While reading the book of Isaiah tonight, a particular passage impressed me as in no other previous reading:
Declare ye, and bring it forth; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21, 22 - ASV)
Clearly, the above exhortations are not from some abstract being, but rather, from a personal being (singular) who utilizes a personal name (singular), in His revelatory discourse to the prophet Isaiah.
So, I ask, who is the above person? Is it the Father, is it the Son, or is it the Holy Spirit? What was the name of the person described above that one must look to be saved (and no other)?
Grace and peace,
David
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
82 comments:
With the name of God, peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
This is the million dollar question isn't it. I have a question of my own.
Why is that this God is very straight forward about who he is yet no other person worshipped is so straight forward.
"for I am God, and there is none else"
Malachi 2:10 Have we all not One Father has not One God created us?
It is ridiculous beyond measure for human beings to be asked to believe in a trinitarian deity that is so ambiguous to leave room for so much debate.
Isaiah 45:21-22 beautiful!
Do I find Jesus saying this in the New Testament? No I don't!
Do I find the Holy Spirit saying this any where? No I don't!
But I find the "Father" saying this.
It's absurd to think that his own mother (Jesus Christ) and his brother(James) spent so much time with Jesus and would never understand that he is God.
The Father. And He speaks through His Word. And the Prophet is able to understand Him because of His Spirit's presence inside him.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Lvka it would have been enough to say 'Father' but noooooo you have to absolutely must find some way to give partners to God.
Able to 'speak through his word' trying to make the Biblical text analogous to the word becoming flesh is not something that the Orthdox would appreciate. This is why I wonder whom you have studied with.
"And the Prophet is able to understand Him because of His Spirit's presence inside him."
And those people who do not understand is it because of the Spirit's presence inside of them?
Declare ye, and bring it forth; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath showed this from ancient time? who hath declared it of old? have not I, Jehovah? and there is no God else besides me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none besides me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is none else. (Isaiah 45:21, 22 - ASV)
The Father is Jehovah;
the Son is Jehovah;
The Holy Spirit is Jehovah;
3 persons within the One God is not ascribing partners to God, because that would be "two or three gods", which is not what Christians believe.
The details of the revelation of this are not explicitly said in the Isaiah 45 passage, but when Christ came in the flesh ( John 1:1-5; 14-18) - He revealed, manifested, exegeted God. John 1:18
Jesus said, "Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and was glad" and "before Abraham was, I am" (Yehovah, Yahweh, "I am that I am" (John 8:56-58)- Abraham believed in the Lord (Jehovah = Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and it was credited to Him as righteousness." Genesis 15:1-6 - Abraham was believing in the One God, the LORD, which includes within Himself three persons - one of them would be the Messiah from his own body, which Genesis 15:1-5 talks about as fulfillment of the promise to send a Messiah/Savior who would bless all the nations (Gen. 12:3; see later the promise of Messiah is repeated - 22:18; 26:4; 28:14; 49:10) and the Messiah would be the one to crush Satan's head - Genesis 3:15.
Galatians 3:6-8; 16 and many other passages make it clearer.
GV19 and David,
Jesus does say this kind of thing - Revelation 1:8
I am the Alpha and Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come", the Almighty.
Revelation 1:17-18
I am the first and the last, ... I was dead and I am alive forevermore"
Revelation 22:12-13
"I am the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."
Isaiah 44:6; 41:4; 43:10; 48:12 - Jesus is using the same language that Jehovah uses in the Isaiah chapters of 40-48 - the context surrounding the 45:21-22 passage is clear; Jesus is alluding to the theology in Isaiah 40-48 in the book of Revelation; Jesus is clearly saying "I am Jehovah" - but He is not the Father (not the same person); but He is the same God; same in substance, nature, essence. One God, three persons; no contradiction, no partners in the sense of "two gods" or "three gods"
John 14:6 "I am the Way, the Truth, the Life" - He is saying I am the only way and the only Savior. Many other passages.
but noooooo you have to absolutely must find some way to give partners to God.
Yep. :D
(Especially since the Son of God is the subject of all theophanies: that's why He's called the Word and Image of God). And that's what that verse is about: a theophany (since Isaiah was talking to God).
And no revelation can be properly understood apart from the Holy Spirit. (If you don't believe me, just take a good, long look at the Protestant denominational big bang)
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Ken, isn't the revelation a 'dream of John'?
Ken, "I am the Alpha and Omega, says the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come", the Almighty." Revelation 1:8
Note the reference in Revelation 1:11 .....gone!
Oh no you don't! Not in my red letter Bible.
"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16
So is Jesus the Sun? Is your God the Sun God? Do you take this literally? Is Jesus literally the offspring of David or does he come from his line?
I just want to know and I am literally on my hands and knees begging to know from the Catholic, the Protestant the Orthodox why is Jesus so shy as to say "I am God"?
why is Jesus so shy as to say "I am God"?
Because the word refers to the Person of the Father.
And even when Christ is called God (John 1:1, Romans 9:5), it is always `Theos`, never `ho Theos` (so as to reveal His *quality* of being *divine* ["God"/"Theos"] WITHOUT confounding Him with the Father ["the God"/"ho Theos"]). -- The Trinity is not modalistic.
To use the word for "Yahweh" (Kurios = Lord) is even more bold and not shy at all than "Theos" ( Hebrew Equivalent: "Elohim")
"I am"
John 8:24
John 8:56-58
alluding to Exodus 3:14 - "I am that I am" - that is very bold and confident and not shy at all.
But Lvka is right in that usually "theos" in the NT was reserved mostly (not always) for the Father.
In Acts 20:28 - shows Theos being used for Jesus - "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."
GV19:
I don't understand this:
"Note the reference in Revelation 1:11 .....gone! " -- ??
Luke's geneology - Mary was from Nathan's line, so yes, Jesus got His human nature from the line of David.
Matthew's geneology - Joseph was from Solomon's line, so the legal line was from Joseph's side, although not physical issue, since Mary was a virgin.
"Bright and morning star" is obviously a metaphor for shining light - Jesus is the light of the world - John 8:12
noor = spiritual light. Light is a metaphor for truth (Al Haqq) It drives away darkness and exposes things and exposes sins and zaps sin like rays and light do - light kills bacteria and mold and creepy things - light is a symbol of purity and cleanliness also.
John 1:1-5
John 3:18-21
Why is the Qur'an so shy to say "Towhid" ??
GV19-
By the way, you are making a spelling mistake at your web-site -
It is Zwemer, not Zwelmer
For the great missionary, "the apostle to Islam", Samuel Zwemer.
light = noor = نور
حق = Truth = Haqq
Allah = God = الله
توحید = Towhid = one, "oneness"
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance form their Lord,
The Qur'an to my kwowledge does not contain the word Tawheed, and the Bible does not contain the word Trinity so we can be at this all day.
However, the Holy Qur'an Allah says,
"Verily I (alone) am Allah: there is no god but I: worship (only) Me and keep up prayer for My remembrance!" Holy Qur'an (chapter 20:14)"
We can see clearly in what David presented to us and the verse above in the Qur'an the true God is not at all bashful about saying in clear unequivocal language "I am God" Allah is even stronger cause it is saying I am The God rather than indefinite article I am God (one of many).
Jesus is very bashful you never ever once anyone ever find him saying "I am God".
As far as the spelling mistake Ken thank you, I will try and correct that. My site has many spelling mistakes and so I lay no claim to state spelling championships.
Ken you said,
"Bright and morning star" is obviously a metaphor for shining light - Jesus is the light of the world - John 8:12
Yes and remember that Jesus uses the same title that is given to Lucifer
Lucifer means "light bearer"
How you have fallen from heaven,
"O morning star, son of the dawn! " Isaiah 14:12
2 Corinthians 11:14-15 Satan can even be described as emulating light.
Ken you said,
" Light is a metaphor for truth (Al Haqq) It drives away darkness and exposes things and exposes sins and zaps sin like rays and light do."
Very good now you will understand the usage that we understand Jesus to have said it in John 14:6
The Qur'an mentions noor (nur) 49 times and many things are called light (nur) (Muhammed, The Qur'an, The Torah, The Injeel, Islam)
but only is Allah the source of light.
"Allah is the Light of Heavens and earth. The similitude of His Light is as a niche wherein is a lamp, the lamp is in glass, and the glass is as it were a shinning star. (This lamp) is kindled from a blessed tree. Light upon light, Allah guides to His light whomsoever He wills. (Holy Qur'an chapter 24 V. 35).
Ken you said,
"To use the word for "Yahweh" (Kurios = Lord) is even more bold and not shy at all than "Theos" ( Hebrew Equivalent: "Elohim")
For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 3:14) He's not going to bow his knees to the Lord Jesus no! He's going to bow his knees to the Father of the Lord!
Now there is a difference between saying the Lord is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and saying that the Lord has a father.
8:6 But to us there is but ONE GOD, THE FATHER, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
So who is God in the passage above? The Father! Who is Lord? Jesus Christ.
Still waiting to see Jesus make that bold proclaimation that God makes so strongly in the Qur'an and in the passage above in Isaiah
"I am God, and there is none else"
btw @ David I see on your links at the side you have a section on Judaism.
There are two sites that may be worthy of adding as links so the Jewish position is given. Of course it is up to you if they merit a spot on your blog.
1)http://www.messiahtruth.com/response.html
2) http://jewsforjudaism.org/
Both of them are quite interesting.
In fact messiahtruth gives allot of great response to people like Michael Brown and others.
GV19 wrote:
"For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Ephesians 3:14) He's not going to bow his knees to the Lord Jesus no! He's going to bow his knees to the Father of the Lord!"
Philippians 2:10 - Paul does say that he himself and every one else will bow their knees to Jesus Christ as Lord; so you are wrong on this. Jesus the Messiah is both Allah and Rab; and so is the Father! So is the Spirit - 2 Corinthians 3:17 "The Lord is the Spirit".
You need to understand that the doctrine of the Trinity is the result of putting all the relevant verses together in a systematic, non-contradictory way.
The words "Trinity" or "homo-ousias" (same substance/same nature/same essence) and "persona (Latin)/hypostasis (Greek for subsistence or person) are not used in the verses that are relevant to the doctrine of the Trinity, but they derive from all the verses, seeing that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are one in nature/essence/substance (Spirit, eternal, invisible, all powerful, creator, etc.) and that they are described as having personal relationships with each other - "the Father loves the Son", "The son loves the Father", "the Father sends the Son", "The Father and Son send the Spirit"(Acts 2:33-36), "The Lord God is grieved" (Genesis 6:5-6) and "don't grieve the Holy Spirit"(Ephesians 4:30), "don't lie to God" and "you have lied to the Holy Spirit" (Acts 5:3-5)
This is how to understand 1 Cor. 8:6 that you quoted; it must be understand in the context of putting all the verses together, not just one isolated all by itself.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Ken are you saying that Jesus is the one spoken of in 2 Corinthians 3:17?
Hey Ken I have an idea how about let us worship the blind man in John 9:9!
Some said, This is he: others said, He is like him: but he said, I am he. So the blind man says "I am he" does this now make him a candidate for divinity?
I am also delcaring that I am of the same ousias as the Father.
That is correct. I am in the thought's of God, as God is internal and ever living I have always existed being of the same ousias as the Father. As God knows all things outside of space time I have always "pre-existed" within the thoughts of God.
However, Jesus and I both have different hypstasis than the father.
Example: Colossians 1:15 Jesus was the firstborn of all creation.
Just like the hellenist believe. That the universe and God are so far removed from each other that God needs to create through a medium known as the Logos.
Jesus is that Logos he is a different person than I am.
However, both Jesus and myself have the same ousia as the Father-God.
When I was given this soul and body that I now have it was done consciously by my Father-God.
My Father-God created me from himself (since my Father-God doesnt have a tool kit laying around and my Father-God has always existed apart from anything else).
My Father-God only creates from himself (from his essence) the creative word Be. I am the product of this.
However, my Father-God decided in his infinite glory and wisdom that he would "seperate me" from himself and give shape and form to me. I didn't think it was robbery to be equal to God, so I emptied myself taking on the form of a human being.
My objective in the greater scheme of things is to be found in the likness of creation but in reality I am uncreated. I am to give glory and honor as a natural extention of the Father-God.
I am a thought of God (uncreated and eternal) but in my physical form I am human. In my physical form I am created.
I am a different person than my Father (Malachi 2:10) Have we all not one father has not one God created us? Nevertheless we (My Father and I) have the same ousia.
So in the spirit of our Hindu brothers Ken. Namaste!
The God in me greets the God in you
Ken are you saying that Jesus is the one spoken of in 2 Corinthians 3:17?
The Holy Spirit is called Lord here - Greek: Kurios.
The Father is called Lord many times; Jesus is called Lord many times, and the Holy Spirit is called Lord also.
But One God; three persons.
No, the blind man who was healed in John 9:9 is not a candidate for Deity. See the context of each passage. When Jesus said, "I am" - He was clearly saying it in such a way as to claim that He was "Yahweh" ( Jehovah) - "I am that I am" from Exodus 3:14 - because the Jews tried to stone Him. Same thing in John 5:17-18 and John 10:30-39 - in each case they sought to kill Him for blasphemy (Kufr).
They did not seek to kill the guy in John 9:9; so your point is defeated soundly. Nice try, but no cigar.
John 8:56-59
56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced in order that he might see to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”
57 So the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being; was born, I am.”
(see Ex 3:14; John 1:1; 17:5, 24)
59 Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him, but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple.
GV19 wrote:
I am also delcaring that I am of the same ousias as the Father.
Blasphemy! Kufr! کفر
That is correct. . . . I have always existed being of the same ousias as the Father.
Blasphemy again, Kufr
کفر
The God in me greets the God in you
More blasphemy ; Kufr کفر
Even with the doctrine of the Trinity, there is still a Creator vs. Creature distinction. We are creatures and not eternal into the past. Your other stuff is just goofy, for lack of a better word.
Good morning GV19, Ken and Lvka,
Had guests over the weekend so I did not have time to spend on the internet; I sincerely appreciate your contributions in my absence.
Don't know if I can add much more to the discussion which seems to be polarized between two diametrically opposed positions—one side affirms the 'full' deity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, the other denying divinity to both. After reading through the posts and reflecting on them, I would like to suggest that there is a mediating position between the two. To 'introduce' this third option, I would like to address the following question from Lvka (found in the combox of the previous thread):
>> Could you perhaps better clarify in what ways the post-Nicaean doctrine differed from the pre-Nicaean one, Christologically speaking?>>
Me: The fundamental difference between the pre-Nicene Fathers and what eventually became the 'orthodox' understanding (East and West) is that the Father alone possessed the entire divine nature, while the Son (and Spirit) possessed a "portion" of the divinity; the Father alone is the one sole source of divinity, and as such, He alone is called "the one God." This conception gave rise to the prevalence of thee subordinationist terminology found in the pre-Nicene CFs (and, of course, the NT)—e.g. "another God"; a "second God", a "portion of God"; "branches" of the "tree"; stream/river" from the "lake"; "rays" from the "Sun"; "hands", et al.
Ponder for a moment the phrases, "Word of God", "Wisdom of God", "Glory of God", "Spirit of God"...such phrases, IMHO, cannot be divorced from the concept of divinity, however, one should not avoid the fact that God's "Word", "Wisdom", "Glory", "Spirit" do not denote the entirety of God. The one true God, the Father, can (and does) 'share' His attributes, but no matter what 'side' one takes on the issue concerning the divinity of persons other than the Father, the fact remains that the Father has attributes that no other person possesses (e.g. asceity/self existence, unorginate, unbegotten).
Grace and peace,
David
I don't really know how those sub-ordinationist pre-Nicene analogies differ from the ones we still use today: sun-light-heat; tree-branch-leaf (Ambrose, 4th century); river-branch (Ambrose again); the two arms of the Father; the "One God, the Father Almighty" of the Nicene creed itself; God-Word-Wisdom; etc.
The attributes you mention are hypostatic: being unbegotten: St Basil the Great, 4th century. No-one ever said they belong to all three persons: actually, they said quite explicitely that they don't.
Follow-up question(s): how exactly does what you said differ from what I said (now) ? How exactly do the pre-Nicene Fathers differ from the Cappadocian Fathers? How does the pre-Nicene monarchical Trinity differ from the post-Nicene monarchical Trinity? How does your view differ from
Do you believe that the Logos and the Spirit are like the holy but created Angels? (More powerful, holier, special in many ways, but nonetheless created?)
David W. wrote:
". . . e.g. "another God"; a "second God", a "portion of God"; "branches" of the "tree"; stream/river" from the "lake"; "rays" from the "Sun"; "hands", et al.
the "another God" and "Second God" of Justin Martyr (others ?) cannot be right, since there is only one God. The other illustrations and just that, imperfect illustrations of the writings of fallible men.
I have heard of Origen trying to explain that the Father is like the Sun and the Son is like the rays from the Sun, etc. Did rays (or heat and light) immediately start emanating from the sun, the moment it was created? That is the only one of the illustrations that comes close to any thing that would be even slightly orthodox.
That is why God chose the words, "logos" (mind that expresses and communicates in words, "the word" - the expressed thoughts of a person. Was there a time (speaking in human terms, as God is above time and created time or eternal "I am") in eternity past where God the Father existed without His own mind and word, expressed thoughts?
and the word, "spirit" (pneuma) for the Holy Spirit - was there a time (so to speak in human terms) in eternity past where God the Father existed without His Spirit?
The answer is no; the Father was always with His mind/expressed thoughts/word and His Spirit - so those Biblical words are much better than branches and trees and lakes and rivers, etc. which are not used in the Bible.
Ponder for a moment the phrases, "Word of God", "Wisdom of God", "Glory of God", "Spirit of God"...such phrases, IMHO, cannot be divorced from the concept of divinity, however, one should not avoid the fact that God's "Word", "Wisdom", "Glory", "Spirit" do not denote the entirety of God.
But God did not exist without His own mind, wisdom, thought, word, glory, Spirit, - "the word was with God" John 1:1, etc.
The one true God, the Father, can (and does) 'share' His attributes, but no matter what 'side' one takes on the issue concerning the divinity of persons other than the Father, the fact remains that the Father has attributes that no other person possesses (e.g. asceity/self existence, unorginate, unbegotten).
Not true; ascetiy/self-existence, unoriginate are of the Son and Spirit; God cannot exist without His own mind/word and Spirit. Only "unbegotten" seems to be an expression for the Father in theological language. Even "begotten" - about Jesus - meant a spiritual eternally past relationship like "rays emanating from the sun" into all the past; He always existed.
David, do you think the Father existed first, then from Him He puts out "rays" of His word and Spirit, so that they came later, like streams from a lake or branches from a tree? These are very bad illustrations of the Deity of Christ and the Spirit, in my opinion, and the NT never uses them like that in those ways. The Messiah is called the "Branch", but that meant about His human nature from the root of Jesse.
With the name of God, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
You go into the kitchen to make a batch of chocolate chip cookies and you come back to the living room and the kids are running wild!
I tell you!
Lets see where to begin.
First Ken I thought we already got this mess sorted out where you say,
"Luke's geneology - Mary was from Nathan's line, so yes, Jesus got His human nature from the line of David.
Matthew's geneology - Joseph was from Solomon's line, so the legal line was from Joseph's side, although not physical issue, since Mary was a virgin."
Remember the Qur'an already sorted this out by calling Mary the sister of Aaron as she is of the Levi tribe.
So as far as you trying to make Jesus the Son of David and to have Mary in the Gospel of Luke Ken you know better. Nice try but no cigar for you!
Ken you didn't attempt to interact in a meaningful way at all with the fact that I am one ousia with the Father.
When you say,
"Even with the doctrine of the Trinity, there is still a Creator vs. Creature distinction. We are creatures and not eternal into the past. Your other stuff is just goofy, for lack of a better word."
I have always interpreted your 'goofy' statement as typical of people from your neck of the woods. Of course you haven't thought through the theological and philosophical implications of what you claim to believe.
You never really defined for us where the line between creator and created is drawn.
I have never seen a Christian show me one example of God communicating to his creation without being in (defined by six directions) by it.
A God in NEED is no God indeed!
Ken I am really amazed that you would say,
"Only "unbegotten" seems to be an expression for the Father in theological language. Even "begotten" - about Jesus - meant a spiritual eternally past relationship like "rays emanating from the sun" into all the past; He always existed."
Unbegotten doesn't SEEM to be an expression for the father. It simply is NOT an expression. Jesus and the Father DO NOT share this attribute no matter how you slice it. Sola Scriptura is not going to get you out of this one my friend.
