran is uncreated from page to page, cover to cover, completely eternal in essence – I don’t see any of them making any exceptions based on the “portionality” of the Will that is expressed. Your assertion that the Quran is uncreated because it is a portion of the Will of God is absurd, since the Quran is uncreated BECAUSE IT IS BELIEVED TO BE THE SPEECH OF GOD. Being the so-called Speech of God it REVEALS the will of God to man in a book (per the Muslim argument). So it doesn’t matter how many number of words it contains, whether an infinite or finite number. But what matters is that these words, according to Muslim thought, ARE UNCREATED. So your false dichotomy does little to refute my arguments. Jesus, on the other hand, isn't God's eternal Word become a book, but God's eternal self-revelation, self-expression, become flesh. So you again have said nothing to refute the Logic of the Incarnation or the analogy between the Quran and Christ. You again are saying nothing. Muhammad is not the eternal, uncreated Speech of God, but the Quran supposedly is. Since it is uncreated, since it is God's Speech then what does this make it? Does this make it human in essence, angelic in nature, OR DIVINE? If it is God's Speech then it must be DIVINE, and if it is DIVINE then it cannot be other than God. Just like the Muslims I cited stated, the Quran as God's attribute is not God (in the sense that God isn't only Speech, or only has the attribute of Speech, since he has many more attributes) BUT IT ISN'T OTHER THAN GOD (in the sense that the Quran as God's Speech is eternal and fully divine as are the rest of God's attributes). So let me repeat what you could not answer. If this is your belief concerning the Quran, then logically speaking worshiping your Quran would be worshiping your God. Unless, of course, you wish to maintain that Allah and His eternal Speech are separate entities – which again would delve into polytheism, because you would be now asserting that there are at least 2 separate eternal divine entities – Allah and the Quran. If you fail to see that any worship due to God’s eternal Spirit, and God’s eternal word, is essentially the worship due to God Himself, then you have a blind mind. The fact is, you’ve fallen into idolatory either way – denying the God of the prophets and The true Christ, to follow a god of a man whose coming was never prophesied, whose message did not continue nor fulfill previous revelations, whose lifestyle contradicted the perfect example set up by Christ for all mankind to follow, whose teachings contradicted the truth that came before him, and whose claims go to discredit the very truth that History itself supports. I say, go binatrian or go polytheistic and acknowledge your two separate eternal divine entities if you want to make your idolatry logical at least. Orthodox Islam does NOT assert that the Quran is uncreated/eternal/DIVINE because it represents what you ridiculously continue to assert is “forever true”. Here let me remind you how your scholars portray the Orthodox Islamic faith concerning the Quran: Summary: The Attributes of God are separate identities; they are eternal and uncreated, subsisting in God's eternal essence. God's attributes "are not He, nor are they other than He. The Word of God (the Quran) is the uncreated eternal attribute of God subsisting within God's essence as a separate identity. The descent of the Quran, its piecemeal revelation, its presence in Arabic and the composition and arrangement of its words and letters are created. Created contexts only express the real thing. Remember this in my previous post which you conveniantly avoided?:
Let me repeat. You are not addressing the issue. Whether the Quran is a PORTION of the Divine Will still makes it a part of that Will, and therefore must be Divine. Unless you want to argue that God's Will is ONLY divine in its entirety, and that its individual parts are not (which would be a non-sensical statement) then you are really not denying anything I am saying. Furthermore, as I stated, the Quran is not simply a portion of the Diivne Will, it is also believed to be the very Speech of God, and as such is fully divine. As far as Christ is concerned, he is the eternal Speech of God who became flesh and as such as fully Diivne (fully God in essence) and perfectly revealed God and his will to mankind. John 1:1-3, 14, 18 But, God didn't just reveal himself and his will in the Person of Christ, since God spoke to man through the prophets and in various ways. See Hebrews 1:1-2 So in that sense, Jesus (according to Christians) and the Quran (according to Muslims) do not exhaustively reveal God, since God has also revealed himself in other ways. But this does nothing to refute the claim that Christ (according to Christians) and the Quran (according to Muslims) are the eternal Word/Speech of God and fully divine in essence. Considering the fact that the metaphor is solely based upon the fact Christ and the Quran in their respective religions are considered what is eternally divine in essence, manifest through creation – then the only way the metaphor no longer holds is if you wish to go against the view of 4-5 of your scholars and declare the Quran to be created and only eternal in the sense it “represents the eternal truth” (which im still laughing about by the way).
