Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
aquafairy

Concept Of God In Christianity

Recommended Posts

God has a son ... yes.

 

By the way, God didn't give birth to His Son ... if that's what you think. :sl:

 

"To beget" means "to be the father of" ... not "to give birth to".

Aha, so when the king begets a son, he hires someone else or what? To mods: i am trying to be as polite as i can, couldnt find a better way to explain it.

So tell me if this is rational, instead of saying, I want to adopt this baby, we could also say i want to beget this baby?

Edited by Pashton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Aha, so when the king begets a son, he hires someone else or what? To mods: i am trying to be as polite as i can, couldnt find a better way to explain it.

So tell me if this is rational, instead of saying, I want to adopt this baby, we could also say i want to beget this baby?

 

You are still being facetious, as polite as it may be, and I think there is no necessity for it. This is a serious fundamental issue and not one to be playful or impolite with.

 

Unfortunately the Christians cannot explain this concept fully or clearly either, even impossibly since obviously it is an artificial concept, not even mentioned as such in the Gospels, but arising out of an unwarranted extrapolation of various statements appearing in them - the authenticity of which statements themselves is questionable.

 

A heresy which Jesus (pbuh) never taught or even spoke about has been transformed from "Hear O israel, the Lord our God is One Lord" through politics and power play into the current orthodoxy of belief in "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" of those who purport to be his followers.

 

To do so they have had to uphold a further fictitious concept of "inerrancy" of the Bible and to deny history as well as reality.

 

Since the Christians have been misled into elevating the "Son" to equal partnership with the "Father" and a third party called the "Holy Spirit", they have had no choice but to use a totally inappropriate term such as "beget" to explain his conception by a human woman without the normal intervention of a human father.

 

This idea and reality of the "virgin" conception is quite easily explained by God commanding it to "Be" as is usual with the normal process of creation, but rather more difficult (in fact impossible) to explain if one for any reason wished to equate the creature (Jesus (pbuh)) with the Creator.

 

You know very well of course that there is no "begetting" involved, nor is it a form of adoption. It is just fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said i do not beleive that the bible we have today is the word of God and i posted the video as a proof, so until you disprove that your arguments are...

 

Now do you want to discuss the matter? :sl:

 

Yes, I'm willing to discuss the matter as soon as you post YOUR arguments.

 

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aha, so when the king begets a son, he hires someone else or what? To mods: i am trying to be as polite as i can, couldnt find a better way to explain it.

So tell me if this is rational, instead of saying, I want to adopt this baby, we could also say i want to beget this baby?

 

Adopting a son is not the same as begetting a son. The only way for a human to beget a son is by giving birth to him. But we're talking about God here ... not some human.

 

Anyway, let me try to make it more understandable for you.

 

Both the Father and the Son are eternal. The Father did not create (or give birth to) the Son, yet the Son is the begotten Son of the Father, in the sense that the Son is lower in rank than the Father, just as a human son is lower in rank than his human father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unfortunately the Christians cannot explain this concept fully or clearly either, even impossibly since obviously it is an artificial concept, not even mentioned as such in the Gospels, but arising out of an unwarranted extrapolation of various statements appearing in them - the authenticity of which statements themselves is questionable.

 

It is explainable, actually.

 

The problem, however, is what certain people think when they hear that Jesus is the begotten Son of God.

 

When we say that Jesus is the begotten Son of God (the Father), many people automatically make the assumption that Jesus was literally created by the Father or was born because of the Father ... and because of this wrong assumption, these people misunderstand what we mean.

 

It is simple. The Father begat the Son in the sense that the Son has the same nature as that of the Father but is lower in rank than the Father, just as a human son has the same nature as that of his human father but is lower in rank than him.

 

A heresy which Jesus (pbuh) never taught or even spoke about has been transformed from "Hear O israel, the Lord our God is One Lord" through politics and power play into the current orthodoxy of belief in "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" of those who purport to be his followers.

 

There was no transformation involved.

 

All true Christians believe in one God of a complex nature - a nature that's too complex for the human mind to comprehend.

 

What we know of God is what we read about Him in His written Word - the Bible.

 

And, by the way, Jesus did show us (in Matthew 28) a picture about God as the Trinity.

 

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

Notice how it says "name" instead of "names".