You people need to define from scripture what the term 'father' and what the term 'son' and what the term begotten (monogenes) means.
If you say eternally-begotten (one of many oxymorons in Christian theology) please do tell us what it means.
Because if God goes out of his way to reveal certain appellations, titles or attributes to you and it has no meaning than a deity described in meaningless language is a meaningless deity.
Ken what do you mean when you say,
"The answer is no; the Father was always with His mind/expressed thoughts/word and His Spirit"
In Islam when we speak of Allah having "expressed thoughts" this refers to the creation. The only way Allah is known outside of himself is to the creation.
If you have thoughts they are internal to your being.
This is the problem I see you Christians(trinitarians) have.
Don't you believe that God has always been loving even when there was nothing to be loving of?
Don't you believe that God was creator even when there was nothing to be creator of?
Don't you believe that God is forgiving even if there are no beings in need of forgiveness?
I want to know in Christianity where do you draw the line between the creator and the created?
GV19 wrote:
Remember the Qur'an already sorted this out by calling Mary the sister of Aaron as she is of the Levi tribe.
One of the clear mistakes of the Qur'an; which proves it is not inspired by God at all; to make a historical error like that.
See
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/mary.htm
The Qur'an is a book made by a man and compiled by men. (Muhammad and his followers)
(The Qur'an - it takes no miracle to say "do this and don't do that" - hallal and haram - Sharia, external rituals and law - no heart or Spiritual power and no power of the Holy Spirit to overcome sin and no emphasis on the internal hidden sins of pride, anger (Many Muslims, not all, but many behave this way - "You insult us Muslims by calling Islam violent and angry, therefore we are angry and we will kill you!",
Yet the Bible declares that:
"A fool gets angry quickly; but a wise man overlooks an insult." Proverbs 12:16
lust (cover the women up and many Muslim men blame their lusts on women, etc.); hatred, jealousy, selfishness, male domination and chauvanism - most of hell is women - Hadith, etc. - the Qur'an sometimes mention those internal sins, but that is not the overall emphasis of Islam. The emphasis of Islam is to just obey the external rules and maybe Inshallah you will make it so heaven; there is no assurance of God's acceptance or peace or going to heaven; except for dying in Jihad.)
You have no peace without an atonement - Romans 5:1-11 - Christ died for His enemeies and even you, GV19 admitted that one dying for his enemies is greater love. Your heart longs for true peace and this kind of love, that the true God is humble and loving, unlike the Al Jabbar dictator/tyrant Allah of Islam and Kheir ol Makareen (the very best deceiver) and the proud aloof, far off slave-driver who cannot humble himself and become flesh and relate to us and love us, as the true God did. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; 1:18; Philippians 2:3-8)
The Qur'an took which took bits and pieces of oral information from the previous monotheistic religions, mixed them up and got the stories wrong and corrupted some of the details, and mixed it with a little Arab culture and a little Zoroastrianism and a little legends (Cave of Seven Sleepers) and Gnosticism (Infancy gospels - Jesus speaking from cradle and making clay birds and blowing in them and they fly away are from Gnostic texts, non-inspired) and came up with Qur'an. "Evangel" was corrupted into "Ingeel", for example.
Mary and Jesus are both from the line of Judah - Matthew 1:3 and Luke 3:33-34 - Judah - Jacob - Isaac - Abraham.
Both genealogies follow the same lines from Abraham to David - David had at least 2 sons - one Solomon is traced in Matthew's gospel; the other Nathan (Luke 3:31) is traced in Luke's gospel.
Whenever the Qur'an says something different than the Bible, it proved the Qur'an is wrong and the one that is corrupted. Since the Bible was over 600 years before Qur'an, and God's revelation, then the Bible is proven true when Qur'an contradicts it, since Bible came first.
The Qur'an mis-understood the Trinity - Qur'an 5:116 - this proves it is not from Allah. If it was from Allah, it would have defined the Trinity properly according to what Christians believed.
The Qur'an denies history - the crucifixion and death of Jesus - not only Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Romans, and all the rest, but Josephus and Tacitus, etc. (4:157)
The Qur'an changed Genesis 22 - the son to be sacrificed was Isaac, not Ishmael. (Although the Qur'an never actually explicitly says which son of Abraham it was; Islamic Tafsirs have always interpreted it as Ishmael.
GV19 wrote:
A God in NEED is no God indeed!
God has no needs, this is true; no Christian has ever taught that; why do you say that?
The Trinity is something that always was eternally true - by the nature, God is Tri-une (Lover, Beloved, and Love) - this is not creatures or creation; we agree with you that God did not create out of need; the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed by the incarnation of Jesus in the NT and the revelations and explanations of the NT about who Jesus is and who the Holy Spirit is.
You have no "God is love" in Islam. No statement of I John 4:8; like "Allah Mohabbat". In Islam, Allah is friendly or congenial (wadud ودود, or forgiving or merciful, if He wills to be; but Allah is not by nature love and loving, in Islam.
الله محبت
you don't have this in Islam. The Truth does have this; and your heart longs for that kind of personal loving God.
If you have thoughts they are internal to your being.
That right! One being, three persons. You are making some progress. At least you can understand that the Son or the Word does not mean "another God" (shirk) or some other being. There is only one being of God.
You're stuff was "goofy" because you said we have the same substance (ousia) as God. We do not. He is pure Spirit and perfect eternal being. Beyond that, we don't know much, because God is completely other than us. We are creations of flesh and soul. The mind/spirit/logos of God was not created but always existed. The Father and the Son and the Spirit always existed into the past and are the same substance (Spirit, light, perfection, intelligence, power, will, sovereignty, love, holiness, purity, etc.) - but they have personal relationships with each other. The revelation of the terms "father" and "son" are for our benefit and they existed before any creation, so there is nothing of physical issue that human beings are father and son, etc. (with mother - as Qur'an says in 6:101 - as it clearly mis-understands the Trinity and Christianity. )
Don't you believe that God has always been loving even when there was nothing to be loving of?
Not only "loving", but love. (I John 4:8) God is love, means from all eternity He was love within Himself, within the spiritual fellowship of the Trinity, the Lover, the Beloved, and love; Father, Son, and Spirit.
You are looking at it as we are saying He somehow created humans because of a need; (estaqfr'allah) and/or somehow created Jesus from a need of His (estaqfr'allah again!).
He always was into the past Tri-unity. Three in one. Three persons in One Being/One Spirit Essence/substance/nature/ousia/ذات
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Well Ken most of what you wrote is simply boring. Been there done that. I pretty much figure those who are interested in what our side has to say will hear what we have to say and so forth. So no need to go and rehash regurgitated 'arguments'.
Ken would you be personally interested in holding a live public debate completely in the Arabic language?
I mean after all you are quite the authority in classical Arabic are you not?
(estaqfra'allah) where you got the qaaf, and extra alif from beats me!
The fact that you are able to understand the Qur'an better than the mufasirun through your use of Farsi is also impressive. Must take the Holy Spirit to do that!
That would be like me interpreting the Koine Greek of the New Testament through Albanian. Some feat indeed!
You yourself admitted that your not that knowledgeable in Islam, and it shows.
It took a Muslim to teach you that Jesus 'dying and rising from the dead' isn't mentioned in the Talmud.
One wonders how much information you people thumb suck without verification?
David and I may not see eye to eye but one thing I respect the heck out of the man is that he goes to the sources, checks and double checks his information!
http://www.youtube.com/user/DrOakley1689#p/u/70/vJJNACLXsQc
Dr. James White in an excellent defense and summary of the doctrine of the Trinity in his debate against Adnan Rashid.
GV19 wrote:
(estaqfra'allah) where you got the qaaf, and extra alif from beats me!
I was just writing it fast without thinking about the English equivalent, and even then it is subjective, as sometimes people write in English Koran or Qur'an, since English has no "qaff" sound ق or غ sound.
استغفر الله
Ok, there it is in Arabic/Farsi - the ghain غ and the qaff ق are actually the same sounds in Farsi - Farsi does not distinquish between them very much, as in the original Arabic (as far as pronounciation goes)
What English letter do you use for the "ghain" غ?
The double a is just a mistake I made from typing and not thinking about it too much.
Arabic has sounds that Farsi does not have
ذ
ظ
ض
ز
in Farsi, all four of these letters are the "z" sound. But they are 4 distinct sounds in Arabic.
And Farsi has 4 sounds that Arabic does not:
p = پ
g = گ
"ch" = چ
"jh" = ژ
Since the Arabs converted the Persians to Islam by force and aggressive war and Jihad and Qatal (fight to the death, slay, kill) - they also converted their script to the Arabic script and today Farsi has 40% Arabic words in it.
So, I admit I do not speak Arabic fluently, and only know the terms that are also in Farsi; but so far, they all have the same meaning.
Baghdad and Persia (included Iraq back then) was the capital of the golden age of Islam ; the Abbasid era.
Many of the great scholars of Islam were Persians:
Ibn Ishaq (biographer of Muhammad)
Al Gazzali (great theologian)
Razi
Al Tabari (history)
Al Bukhari (Hadith collector)
Abi Sina (scientist)
and many others.
But, not I could not have a debate in Arabic, obviously.
But, I do know the meaning of the words that are also in Farsi, and can see in the Qur'an where the English translation "waters it down", as in "the very best deceiver" to the "very best planner/plotter".
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Ken you say you are not fluent in Arabic. Would you say your a beginner? Would you say your conversant? If for example if I met you in person and handed you a text in Arabic could you read it just as you would from English or would you struggle trying to decipher the letters and than give meaning to the text?
You say over 40% of Arabic words are in the Persian language. Where did you get this figure from? Why not 45% or 39%?
as far as ghayn best equivalent in another language that's what separates scholarship from fly by night apologetic Ken. This is where we separate the men from the boys.
I'm not interested in Romanization of the Arabic language. I am interested in people who want to learn classical Arabic and master the disciplines before they open their mouth to interpret the Qur'an.
I'm not interested in people like the good 'Dr' White who's teacher makes a horrible blunder in recitation of the most oft repeated surah of the Qur'an and does not remove his youtube video or put an emendation mentioning the mistake.
Ken I know you see the beauty of Islam. No doubt there are sleepless nights, the window open and the wind comes through as you ponder over the conversations you have had with David and myself.
No doubt you see the walls enclose in about you as you struggle to give meaning and definition to the various oxymorons that describe your faith.