Haha no comment…seriously, I love you bro. Hang in there! Where in the world did you get that idea from? Let me repeat, according to Muslims the VERY ESSENCE of the Quran is divine, eternal, not just the message it conveys. Likewise, the VERY ESSENCE OF Christ is eternal, divine, not just the words which he spoke. Stop misrepresenting my points. So again I say that the Muslim position regarding the Quran demonstrates that there is no logical problem in having two distinct essences conjoined together without one essence fusing into the other. I omit the rest of your straw men. First, again, please stop misrepresenting me and stop assuming what you have yet to prove. You need to first show why God cannot remain God, retain all his immutable attributes, while taking on flesh. You keep erroneously assuming that this somehow would entail a change in the divine essence, and this precisely what I asked you to demonstrate. So please stop assuming your point and try to prove your case this time. Asserting something doesn't constitute as proof. Second, here is your refutation sir: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ246.HTM Please run through that paper carefully and open your mind. So I repeat again. Instead of telling me what you think, please demonstrate why a divine being cannot exist as a human being at the same time? Why can't God exist within two categories simultaneously? It does not follow that just because God used human authors and human language to convey his words that the Holy Bible is therefore not inspired. According to the Bible, God guided these men and taught them the very words they were to use, and hence it is God's Word communicated through human language. See 1 Corinthians 2:13; 1 Thessalonians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20-21 So your logical fallacy doesn't prove anything. Omitting straw men and red herrings which I already addressed in order to keep this brief and to the point. It is quite obvious you have not understood what I wrote, or are trying to deliberately misrepresent it. Let me repeat, if the Quran is of the very essence of God as Muslims claim, then it is eternal and fully divine, which means that the Quran is eternal and finite since it contains within itself both elements simultaneously. Furthermore, Jesus' essence, his person is eternal whereas the body he took from the virgin was created. So it isn't simply Jesus' words that are divine, but Jesus' very essence and person are eternal and therefore divine, while at the same time having a phsyical, created body attached to his eternal, divine Person. Sorry, it is your erroneous understanding of Divine Unity that I am breaking. You assume that Unity precludes, excludes plurality, which, if it were true, would mean that God cannot have a plurality of attributes and qualities. But he clearly does have them, which means that your logic which argues that unity somehow prohibits plurality is erroneous. Let me repeat, God's attributes, his qualities, his Spirit, His Word, are not partners with him, but are all part of him, and make up his eternal Being. So there is no violation of Unity since, as I said, God's attributes, qualities, Spirit, Word etc. are not other than God. And this is precisely the problem people had interpreting the virgin birth. Some couldn't understand that the miracles of God are independent from God, and therefore what was born of a virgin birth is the son of God. Classic case of straw man here. You are getting quite good at that. Informed Christians do not believe that the virgin birth makes Jesus the Son of God. Rather, it is because Jesus IS ETERNALLY GOD'S SON, GOD'S WORD, that he was born of a virgin. You got the order all mixed up. You obviously DID NOT read them since they say the very thing you have been trying to deny, namely that God's attributes are not God BUT THEY ARE NOT OTHER THAN HIM, wich means that they are eternal and fully divine in essence. Again, your red herring here of angels as divine beings does little to refute what I said. But since you bring up angels, here is your refutation: http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/Jehovah-Witness.html http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/ ... uttal.html http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/ ... eator.html http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/ ... t%201.html http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/ ... t%202.html http://www.abrahamic-faith.com/shamoun/ ... 20JWs.html You then say: You are very incoherent here so I couldn't follow what you are exactly saying. Let me see if I understand. I said that Jesus had a divine and human nature that were united together, attached so to speak, without either essence fusing into each other. So your claim that I said that Jesus ISN'T God is simply nonsensical. You are again assuming that God cannot unite to himself a human nature while maintaining the distinctiveness of his divine nature. Jesus is an eternal, divine Person who took on human flesh, uniting to himself a human soul and mind. The divine Person of Christ is what animated his physical body and personally experienced being a man. So it isn't simply an essence that united with another essence, it is an eternal, divine Person who eternally exists with a divine nature that then united to himself a human nature, without having to take on a different personality. God as a personal divine Being has an eternal divine nature, just as you as a human being have a human nature. Hence for Christ to have a divine nature means that he is part of God's personal Being. This is where we then get into the Trinity. What you do have is two objects retaining their distinctive shapes while being attached to each other, much like in Christ you have two natures retaining their distinctive qualities while being "attached" to each other. Call it what you like, it serves as a great analogy of the Incarnation. You answer my question regarding the state of the Quran before it was written down with: BINGO! So you concede my point after all and agree that the Quran IS GOD'S WILL, AND THEREFORE IT MUST BE ETERNAL, UNCREATED. GREAT!!! Again I ask: Now that they have been written down, do they cease to be the divine, uncreated speech of God? And you respond: I ask: If they do not cease to be divine, then are you saying that the Arabic text written down by men within time and space are also divine and uncreated?