 

To do so they have had to uphold a further fictitious concept of "inerrancy" of the Bible and to deny history as well as reality.
Well, I've just shown how they didn't have to make up any fictitious concept (or deny history and reality) to show that God is of a triune nature. So your statement above is based on an erroneous assumption.

 

Since the Christians have been misled into elevating the "Son" to equal partnership with the "Father" and a third party called the "Holy Spirit", they have had no choice but to use a totally inappropriate term such as "beget" to explain his conception by a human woman without the normal intervention of a human father.

 

For your information, the term "beget" is not supposed to be used to explain the Son's conception by a human woman without the normal intervention of a human father.

 

This idea and reality of the "virgin" conception is quite easily explained by God commanding it to "Be" as is usual with the normal process of creation, but rather more difficult (in fact impossible) to explain if one for any reason wished to equate the creature (Jesus (pbuh)) with the Creator.
Why is it impossible?

 

You know very well of course that there is no "begetting" involved, nor is it a form of adoption. It is just fiction.

 

There was no giving birth or adoption involved. We just need to understand what it means for Jesus to be the only begotten Son of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is explainable, actually.

 

The problem, however, is what certain people think when they hear that Jesus is the begotten Son of God.

 

Explain then if you can. As far as I can see, the problem is what certain people think when they hear that God does not "beget" nor is He "begotten". For some reason they can't accept this plain and simple statement (as stated in the Qur'an), but prefer a more complicated, convoluted and concocted doctrine.

 

When we say that Jesus is the begotten Son of God (the Father), many people automatically make the assumption that Jesus was literally created by the Father or was born because of the Father ... and because of this wrong assumption, these people misunderstand what we mean.

 

It is simple. The Father begat the Son in the sense that the Son has the same nature as that of the Father but is lower in rank than the Father, just as a human son has the same nature as that of his human father but is lower in rank than him.

There was no transformation involved.

That Jesus was literally created by God is a fact, not an assumption. How is it possible for people to misunderstand what that means? For people to understand what you (Christians) mean is a different matter, since you have got it all in a twist.

 

It is simple but not as you explain it. What does "in the sense" mean? Does it mean that there was a time when the "Son" did not exist? If he existed pre-eternally with the "Father", how could he be lower in rank? If he did not, what does it mean for him to have been brought into existence as a human being?

 

No transformation involved? How did God become a human being then, or how did a human being become God (or "Son" of God)? Just plain impossible!

 

All true Christians believe in one God of a complex nature - a nature that's too complex for the human mind to comprehend.

 

Really? How was God's complex nature reduced to such a simplistic (yet complicated) concept as the "Trinity" then, if it is far too complex for the human mind to comprehend? However, I can certainly comprehend without any great deal of complexity that the "Trinity" cannot even come close to explaining the true nature of God.

 

Somehow you have grasped the truth, that God is of such a complex nature that cannot be comprehended by the human mind, yet you have still managed to lead yourself astray by reducing that complexity to a (purportedly) comprehensible "Trinity". (Yet there were and still are also Christians who believe in "Unity" of God rather than God the "Trinity").

 

What we really know about God is that there is nothing like Him (that we know of). We cannot compare God to anything we know, let alone any human being. This is where the Christians got it wrong.

 

What we know of God is what we read about Him in His written Word - the Bible.
If it really was His Written Word, wouldn't it be reported and recorded in the first person? Why then is it possible to see that it is the scribes' words which comprise the Bible rather than the actual Word of God?

 

And, by the way, Jesus did show us (in Matthew 28) a picture about God as the Trinity.

 

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

 

Notice how it says "name" instead of "names".

 

The only thing I notice is that this is an obvious forgery. The evidence, among others, is that it is not to be found in the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetjesus-messiah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/apologetics/catholic/matthew-proof.html"]Matthew 28:19 Fraud Exposed[/url] See also (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_jesus-messiah(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/apologetics/catholic/matthew2819.html"]Is Matthew 28:19 Spurious?[/url]

 

Well, I've just shown how they didn't have to make up any fictitious concept (or deny history and reality) to show that God is of a triune nature. So your statement above is based on an erroneous assumption.
Indeed. To me a far more erroneous assumption would be that the Creator could become a creature or vice versa. God is God, Jesus is Jesus. There is no doubt that Jesus was a human being, therefore he cannot be God or "Son" of God.

 

What were the Unitarian (Arian) Christians fighting about with the Trinitarian Christians then, such that Constantine had to call the warring factions together at the Council of Niceae in 325 CE?

 

For your information, the term "beget" is not supposed to be used to explain the Son's conception by a human woman without the normal intervention of a human father.

 

Then why use such a term? (with all its human connotations).

 

Why is it impossible?

There was no giving birth or adoption involved. We just need to understand what it means for Jesus to be the only begotten Son of God.

 

It is just not possible for the Creator to become a creature. There are two entirely different and completely separate natures here, neither of which can be or become the other. All it needs is for us to understand what it means for Jesus NOT to be the "only" "begotten" "Son" of God.

 

Otherwise, please explain how it is possible that the Creator can be or become a creature. And don't tell me it is impossible to comprehend how this can be so.

Edited by yusufar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Otherwise, please explain how it is possible that the Creator can be or become a creature. And don't tell me it is impossible to comprehend how this can be so.

 

It is impossible to comprehend how this can do done.

 

If you think you could comprehend God then perhaps you are being mislead.

 

If all the rational arguments posited by all sides of any religious debate were comprehended then we would not be needing yet another intellectual debate.

Edited by wayseer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is impossible to comprehend how this can do done.

 

If you think you could comprehend God then perhaps you are being mislead.

 

If all the rational arguments posited by all sides of any religious debate were comprehended then we would not be needing yet another intellectual debate.

 

You may have misunderstood me.

 

I never said nor even think that I can comprehend God, and I thought I made that quite clear.

 

He is the Absolutely Incomprehensible. Nothing we know is like Him.

 

Conversely that means that anything we know is not Him.

 

And that still doesn't mean that He can become a creature.

 

And the answer by anyone who asserts that He can (become a creature) that it is impossible to comprehend how this can be done is woefully inadequate.

 

But as you say, the debate continues...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He is the Absolutely Incomprehensible. Nothing we know is like Him.

 

Conversely that means that anything we know is not Him.

 

And that still doesn't mean that He can become a creature.

 

And therein lies your contradiction.

 

If your first two assumptions are correct - the third cannot apply - and that still doesn't mean that He can become a creature.

 

You are limiting that which you claim is unlimited.

 

I see no reason why God cannot become anything - a person, a tree, the moon, a flower, the sound of a leaf falling.

 

The only limit to God is our assumption of what God should be.

Edited by wayseer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And therein lies your contradiction.

 

If your first two assumptions are correct - the third cannot apply - and that still doesn't mean that He can become a creature.

 

You are limiting that which you claim is unlimited.

 

I see no reason why God cannot become anything - a person, a tree, the moon, a flower, the sound of a leaf falling.

 

The only limit to God is our assumption of what God should be.

 

There is absolutely no contradiction.

 

Anything other than God is not Him. That is not a limitation, just a fact.

 

While your theory that God can "become" anything appears reasonable and logical, yet this will go against His very Nature as Creator, and saying that does not in any way limit Him or His Powers to do or become "anything".

 

The moment it even appears to us that God has "become" or is capable of "becoming" something else (as you say, a person, a tree, etc), then that which we know or assume we know is NOT God but a creation of God.

 

What I am saying is not an assumption of what God should be, but rather what we know He is not, since what we know cannot be God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no contradiction.

 

The wine of fanaticism is laced with laziness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The wine of fanaticism is laced with laziness.

 

My fanaticism in this regard derives not from laziness but much contemplation. The only wine I know is that of the Absolute Oneness. I know of nothing other than. If I imbibe in the Unity out of sheer laziness only He will know.

 

If that is laziness, then I claim the right to be lazy.

 

If that is fanaticism then so be it. I will accept none other than.

Edited by yusufar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is absolutely no contradiction.

 

Anything other than God is not Him. That is not a limitation, just a fact.

 

While your theory that God can "become" anything appears reasonable and logical, yet this will go against His very Nature as Creator, and saying that does not in any way limit Him or His Powers to do or become "anything".

 

The moment it even appears to us that God has "become" or is capable of "becoming" something else (as you say, a person, a tree, etc), then that which we know or assume we know is NOT God but a creation of God.

 

What I am saying is not an assumption of what God should be, but rather what we know He is not, since what we know cannot be God.

