The Quran and the Son of God

[paarsurrey]

Because we are conversing in English; and in English the word 'flesh' can be rendered 'human being'....bones and all!

Best regards.

flesh (n.)

Old English flæsc "flesh, meat, muscular parts of animal bodies; body (as opposed to soul)," also "living creatures," also "near kindred" (a sense now obsolete except in phrase flesh and blood), from Proto-Germanic *flaiska-/*fleiski- (source also of Old Frisian flesk, Middle Low German vlees, German Fleisch "flesh," Old Norse flesk "pork, bacon"), which is of uncertain origin; according to Watkins, originally "piece of meat torn off," from PIE *pleik- "to tear," but Boutkan suspects a northern European substratum word.

Of fruits from 1570s. Figurative use for "carnal nature, animal or physical nature of man" (Old English) is from the Bible, especially Paul's use of Greek sarx, and this led to sense of "sensual appetites" (c. 1200).

Flesh-wound is from 1670s; flesh-color, the hue of "Caucasian" skin, is first recorded 1610s, described as a tint composed of "a light pink with a little yellow" [O'Neill, "Dyeing," 1862]. In the flesh "in a bodily form" (1650s) originally was of Jesus (Wyclif has up the flesh, Tindale after the flesh). An Old English poetry-word for "body" was flæsc-hama, literally "flesh-home." A religious tract from 1548 has fleshling "a sensual person." Flesh-company (1520s) was an old term for "sexual intercourse."

flesh (v.)

1520s, "to render (a hunting animal) eager for prey by rewarding it with flesh from a kill," with figurative extensions, from flesh (n.). Meaning "to clothe or embody with flesh," with figurative extensions, is from 1660s. Related: Fleshed; fleshing.
flesh | Origin and meaning of flesh by Online Etymology Dictionary
Regards

 

[Niblo]

flesh (n.)

Old English flæsc "flesh, meat, muscular parts of animal bodies; body (as opposed to soul)," also "living creatures," also "near kindred" (a sense now obsolete except in phrase flesh and blood), from Proto-Germanic *flaiska-/*fleiski- (source also of Old Frisian flesk, Middle Low German vlees, German Fleisch "flesh," Old Norse flesk "pork, bacon"), which is of uncertain origin; according to Watkins, originally "piece of meat torn off," from PIE *pleik- "to tear," but Boutkan suspects a northern European substratum word.

Of fruits from 1570s. Figurative use for "carnal nature, animal or physical nature of man" (Old English) is from the Bible, especially Paul's use of Greek sarx, and this led to sense of "sensual appetites" (c. 1200).

Flesh-wound is from 1670s; flesh-color, the hue of "Caucasian" skin, is first recorded 1610s, described as a tint composed of "a light pink with a little yellow" [O'Neill, "Dyeing," 1862]. In the flesh "in a bodily form" (1650s) originally was of Jesus (Wyclif has up the flesh, Tindale after the flesh). An Old English poetry-word for "body" was flæsc-hama, literally "flesh-home." A religious tract from 1548 has fleshling "a sensual person." Flesh-company (1520s) was an old term for "sexual intercourse."

flesh (v.)

1520s, "to render (a hunting animal) eager for prey by rewarding it with flesh from a kill," with figurative extensions, from flesh (n.). Meaning "to clothe or embody with flesh," with figurative extensions, is from 1660s. Related: Fleshed; fleshing.
flesh | Origin and meaning of flesh by Online Etymology Dictionary
Regards

What is the matter with you?

Definition of flesh
(Entry 1 of 2)

1a: the soft parts of the body of an animal and especially of a vertebrateespecially : the parts composed chiefly of skeletal muscle as distinguished from internal organs, bone, and integument

b: the condition of having ample fat on the bodycattle in good flesh

c: SKIN

2a: edible parts of an animal

b: flesh of a mammal or fowl eaten as food

3a: the physical nature of human beingsthe spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak—Matthew 26:41 (King James Version)

b: HUMAN NATURE

4a: human beings : HUMANKIND

b: living beings

c: STOCK, KINDRED

5: a fleshy plant part used as foodalso : the fleshy part of a fruit

6Christian Science : an illusion that matter has sensation

7: facts or details that provide substance to somethingHer careful documentation puts the necessary flesh on much that has been merely speculation …—John H. Crook

Merriam Webster Dictionary.

Have the grace to accept that you are mistaken. Enough is enough.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello again. Sorry for the delay.

Not to worry about the typo.

In a previous post you wrote: 'I'm far less inclined to take for doctrine statements of councils and church leaders, and prefer Bible doctrines only.’

About fifty years ago I had a colleague who was a Biblical Unitarian (I was a Trinitarian). We discussed (often) both the trinity and incarnation. He was older than I, and very well acquainted with the Bible. On one occasion I became angry with him (I was fiery in those days!). I grabbed my bible and thrust it under his nose. ‘This is my Book’, I hissed. ‘What’s yours?’

He smiled, and gently removed the book from my hand. ‘This!’, he replied. I was stunned. How could this man read the very same book as I, and yet reach conclusions so opposed to my own? He was no fool; neither was he perverse. He was both genuine and honest; a decent man who lived his faith according to his conscience. And yet, he did not, could not, believe what I believed. How could this be? Ira Gershwin had the answer, of course:

‘It ain't necessarily so.
It ain't necessarily so.
The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so’ (‘Porgy and Bess’).

Unlike ‘P and B’, argument over what is ‘necessarily so’ and what ain’t has been running for centuries. I prefer to focus on the doctrines.

Doctrines concerning the incarnation are derived from selected interpretations of scripture, augmented by the opinion of sympathetic scholars; and the Church’s methodology is no different from that of ‘bible only’ folk: Read…

interpret…discuss…reach a decision…formulate a notion…make a declaration…claim sole possession of the ‘truth’…and declare as ‘heresy’ all opposing notions. Thank you very much, and have a nice day!

You say that God ‘never changed’, that He is ‘immutable Spirit’. Agreed. But then you write:

‘Spirit is the air we breathe, the oxygen and nitrogen, (we) don't see it, but if the air turned orange, we'd all have orange inside us, inside our individual cells as oxygen/carbon dioxide, etc. and all be walking in orange, all flesh.’

If this a reference to God’s immutability, and to His ability to bring about change without Himself changing, then your analogy breaks down from the start, simply because air is not spirit. It is matter; and as such is mutable. We are ‘100% human’ with or without air in our bodies. The only difference, of course, is that without air (coloured orange or not) we will very quickly become dead humans!

It is perfectly possible for God to communicate through a burning bush, or Balaam’s talking donkey – or at least to create the illusion of so doing. On the other hand, I’ve yet to meet a Christian (or Jew) who would argue that God actually became the bush or the donkey.

We part company when you say that God can ‘make any flesh shaped any way and do anything’ (it’s the ‘do anything’ I disagree with, let’s be clear about that).

Let me remind you what C.S. Lewis has to say: ‘(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…………….. 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).

Take note of the words: You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense.’

Ludwig Ott writes: ‘To God's Infinite Reality of Being there corresponds an (intensively) Infinite Power. This extends over the whole sphere of real and possible being (extensively infinite). As God's power is identical with God's Essence, it cannot imply anything which contradicts the Essence and the Attributes of God. Thus God cannot change, cannot lie, can make nothing that has happened not to have happened (contrary to the teaching of St. Peter Damian), cannot realise (i.e. bring into being) anything which is contradictory in itself 2 Tim. 2, 13: He cannot deny himself.’ (‘Fundamental of Catholic Dogma’; the emphasis is mine).

Aquinas writes: ‘Whatever implies contradiction does not come within the scope of divine omnipotence, because it cannot have the aspect of possibility.’ (Summa Theologica: Part 1; Question 25; Article 3).

This is not putting God in a box (you have accused me – twice! – of doing this). No. It is merely acknowledging that He is not a God of nonsense.

You say that the power of God ‘sometimes affects us’. I would say that His power affects us at all times. It perpetuates our very existence, for example.

You write of God performing miraculous healings, and so on. I agree. You go on to say that God’s power was ‘in the cells of the fully human Jesus.’ I agree with that, also. We have to acknowledge, of course, that God ‘indwells’ the whole of creation. If we say otherwise; that He is present in humans but not, say, in rocks and trees then we contradict the doctrine of His omnipresence. I need to stress that being present in the whole of creation does not mean that God assumes the nature (the substance) of created things.

There is a second power that we have not yet discussed; namely, God’s sanctifying power (grace).

Grace is that which makes a person holy. The notion that Yeshua was made holy through grace – made a saint, if you like – contains no contradiction. This notion does not violate the doctrine of God’s immutability, since what changes is not God Himself, but the soul of the recipient. Yeshua is said to have been ‘a man like us, in all things but sin’; a clear sign of God’s grace at work within him. It must be noted, however, that sanctifying grace does not – cannot – make a person divine; for then there would be two gods: the Sanctifier and the sanctified. This is not possible, since there is only one God.

Your brief excursion into the world of dark matter is interesting (although, perhaps, a little off-topic!)

Neil de Grasse Tyson writes:

‘Thus, as best we can figure, the dark matter doesn’t simply consist of matter that happens to be dark. Instead, it’s something else altogether. Dark matter exerts gravity according to the same rules that ordinary matter follows, but it does little else that might allow us to detect it. Of course, we are hamstrung in this analysis by not knowing what the dark matter is in the first place. If all mass has gravity, does all gravity have mass? We don’t know. Maybe there’s nothing wrong with the matter, and it’s the gravity we don’t understand.

‘What we know is that the matter we have come to love in the universe – the stuff of stars, planets, and life – is only a light frosting on the cosmic cake, modest buoys afloat in a vast cosmic ocean of something that looks like nothing.

‘So dark matter is our frenemy. We have no clue what it is. It’s kind of annoying. But we desperately need it in our calculations to arrive at an accurate description of the universe. Scientists are generally uncomfortable whenever we must base our calculations on concepts we don’t understand, but we’ll do it if we have to.’ (‘Astrophysics for People in a Hurry’).

Love this bit: ‘Scientists are generally uncomfortable whenever we must base our calculations on concepts we don’t understand, but we’ll do it if we have to.’

Is the behaviour of theologians any different?

Ready to take another bite, or do you still wish to chew this first mouthful?

Very best regards, and may God bless you.

A good response when someone says, "The Bible is my book" avoids quoting a number of authors outside the Bible. I don't mind reading the commentary of others but I prefer to discuss the Bible, not whether Neil Tyson's comments are biblically based.

I believe I found the answer to your question while reading Philippians 2 this morning:

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross."

Note these words: "form of a... likeness of men... in appearance as a man..." and the Greek matches, that Christ's flesh was indeed flesh of a similitude to sinful flesh, but sinless flesh. God became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, which does not affect His immutability in any way.

Or if you prefer, from the beginning, He always had the ability to be godly flesh, and so didn't "change" to incarnate as the Christ. The human Jesus started as a baby, not a great King, because He EMPTIED Himself being God to begin... so I reject all heretical concepts that He was less than man... or less than God.

Therefore, since both testaments testify that God would be flesh albeit sinless flesh, why in the world would it be convincing to me to say, "The Bible testifies AGAINST the incarnation (God as flesh)?" You can use the philosophy of people apart from the Bible to try to define/redefine "immutable" but I don't see your definitions for immutable and incarnation in the scripture, so my opinion is settled unless you'd care to share some verses or passages to prove your point.

Thank you.

 

[Niblo]

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

In my last post I pointed out that when it comes to formulating a doctrine, the Church’s methodology is no different from that of any individual: A text is read and interpreted. Where there are differences of opinion there is discussion, followed by agreement and declaration.

You have presented a text from Philippians 2, and have declared your doctrine; namely that: ‘God became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, which does not affect His immutability in any way.’

On the 11th of September I asked how a being could be both ‘wholly God’ and ‘wholly man’ at one and the same time.

On the 13th of September you wrote that: ‘God is immutable, unchangeable…’

On the 20th of September you confirmed your belief that: ‘God is immutable, in that He never changes.’

You now say that you ‘don't see (my) definition for immutable in the scripture’. As a matter of fact, my definition of ‘immutable’ is precisely the same as yours.

Having said that God is ‘immutable, unchangeable’ you contradict yourself by saying that He became a human being, in the form of Christ.

It really doesn’t matter whether God became an entire human body (as the Church teaches), or just a brain (as you appear to believe). If it is true that God (absolute spirit as regards to His very substance) is immutable, then He simply cannot become non-spirit; not even a single atom; not even a quark. To say that He did so is nonsense. And to say that He ‘became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, (without affecting) His immutability in any way’ is heaping nonsense on nonsense.

You cannot have it both ways. If God is immutable, then He cannot become flesh. If He became flesh then He is not immutable.

How can Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) be both God and man at one and the same time? He can’t. Here’s why:

If we define ‘man’ as a member of the species homo-sapiens, with various physical and mental limitations, then we distinguish ‘man’ from ‘God’. If Yeshua is ‘wholly man’ then he cannot possibly be wholly not-man (God) at one and the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we insist that he is indeed both ‘man’ and ‘God’ – and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of both these terms – then we make him a logical contradiction.

The thing about logical contradictions is that they are never true. They are always false, because the real world never satisfies both a statement and its negation at the same time, simply by the meaning of negation.

To believe in a logical contradiction is to believe a lie. The puzzle is, why do so many Christian do just this?

The answer lies in George Orwell’s concept of ‘doublethink’. According to Orwell, ‘doublethink’ is:

‘The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them; to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed; to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies…. and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’ (‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’; part 2, Chapter 9).

The doctrine of the incarnation owes its very existence to the power of ‘doublethink’.

No matter how hard it is pushed; no matter how often it is repeated; a lie remains a lie.

Let me be clear – very clear – about this: When a Trinitarian tells me that Yeshua is both God and man he speaking a lie; but he is not a liar. A liar is someone who sets out to deceive; who makes a statement in the full knowledge that it is false. Trinitarians are not doing this. They really do believe that what they are saying is true.

This is ‘doublethink’ in action.

Have a good day.

 

[BilliardsBall]

In my last post I pointed out that when it comes to formulating a doctrine, the Church’s methodology is no different from that of any individual: A text is read and interpreted. Where there are differences of opinion there is discussion, followed by agreement and declaration.

You have presented a text from Philippians 2, and have declared your doctrine; namely that: ‘God became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, which does not affect His immutability in any way.’

On the 11th of September I asked how a being could be both ‘wholly God’ and ‘wholly man’ at one and the same time.

On the 13th of September you wrote that: ‘God is immutable, unchangeable…’

On the 20th of September you confirmed your belief that: ‘God is immutable, in that He never changes.’

You now say that you ‘don't see (my) definition for immutable in the scripture’. As a matter of fact, my definition of ‘immutable’ is precisely the same as yours.

Having said that God is ‘immutable, unchangeable’ you contradict yourself by saying that He became a human being, in the form of Christ.

It really doesn’t matter whether God became an entire human body (as the Church teaches), or just a brain (as you appear to believe). If it is true that God (absolute spirit as regards to His very substance) is immutable, then He simply cannot become non-spirit; not even a single atom; not even a quark. To say that He did so is nonsense. And to say that He ‘became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, (without affecting) His immutability in any way’ is heaping nonsense on nonsense.

You cannot have it both ways. If God is immutable, then He cannot become flesh. If He became flesh then He is not immutable.

How can Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) be both God and man at one and the same time? He can’t. Here’s why:

If we define ‘man’ as a member of the species homo-sapiens, with various physical and mental limitations, then we distinguish ‘man’ from ‘God’. If Yeshua is ‘wholly man’ then he cannot possibly be wholly not-man (God) at one and the same time and in the same relationship to what defines a man. If we insist that he is indeed both ‘man’ and ‘God’ – and if we preserve the integrity of the definitions of both these terms – then we make him a logical contradiction.

The thing about logical contradictions is that they are never true. They are always false, because the real world never satisfies both a statement and its negation at the same time, simply by the meaning of negation.

To believe in a logical contradiction is to believe a lie. The puzzle is, why do so many Christian do just this?

The answer lies in George Orwell’s concept of ‘doublethink’. According to Orwell, ‘doublethink’ is:

‘The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them; to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed; to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies…. and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.’ (‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’; part 2, Chapter 9).

The doctrine of the incarnation owes its very existence to the power of ‘doublethink’.

No matter how hard it is pushed; no matter how often it is repeated; a lie remains a lie.

Let me be clear – very clear – about this: When a Trinitarian tells me that Yeshua is both God and man he speaking a lie; but he is not a liar. A liar is someone who sets out to deceive; who makes a statement in the full knowledge that it is false. Trinitarians are not doing this. They really do believe that what they are saying is true.

This is ‘doublethink’ in action.

Have a good day.

1) Did you wish to address my point from Philippians 2, that Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh? Or my original point that he tented/dwelt/tabernacled in this simulacrum?

2) God is immutable, He had the power eternally to incarnate, and incarnated, and chose to remain in the body of a man post-resurrection.

3) The Bible teaches more than the God/man meld, the Bible teaches that God is IN EVERYTHING. So why this unique issue from you? I believe that not only was God in Christ, He was in Adolf Hitler. But in evil men, God allows them to exercise (heinous) free will.

4) I do not believe it is doublethink or a logical fallacy for one thing to have multiple, simultaneous states. I'm a husband, father and son, and those roles can conflict, but I don't change to no longer be my mother's son when I father a child.

5) I appreciate your kind emphasis that you are not accusing me of lying. But I understand not only the trinity/tri-unity of God from scripture, but that scripture reproves as heresies:

a) Anyone who denies Jesus was Messiah
b) Anyone who denies Jesus is God (I AM HE or you die in your sin)
c) Anyone who denies Jesus is Messiah in flesh

IMHO, someone puts into play the risk of loss of salvation denying that Jesus is God and man.

Thank you.

 

[Niblo]

1) Did you wish to address my point from Philippians 2, that Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh? Or my original point that he tented/dwelt/tabernacled in this simulacrum?

2) God is immutable, He had the power eternally to incarnate, and incarnated, and chose to remain in the body of a man post-resurrection.

3) The Bible teaches more than the God/man meld, the Bible teaches that God is IN EVERYTHING. So why this unique issue from you? I believe that not only was God in Christ, He was in Adolf Hitler. But in evil men, God allows them to exercise (heinous) free will.

4) I do not believe it is doublethink or a logical fallacy for one thing to have multiple, simultaneous states. I'm a husband, father and son, and those roles can conflict, but I don't change to no longer be my mother's son when I father a child.

5) I appreciate your kind emphasis that you are not accusing me of lying. But I understand not only the trinity/tri-unity of God from scripture, but that scripture reproves as heresies:

a) Anyone who denies Jesus was Messiah
b) Anyone who denies Jesus is God (I AM HE or you die in your sin)
c) Anyone who denies Jesus is Messiah in flesh

IMHO, someone puts into play the risk of loss of salvation denying that Jesus is God and man.

Thank you.

You write:

'Did (I) wish to address (your) point from Philippians 2, that Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh? Or (your) original point that he tented/dwelt/tabernacled in this simulacrum?’

I thought I had address your point; namely that: ‘God became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, which does not affect His immutability in any way.’

It now seems you have another. Rather that have me guess what you mean by ‘Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh’ please explain.

As for your comments on tents/tabernacles; here’s what was said in earlier posts:

‘I asked: ‘How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?’ You will understand, of course, that I was referring to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām). You replied that the ‘Spirit of God lived inside human flesh, to execute salvation for us.’ When asked for your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation you said that people are ‘souls in “tents”, longing for ‘re-tenting’ after death. You appear to be saying that the ‘incarnation’ was nothing more than the act of God entering the body of Yeshua, as one might enter a tent; and residing there. This doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll set that aside for now.’ (Sept 19).

You followed with:

‘The "tent" metaphor and language comes from Paul. Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Israelites leave their homes to live in tents to remember moving from Egypt into tents in the wilderness.’ (Sept 20)’

I went on:

‘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.’ (Sept 20)

The discussion (about tents) was brought to a halt when you wrote:

‘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…’ (Sept 21).

We have flogged to death the question of God’s immutability. If you believe – and you clearly do – that the word ‘immutable’ means that God can change… then you and I live in different realities.

That God is found in everything is not ‘an issue to me’. Here’s a reminder:

‘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?’ (Sept 19).
You write:

‘I do not believe it is doublethink or a logical fallacy for one thing to have multiple, simultaneous states. I'm a husband, father and son, and those roles can conflict, but I don't change to no longer be my mother's son when I father a child.’

It is not a logical contradiction to say that you are a husband, father, and son: and so ‘doublethink’ does not apply.

A logical contradiction would arise were you to claim that you are, for example, both a father and not a father (at one and the same time, and to the same child); or a husband and not a husband (at one and the same time, and to the same woman). ‘Doublethink’ would click in only if you said these things, believing them to be true.

We have a very talkative niece visiting tomorrow, in šāʾ Allāh; staying for the whole of the weekend. My wife has our movements carefully mapped out, and so there will be no time for further laptopping. In šāʾ Allāh, I will be free from Monday.

Have a great weekend.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You write:

'Did (I) wish to address (your) point from Philippians 2, that Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh? Or (your) original point that he tented/dwelt/tabernacled in this simulacrum?’

I thought I had address your point; namely that: ‘God became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, which does not affect His immutability in any way.’

It now seems you have another. Rather that have me guess what you mean by ‘Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh’ please explain.

As for your comments on tents/tabernacles; here’s what was said in earlier posts:

‘I asked: ‘How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?’ You will understand, of course, that I was referring to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām). You replied that the ‘Spirit of God lived inside human flesh, to execute salvation for us.’ When asked for your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation you said that people are ‘souls in “tents”, longing for ‘re-tenting’ after death. You appear to be saying that the ‘incarnation’ was nothing more than the act of God entering the body of Yeshua, as one might enter a tent; and residing there. This doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll set that aside for now.’ (Sept 19).

You followed with:

‘The "tent" metaphor and language comes from Paul. Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Israelites leave their homes to live in tents to remember moving from Egypt into tents in the wilderness.’ (Sept 20)’

I went on:

‘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.’ (Sept 20)

The discussion (about tents) was brought to a halt when you wrote:

‘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…’ (Sept 21).

We have flogged to death the question of God’s immutability. If you believe – and you clearly do – that the word ‘immutable’ means that God can change… then you and I live in different realities.

That God is found in everything is not ‘an issue to me’. Here’s a reminder:

‘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?’ (Sept 19).
You write:

‘I do not believe it is doublethink or a logical fallacy for one thing to have multiple, simultaneous states. I'm a husband, father and son, and those roles can conflict, but I don't change to no longer be my mother's son when I father a child.’

It is not a logical contradiction to say that you are a husband, father, and son: and so ‘doublethink’ does not apply.

A logical contradiction would arise were you to claim that you are, for example, both a father and not a father (at one and the same time, and to the same child); or a husband and not a husband (at one and the same time, and to the same woman). ‘Doublethink’ would click in only if you said these things, believing them to be true.

We have a very talkative niece visiting tomorrow, in šāʾ Allāh; staying for the whole of the weekend. My wife has our movements carefully mapped out, and so there will be no time for further laptopping. In šāʾ Allāh, I will be free from Monday.

Have a great weekend.

I understand. The Bible teaches uses hints, puzzles, foreshadowing and more, to teach. The ancient Hebrews knew this. There are multiple states for Christ in the Bible, for example, scholars argue over the Cross, whether it was a substitution, an atonement, a payment or a ransom... I believe it was all and more (and all are in the Bible).

David appointed cycles for priestly families to minister in the Temple. Following the families and the time when John the Baptist was annunciated, we can determine that Jesus was born not in December but in tabernacles, when people live in tents. Paul uses the people-in-tents analogy when he describes the transfer from souls withing decaying bodies to souls in resurrected bodies (1 Cor). He even says the soul will be in anguish if it without a fleshly tent, and Revelations by John speaks of martyred souls beneath God's throne that cry out for judgment, so they can be restored to flesh.

You made an argument after that, how the Greek says Jesus not only dwelt inside flesh (tabernacled is the word used in John 1, which means "inside of") but that Jesus BECAME flesh.

I responded that you are seeing the Greek how you wish to see it, HOWEVER, I have no problem with Jesus becoming flesh, it is NOT breaking the law of noncontradiction, A and also Not A. Jesus didn't STOP being divine when He was flesh. This man in the flesh shows omniscience, prescience, power and more in the NT. He performs miracles (Muhammed says Allah, blessed be He, will do a miracle, but Jesus says, "Here comes a miracle!" and does one).

Now, if Allah does a miracle through a prophet, is the prophet divine? NO. Is the power of Allah going through the prophet's flesh? Yes.

I am not God, but God is in me (Ephesians 1). "In Him (says scripture) all things live and move and have their being." Indeed, some of the properties of "dark matter", "dark energy" and "wave/particle duality" are recognized as God-ordained, God-powered.

I think the issues you are having are threefold:

1) I agree God does nothing illogical, but you are confusing immutability (does not change) with state change (water is still water whether ice or steam). If God moves the universe by being inside energy, why cannot this God-energy be inside flesh? Remember, the Christian scholars you quoted never said God changed from God to a man, they hold that the Bible teaches He was both simultaneously, a real man, eating, drinking, speaking and divine/God.

2) Jesus is God but per the Bible not ALL of God--God chose to be Jesus but Allah is still in Heaven, too holy to encounter sinful men.

3) You may not know about hierophanies (Jesus in pre-incarnate form) - since Allah is too holy to be with flesh, Jesus appeared to Adam and Eve, in a form that was NOT an incarnate flesh, but a form emptied of some of its shine energy, so that Adam and Eve would not be consumed.

Quantum physics says matter and energy can interchange, and that all matter is in wave/vibratory form and represents energy, while energy can behave as a wave and also, like particles of matter. Why is it hard for you to understand that I have energy within my cells, and God is energy and can exist in energy?

Put another way, the Bible says God created light (which is also sound and wave) and matter, by the Word of His power, long ago? The Noble Qu'ran agrees... how did God create matter and energy from His being and power? Why could He not use the same mechanism (God INSIDE matter and energy) to be INSIDE the Christ?

Finally, you asked my comments on Philippians 2 (similitude of sinful flesh). Islam considers Allah too holy to interact with sinful flesh, and in a sense SO DOES THE BIBLE. But the two words used in Philippians 2 indicate that the God-flesh of Jesus IS flesh, just not sinful flesh, of regular men. "Similatude" which is logical since the God/man was/is utterly holy.

Enjoy the weekend!

 

[j1i]

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.

I appreciate the feelings of Christians by believing the exotic ideas espoused by their ancestors

But it is illegal

As long as he came out of the womb of a woman he is a creature

The idea of the Trinity is an innovative idea because of misunderstanding, and the proof is that the prophets who before Jesus and even the Jews do not believe in the Trinity

The idea that you believe in the presence of the Trinity in the Qur'an

You are like watching the stars in the sky imagine many forms, and in the end only stars for the compass

The idea of the Trinity is a satanic idea to prepare for the Antichrist to take over the world

There is a true prophet Jesus and there is the Antichrist and all of them are created

The Antichrist (Dajjal) will try to gain the Jesuit status that is being prepared for thousand of years

The Antichrist has a very advanced science that will try to convince people of his superior (by illegal ways) or fake ways

But the true Christ (prophet jesus) has the abilities of the miracles of the Lord He uses God's lawful gifts

Know that the response you have written is opposed to your belief that caused you convenience and stability

I do not seek to shake your thoughts or live in negative times

But must adapt to the ideas of different and different people and coexist with them (^ ^

 

[BilliardsBall]

You write:

'Did (I) wish to address (your) point from Philippians 2, that Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh? Or (your) original point that he tented/dwelt/tabernacled in this simulacrum?’

I thought I had address your point; namely that: ‘God became incorruptible, godly, perfect flesh, which does not affect His immutability in any way.’

It now seems you have another. Rather that have me guess what you mean by ‘Jesus was in a similitude of human flesh’ please explain.

As for your comments on tents/tabernacles; here’s what was said in earlier posts:

‘I asked: ‘How is it possible for a being to be both wholly God and wholly man at one and the same time?’ You will understand, of course, that I was referring to Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām). You replied that the ‘Spirit of God lived inside human flesh, to execute salvation for us.’ When asked for your understanding of the doctrine of the incarnation you said that people are ‘souls in “tents”, longing for ‘re-tenting’ after death. You appear to be saying that the ‘incarnation’ was nothing more than the act of God entering the body of Yeshua, as one might enter a tent; and residing there. This doesn’t answer my question, but I’ll set that aside for now.’ (Sept 19).