Man, talk about proving my point. So you have to admit that the Quran is the eternal uncreated speech of God EVEN THOUGH IT IS WRITTEN ON CREATED MATERIALS, WHICH MEANS THAT THE QURAN IS BOTH UNCREATED AND CREATED, ETERNAL AND TEMPORAL AT THE SAME TIME. So again what was that about the Logic of the Incarnation???? You again are confused here. You erroneously assume that one needs to speak of Jesus in the plural, as an ARE, because of the two essences, which erroneously assumes that an essence is personal. Essence and being are not necessarily personal since these refer to WHAT something or someone IS. Persons are personal. For instance, a rock has essence, it has being but it isn't a person, it isn't personal. Jesus is ONE Person with two natures, and he is an eternal Person. This is why your claim that Jesus is no longer God doesn't follow at all. It is simply warped logic. First, you are incorrect regarding angels changing, since both the Holy Bible and the Quran say that they still remained angels even while appearing as men. So you are again erroneouly assuming that the only way God or angels can take on human form is if their essences changed. Second, your appeal to 42:11 actually backfires against you. Since there is nothing in all creation which parallels the Christian belief in a triune God or in Jesus as the God-man, then this means that the Christian concept must be true since it fulfills the criteria of 42:11 perfectly. Third, you seem to forget that there are Salafi Muslims in your midst that hold to the belief tht God actually has a body of some kind, even thugh it is unlike anything in creation: [1] All that has been revealed in Allah's Book [the Qur'an] as regards the [Sifat...] Qualities of Allah..., the Most High,- like His Face, Eyes, Hands, Shins, (Legs), His Coming, His Istawa (rising over) His Throne and others; His Qualities or all that Allah's Messenger... qualified Him in the true authentic Prophet's Ahadith (narrations) as regards His Qualities like [Nuzul... His Descent or His laughing and others etc. The religious scholars of the Qur'an and the Sunna believe in these Qualities of Allah and they confirm that these are really His Qualities, without Ta'wil... (interpreting their meanings into different things etc.) or Tashbih... (giving resemblance or similarity to any of the creatures) or Ta'til... (i.e. completely ignoring or denying them i.e. there is no Face, or Eyes or Hands, or Shins etc. for Allah). These Qualities befit or suit only Allah Alone, and He does not resemble any of (His) creatures. As Allah's Statements (in the Qur'an): (1) "There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer" (V.42:11). (2) There is none comparable unto Him (V.112:4). (Al-Imam Zain-ud-Din Ahmad bin Abdul Lateef Az-Zubaidi, The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari Arabic-English, Translated by: Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan [Maktaba Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh Saudi Arabia], p. 842) This next quote is quite interesting. After mentioning those who seek the face of Allah, the author writes: ... Meaning they want to see Allah's face (because that is the greatest pleasure for the people of Paradise). The Qur'an and the Sunnah affirm that Allah has a face, two hands, fingers, and two eyes. Some people deny these attributes because they incorrectly suppose that by affirming them they are humanizing Allah. Such an argument is only valid for those who would say, for example, "Allah has hands like ours (?)" Such a statement is not allowed because it qualifies Allah's attributes without evidence from the Qur'an or the Sunnah. It would also be in contradiction to the Qur'anic verse: <There is nothing that is like Him, and He is The Ever-Hearing, The Ever-Seeing>. Thus we must affirm the attributes that Allah, and/or his Messenger have affirmed; we must believe that these attributes befit the Magnificence, and Glory of Allah; and we are not allowed to qualify these attributes unless Allah, and/or his Messenger have done so for us. (Waleed K.S. Al-Essa, Authentic Supplications Of the Prophet [A Daar of Islamic Heritage Publication, P.O. Box 831415, Miami, FL. 33283, 1993], p. 59, n. 145; bold emphasis ours) Why, Allah even has shins according to the Quran and hadiths: "The Day that THE SHIN SHALL BE LAID BARE, and they shall be summoned to prostrate, but they shall not be able,-" S. 68:42 Narrated Abu Said: I heard the Prophet saying, "ALLAH WILL LAY BARE HIS SHIN, and then all the believers, men and women, will prostrate themselves before Him; but there will remain those who used to prostrate in the world for showing off and for gaining good reputation. Such a one will try to prostrate himself (on the Day of Judgment) but his back (bones) will become a single (vertebra) bone (so he will not be able to prostrate)." (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 441 as by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din Al-Hilali, Ph.D., Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan in The Noble Quran English Translation of the Meanings and Commentary [King Fahd Complex for the printing of the Holy Qur'an, Madinah, K.S.A.], p. 779, f. 1a; bold and capital emphasis ours) Narrated Abu Sa'id Al-Khudri: ... Then the Almighty will come to them in a shape other than the one which they saw the first time, and He will say, ‘I am your Lord,’ and they will say, 'You are not our Lord.' And none will speak: to Him then but the Prophets, and then it will be said to them, ‘Do you know any sign by which you can recognize Him?’ They will say. ‘THE SHIN,’ AND SO ALLAH WILL THEN UNCOVER HIS SHIN whereupon every believer will prostrate before Him and there will remain those who used to prostrate before Him just for showing off and for gaining good reputation... (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 532s) Therefore, according to these Islamic sources a Muslim cannot just claim that the Qualities of Allah, His Face, Hands etc. are simply metaphorical. A Muslim must affirm that these things are actual. Yet, at the same time a Muslim must not assume that Allah's Face, Hands, Feet etc. are anything like what we see and find in creation. So please explain why is it that there are Muslims who use the Quran to prove that Allah has a real body of some kind, which essentially makes him a glorfied exalted man so to speak, but yet reject the possibility of God actually becoming a man without having to cease being God. You again try to pull a fast one by inserting words into the passages of the Quran to support your belief that Gabriel is the Spirit: First, you erroneously assume that since the Quran says that Gabriel brought down the revelation and the Spirit did also then they must be one and the same. All this proves is that God used two entities to bring down the revelation. If the passages said only Gabriel brings it down then you may have had a case, but even here one could still say that the Quran is contradicting itself. So your leap in logic doesn't help you at all. Furthermore, in your zeal to prove me wrong you didn't even bother reading the passages carefully: [78] The day will come when the Spirit AND THE ANGELS will stand in a row. None will speak except those permitted by the Most Gracious, and they will utter only what is right. [97] THE ANGELS AND THE SPIRIT descend therein, by their Lord's leave, to carry out every command. If the Spirit is Gabriel then why do these passages MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN HIM AND THE ANGELS???? The fact that THE ANGELS, not just some, are presented separately from the Spirit ACTUALLY PROVES MY POINT THAT THE SPIRIT CANNOT BE AN ANGEL SINCE IF HE WAS AN ANGEL THEN HE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE GROUP OF ANGELS AND THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO NEED TO DISTINGUISH HIM FROM THEM!!!! These next pssages will cause you more problems: "Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever). Allah will be well pleased with them, and they with Him. They are the Party of Allah. Truly it is the Party of Allah that will achieve Felicity." S. 58:22 The above passage demonstrates that this Spirit from God is divine, having all of God’s omni-attributes. That the Spirit strengthens all believers demonstrates his omnipresence and omnipotence since this is the only way that the Spirit can be with all the Muslim believers at the same time. The late Abdullah Yusuf Ali agrees since he writes in relation to this passage: "Cf. ii 87 and 253, where it is said that God strengthened the Prophet Jesus with the holy spirit. Here we learn that all good and righteous men are strengthened by God with the holy spirit. If anything, the phrase used here is stronger, ‘a spirit from Himself'. Whenever any one offers his heart in faith and purity to God, God accepts it, engraves that faith on the seeker's heart, and further fortifies him with the Divine Spirit, which we can no more define adequately than we can define in human language the nature of God." (Ali, The Meaning of the Holy Quran, p. 1518, fn. 5365; bold emphasis ours) The next passage lends further support to Ali’s assessment: They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men)!" S. 17:85 According to the hadith literature this verse "came down" when the Jews questioned Muhammad on the Spirit's identity: Narrated Ibn Mas'ud: While I was walking in company with the Prophet in one of the fields of Medina, the Prophet was reclining on a palm leave stalk which he carried with him. We passed by a group of Jews. Some of them said to the others, "Ask him about the spirit." The others said, "Do not ask him, lest he would say something that you hate." Some of them said, "We will ask him." So a man from among them stood up and said, 'O Abal-Qasim! What is the spirit?" The Prophet kept quiet and I knew that he was being divinely inspired. Then he said: "They ask you concerning the Spirit, Say: The Spirit; its knowledge is with my Lord. And of knowledge you (mankind) have been given only a little." (17.85) (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 93, Number 554) Here was a golden opportunity for Muhammad to explain that the Spirit was Gabriel, but instead he speaks of it as something mysterious which little is known. Muhammad’s assessment is essentially in agreement with what Yusuf Ali said in his footnote above. Man I can't wait to see how you are going to address these issues. So here is my challenge to you for a third time. PLEASE PRODUCE A SINGLE PASSAGE WHICH IDENTIFIES GABRIEL AS THE HOLY SPIRIT. Jesus is the eternal Lord to the glory of God the Father! Amen. EL-MASSEEH HUWA AKBAR! The Christ is GREAT to the glory of God! I never said he was greatER, that would be nonsensical to state that the eternal word of God is any greater or lesser than God Himself. Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame