The Quran and the Son of God

[Niblo]

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

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

You write: ‘The Word = the logos of God, the mind of God. Jesus had a fleshly brain. The mind of God/thought life of God was housed in a human brain.’ Are you suggesting that the only part of Yeshua that was God was his brain?

Let’s be a lot more serious: Your claim that God ‘housed’ Himself in a human body is a deliberate corruption of the text.

You know perfectly well that the author of ‘Yochanan’ does not say that the Word was ‘housed’ in flesh; he states that the ‘Word’ became flesh. This is quite a different matter.

We are agreed that God is immutable. If He is truly immutable then He cannot change. If indeed He can change, but chooses not to, then He is not immutable. We can’t have it both ways.

And the problem remains: How is it possible for God – an immutable Being – to become a human being? The Church is well aware of this problem, of course. This is what Ludwig Ott has to say:

‘…..it is objected that the Hypostatic Union contradicts the immutability of God. The rejoinder to this is that the act of becoming man, as an operation of God ad extra, has no more induced a change in the Divine Essence than did the creation of the world, as it is only the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of will. Neither did the event of the Incarnation result in a change of the Divine Essence; for, after the assumption of a body the Logos was no more perfect and no less perfect than before. No change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was; and no change for the better, because It already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity.’ (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Chapter 4 - Theological-speculative Discussion on the Hypostatic Union’).

Let’s examine this statement more closely:

First: That the act by which the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ (the ‘Logos’) became a man is no different from God’s act of creation; since both are merely ‘the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of (His) will.’

I know of no Trinitarian who believes that when God created the universe - and all that lies therein- He actually became this universe; this galaxy; this planet; this rock; this tree; or that He became ‘Adam’. On the other hand, every Trinitarian believes that the ‘Logos’ was made flesh.

The act of creation and the (alleged) act of Incarnation are entirely different as to their natures. The former required no change to the essential nature of God. The latter, on the other hand, could not have been achieved without change (a change from spirit to flesh).

Second: That following ‘the event of the Incarnation’ the ‘Logos’ was ‘no less perfect than before (and that) no change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was.’

The Nicene Creed confesses: ‘’Who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven and was made flesh’ (Denzinger 86). To say that the ‘Logos’ was: ‘no less perfect’ after becoming flesh that it was beforehand is to say that God and man are equal in their perfection; in their holiness; in their very natures.

The nature of God: He is spirit…………He is immutable…….He is infinite………He is omnipotent…………He is not man!

The nature of man: He is corporeal…..He is mutable…….He is finite……..He is weak……..He is not God!

How can these two natures be the same? How can a change from the former to the latter not be a change for the worse?

Third: That the ‘Logos’: ‘Already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity.’

Really? In what way can a being that is ‘absolutely simple’ (declared as such by the 4th Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council; see Denzinger 428, 1782) – a pure spirit; being neither a body nor a composition of body and spirit – possess, in any way, and to any degree, a corporeal nature?

Ott goes on: 'The change lay on the side of the human nature only, which was elevated to participation in the Personal Subsistence of the Logos.’

In other words, instead of the ‘Word’ becoming flesh, the flesh became the ‘Word’ (to use your analogy, it was not God who became the ‘tent’; it was the ‘tent’ that became God).

Yet another, blatant, corruption of Yochanan: 14.

Council of Basel decreed that it: ‘Holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13).

We are assured that: Christ is ‘perfect in humanity’….a ‘true man’…..‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity’…..‘like us in all respects except for sin.’

The Council of Chalcedon also declared Yeshua to be ‘truly God and truly man’ (Denzinger 148).

John Hick writes: ‘(The Council of Chalcedon) merely asserted that Jesus was ‘truly God and truly man’ without attempting to say how such a paradox is possible…. Merely to assert that two different natures coexisted in Jesus ‘without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’ is to utter a form of words which as yet has no specific meaning.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate’; page 48).

You appears to argue that ‘all things are possible with God’; that He can do whatever He pleases; but this is not correct.

God can do nothing that is against His essential nature. For example, He cannot make Himself smaller, since He is absolutely infinite; He cannot make Himself ignorant, since He is Omniscient; He cannot will Himself into oblivion, since He is Eternal; He cannot change His essential nature, since He is absolutely immutable; He cannot sin, since He is Holy.

C.S. Lewis (a confirmed Trinitarian) writes: ‘(God’s) Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God.

‘Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can."… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.’ (The Problem of Pain). My emphasis.

Lewis is saying that God cannot do what is logically impossible; and in this he is supported by Aquinas, who writes that God cannot create a man who is, at the same time, a donkey; for in the statement that a man is a donkey ‘the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject.’ (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

E. P. Sanders writes: ‘It lies beyond my meagre abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine, without either interfering with the other.’ (The Historical Figure of Jesus’; page 134.).

And so the question remains: ‘How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?’

 

[paarsurrey]

It looks to me like many people, maybe most people including most Christians and Muslims, think that the Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d. I think that the Quran denounces the idea of Mary being the mother of G_d and/or the mother of G_d’s Son, but I don’t think it denies that Jesus is the Son of G_d in the way that the Bible says He is, meaning that He is king of Israel.

In the time when the Quran was revealed people might have been saying or insinuating sometimes, as they do sometimes today, that it is the way Jesus was born that makes Him the Son of G_d, and also that it makes Mary the mother of G_d. There might have been a need for G_d’s purposes at that time to denounce those ideas unequivocally, without confusing the issue by affirming that in a certain way Jesus really is the Son of G_d. That might be why the Quran says repeatedly that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” “G_d does not beget” means that Mary is not the mother of G_d’s Son, and “nor is He begotten” means that Mary is not G_d’s mother. Saying that in a certain way Jesus actually was the Son of God would have been needlessly confusing and distracting.

I think that the king of Israel was sometimes viewed figuratively as the son of G_d. The difference between Jesus as king of Israel and the other kings might be analogous in some ways to the difference between a begotten son and an adopted son. For example, the other kings were anointed by a priest, but Jesus was anointed by G_d Himself. However that may be, the way He was born does not make Mary the mother of G_d, or of His Son, and that might be the whole point of the Quran saying that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” Not to deny that Jesus was the Son of God, meaning the rightful king of Israel.

I’ll be doing some more research on all that. I would welcome any scripture references that anyone thinks I’m contradicting.

"Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d." Unquote

Quran is very clear with no ambiguity* that G-d does not have and does not need to have a son.

Regards
_____________________
*Quran
[112:1]
In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2]
Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[112:3]
‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4]
He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[112:5]
And there is none like unto Him.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 112: Al-Ikhlas

 

[BilliardsBall]

You write: ‘The Word = the logos of God, the mind of God. Jesus had a fleshly brain. The mind of God/thought life of God was housed in a human brain.’ Are you suggesting that the only part of Yeshua that was God was his brain?

Let’s be a lot more serious: Your claim that God ‘housed’ Himself in a human body is a deliberate corruption of the text.

You know perfectly well that the author of ‘Yochanan’ does not say that the Word was ‘housed’ in flesh; he states that the ‘Word’ became flesh. This is quite a different matter.

We are agreed that God is immutable. If He is truly immutable then He cannot change. If indeed He can change, but chooses not to, then He is not immutable. We can’t have it both ways.

And the problem remains: How is it possible for God – an immutable Being – to become a human being? The Church is well aware of this problem, of course. This is what Ludwig Ott has to say:

‘…..it is objected that the Hypostatic Union contradicts the immutability of God. The rejoinder to this is that the act of becoming man, as an operation of God ad extra, has no more induced a change in the Divine Essence than did the creation of the world, as it is only the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of will. Neither did the event of the Incarnation result in a change of the Divine Essence; for, after the assumption of a body the Logos was no more perfect and no less perfect than before. No change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was; and no change for the better, because It already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity.’ (‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - Chapter 4 - Theological-speculative Discussion on the Hypostatic Union’).

Let’s examine this statement more closely:

First: That the act by which the ‘Second Person of the Trinity’ (the ‘Logos’) became a man is no different from God’s act of creation; since both are merely ‘the execution in time of an eternal unchangeable resolve of (His) will.’

I know of no Trinitarian who believes that when God created the universe - and all that lies therein- He actually became this universe; this galaxy; this planet; this rock; this tree; or that He became ‘Adam’. On the other hand, every Trinitarian believes that the ‘Logos’ was made flesh.

The act of creation and the (alleged) act of Incarnation are entirely different as to their natures. The former required no change to the essential nature of God. The latter, on the other hand, could not have been achieved without change (a change from spirit to flesh).

Second: That following ‘the event of the Incarnation’ the ‘Logos’ was ‘no less perfect than before (and that) no change for the worse took place, because the Logos remains what It was.’

The Nicene Creed confesses: ‘’Who for us men and for our salvation descended from heaven and was made flesh’ (Denzinger 86). To say that the ‘Logos’ was: ‘no less perfect’ after becoming flesh that it was beforehand is to say that God and man are equal in their perfection; in their holiness; in their very natures.

The nature of God: He is spirit…………He is immutable…….He is infinite………He is omnipotent…………He is not man!

The nature of man: He is corporeal…..He is mutable…….He is finite……..He is weak……..He is not God!

How can these two natures be the same? How can a change from the former to the latter not be a change for the worse?

Third: That the ‘Logos’: ‘Already possessed in sublime manner all perfections of the human nature from all eternity.’

Really? In what way can a being that is ‘absolutely simple’ (declared as such by the 4th Lateran Council and the First Vatican Council; see Denzinger 428, 1782) – a pure spirit; being neither a body nor a composition of body and spirit – possess, in any way, and to any degree, a corporeal nature?

Ott goes on: 'The change lay on the side of the human nature only, which was elevated to participation in the Personal Subsistence of the Logos.’

In other words, instead of the ‘Word’ becoming flesh, the flesh became the ‘Word’ (to use your analogy, it was not God who became the ‘tent’; it was the ‘tent’ that became God).

Yet another, blatant, corruption of Yochanan: 14.

Council of Basel decreed that it: ‘Holds, professes and teaches that one and the same Son of God and of man, our lord Jesus Christ, is perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity; true God and true man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father, and in the last days the same born according to his humanity for us and our salvation from Mary the virgin mother of God.’ (Session 13).

We are assured that: Christ is ‘perfect in humanity’….a ‘true man’…..‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity’…..‘like us in all respects except for sin.’

The Council of Chalcedon also declared Yeshua to be ‘truly God and truly man’ (Denzinger 148).

John Hick writes: ‘(The Council of Chalcedon) merely asserted that Jesus was ‘truly God and truly man’ without attempting to say how such a paradox is possible…. Merely to assert that two different natures coexisted in Jesus ‘without confusion, without change, without division, without separation’ is to utter a form of words which as yet has no specific meaning.’ (‘The Metaphor of God Incarnate’; page 48).

You appears to argue that ‘all things are possible with God’; that He can do whatever He pleases; but this is not correct.

God can do nothing that is against His essential nature. For example, He cannot make Himself smaller, since He is absolutely infinite; He cannot make Himself ignorant, since He is Omniscient; He cannot will Himself into oblivion, since He is Eternal; He cannot change His essential nature, since He is absolutely immutable; He cannot sin, since He is Holy.

C.S. Lewis (a confirmed Trinitarian) writes: ‘(God’s) Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say "God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it," you have not succeeded in saying anything about God.

‘Meaningless combinations of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them the two other words "God can."… It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God.’ (The Problem of Pain). My emphasis.

Lewis is saying that God cannot do what is logically impossible; and in this he is supported by Aquinas, who writes that God cannot create a man who is, at the same time, a donkey; for in the statement that a man is a donkey ‘the predicate is altogether incompatible with the subject.’ (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

E. P. Sanders writes: ‘It lies beyond my meagre abilities as an interpreter of dogmatic theology to explain how it is possible for one person to be 100 per cent human and 100 per cent divine, without either interfering with the other.’ (The Historical Figure of Jesus’; page 134.).

And so the question remains: ‘How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?’

Rather than argue the Greek with you, as to what we mean in English by "became flesh", or restate my point that the Bible explicitly says that souls dwell in flesh as tents, let's look at the issues:

Jesus's flesh was perfect, made for crucifixion for our sin. Does that help?

I agree that God does not act contrary to His nature, it is a Muslim, not a Christian or Jewish concept, that all flesh is unholy of its own nature. Man is sinful. Animals aren't. Jesus was born of God, not of fornication.

 

[paarsurrey]

It looks to me like many people, maybe most people including most Christians and Muslims, think that the Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d. I think that the Quran denounces the idea of Mary being the mother of G_d and/or the mother of G_d’s Son, but I don’t think it denies that Jesus is the Son of G_d in the way that the Bible says He is, meaning that He is king of Israel.

In the time when the Quran was revealed people might have been saying or insinuating sometimes, as they do sometimes today, that it is the way Jesus was born that makes Him the Son of G_d, and also that it makes Mary the mother of G_d. There might have been a need for G_d’s purposes at that time to denounce those ideas unequivocally, without confusing the issue by affirming that in a certain way Jesus really is the Son of G_d. That might be why the Quran says repeatedly that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” “G_d does not beget” means that Mary is not the mother of G_d’s Son, and “nor is He begotten” means that Mary is not G_d’s mother. Saying that in a certain way Jesus actually was the Son of God would have been needlessly confusing and distracting.

I think that the king of Israel was sometimes viewed figuratively as the son of G_d. The difference between Jesus as king of Israel and the other kings might be analogous in some ways to the difference between a begotten son and an adopted son. For example, the other kings were anointed by a priest, but Jesus was anointed by G_d Himself. However that may be, the way He was born does not make Mary the mother of G_d, or of His Son, and that might be the whole point of the Quran saying that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” Not to deny that Jesus was the Son of God, meaning the rightful king of Israel.

I’ll be doing some more research on all that. I would welcome any scripture references that anyone thinks I’m contradicting.

"Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d." Unquote

Quran is very clear with no ambiguity that:

1. Jesus was a messenger/prophet of G-d.
2. Jesus was son of Mary .
3. Mary was not the consort/companion/wife of G-d.

I provided several verses of Quran. Now I give another verse to support that G-d does not have a son or daughter or wife:

[72:4]
‘And we believe that the majesty of our Lord is exalted. He has taken neither wife nor son unto Himself.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/72
For perusal of my friends , please.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Rather than argue the Greek with you, as to what we mean in English by "became flesh", or restate my point that the Bible explicitly says that souls dwell in flesh as tents, let's look at the issues:

Jesus's flesh was perfect, made for crucifixion for our sin. Does that help?

I agree that God does not act contrary to His nature, it is a Muslim, not a Christian or Jewish concept, that all flesh is unholy of its own nature. Man is sinful. Animals aren't. Jesus was born of God, not of fornication.

"it is a Muslim, not a Christian or Jewish concept, that all flesh is unholy of its own nature. Man is sinful. Animals aren't. Jesus was born of God, not of fornication." Unquote.

Please quote the verse of Quran with the verses in the context and then substantiate one's point of view from Quran.
I don't find any such thing in Quran, please.
Regards

 

[BilliardsBall]

"it is a Muslim, not a Christian or Jewish concept, that all flesh is unholy of its own nature. Man is sinful. Animals aren't. Jesus was born of God, not of fornication." Unquote.

Please quote the verse of Quran with the verses in the context and then substantiate one's point of view from Quran.
I don't find any such thing in Quran, please.
Regards

If you are correct, and the Noble Qu'ran says humans aren't inherently sinful, why is it a big deal for Jesus to be God inside flesh or as flesh?

 

[Muffled]

"Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d."

Quran is very clear with no ambiguity that:

1. Jesus was a messenger/prophet of G-d*.
2. Jesus was son of Mary .**
3. Mary was not the consort/companion/wife of G-d.~~

Regards

______________
Quran chapter:verse
**[3:46]
When the angels said, ‘O Mary, Allah gives thee glad tidings of a word from Him; his name shall be the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, honoured in this world and in the next, and of those who are granted nearness to God;
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 3: Aal-e-`Imran
*[61:7]
And remember when Jesus, son of Mary, said, ‘O children of Israel, surely I am Allah’s Messenger unto you, fulfilling that which is before me of the Torah, and giving glad tidings of a Messenger who will come after me. His name will be Ahmad.’ And when he came to them with clear proofs, they said, ‘This is clear enchantment.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 61: Al-Saff
~~[6:102]
The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How can He have a son when He has no consort, and when He has created everything and has knowledge of all things?
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 6: Al-An`am

I believe that works if you are saying that God didn't copulate with Mary to produce a son. However the term "Son of God" has other meanings.

 

[Muffled]

"Qur'an clearly does not talk about Jesus as being an offspring of God" *

That is true, there is no doubt in it.
Regards

______________
Quran chapter:verse
[112:2]
Say, ‘He is Allah, the One;
[112:3]
‘Allah, the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4]
‘He begets not, nor is He begotten;
[112:5]
‘And there is none like unto Him.’
The Holy Quran - Chapter: 112: Al-Ikhlas

I believe the word "offspring" is often used to denote a child produced by copulation but the nature of the word is that the child originates from the person. In this case the origin of Jesus is God so Jesus is an offspring of God.

 

[Muffled]

So do I!:

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

I believe anyone who has not received Jesus as Lord and Savior has a problem with the doing good deeds requirement. Fortunately the Bible has a resolution for that problem that is present in the OT and the Qu'ran but not in the same context and not with the same assurance.

 

[Muffled]

I was raised as a Baptist in South Wales. At the age of fifteen I became a Catholic, and I remained one for over fifty years.

In 1978 (having gained a BA in History, Philosophy and Logic) I became a professed Carmelite Tertiary, and remained one for ten years. Throughout this time, I was in regular contact with Mount Saint Bernard, a Cistercian Abbey in Leicestershire; and visited often. In pursuit of a religious vocation I spent a year with the Carmelite Friars at Hazlewood Castle in Yorkshire (now a hotel), and over a year at Mount Saint Bernard Abbey.

Throughout these years (from Tertiary onwards) I studied the usual stuff (biblical and dogmatic theology; hermeneutics; biblical criticism; canon law, and so on), and had excellent teachers. I was a Thomist, and still have a very high regard for the methodology of Aquinas; although I can no longer agree with all of his notions.

It became clear that life in a religious order was not my calling, and so I became a husband and father (as the Abbey Secretary said to me: ‘Our novitiate is a seedbed of good Catholic marriages!’). I look back at my time with the Carmelites and Cistercians with great affection. Even though I no longer share their doctrinal beliefs I admire their spirituality, and their honest convictions; and their way of life - especially the Cistercians. It has been my privilege to know many excellent Christians: paternal grandfather; priests, religious and laity. Each was an example of the best of their Faith.

About fourteen years ago my son became a Muslim. He obtained a degree in Classical Arabic; married a Moroccan (who I consider to be my third daughter); and now lives there. He is a translator of Qur’an and aḥadīth exegesis; and of other scholarly works. Muslim women retain their family name after marriage. My daughter (in-law)’s family name is Alami. She is a sharifa (a descendant of the Prophet (sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam). One of her ancestors, ʻAbd al-Salām ibn Mashīsh al-ʻAlamī, was the spiritual guide of Abu al-Hasan ash-Shadhili, founder of the Shadhili Tariqa. My son is a Sufi of that tariqa; and a murīd of Seyyed Hossein Nasr.

Having gained a Muslim family I made it my business to learn all I could about Islam (I’m still learning). It was during this long process that I began to question certain Christian doctrines I once held dear; and which I had defended many times over the years: ‘Original sin’; the ‘Trinity’; the ‘incarnation’; the ‘dual nature’ of Christ; the ‘Redemption’ (for example). Once acceptance of these fundamental dogmas had gone it was time to leave the Church.

Moving from Christianity to Islam was not an easy journey; but it was the right journey……at least for me.

I take it that you never became a Christian except in name only. I believe you went from the silver to the bronze to the iron and never found the gold.

 

[Niblo]

I take it that you never became a Christian except in name only. I believe you went from the silver to the bronze to the iron and never found the gold.

 

[Niblo]

.................

You write: ‘Rather than argue the Greek with (me), as to what we mean in English by "became flesh"………….’

What’s there to argue about?

‘And the Word was made (ἐγένετο) flesh’ (John 1:14 – cited in ‘The Parallel English - Koine Greek Bible: With Strong's Dictionary and Concordance’).

The word ‘ἐγένετο’ is variously rendered ‘was made’ or ‘became’. Never have I seen it rendered ‘enter’; as in, ‘enter a tent’. This is hardly surprising, since the verb ‘to enter’ (as used of ‘men or animals entering a house or a city; or of Satan taking possession of the body of a person’ – Thayer) is derived from the word ‘εἰσέρχομαι’; defined by Strong as ‘to enter (literally or figuratively); and itself derived from the word ‘εἰς’’; defined by Strong as ‘indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose.’ (Op. cit).

For example: ‘But thou, when thou prayest, enter (είσελθε) into thy closet…’ (Matt 6:6); and again: ‘For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter (εισέλθητε) into the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matt 5:20); and yet again: ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter (εισελεύσεται) into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.’ (Matt 7:21 - all three cited in ‘The Parallel English - Koine Greek Bible: With Strong's Dictionary and Concordance’).

Concerning the nature of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām):

The word ‘nature’ refers to what is fundamental, or essential, about a being. It is that which makes a being – any being – what it is.

Mike Robinson (a Christian apologist) writes: ‘Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God has two natures found in one person……The Bible reveals the dual nature of Christ and humanity’s salvation demands that be the case. It’s a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption. Jesus, in the incarnation, did not lose His divinity. He did not lose His authority or His deity. He voluntarily came to the earth as a human baby to live perfectly as He fulfilled the Law…..He took on our humanity in order to die in our place….’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’).

The Church agrees that Yeshua has two natures….one entirely human…one entirely divine. Let’s call this ‘notion A.’

According to you, only Yeshua’s brain was divine. Let’s call this ‘notion B.’

Non-Trinitarians say that Yeshua was just a man; and in no way divine. Let’s call this ‘notion C.’

Three different notions about one particular man. If any one of them is correct, then the others must be wrong.

It doesn’t take a divine brain to figure out which of the three matches the doctrine that Yeshua was ‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin…’(Council of Basel: Session 13).

If Yeshua has two natures (one human and one divine, as per ‘notion A’); or if he has a divine brain (as per ‘notion B’) then he cannot possibly be ‘like us in all respects (except for sin)’. That leaves ‘notion C’.

However, if Yeshua is just a man – an entirely human being, like the rest of us (‘notion C’) – then he cannot possibly be God.

If we insist that Yeshua does indeed have two natures; that he is ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’, then we invite the question: ‘How is it possible for someone to be both God and man at one and the same time?

Are you now ready to answer this question?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You write: ‘Rather than argue the Greek with (me), as to what we mean in English by "became flesh"………….’

What’s there to argue about?

‘And the Word was made (ἐγένετο) flesh’ (John 1:14 – cited in ‘The Parallel English - Koine Greek Bible: With Strong's Dictionary and Concordance’).

The word ‘ἐγένετο’ is variously rendered ‘was made’ or ‘became’. Never have I seen it rendered ‘enter’; as in, ‘enter a tent’. This is hardly surprising, since the verb ‘to enter’ (as used of ‘men or animals entering a house or a city; or of Satan taking possession of the body of a person’ – Thayer) is derived from the word ‘εἰσέρχομαι’; defined by Strong as ‘to enter (literally or figuratively); and itself derived from the word ‘εἰς’’; defined by Strong as ‘indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose.’ (Op. cit).

For example: ‘But thou, when thou prayest, enter (είσελθε) into thy closet…’ (Matt 6:6); and again: ‘For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter (εισέλθητε) into the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matt 5:20); and yet again: ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter (εισελεύσεται) into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.’ (Matt 7:21 - all three cited in ‘The Parallel English - Koine Greek Bible: With Strong's Dictionary and Concordance’).

Concerning the nature of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām):

The word ‘nature’ refers to what is fundamental, or essential, about a being. It is that which makes a being – any being – what it is.

Mike Robinson (a Christian apologist) writes: ‘Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God has two natures found in one person……The Bible reveals the dual nature of Christ and humanity’s salvation demands that be the case. It’s a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption. Jesus, in the incarnation, did not lose His divinity. He did not lose His authority or His deity. He voluntarily came to the earth as a human baby to live perfectly as He fulfilled the Law…..He took on our humanity in order to die in our place….’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’).

The Church agrees that Yeshua has two natures….one entirely human…one entirely divine. Let’s call this ‘notion A.’

According to you, only Yeshua’s brain was divine. Let’s call this ‘notion B.’

Non-Trinitarians say that Yeshua was just a man; and in no way divine. Let’s call this ‘notion C.’

Three different notions about one particular man. If any one of them is correct, then the others must be wrong.

It doesn’t take a divine brain to figure out which of the three matches the doctrine that Yeshua was ‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin…’(Council of Basel: Session 13).

If Yeshua has two natures (one human and one divine, as per ‘notion A’); or if he has a divine brain (as per ‘notion B’) then he cannot possibly be ‘like us in all respects (except for sin)’. That leaves ‘notion C’.

However, if Yeshua is just a man – an entirely human being, like the rest of us (‘notion C’) – then he cannot possibly be God.

If we insist that Yeshua does indeed have two natures; that he is ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’, then we invite the question: ‘How is it possible for someone to be both God and man at one and the same time?

Are you now ready to answer this question?

I have no problem with God becoming flesh, none, since God is Spirit. God can step into this dimension from Heaven, which remains unseen with any telescope or microscope, and do many other things. I believe you would heartily agree that God does miracles, which run counter to known physical laws. If God, who is Spirit, can break natural law, why cannot He be a human?

Your God cannot be omnipotent, for He cannot be a human.
Your God must not be Spirit, for the human body has water and Spirit flows, like water.
Your God must not be omnipresent/omniscient, for He would have to be within humans to know their minds and hearts to judge them, rather than scrying at a distance like a man with binoculars.

If Allah is omnipotent/omniscient/omnipresent, He surely could be a person.

I am a father and a son (and a nephew, and have a spirit/soul). Why is your God in a very small box, is the question?

 

[BilliardsBall]

You write: ‘Rather than argue the Greek with (me), as to what we mean in English by "became flesh"………….’

What’s there to argue about?

‘And the Word was made (ἐγένετο) flesh’ (John 1:14 – cited in ‘The Parallel English - Koine Greek Bible: With Strong's Dictionary and Concordance’).

The word ‘ἐγένετο’ is variously rendered ‘was made’ or ‘became’. Never have I seen it rendered ‘enter’; as in, ‘enter a tent’. This is hardly surprising, since the verb ‘to enter’ (as used of ‘men or animals entering a house or a city; or of Satan taking possession of the body of a person’ – Thayer) is derived from the word ‘εἰσέρχομαι’; defined by Strong as ‘to enter (literally or figuratively); and itself derived from the word ‘εἰς’’; defined by Strong as ‘indicating the point reached or entered, of place, time, or (figuratively) purpose.’ (Op. cit).

For example: ‘But thou, when thou prayest, enter (είσελθε) into thy closet…’ (Matt 6:6); and again: ‘For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter (εισέλθητε) into the kingdom of heaven.’ (Matt 5:20); and yet again: ‘Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter (εισελεύσεται) into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.’ (Matt 7:21 - all three cited in ‘The Parallel English - Koine Greek Bible: With Strong's Dictionary and Concordance’).