Ken I can only sincerely hope that you repent of shirk and association of partners with Allah.
I sincerely hope that you learn to distinguish between creator and created. I sincerely hope that you can refrain from making Allah's speech, vision, power, decree, sovereignty,mercy, hearing, as separate entities with Allah.
By the way istaghfiurllah is what you say when your asking Allah to forgive you. I am glad you did that above! And you should!
But the appropriate thing to say in Islamic decorum is authubillah min dhalik ( I seek protection with Allah from that).
Come on down to the Masjid/Mosque in Atlanta Georgia Ken. Break fast with the believers in Ramadhan, take up Arabic classes and learn the Qur'an Al Kareem.
GV19 wrote:
Ken I can only sincerely hope that you repent of shirk and association of partners with Allah.
If God was a holy Trinity from all eternity, One God, three persons, Spirit, Love, Truth, then the doctrine of the Trinity is not "shirk" because there is only One creator God. Since the word/logos was from all eternity with God, then it is not shirk, since he was both "with God" and "the word was God" - John 1:1. He was with the Father and shared the same glory - John 17:5. If God is like that from the beginning, then it is not shirk or polytheism; and the Qur'an is not inspired by God; because the Qur'an does not even understand what Christians believed and taught for 6 Centuries before Muhammad.
In 1985-1990, I visited the Masjid several times and talked with Muslims and Imams over the years, and asked questions and shared the gospel with some of the Muslims there.
It is you who have no peace or assurance of God's love and forgiveness for your sins. All your efforts of good works and righteousness are filthy rags in God's sight (Isaiah 64:6); they are empty rituals ( Isaiah 1, Matthew 15; Mark 7). You cannot wash away your lust, pride, anger, jealousy, hatred, selfishness, judgmental spirit, hypocrisy, bitterness with your rituals and external disciplines.
You need an atonement (Kafareh كفارة) and a ransom (fediyeh فديه ) for your sins. The only way to have peace is through Christ and His atonement on the cross and His powerful resurrection from the dead. Jesus offers true peace and rest. John 14:27; Matthew 11:28-30; Romans 5:1-11.
Mark 10:45 - fediyeh - same concept in Qur'an 37:107 -
"We have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice."
John 1:29 - Yahya said, "Behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world."
I John 2:2
Christ is our propitiation (atonement; satisfaction of the justice of God against sin) for our sins; for the sins of the whole world.
Revelation 5:9 - the lamb of God purchased/redeemed people from every tribe and people and tongue and nation.
Hello Lvka,
Thanks for responding; you posted:
>> The attributes you mention are hypostatic: being unbegotten: St Basil the Great, 4th century. No-one ever said they belong to all three persons: actually, they said quite explicitely that they don't.>>
Me: This is where theology (or should I say theologies) shackles (or enlightens, depending on the theological system of the commentator), the original deposit of faith (i.e. the Bible). God the Father clearly possesses attributes that NO other person can claim, which strongly suggests to me that His ontology is unique; I believe this is why the Bible (and the early CFs) states that it is the Father alone (the Jehovah of the OT) who is "the one God".
With all due respect to GV19 and Ken, the problem of 'shirk' in the Qur'an (IMHO) is addressing those who attempt associate other beings/persons with the unique ontology of God the Father, "the one God". If the Father's uniqueness is upheld, then true monotheism remains established.
>> Follow-up question(s): how exactly does what you said differ from what I said (now) ? >>
Me: In that certain attributes that the Father alone possesses speaks to His unique ontology.
>>How exactly do the pre-Nicene Fathers differ from the Cappadocian Fathers? How does the pre-Nicene monarchical Trinity differ from the post-Nicene monarchical Trinity?>>
Me: I am not an expert on the Cappadocian Fathers, but I can speak to the Catholic and Reformed views that have dominated Trinitarian thought for centuries now. The difference lies in that where the pre-Nicene Fathers clearly reserved the concept of full deity (whole vs. portion) to the Father alone, after Nicea, this conception was eventually abandoned (though it took many decades).
>>How does your view differ from>>
Me: I really don't have a "view" at this time, for I am still pondering over which theological system best represents the Biblical data.
>>Do you believe that the Logos and the Spirit are like the holy but created Angels? (More powerful, holier, special in many ways, but nonetheless created?)>>
Me: No.
Grace and peace,
David
Hi Ken,
Don't wish to intrude too much on the dialogue/debate between yourself and GV19 (which is quite informative - IMHO), but would like to share a few of my thoughts on the following that you wrote:
>>the "another God" and "Second God" of Justin Martyr (others ?) cannot be right, since there is only one God. The other illustrations and just that, imperfect illustrations of the writings of fallible men.>>
Me: For the record, not just Justin. Now, the difficulty for me, is that Justin (and so many other early CFs) sure seemed to reflect much more accurately what the Bible actually affirms, especially the fact that only the Father is called "the one God", "the only true God" (τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν), and "the only God" (τοῦ μόνου θεοῦ).
>>That is why God chose the words, "logos" (mind that expresses and communicates in words, "the word" - the expressed thoughts of a person. Was there a time (speaking in human terms, as God is above time and created time or eternal "I am") in eternity past where God the Father existed without His own mind and word, expressed thoughts?
and the word, "spirit" (pneuma) for the Holy Spirit - was there a time (so to speak in human terms) in eternity past where God the Father existed without His Spirit?
The answer is no; the Father was always with His mind/expressed thoughts/word and His Spirit - so those Biblical words are much better than branches and trees and lakes and rivers, etc. which are not used in the Bible.>>
Me: I think you are failing to make the important distinction that permeated the early CFs: the distinction between the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos. IMO, the concept of God's Wisdom as portrayed in Prov. 8:22ff, and that of a "begotten God" (in John's Gospel), speaks to such a distinction.
Grace and peace,
David
David Waltz wrote:
"I think you are failing to make the important distinction that permeated the early CFs: the distinction between the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos. IMO, the concept of God's Wisdom as portrayed in Prov. 8:22ff, and that of a "begotten God" (in John's Gospel), speaks to such a distinction."
logos endiathetos = "the word internal/inward"
and the
logos prophorikos = "the word spoken forth, or the word uttered."
This is more from Philo and the Stoics - show me the ECFs who talked about this with references. I suppose (I am guessing) maybe Justin Martyr talked about it; also Clement of Alexandria ?; Origen ? Anyone else? If not, why did you say ECFs?
give references please so we can look them up on line.
Anyway, now you have drifted from the Bible (Canonical Scriptures) and more into Philo and the Stoics; so that is not Biblical.
It is enough to see John 1:1-5 and 17:5 and 20:28, Philippians 2:3-8; Hebrews 1:1-3, 6, 8, Revelation chapter 1 and 22, etc. as Jesus as God from all eternity. God communicated from all eternity within Himself - the Father with the Son and the Son with the Father and the Spirit with the Father and Son; they have personal spiritual relationship from all eternity. That is why we have a God-shaped vacuum inside of us - we long for real relationship/connection - only the true God of the Bible, the Triune God can fill that emptiness - as Augustine said, "our hearts are restless until they find their rest in You, O God"
GV19 -
I never have had an attraction to Islam at all - no wind has blown through the window at night to haunt me as saying that Islam is attractive. The guy who cut his wife's head off in Buffalo, NY and the Hadith descriptions of Muhammad and his wives and new revelations and taking widows as booty for sex in war should be enough to prove to everyone that Islam is false; let alone its denial of clear history - 4:157 and it's misunderstanding of Christianity - Surah 5:116 and 6:101. Also, that women are only 1/2 of value of men in court of law, etc. and the violence of Muhammad in war and cutting off people's heads, etc. Hadith - "if anyone leaves Islam, kill him" - that is enough to prove Islam is wrong. So, no, my friend.
You, on the other hand, recognize that someone dying for his enemies is greater love; therefore Christianity offers the true God and true love and true way and true life for you, which you long for; but you are resisting.
Islam as a doctrine or religion is not the truth - it is a very harsh, legalistic, false system that has many millions of people for centuries in bondage to darkness. You can never be good or obey the law fully - all your "righteousness" fails - the wrath of God is upon that self-righteousness system. The external rules of Sharia promotes sinful human pride (Islam is pelagianism on steroids) (Pelagianism = that one can earn his or her salvation or acceptance or love from God by his or her own efforts and strength and good works without the grace of God.)
Also the punishments and violence and forcing the Persians and others to submit and the aggressive warfare of Muhammad killing the Byzantines and N. Africans was truly unjust and a great shame and wrong - it proves Islam is false. There is no peace, no love, no assurance, no grace, no kindness in real Islam. Saudi Arabia, Taliban, Iranian government; Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Salafi, Wahabi, etc. - nothing attractive about consistent Islam at all. The western, modern, more enlightened "versions" of Islam are attempts to overcome the harsh and violence of consistent, doctrinal Islam - but those arguments do not work on anyone who is informed about what Islam really is.
There are other modern "versions" of Islam, but those above (Saudi Arabia, Salafi, etc.) are most consistent ones taking seriously all the Qur'an and Hadith and Sunna (and Shiite traditions) and Tarikh and Sirat and Tafsirs and Qias and Fiq, and Ijtima, etc. in a consistent way.
David,
first of all, there's been no change from Early to later Church Fathers in the East. The Early ones called the Father God, but they also called the Son God. (You yourself just gave Saint Justin as an example). The later ones also insisted that "God is one because the Father is one" (Saint Basil the Great). The Father's monarchy has always characterized Eastern theological thought.
Don't get me wrong: the Arians also called Christ God, only they believed that word to apply to Him loosely (like rulers and judges are called gods in the Bible; or like Angels and saints are called sons of God), and they believed He was a created God, from nothing, by the will of the Father, and that the Father then created every-thing through Him. -- are you also of the same opinion? Or do you at least hold to something similar?
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Ken the majority of what you wrote is just goofy.
Your denial of God's truth knows no bounds. I have called you out numerous occasions on your lies and inability to do serious research concerning Islam.
Here is one more you should find easy. You said,
"Also, that women are only 1/2 of value of men in court of law" < Show me this statement in either the Qur'an or the Hadith literature (the entire corpus) where it states this and I will immediately cease publication of my web site with a huge banner that says, "Jesus is Lord".
Stop eating without question answeringislam and do some objective research.
You claim that no wind was blowing through your window at night. Of course you will have a response but I am sure the sovereign God alone knows why you decided to read Rumi. Do I need to get your earlier quotes about your attraction to the third aspect of Islam called Ihsan, Tassawuf?
Or is this position now changed within the last 2-3 months?
Ken besides the fact that based upon your own criteria you have denied Christ since you believe that Christ (as part of the Trinity) gave the laws in the Old Testament you tongue in cheek have besmirched the God you claim to believe in.
You believe that Jesus(being part of the Trinity) said that a baby boy is twice as pure as female baby.
When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed. If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days. (Leviticus 11:1-2)
I wonder on what consistent basis is this law swept away? It's sad to see Christians so readily dismiss the creator and distance themselves from his laws.
I guess much of what your objection is against Islam you would not do so readily if you were a consistent Christian like Gary Demar. However you have opted for the watered down modern version of Christianity.
Your new found alliances with homosexuality, your very weak stand against divorce, your support of the 'just war' (killing of children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine) is anything but loving and peaceful.
Your Phillipians 1:18 tactics do not work on me Ken.
"You, on the other hand, recognize that someone dying for his enemies is greater love; therefore Christianity offers the true God and true love and true way and true life for you, which you long for; but you are resisting."
Ken no need to lie and distort truth once again. This was a very painful discussion for you if I recall.
You had to find cause to differ with R.C Sproul and we basically saw that Jesus doesn't die for his enemies.
It shows that even as a person who claims to be reformed (though this is in dispute) your very basic views of soteriology is questionable.
If we are at war and we sign a peace treaty there are no longer hostilities between us, therefore I no longer view you as an enemy.
As I said Ken your allowed all the fantasy you want.
If you have thoughts they are internal to your being.
Ken you said,
"That right! One being, three persons. You are making some progress. At least you can understand that the Son or the Word does not mean "another God" (shirk) or some other being. There is only one being of God."
Ken who is typing under your name again? Is this the same Ken who a few post up says,
GV19 wrote:
I am also declaring that I am of the same ousias as the Father.
Blasphemy! Kufr!
That is correct. . . . I have always existed being of the same ousias as the Father.
Blasphemy again, Kufr
Well wait Ken! Are we making progress or not here?
If my thoughts are internal to my being are they part of my oousia or not? You seem to think so Ken.
Since God is all knowing and exist outside of space time, when I existed in the thoughts of the creator was I part of the creator's oousia or not? If not why not?
So when I "pre-existed" in the thoughts of God was I beside God? Was I inside of God?
Qur'an 2:282
YUSUF ALI: O ye who believe! When ye deal with each other, in transactions involving future obligations in a fixed period of time, reduce them to writing Let a scribe write down faithfully as between the parties: let not the scribe refuse to write: as Allah Has taught him, so let him write. Let him who incurs the liability dictate, but let him fear His Lord Allah, and not diminish aught of what he owes. If they party liable is mentally deficient, or weak, or unable Himself to dictate, Let his guardian dictate faithfully, and get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as ye choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her. The witnesses should not refuse when they are called on (For evidence). Disdain not to reduce to writing (your contract) for a future period, whether it be small or big: it is juster in the sight of Allah, More suitable as evidence, and more convenient to prevent doubts among yourselves but if it be a transaction which ye carry out on the spot among yourselves, there is no blame on you if ye reduce it not to writing. But take witness whenever ye make a commercial contract; and let neither scribe nor witness suffer harm. If ye do (such harm), it would be wickedness in you. So fear Allah; For it is Good that teaches you. And Allah is well acquainted with all things. If ye are on a journey, and cannot find a scribe, a pledge with possession (may serve the purpose). And if one of you deposits a thing on trust with another, let the trustee (faithfully) discharge his trust, and let him Fear his Lord conceal not evidence; for whoever conceals it, - his heart is tainted with sin. And Allah knoweth all that ye do.
PICKTHAL: O ye who believe! When ye contract a debt for a fixed term, record it in writing. Let a scribe record it in writing between you in (terms of) equity. No scribe should refuse to write as Allah hath taught him, so let him write, and let him who incurreth the debt dictate, and let him observe his duty to Allah his Lord, and diminish naught thereof. But if he who oweth the debt is of low understanding, or weak, or unable himself to dictate, then let the guardian of his interests dictate in (terms of) equity. And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember. And the witnesses must not refuse when they are summoned. Be not averse to writing down (the contract) whether it be small or great, with (record of) the term thereof. That is more equitable in the sight of Allah and more sure for testimony, and the best way of avoiding doubt between you; save only in the case when it is actual merchandise which ye transfer among yourselves from hand to hand. In that case it is no sin for you if ye write it not. And have witnesses when ye sell one to another, and let no harm be done to scribe or witness. If ye do (harm to them) lo! it is a sin in you. Observe your duty to Allah. Allah is teaching you. And Allah is knower of all things.
Hi Ken,
Checking in on the blog before I head to bed; would like to briefly respond to your 1:06PM post, wherein you wrote:
>> This is more from Philo and the Stoics - show me the ECFs who talked about this with references. I suppose (I am guessing) maybe Justin Martyr talked about it; also Clement of Alexandria ?; Origen ? Anyone else? If not, why did you say ECFs?>>
Me: First, there is an important difference between the Stoics use and the early CFs (Stoics reserved the distinction to the created order, while the ECFs applied it to God); and second, besides Justin, you can add Tatian, Theophilus, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Eusebius, and yes Clement of Alexandria (off of the top of my head, I don't know if Origen espoused the distinction; will try to do a bit of research into this tomorrow).
I first came across the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos in J.N.D. Kelly's, Early Christian Doctrines, which I first read back in the late 70s (see pages 95-101). Since then, I have seen elements of the distinction in the Bible, and other CFs not mentioned by Kelly.
Anyway, wanted to briefly respond to your response before bedtime; I think you told me before that you own Kelly's book, if not, a 'preview' of it is online:
HERE
Good night and God bless,
David
Good evening Lvka,
As I related to Ken in my last post, I am heading off to bed (though it seems that it shall be postponed for a bit longer [grin]), but would like to respond to your last comment/s:
>>first of all, there's been no change from Early to later Church Fathers in the East. The Early ones called the Father God, but they also called the Son God. (You yourself just gave Saint Justin as an example). The later ones also insisted that "God is one because the Father is one" (Saint Basil the Great). The Father's monarchy has always characterized Eastern theological thought.>>
Me: I have never said that the ECFs did not call Jesus "God", for clearly they did; what I have said is that they never called Jesus "the one God".
>>Don't get me wrong: the Arians also called Christ God, only they believed that word to apply to Him loosely (like rulers and judges are called gods in the Bible; or like Angels and saints are called sons of God), and they believed He was a created God, from nothing, by the will of the Father, and that the Father then created every-thing through Him. -- are you also of the same opinion? Or do you at least hold to something similar?>>
Me: Justin stated that the Son was begotten "by the will of the Father"; further, he and other early CFs did not make a clear cut distinction between 'begotten' and 'created' (following the Bible here). Yet with that said, Arius was the first theologian to introduce the notion that the Son was begotten/created ex nihilo (i.e. from nothing), and this, I do not believe neither the Bible, nor the early CFs taught.
Please feel free to ask further questions if I have been unclear here...
Grace and peace,
David
Hi GV19,
I should be in bed now, but felt compelled to comment on part of your last response to Ken (forgive my intrusion):
>>Well wait Ken! Are we making progress or not here?
If my thoughts are internal to my being are they part of my oousia or not? You seem to think so Ken.
Since God is all knowing and exist outside of space time, when I existed in the thoughts of the creator was I part of the creator's oousia or not? If not why not?
So when I "pre-existed" in the thoughts of God was I beside God? Was I inside of God?>>
Me: Those are excellent reflections/questions (IMHO). I know that you are aware of the Hadith known as, "I was a Hidden Treasure"; it sure seems to this simple beachbum that when God/Allah wanted to be 'known', He created, and He created via His Word and Spirit; and though internal to His very being prior to creation, when 'uttered' "Be", they became exterior to His inner essence, without God/Allah 'losing', so to speak, the internal aspect. This concept is taught in the ECFs distinction between the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos, which I believe finds warrant not only in the Bible, but also in the Qur'an.
Anyway, wanted to briefly comment on your reflections before heading to bed (and now, hopefully without further delay [grin]).
Take care and God bless,
David
GV19 wrote:
"So when I "pre-existed" in the thoughts of God was I beside God? Was I inside of God?"
We did not exist or "pre-exist" when thought about. If we had no existence, then we did not exist until we were created. Christ was not created and always existed into the past as a person; a Spirit-person sharing in the One Being/essence of God. Christ, the eternal logos/mind was not just a thought in the mind of God; He is the mind/word - logos/personal communication of God - a center of relationship - spiritual - that relates and has communication and relationship with the Father.
We must take the words of Scripture by faith.
John 1:1-18
Colossians 1:15-20
Hebrews 1:3-8
Revelation chapter 1, chapter 22
John 5:17-18
John 8:56-59
John 10:30-39
John 20:28
Philippians 2:3-11
John 8:24
John 8:12
John 6:35
John 10:9-10
John 11:25
John 14:6
John 15:1
John 17:5
John 18:1-6
David,
So, do you think the Father was alone for "a time" in eternity past ?
(if we can conceive of that; ie, "time in eternity past"; we speak in human terms here, for eternity past is a difficult concept to even think about.)
No logos endiathetos or logos prophorikos and no Spirit?
It seems you think the Father just kept His thoughts to Himself and there came a point later where He started expressing Himself and the logos prophorikos is Jesus, emanating out from Him, like rays from the sun, for lack of a better illustration.
Problem is - John 1:1-5 and the other passages above do not make those speculations or distinctions and do not explain the mystery of eternity past to us. It is too high for us mortals to wrap our brains around.
then later His thoughts (word, logos- internal logos (logos endiathetos) somehow came out from Him and became the expressed forth logos, (logos prophorikos) ?
For me, this speculation goes beyond Scripture, when Jesus in John 17:5 says He and the Father were together and shared the same glory together, and had a personal relationship with the Father.
Scripture is above the speculations of the early church fathers. Scripture is infallible/inerrant, but the ecfs are not.
David W. wrote:
"I first came across the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos in J.N.D. Kelly's, Early Christian Doctrines, which I first read back in the late 70s (see pages 95-101). Since then, I have seen elements of the distinction in the Bible, and other CFs not mentioned by Kelly."
Yes, I have Kelly's book and took it off the shelf and looked at those pages, to my surprise I see that I had read those pages, for they were marked with yellow high-lighter - and it has lots of other information. Kelly clearly affirms that this was a Stoic technical distinction - p. 96 - between the logos endiathetos (the immanent word, or internal/inward word) and the logos prophorikos - the uttered or spoken forth word. He says it is clearest in Justin, but Athangoras has some interesting points on page 100 of Kelly. "Athenagoras then points out that, . . . He never actually came into being (oux hos yenomenon) . . . "
Also, Justin's "second God", etc.
". . . their [ECFs] object was not so much to subordinate Him [Jesus, the eternal logos] as to safeguard the monotheism which they considered indispensable." ( p. 101, Kelly)
That was good - and contra to your emphasis on "subordination" of Jesus.
John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was."
Since Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 say, "I am the LORD (Yahweh); that is My name; I will not give My glory to another"
48:11
"For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another."
Since John 17:5 says Jesus and the Father shared in the same glory before the world was, this means that Jesus was God, Yahweh from all eternity, and that both Isaiah (42:8; 48:11; and also all the other statements of "I am God, there is no other, I am the first and the last" in 43:10-13; 44:6; 46:9-10 with Rev. 1:17 and 22:13; all this together proves Jesus is God from all eternity) and John teach both Monotheism and the plurality of persons within the one being and one ousia/substance/nature of God.
Isaiah 43:10-13
"You are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And My servant whom I have chosen,
So that you may know and believe Me
And understand that I am He
Before Me there was no God formed,
And there will be none after Me.
"I, even I, am the LORD,
And there is no savior besides Me.
"It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed,
And there was no strange god among you;
So you are My witnesses," declares the LORD,
"And I am God.
"Even from eternity I am He,
And there is none who can deliver out of My hand;
I act and who can reverse it?"
Within the "I" of God, the LORD (Yahweh) in all the Isaiah passages, the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are ONE inside the eternal "I".
In Genesis God says, "Let us make man in our image" - another indication of the plurality of persons, but ONE being/essence/nature/ousia/ذات of God.
Read and meditate on the other Isaiah passages along with Rev. 1:17; 22:13 - Isaiah 42:8; 48:11; 43:10-13; 44:6; 46:9-10 and pray for light and understanding.
Beyond this, the Trinity is a mystery in eternity past and all the speculations of "internal logos" vs. "uttered logos" at some point in eternity past is a mystery how God is one, yet three in personal relationships of love and purity and Spirit. We must admit God is Akbar - Greatest, mystery, awesome, past finding out and over and above our comprehension.
Psalm 145:3
". . . Your greatness is unsearchable."
Interesting material in J. N. D. Kelly's book, Early Christian Doctrines.
Thanks David for the mention of it and motivating me to re-read some of these pages.
This is very interesting:
About Irenaeus: (the end of his life/ministry/writings was around 180-200 AD)
"Unlike them [the Apologists, such as Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus], however, Irenaeus rejects the favorite analogy between God's utterance of His Word and the declaration of human thought in human speech on the ground that He is identical with His Word. In fact, taking his cue from Is. 53:8 (LXX: "Who shall explain His generation?"), he repudiates all attempts to explore the process by which the Word was begotten or put forth." (Kelly, p. 105, emphasis mine)
GV19 wrote:
but I am sure the sovereign God alone knows why you decided to read Rumi.
In order to know and understand Iranian culture deeper, to love them as people by appreciating the good in other cultures; so I can glory God in witnessing and share the gospel of Isa Masih with them - just as Paul quoted the Greek poets to share the gospel with them in Acts 17, I do the same thing. But Rumi is not inspired, and says some good things, but also says some really dirty disgusting things. Have you read all of his stuff? Some of it is really gross -
Summary from www.muslimhope.com/Rumi.htm
[warning: shocking - especially from a Muslim! ]
"Apparently the most disgusting story in Rumi is the story of a maidservant who trained a donkey "to perform the services of a man" She carved part of a gourd to use since the donkey’s anatomy was larger. Her mistress secretly saw this one time, and decided to try it herself. She did not know about the gourd flange though, and the donkey punctured her intestines and she died. The point is that we are supposed to remember her as an image of immoderation, and keep our balance, presumably as the maidservant did. So apparently the maidservant having sex with an animal with a gourd is a shining example for Sufis of how to live a life in moderation.
If you are a non-Muslim are totally shocked by this degrading analogy of Allah, realize that most Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims would be equally shocked.
This gross story of God in Sufism is in The Mathnawi 5:1333-1405 and can be read (that is if you really want to read it) in The Essential Rumi p.181-182)"
http://www.muslimhope.com/Rumi.htm
I have this in the two books - but I cut and paste from the Muslim hope site to save time and not have to type all of that out.
Do I need to get your earlier quotes about your attraction to the third aspect of Islam called Ihsan, Tassawuf?
I know what Ihsan is - احسان goodness - because we use it in Farsi, and it is also a first name for a man/male/boy; but I don't know what Tassawuf is - apparently we don't use that Arabic term in Farsi.
Or is this position now changed within the last 2-3 months?
No, not at all. Muslims are people and I love them (and you !); they and you are created in the image of God, human, but you and they are sinners (as we all are; we are not better than anyone); and need the grace and love and gospel of Jesus Al Masih and His substitutionary sacrifice for sin; "we have ransomed you with a mighty sacrifice". But Islam as a system is a false system, a bondage.
We are to hate sin, but love sinners.
We are to Love the sinner (people, Muslims, others); but hate the sin and false system.
GV19 wrote:
". . . we basically saw that Jesus doesn't die for his enemies."
Not true. Romans 5:1-11 - Jesus died for His enemies, ungodly sinners, helpless, rebellious people.
Your new found alliances with homosexuality,
What? No way! where are getting that from? Homosexuality is sin always will be(Romans 1:19-30; I Cor. 6:9-11; I Tim. 1:8-11; Genesis 19; Lev. 18:22; 20:13); they have no right to get "married" (no such thing, really, for them); and they should have never been allowed to adopt children; and they should not repeal "don't ask, don't tell" in the military - in fact it should be the old rule - they are automatically discharged dis-honorable, if discovered. It is a disgusting sin.
your very weak stand against divorce,
No, I have a very conservative and strong stand against divorce.
your support of the 'just war' (killing of children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine)
No, I don't support killing of children and never have; and I have righteous anger against the US soldiers who do things like "Abu Gharib" scandal. They scandalized in the minds of average Muslims, and yourself, any kind of good "just war" fight against evil things like Saddam and Taliban and Al Qaedah.
Hi Ken,
Thanks much for your continued participation and comments; I am going to briefly respond here to Kelly's reflections, but shall create a new thread to respond to all the Biblical issues you have raised (later today, or perhaps tomorrow - the Lord willing). You provided the following from Kelly:
==". . . their [ECFs] object was not so much to subordinate Him [Jesus, the eternal logos] as to safeguard the monotheism which they considered indispensable." ( p. 101, Kelly)==
To which you added:
..That was good - and contra to your emphasis on "subordination" of Jesus.>>
Me: I think you (and to a certain extent, even Kelly) are ignoring the real import of what Kelly said, namely that the Apologists primary emphasis was "to safeguard the monotheism which they considered indispensable". In their process of defending monotheism, they clearly subordinated the Son (and the Spirit) to the Father, who for them was "the one God".
A bit later you quoted the following:
=="Unlike them [the Apologists, such as Athenagoras, Justin Martyr, and Theophilus], however, Irenaeus rejects the favorite analogy between God's utterance of His Word and the declaration of human thought in human speech on the ground that He is identical with His Word. In fact, taking his cue from Is. 53:8 (LXX: "Who shall explain His generation?"), he repudiates all attempts to explore the process by which the Word was begotten or put forth." (Kelly, p. 105, emphasis mine)==
Me: This was a development; Irenaeus was the first CF to postulate what patristic scholars term 'single-stage Logos theory'; prior to Irenaeus, the CFs who wrote on Christology utilized the 'two-stage Logos theory', that relied upon the logos endiathetos and the logos prophorikos distinction, which was still retained by some CFs after Irenaeus. The 'two-stage Logos theory' was pretty much abandoned after Origen delineated his 'eternal generation' theory.
Grace and peace,
David
P.S. Keep in mind, that neither the 'single-stage Logos theory', nor the 'two-stage Logos theory' eliminated subordinationism; that came via Nicene (325) and Constantinople (381) councils, and the subsequent reflections of the theologians like Augustine and the Cappadocians who embraced those councils as infallible.
David,
the later Fathers didn't view Christ as the One God either, and the Nicean Creed makes it clear that the One God refers to the Father; and One Lord to the Son; and One Church; and One Baptism.
It's odd saying that the first two ecumenical synods disposed of sub-ordinationism or monarchy (I mean, if they did, we, their sons and heirs, weren't informed about it): the Arians didn't distinguish between person and nature (the Cappadocian Fathers did), and so they infered that personal sub-ordination means natural sub-ordination (i.e., if I listen to my father and do his will, this means that I, as his son, am sub-human or in-human or non-human -- obviously, we don't think this to be the case: wives listen to their husbands, and children to their parents, without being considered inferior human beings).
I also thought that since Logos means both Thought and Word, and since He's also called the Son of God, His inception as Thought in the Father's mind is like begetting or conception (to conceive a thought in one's mind = to conceive a child in one's womb), and since words are thoughts uttered aloud, coming out of the mind through the mouth into the open air, I've likened this to the birth of a child from the womb into the world. -- then I found out that others thought and said the same thousands of years before me, and that I had no original bone in my body... :-) -- so I don't know what's wrong with drawing obvious links or paralells or comparisons or connections between things (Son/Logos; conception/conceiveing; birth/uttering).
I also found myself thinking that the Father begat the Son of His own volition or free will. (I mean, it's not like He was forced to.. or that He did it by divine reflex.. or that "it was in His nature to do so": natures don't begat: persons do) -- the reason I abbandoned this view, which is not completely wrong, is because if God's Thought/Word was begotten and born by God through His Will.. how was His Will there in the first place? How was It born or begotten? :-) [So, it just seemed silly, know what I mean? :-)]
Anyway.. as I said, the Fathers and I are on the same "wave-length", so if my thoughts are obvious & self-evident & logical & true & Orthodox, why should I call theirs heretical? :-\ It just doesn't make any sense... :-|
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
Ken said, "Also, that women are only 1/2 of value of men in court of law, etc."
I saw the one text you gave from the Qur'an Ken. Nice try but again no cigar. The text says nothing about women being 'half of value' of men.
First of all for those interested. Chapter 24:6 turns your presuppositional anti-Islamic view on it's head Ken!
A woman's solitary evidence is enough to invalidate the solitary evidence of a man! It supersedes the man!
#2)If you notice this relates to financial transactions only. We all know how the love of money and property disputes can get ugly.
Now if you want a lesson on Islamic Fiqh Ken (and I am not saying this to be condescending if it appears that way may Allah forgive me and may you forgive me).
However, this can get really interested in cases where one of the women were to marry the other party and so forth.
I have yet to see from you a response that tells us why Jesus said a male child is more pure than a female child.
When a woman at childbirth bears a male, she shall be unclean seven days; she shall be unclean as at the time of her menstrual infirmity. On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. She shall remain in a state of blood purification for thirty-three days: she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until her period of purification is completed. If she bears a female, she shall be unclean two weeks as during her menstruation, and she shall remain in a state of blood purification for sixty-six days. (Leviticus 11:1-2)
I want to know where does the New Testament teach that men should not have sex with their wife during their courses (menstruation) where does it teach you not to have anal intercourse with your wife?
So I guess God has 'lightened' up since the Old Testament times eh?
Let us remember the view of sex and women in the Victorian age shall we.
Oh how dare you Muslim bring up an age in which Christianity had more sway in public life than today!
Don't talk about that you Muslim. We are all open and free and LIBERAL today (though we will claim we are conservative when we attack Islam *snicker* *snicker*)
To brother David,
Peace be unto you. Very interesting points you bring up.
This is what Allah says in the Qur'an.
People of the Book, GO NOT BEYOND THE BOUNDS in YOUR religion, and say not as to God but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only the Messenger of God, and His Word (wa kalimatuhu) that He committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him (roohun minhu). So believe in God and His Messengers, AND SAY NOT, 'THREE.' Refrain; better is it for you. God is only One God. GLORY BE TO HIM -- That He should have a son! To Him BELONGS ALL THAT IS IN THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH; God suffices for a guardian.(Holy Qur'an chapter 4:171)
David you said,
"when 'uttered' "Be", they became exterior to His inner essence, without God/Allah 'losing', so to speak, the internal aspect"
I agree with this but I would also like to add that when they became exterior to His essence they are subject to his commands, laws, wills and they are not the one giving orders and are not God in the ultimate sense.
This is what we fear. It ultimately will lead to pantheism if taken step by step.
I think we are making progress. I think when we arrive to a point prior to making Jesus as a super agent or the Logos (personified) that was a creator agent than we arrive at the Monotheism of Christ Jesus that Islam affirms he taught.
For example when looking over text given by Ken above I saw him give the following (and rightfully so)
John 1:1-18
Colossians 1:15-20
John 8:56-59
Philippians 2:3-11
This only increase my suspicion. The gospel of John was quoted over the other three. How can I not listen to people who talk about theological developments?
Than we have Colossians and Phillipians (Both Paul) -or so we are told.
If you remove Paul from the equation all that is Christianity today basically goes out the window.
I wish people would stop and think about that. I mean Paul writes the majority of the New Testament text-or so we are told.
After Jesus is gone Paul becomes the big head hancho over a vision!!!
What did those two people who accompany Paul write? Oh that's right they didn't!
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' (Matthew 18:16)
This vision propels him to a position and authority over all the other disciples? Hand picked by Christ Jesus?
I mean the guy seems pretty important, yet there is no foreshadowing of Paul in the Old Testament. Jesus doesn't mention him in the Gospels.
I mean forgive me for being so frank but he has Messenger of God status! Running around correcting this, setting this right, writing inspired text.
His resume alone basically outshines every one in the Old Testament.
Not so much as a peep about this guy becoming 'The Man' so to speak?
I just don't buy that.
Ken says,
"John 17:5 says He and the Father were together and shared the same glory together, and had a personal relationship with the Father."
But back up a few verses in John 17:3 it says, That they may know thee the ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus Christ whom you (The Only True God) has sent.
This is very clear.
"And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." John 17:5
Now think about that Ken. Think about that text in relationship to Phillipians chapter 2:3-11. Or even Colossians 2:9
If he has the FULLNESS of the Godhead why is he asking for a glory that he had BEFORE?
If he doesn't have that glory now obviously he isn't God. According to the criteria that you people set up.
He has to ask from someone with the ability to grant the request.
"I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: (John 17:22)
What ever glory God has GIVEN Jesus he(Jesus) has given also to his disciples.
Uh Oh someone has already went against their decree that 'My Glory I will not give unto another"
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to anyone else, nor share my praise with carved idols. (Isaiah 42:8)
This is where we use our hermeneutic to protect the Trinity dogma and the so-called deity of Jesus right Ken ;)
Ken as far as your one passage of Rumi I find it highly interesting that it didn't come from books that YOU HAVE READ.
But from a polemical site online. Very telling indeed.
Also you made a huge blunder when you said,
"I know what Ihsan is - احسان goodness - because we use it in Farsi, and it is also a first name for a man/male/boy; but I don't know what Tassawuf is - apparently we don't use that Arabic term in Farsi.
You do not know what Ihsan is. If you want to know what it is I'll tell you. And "we" do not use it in Persian. Your were born in the United States Ken.
I know you might wish or imagine that you Persian from time to time but hey I can't help that.
Are we seeing an Ergun Caner part 2 Ken?
I mean a guy who speaks as if he has knowledge about a subject has to go and find the most lurid piece of information from an online polemical site. Not from his OWN readings.
So I guess you burned your Rumi collections than and just needed a refresher ;)
A man who claims to have knowledge of Farsi and Arabic yet makes horrendous mistakes (though not on the level of White) I'll give you that.
A person who thinks he has some cursory knowledge in Albanian than able to use this to comment and exegetic Biblical text in Koine Greek.
Your truly amazing.
Ken I know you may imagine yourself as some ambassador between Iran and the United States, or between the Persian people and those of Tennessee and that's commendable.
However, no your limits and your place in terms of what you know and what you do not know.
That would be healthy. I know some times our local culture can get a bit boring but you can't sit here and bash on David about Baha'i when it's obvious to anyone who can see that you some times imagine yourself as an Arab or a Persian.
Some times you see yourself as a Muslim but you can't get over or around your theology. You have one foot in the water but not sure rather to jump in.
Islam is open to you Ken. You do not have to become a Persian or an Arab. You can still identify with America and being an American (minus the alcohol and pork).
However alcohol and pork do not define America either.
Some times your not sure if we are all evil terrorist, or if we genuine, sincere and good people.
You also bang the drum of (oh those who are sincere and peaceful are only practicing deception or a watered down version of their faith).
You have to say that or the people you pander to (among the reformed and others) will start to question your salvation.
The moment you even think for an iota of a second that Islam is true and question your salvation the real scary reality of the evanescent grace that is Calvinism becomes painfully obvious to you.
we basically saw that Jesus doesn't die for his enemies."
Not true. Romans 5:1-11 - Jesus died for His enemies, ungodly sinners, helpless, rebellious people.
Not true as per Calvin. Jesus died for the SAINTS the ELECT whom God allows some to indulge in the previous mentioned...God has already determined these are his LOVED ONES. Not the object's of his wrath.
When you make a peace treaty with someone they are NOW your friend.
Those burning in eternal hell the enemies of God did Jesus die for them Ken?
Can you answer that without dipping your toe into Pelagianism.
By the way my friend Allen in North Carolina whom was a five point Calvinist is now a Muslim.
:)
GV19 -
Words have meaning according to context; Ihsan احسانdoes mean "goodness" or can also mean "favor", "charity", "doing good", "good deeds". I was not wrong, but you may be thinking of some technical meaning of some specific doctrine or practice.
It comes from the root, hosn, حسن
Which is also where the names
حسین
Hossein
and
حسن
Hassan
come from.
We use this in "hosn e niyat" - "good or pure or sincere motives"
حسن نیت
Also -
I figured out what Tassawuf is – it is “Sufism” or “Sufi-gari”
تصوف
Iranians render the concept this way, "Sufi-gari" = the philosophy or school of thought or movement of Sufism.
صوفی گری
Tassawuf is a very Arabic word - Iranians say "Sufi - Gari" - or "Sufism".
On the quote from Rumi, I first read it in my own copy of Rumi - I have 2 different books of Rumi, the Masnavi (Mathnavi) and "The Essential Rumi".
I cut and paste when I can find it somewhere on line so I don't have to type the whole thing out.
If you didn't know about that; then you have not read much of Rumi.
So you are wrong again on everything you wrote; and you get no cigar; again.
You cannot get around Romans 5:1-11 and the clear teaching that Christ died for His enemies, sinners, rebellious, helpless, etc.
You confessed that "someone dying for his enemies is greater love" (that someone dying for his friends); Christ did do that. The offer of eternal life is open to you. You must see your self as a sinner and helpless to do goodness or righteousness and that all your good works and rituals are always tainted by wrong motives - pride, selfishness, jealousy, and the internal hidden secret sins of lust, anger, bitterness - no amount of "wazdu" وضو (ritual washings, ablutions) can wash away those internal sins and evil motives.
Mark 7:14-23
Luke 18:9-14
"God demonstrates His own love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 5:8
"For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life."
Romans 5:10
"Come to Me, all you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." see Matthew 11:28-30
GV19 wrote:
"This only increase my suspicion. The gospel of John was quoted over the other three."
Yet, the Gospel of John is where the "logos" کلمه = kalameh (the word) is used to describe Jesus when He was pre-incarnate. This concept from the God-breathed Scripture in John found its way into the Qur'an in 4:171 - Jesus is the word of God.
The Deity of Christ is in Matthew also -
the Magi (a group of Persian and Kurdish mystics, scientists, astronomers) because they knew the prophesy of Daniel (spoken in Shush, Iran, about 500 years earlier - see Daniel 9:24-27 of the Messiah to come.
The Magi bowed down and worshipped the child Jesus - Matthew 2:2 and 2:11.
Mark 14:61-64 also teaches the Deity of Christ, just as the gospel of John does.