You followed with:

‘The "tent" metaphor and language comes from Paul. Jesus was born on the Feast of Tabernacles, when the Israelites leave their homes to live in tents to remember moving from Egypt into tents in the wilderness.’ (Sept 20)’

I went on:

‘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.’ (Sept 20)

The discussion (about tents) was brought to a halt when you wrote:

‘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…’ (Sept 21).

We have flogged to death the question of God’s immutability. If you believe – and you clearly do – that the word ‘immutable’ means that God can change… then you and I live in different realities.

That God is found in everything is not ‘an issue to me’. Here’s a reminder:

‘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?’ (Sept 19).
You write:

‘I do not believe it is doublethink or a logical fallacy for one thing to have multiple, simultaneous states. I'm a husband, father and son, and those roles can conflict, but I don't change to no longer be my mother's son when I father a child.’

It is not a logical contradiction to say that you are a husband, father, and son: and so ‘doublethink’ does not apply.

A logical contradiction would arise were you to claim that you are, for example, both a father and not a father (at one and the same time, and to the same child); or a husband and not a husband (at one and the same time, and to the same woman). ‘Doublethink’ would click in only if you said these things, believing them to be true.

We have a very talkative niece visiting tomorrow, in šāʾ Allāh; staying for the whole of the weekend. My wife has our movements carefully mapped out, and so there will be no time for further laptopping. In šāʾ Allāh, I will be free from Monday.

Have a great weekend.

The Law of Noncontradiction says God cannot be both God and not God at one time. Jesus was always and is always God. Jesus the man had omniscience, omnipotence, power exited His body when people touched Him, etc.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

No. However when it comes to language and the Judaic understanding of Messiah as it relates to the Jewish faith I depend on what learned Jews perceive the idea of what a Messiah is. But that doesn't mean I'm right by telling others who study their faith their wrong according to what I know. That is the problem with dogma.

I don't think understanding of the meaning of the words in a holy book requires to be the followers of that particular faith. Anybody can research it and learn it. For example Quran is in Arabic. A lot of times, Muslims Scholars who studied Quran disagree about the meaning of a particular Arabic word. Therefore, if a non-Muslim wants to know the intended meaning of the word, to which Muslim scholar should turn to?
Did you find out what Messiah means? This word is in Quran. What does Messiah mean in Islam? What does Messiah means in the language of Jews?

 

[Niblo]

The Law of Noncontradiction says God cannot be both God and not God at one time. Jesus was always and is always God. Jesus the man had omniscience, omnipotence, power exited His body when people touched Him, etc.

Hello again.

My weekend was hectic, thank you. My niece is a lovely lass, but doesn’t know when to stop talking. In addition, she has a foghorn on every tooth.

I’ve a lot on at the moment, so rather than reply (now) to your first post; please allow me to address the second:

You write: ‘The Law of Noncontradiction says God cannot be both God and not God at one time. Jesus was always and is always God. Jesus the man had omniscience, omnipotence, power exited His body when people touched Him, etc.

You are correct, of course, about the Law of Noncontradiction. We may well come back to this.

What is your justification for claiming that ‘Jesus the man’ was both ‘omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’?

In šāʾ Allāh, I will try and address your first post before the weekend.

Have a great week, and very best regards.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello again.

My weekend was hectic, thank you. My niece is a lovely lass, but doesn’t know when to stop talking. In addition, she has a foghorn on every tooth.

I’ve a lot on at the moment, so rather than reply (now) to your first post; please allow me to address the second:

You write: ‘The Law of Noncontradiction says God cannot be both God and not God at one time. Jesus was always and is always God. Jesus the man had omniscience, omnipotence, power exited His body when people touched Him, etc.

You are correct, of course, about the Law of Noncontradiction. We may well come back to this.

What is your justification for claiming that ‘Jesus the man’ was both ‘omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’?

In šāʾ Allāh, I will try and address your first post before the weekend.

Have a great week, and very best regards.

Jesus did numerous miracles without asking God for the ability to do so and without being commissioned to do so. Even a cursory reading of the gospels shows Jesus reading minds, frequently answering unasked questions and making statements like "12 legions of angels would come at my beck to deliver me from the cross" (one angel killed over 100,000 people during a Bible siege) and etc.

My regards to you. Thanks!

 

[Niblo]

Jesus did numerous miracles without asking God for the ability to do so and without being commissioned to do so. Even a cursory reading of the gospels shows Jesus reading minds, frequently answering unasked questions and making statements like "12 legions of angels would come at my beck to deliver me from the cross" (one angel killed over 100,000 people during a Bible siege) and etc.

My regards to you. Thanks!

Hello again.

Just got time for some quick questions:

First:

If Yeshua, the man, was 'omnipotent' why would he require '12 legions of angels' to come to his deliverance...and if not in need of such help, why make this statement at all?

Second:

How is it possible for an omnipotent being to be killed?