Concerning the nature of Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām):

The word ‘nature’ refers to what is fundamental, or essential, about a being. It is that which makes a being – any being – what it is.

Mike Robinson (a Christian apologist) writes: ‘Jesus as the Son of Man and the Son of God has two natures found in one person……The Bible reveals the dual nature of Christ and humanity’s salvation demands that be the case. It’s a mystery, but a mystery that in selected ways not only makes sense, but is necessary for redemption. Jesus, in the incarnation, did not lose His divinity. He did not lose His authority or His deity. He voluntarily came to the earth as a human baby to live perfectly as He fulfilled the Law…..He took on our humanity in order to die in our place….’ (‘How Jesus Became God In The Flesh: The Proper Exaltation Of A Prophet From Nazareth: Bart Ehrman Refuted’).

The Church agrees that Yeshua has two natures….one entirely human…one entirely divine. Let’s call this ‘notion A.’

According to you, only Yeshua’s brain was divine. Let’s call this ‘notion B.’

Non-Trinitarians say that Yeshua was just a man; and in no way divine. Let’s call this ‘notion C.’

Three different notions about one particular man. If any one of them is correct, then the others must be wrong.

It doesn’t take a divine brain to figure out which of the three matches the doctrine that Yeshua was ‘consubstantial with us as regards his humanity; like us in all respects except for sin…’(Council of Basel: Session 13).

If Yeshua has two natures (one human and one divine, as per ‘notion A’); or if he has a divine brain (as per ‘notion B’) then he cannot possibly be ‘like us in all respects (except for sin)’. That leaves ‘notion C’.

However, if Yeshua is just a man – an entirely human being, like the rest of us (‘notion C’) – then he cannot possibly be God.

If we insist that Yeshua does indeed have two natures; that he is ‘wholly man’ and ‘wholly God’, then we invite the question: ‘How is it possible for someone to be both God and man at one and the same time?

Are you now ready to answer this question?

Respectfully, I would also point out:

The concept of God as immutable is based on presumptions of who God is and what He can do. He made gold, an immutable element that cannot be changed at the atomic level, yet Peter speaks of God being perishable in the NT, because God will remake the universe at the subatomic level, as Peter also teaches.

In Jeremiah, God says, "Behold, I am the God of all FLESH. Is ANYTHING too difficult for me?" The Bible teaches that God is inside all things, supporting even the existence of individual people by His Spirit and power. The Bible teaches a triune God who is in Spirit on Earth, and Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all who would trust Him. According to the NT, God lives even inside me, so I have no issue--none--with God as a human. "Fully human and fully God" means He was always God, and was genuinely flesh, since to deny Jesus as God in flesh is a biblical heresy.

"How can God be a man?" is a common Muslim apologetic, but the Bible teaches against this question.

Thank you.

 

[Niblo]

....................

Please consider this a reply to both of your latest posts to me. It is my intention - God willing - to cover all that you have said; but let’s try and eat this elephant one piece at a time.

You say that Peter ‘speaks of God being perishable’. Please cite the relevant text. It does not spring to mind.

You say that the Bible ‘teaches that God is inside all things, supporting even the existence of individual people by His Spirit and power.’

I have said as much:

‘Against Deism, which teaches that God, having created the universe, leaves it to run itself, the Church teaches that He continually preserves in existence all created things. The First Vatican Council declared: ‘God, by His Providence, protects all that He has created. If His Providence did not preserve all things with the same power with which they were created in the beginning they would fall back into nothingness immediately.’ (Denzinger 1784).

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

‘God preserves created things by His very presence; and He is present inside every single thing that He has created; and not only inside but outside, of course, since He is omnipresent. But who among the Christians would suggest that God actually becomes that which he sustains; or that they become God because of His presence within them? Why should Yeshua be the one exception?’ (Post 98: 19th Sept)

You write: 'The ‘concept of God as immutable is based on presumptions of who God is and what He can do.’ I outlined, in Post 98, the Church’s doctrine on God’s immutability. Here it is again:

‘We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable……’ (Fourth Lateran Council: Constitution 1. Confession of Faith); and again: ‘First, then, the holy Roman church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes and preaches one true God, almighty, immutable and eternal.’ (The Council of Basel: Session 114).

By ‘immutable’ is meant that in God there can be no change whatsoever. Aquinas bases the absolute immutability of God on His absolute simplicity (a Spirit, having no parts); on His pure actuality (He has no potential for change); and on His infinite perfection. According to Aquinas, mutability includes potentiality, composition and imperfection and as such is irreconcilable with God as ‘actus purus’ (the absolutely simple, absolutely perfect Essence). (cf. Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 9; Article 1).