Paul was an apostle of Jesus Christ and affirmed by the other 12 disciples (at that point, Judas was replaced by Mathias - see Acts chapter 1; Galatians chapters 1-2 and I Corinthians 9:1-5 and 15:1-9 and 2 Peter 3:15-16 (Peter affirms all of Paul's letters as Scripture).
Luke 1:34-35 teaches the virgin birth and Deity of Christ also; as many other passages.
So you are wrong again on all counts.
With the name of Allah, Peace be unto those who follow the guidance from their Lord.
So I can see that Ken doesn't have any response to his flat lie of
"Also, that women are only 1/2 of value of men in court of law"
So are you still pressing this claim Ken or are you going to still claim that even in light of evidence to the contrary?
If so than there is no use of further education to you. I have done my part as commanded of me by Allah.
I am also reminded that ultimately Allah is the one who guides.
I have given sound response to your propaganda about makareen and I have given two blog entries that show reformed tradition believes God deceives people.
I have given sound response and shown your inconsistencies on the Qur'an endorses the 22 books of the New Testament argument.
I met not very long ago a Southern Baptist missionary and an Iranian (self proclaimed convert to Christianity) they came to our Masjid (Sultan Mosque) claiming to look for someone.
They didn't stick around for long especially when the conversation was not going well for them. I know that 'convert' has allot to think about for sure.
They preached Paul's gospel on the doorsteps of our Masjid. I didn't chase anyone away.
They said they will return (don't they all....)
The days of prancing around Iran, and Morocco in hopes that you will lure someone into your faith is over Ken.
That is why your tactics have changed. If we can't win the Muslims over let's at least KEEP people from becoming Muslims.
So you finally figured out what tassawuf means? I only wish Ken!
"Iranians render the concept this way, "Sufi-gari" = the philosophy or school of thought or movement of Sufism."
Seems to me that if you wanted to understand the spiritual current of Islam you would have read up on Imam Al Ghazali. But that probably didn't suit your missionary purposes of 'Christianity is love Islam is legalism' approach.
"God demonstrates His own love for US, in that while WE were yet sinners, Christ died for US."
Romans 5:8 So are we arguing as Michael Brown or James White today Ken?
"Come to Me, ALL you who are weary and heavy laden, and I will give you rest." see Matthew 11:28-30 Again which one are you on this passage Brown or White?
You can claim reformed theology Ken but deep inside there's a pelagian waiting to come out and play.
Remember Jesus said "No greater love is there than this that a man lay down his life for his FRIEND"
As I said this is simply not true a greater love is that he lay down his life for his ENEMY. That must have really gotten to you.
Because you keep trying so very very hard Ken to make it seem like a claim for Christian superiority.
It probably did keep you up at nights. How many 'no great love' publications have you people sent through the world?
But in one fell stroke the gust behind the sails wasn't there this time.
You would think that Jesus himself would have said, "No greater love than there is this that a man lay down his life for his enemy"
Why don't you think he simply just said that?
So Jesus said, 'no great love than there is.........excuse me we interrupt this Jesus to give you the new spruced up Jesus brought to you by the new head hancho PAUL.
Sure Ken feel free to talk about how you were an enemy of Jesus when you used to commit fortification, go binge drinking and occasionally use mission funds for *personal reasons*
So as an enemy if Jesus didn't force you to accept him as a friend your fate would be a hell for all eternity (and it still will be with the views you hold)
However, you just happened to be the lucky piece of pottery (lifeless clay) that was selected by a capricious deity before the foundation of the world.
Sure you partied a little, you may have had your fair share of fantasies about foreign women and acted upon them, but hey ultimately that Holy Spirit came just in the nick of time decimated your will and you declared Jesus as Lord voila!
Not by your own doing of course.
What a lucky guy you are Ken! So for a while God let us pre-destined saint wallow around in the mud for a while and than decided (for reasons only known to himself) that this particular day at 1:09 am that he would send the Holy Spirit crashing down upon your will......
How this works is anyone's guess.
Some of God's pre-destined saints he brings to his understanding quite early (even at birth!)
Why God let's a few people sleep around with a few women, try a few lines of cocaine, violate children, and so forth before he decides you know what yeah I let them sin enough.
Go forth now my Holy Spirit and smash that piece of pottery as has been the plan all along.
Why God decided to send it (The Holy Spirit) 279 Coors Lights, 2 bottles of Evan Williams, 23 lines of cocaine, and 77 orgasms latter is anyone's guess!
But your in!
Than you got people like poor David over here sifting through 1600 books comparing notes and trying to figure it all out and heck he may end up going to hell for all eternity.
Your theology is anything but loving it's dark and it's twisted.
GV19 wrote:
"Also, that women are only 1/2 of value of men in court of law"
So are you still pressing this claim Ken or are you going to still claim that even in light of evidence to the contrary?
Yes, Islamic Fiq (Jurisprudence) uses those Qur'anic verses to justify their unjust laws against women. Sorry, you are wrong.
GV19 wrote:
"I have given sound response to your propaganda about makareen and I have given two blog entries that show reformed tradition believes God deceives people."
No, you did not give a sound response and you have none; and Islam has a deity which is "kheir Ol Makareen"
خیر المکارین
= "the very best deceiver". Qur'an 3:54; 8:30; 10:22
None of your responses were adequate nor sound. You are wrong.
I have given sound response and shown your inconsistencies on the Qur'an endorses the 22 books of the New Testament argument.
No, you did not. The Qur'an affirms the Gospel and the Torah and Zabur (Psalms of David). Since the Qur'an came 600 years later and the previous Scriptures were all there - OT - finished by 430 BC and NT - finished by 70 AD or 96 AD; this proves the Bible is true and not corrupt.
Qur'an 10:94 still stands as confirming both the NT and OT. (the people of the Book)
Qur'an 5:46-48 still stands as affirming the Gospel. (the NT - all of the NT, even though Muhammad didn't know it.)
The rest of your ranting is just anger because you cannot deal with the truth that Christ died for His enemies (Romans 5:1-11) and that is "greater love" and deep down you know that is beautiful and you want it to be true. You have no peace without an atonement for your sins; you are under the wrath of God as you try and push down on the inside that longing for real love; only the God of the Bible is love. God is love; I John 4:8. You don't have that in Islam.
In Islam, a woman's testimony is worth half the testimony of a man's, as both the Qur´an and the Hadith state. The Qur´an says, "...if the two be not men, then one man and two women, such witnesses as you approve of, that if one of the two women errs the other will remind her..." (Sura al-Baqara 2:282).
Hadith, Sahih Al Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301:
Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri:
Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) of 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion."
al-Bukhari, Volume 1, book 6, number 301
Also: Muslim, Iman 132; Abu Dawud, Sunna 15; al-Tirmidsi, Iman 6; Ibn Maja, Fitan 19; Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 2:67.
Commentators quote this hadith to support the fact that the woman's testimony, in Islam, is worth half of man's testimony.(
al-Razi, 7:113; Ibn Kathir, 1:335.)
Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzi justifies the import of Sura al-Baqara 2:282 by saying:
Our leading scholar Ibn Taymiyya, may God show mercy upon him, said, "The divine instruction, 'If there are not two men [available], then one man and two women [may serve] as witnesses from anyone you may approve of, so that if either of them should slip up, then one woman may remind the other,' indicates that the testimony of two women in the place of one man is for the purpose of reminding one another in case one of them slips up. In fact, people usually slip up in such matters. The Prophet referred to this when he said, 'As to the deficiency of their intelligence, the witness of two women are equal to the witness of one man.' Thus he made it clear that dividing their testimony after such a manner is due to the deficiency of their intelligence, not of their religion. Thus it is known that 'The righteousness of women is the same as that of men, nevertheless, their intelligence is less than theirs.' So in such matters as bearing witness, slipping up is not to be feared usually. Women's testimony is treated in this respect as having half the value of men's; their testimony is accepted separately. It depends on things they see, touch, or hear with no need for much intelligence. Conception, the beginning of the month, giving birth, menstruation, or defects under a dress, these are not easily forgotten and it does not need a perfect mind to recognise them, like the meanings of the sayings that they listen to [for instance, the confession of faith, etc...] which have sensible meanings and have long been used in general."
(Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya, al-Turuq al-hukmiyya (Cairo, 1961), p.175.)
Hi Lvka,
Thanks for responding; you wrote:
>>the later Fathers didn't view Christ as the One God either,>>
Me: Augustine did.
>>and the Nicean Creed makes it clear that the One God refers to the Father>>
Me: True, but the Athanasian Creed states: “And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity”.
>>Anyway.. as I said, the Fathers and I are on the same "wave-length", so if my thoughts are obvious & self-evident & logical & true & Orthodox, why should I call theirs heretical? :-\ It just doesn't make any sense... :-|>>
Me: The line of doctrinal development that the Catholic/Orthodox councils/fathers took from the 4th century forward was one of the legitimate (by legitimate I mean merely mean non-contradictory) directions that could have been followed (so I do not believe that you should call the ECFs “heretical”); however, as Raymond Brown has pointed out, it was not the only legitimate one.
Grace and peace,
David
Hello GV19,
Wow, you and Ken have been busy! Thanks much for your kind words directed to me, and for taking the time to respond to my comments; you posted:
>>David you said,
"when 'uttered' "Be", they became exterior to His inner essence, without God/Allah 'losing', so to speak, the internal aspect"
I agree with this but I would also like to add that when they became exterior to His essence they are subject to his commands, laws, wills and they are not the one giving orders and are not God in the ultimate sense.>>
Me: I agree, and I think the NT is quite clear on this.
>>This is what we fear. It ultimately will lead to pantheism if taken step by step.>>
Me: Once again, I agree.
>>I think we are making progress. I think when we arrive to a point prior to making Jesus as a super agent or the Logos (personified) that was a creator agent than we arrive at the Monotheism of Christ Jesus that Islam affirms he taught.>>
Me: In all the creation texts that mention the Logos/Word, Wisdom, and/or Spirit of God as participating with God in creation, it is always in a mediatorial sense.
Grace and peace,
David
So basically your problem is with scholastic and post-scholastic Western views of the Holy Trinity, and not with "Niceea" and "the Fathers" per se, right? Or?
What other possible trajectories for Trinitarian thought do you have in mind?
...not that Saint Augustine and the Athanasian Creed are post-1,000 AD (which is when Scholasticism kicked in), but... anyway... in the East, the "the-One-God-being-the-Father"-theology of pre-Nicene and Cappadocian Fathers is still in use...
Post a Comment