Third:

To claim that Yeshua the man was both 'omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’ is to claim that he was God. In which case, why was he not also infinite and immutable....in other words, how can Yeshua the man be truly God and yet possess only two of God's essential attributes?

Fourth:

If Yeshua the man was 'omniscient', then why did he say this: 'However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.'? (Matt 24:36).

Sorry for the rush.

Have a great day, and very best regards.

 

[j1i]

The Law of Noncontradiction says God cannot be both God and not God at one time. Jesus was always and is always God. Jesus the man had omniscience, omnipotence, power exited His body when people touched Him, etc.

By the way why I do not see when Christians apply the idea of Trinity in public institutions and organizations
As an example you will not find a world where three presidents in the same country
The logic that God is the Trinity is lifeless, and the evidence of the inability to apply it in the public life of Western societies

with respect

I am a religious man and I have friends from almost all religions
And sent them sermons dealing with the moral aspect, and dealing well
They enjoy it and encourage me to do it

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello again.

Just got time for some quick questions:

First:

If Yeshua, the man, was 'omnipotent' why would he require '12 legions of angels' to come to his deliverance...and if not in need of such help, why make this statement at all?

Second:

How is it possible for an omnipotent being to be killed?

Third:

To claim that Yeshua the man was both 'omniscient’ and ‘omnipotent’ is to claim that he was God. In which case, why was he not also infinite and immutable....in other words, how can Yeshua the man be truly God and yet possess only two of God's essential attributes?

Fourth:

If Yeshua the man was 'omniscient', then why did he say this: 'However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows.'? (Matt 24:36).

Sorry for the rush.

Have a great day, and very best regards.

1) Jesus did not say He required angels to assist Him.

2) Omnipotent means "power is unlimited". God chooses to not fully use His power in many circumstances. We can both think of times when Allah withheld displays of power, in the Noble Qu'ran.

3) I never said Yeshua possessed only two of God's attributes.

4) The remark about the "Father knows" is simply understood: In the ANE, Jewish men would build a home on their father's property, when the father approved the new home, the father would commission the son to get his bride and bring her home. Yeshua fulfilled a Jewish engagement ceremony at the Last Supper, and is clearly (per the scriptures) preparing space for us at His Father's home. Yeshua was saying when the bride and mansions are ready/the time right, He will return.

 

[BilliardsBall]

By the way why I do not see when Christians apply the idea of Trinity in public institutions and organizations
As an example you will not find a world where three presidents in the same country
The logic that God is the Trinity is lifeless, and the evidence of the inability to apply it in the public life of Western societies

with respect

I am a religious man and I have friends from almost all religions
And sent them sermons dealing with the moral aspect, and dealing well
They enjoy it and encourage me to do it

I'm unsure how to respond, other than to say that the West doesn't seek idols that copy God, per the commandments. However, the tripartite American government was inspired by Isaiah!

"…the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King…" -- Supreme Court, Legislature, President...

 

[j1i]

I'm unsure how to respond, other than to say that the West doesn't seek idols that copy God, per the commandments. However, the tripartite American government was inspired by Isaiah!

"…the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our Lawgiver, the LORD is our King…" -- Supreme Court, Legislature, President...

Good evening
how are you brother (^_^)
I hope you are fine
We are always a loving brother regardless of differences
We have humanitarian bonds, and we carry feelings of happiness for all
We know that Jesus was built into the body of a creature
And Jesus came out of the vulva a woman

The error founded here when it exchange of roles when the creator becomes a creature and a creature creator

Jesus has a Reproductive system carrying sperm and has an opportunity to reproduce
Reproductive system is special for living organisms, reproduction and continuity

That's all I can say
If Jesus really is a god I will be the first to worship

I apologize for the disturbance
I swear by God that I do not carry the grudge against anyone who is different from me religiously and I am not a hardliner
But pray daily and say, Lord, have mercy on us all

god bless you

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good evening
how are you brother (^_^)
I hope you are fine
We are always a loving brother regardless of differences
We have humanitarian bonds, and we carry feelings of happiness for all
We know that Jesus was built into the body of a creature
And Jesus came out of the vulva a woman

The error founded here when it exchange of roles when the creator becomes a creature and a creature creator

Jesus has a Reproductive system carrying sperm and has an opportunity to reproduce
Reproductive system is special for living organisms, reproduction and continuity

That's all I can say
If Jesus really is a god I will be the first to worship

I apologize for the disturbance
I swear by God that I do not carry the grudge against anyone who is different from me religiously and I am not a hardliner
But pray daily and say, Lord, have mercy on us all

god bless you

Jesus is a sinless prophet. We must follow what He said. Jesus taught that He was divine and did greater miracles than any before Him.

Thanks.

 

[Muffled]

View attachment 24354

I am open to discussion on this. First have you ever received Jesus as your Lord and Savior?

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe Jesus was at least half human and since He walked most likely had bones.

The evidence is that Jesus is God in the flesh. Statements to the contrary are just opinions without a valid basis.