I have no argument with this doctrine.

How can you say that you have no ‘problem with God becoming flesh’, when you have stated that He is ‘immutable, unchangeable’; that He ‘never changes’; and that He ‘does not act contrary to His nature’? If we accept that God is immutable, then it is nonsense to claim He can change.

If, on the other hand, we say that God can change, then He cannot be immutable. Something has to give. Either He is immutable or He is not. He cannot be both, since they are mutually exclusive.

Please respond.

 

[paarsurrey]

If you are correct, and the Noble Qu'ran says humans aren't inherently sinful, why is it a big deal for Jesus to be God inside flesh or as flesh?

Jesus was not made of flesh only, he had bones also. Right, please?
Jesus was neither god nor son of god, in literal and physical terms, he was but a human being.

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe that works if you are saying that God didn't copulate with Mary to produce a son. However the term "Son of God" has other meanings.

Jesus cannot be his own son. Then one would admit that Jesus was not god.
Please be a follower of Jesus rather than following Pauline Christianity.

Regards

 

[Niblo]

Jesus was not made of flesh only, he had bones also. Right, please?
Jesus was neither god nor son of god, in literal and physical terms, he was but a human being.

Regards

A small point, brother. When we say that Yeshua was 'flesh', we are referring to his entire body....bones and all.

 

[paarsurrey]

A small point, brother. When we say that Yeshua was 'flesh', we are referring to his entire body....bones and all.

They take everything literally, so why should we take flesh with bones and all?

Regards

 

[RESOLUTION]

It looks to me like many people, maybe most people including most Christians and Muslims, think that the Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d. I think that the Quran denounces the idea of Mary being the mother of G_d and/or the mother of G_d’s Son, but I don’t think it denies that Jesus is the Son of G_d in the way that the Bible says He is, meaning that He is king of Israel.

The main topic of conversation would be I believe, is Jesus the Messiah the chosen one of G_d.

In Luke 1 we see that it is G_ds will that this Holy THING is to be called the Son of G_d.
So the reality is that Jesus was given the title by G_d and it is the reason he is the Son of G_d.
King of the Jews makes him King of Israel the chosen Messiah over the tribes of Israels son. Israel was the name G_d gave to Jacob and his Sons became the twelve tribes of Israel.

In the time when the Quran was revealed people might have been saying or insinuating sometimes, as they do sometimes today, that it is the way Jesus was born that makes Him the Son of G_d, and also that it makes Mary the mother of G_d. There might have been a need for G_d’s purposes at that time to denounce those ideas unequivocally, without confusing the issue by affirming that in a certain way Jesus really is the Son of G_d. That might be why the Quran says repeatedly that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” “G_d does not beget” means that Mary is not the mother of G_d’s Son, and “nor is He begotten” means that Mary is not G_d’s mother. Saying that in a certain way Jesus actually was the Son of God would have been needlessly confusing and distracting.

As Jesus is the Son of God then Mary has not given birth to G_d.. I do not believe there is an argument but to be be begotten means:- of a parent for a child.
In that connection all humans are beget of G_d through Adam whom G_d was the Father of. The way we are born does not make our parents who they are.
But being born from them does. But in Christs case, like Adam he was born solely by the will and power of G_d.


[/QUOTE]
I think that the king of Israel was sometimes viewed figuratively as the son of G_d. The difference between Jesus as king of Israel and the other kings might be analogous in some ways to the difference between a begotten son and an adopted son. For example, the other kings were anointed by a priest, but Jesus was anointed by G_d Himself. However that may be, the way He was born does not make Mary the mother of G_d, or of His Son, and that might be the whole point of the Quran saying that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” Not to deny that Jesus was the Son of God, meaning the rightful king of Israel.

I’ll be doing some more research on all that. I would welcome any scripture references that anyone thinks I’m contradicting.[/QUOTE] In the view of scripture the Quran would not be included or given credence. The fact is it is well know G_d tells the end from the beginning. The Torah being the beginning and telling the end. The Quran was never scripture given by G_d.
The fact is that the bible tells us that the word of God came to man through his Holy Spirit. It is not the case with the Quran or the other believers like Mormons and Joseph Smith who claim Angels gave the words to them. A clear pattern in OT and NT is the giving of the Word to man by G_d and his Spirit. Christ was called a second Adam because as John 1 tells us. He was born solely by the will and power of G_d. Like G_ds word became flesh when he made Adam. The same is of Christ.he was born by the power and will of G_d his words became flesh. Hope this helps to think about what you are studying. I found that searching for truth made it easier and that truth is not a comparison of writings but understanding the writer and truth they speak.