 

:sl:

 

Thank God true Islam is being represented. The reason why I write this is because I kept repeating myself over and over again 'til the point of exhaustion in a thread titled "Can God Become Man", you should copy and paste this to the same thread.

Edited by Younes Ibn Abd' al-Aziz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not interested in what Deedat said.

 

What do YOU have to say?

 

Can you, in your own words, tell me why the Bible is not God's Word?

 

 

MY RESPONSE:

 

We know that Allah (God) is the All Wise so He will not make any mistakes. The Bible contains so many contradictions and errors so the Bible is not the Word of God for God does not make any mistakes. Therefore it is the keepers of the Bible who corrupt the Bible into a lie. I dare you to debate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Joh 10:30-31 I and my Father are one.31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him

 

My religion dont belive in the trinity and john 10:30-31 is taken out of context. If you read john 10:38 it say the father is in union with him. I going to use the concept of marriage. When a guy married a women the bible say they become one. So does it mean they literly become one or does it mean they have to work togather and make the marriage work out. So they have to work togather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, authors of the first three Gospels, believed that Jesus was not God (see Mark 10:18 and Matthew 19:17). They believed that he was the son of God in the sense of a righteous person. Many others too, are similarly called sons of God (see Matthew 23:1-9).

 

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God."Matthew 5:9.

 

Commentary by People's New Testament:

 

Matthew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers. Not the soldiers of a warrior king, such as the Jews expected but the men who, in the name of the Prince of Peace, go forth to proclaim peace and good will among men. Christ is the great Peacemaker.

 

According to the Bible the men including Jesus, who go forth to proclaim peace and good will among men, are the peacemakers and the peacemakers are called the 'sons of God'. God is One and Only according to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad (peace and bless be upon them) so God has no real sons but the Servant of God .

 

It should also be noted that nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus actually call himself “Son of God”.[10] Instead, he is recorded to have repeatedly called himself “Son of man” (e.g. Luke 9:22) innumerable times. And in Luke 4:41, he actually rejected being called “Son of God”: “And demons also came out of many, crying, ‘You are the Son of God!’ But he rebuked them, and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.”

 

Since the Hebrews believed that God is One, and had neither wife nor children in any literal sense, it is obvious that the expression “son of God” merely meant to them “Servant of God”; one who, because of his faithful service, was close and dear to God, as a son is to a father. Christians who came from a Greek or Roman background, later misused this term. In their heritage, “son of God” signified an incarnation of a god or someone born of a physical union between male and female gods.[11] When the Church cast aside its Hebrew foundations, it adopted the pagan concept of “son of God”, which was entirely different from the Hebrew usage.[12]

 

Consequently, the use of the term “son of God” should only be understood from the Semitic symbolic sense of a “servant of God”, and not in the pagan sense of a literal offspring of God. In the four Gospels, Jesus is recorded as saying: “Blessed are the peace-makers; they will be called sons of God.”[13]

 

Jesus according the Holy Quran:

 

Jesus was born miraculously by the command of God, the same command that had brought Adam into being with neither a father nor a mother. God has said:

 

The case of Jesus with God is like the case of Adam. He created him from dust, and then He said to him, “Be!” and he came into being. (Quran, 3:59)

 

"O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs." The Holy Quran 4:171

 

"And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son." The Holy Quran 72:3

 

"In the name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Say (O Muhammad), He is God, the One God, the Everlasting Refuge, who has not begotten, nor has been begotten, and equal to Him is not anyone”. The Holy Quran chapter 112.

 

 

References:

 

[10] In the New Testament Book of Acts, there are several outlines of speeches of the early disciples of Jesus, speeches which date from the year 33 CE, almost forty years before the Four Gospels were written. In one of these discourses, Jesus is referred to specifically as andra apo tou theou: “a man from God.” (Acts 2:22). Not once do these early confessions of faith use the expression wios tou theou: “Son of God”, but they do speak several times of Jesus as God’s servant and prophet (Acts 3:13, 22, 23, 26). The significance of these speeches is that they accurately reflect the original belief and terminology of the disciples, before the belief and terminology were evolved under the influence of Roman religion and Greek philosophy. They reflect a tradition which is older than that used by the Four Gospels, in which Jesus is not invested with godship or divine sonship. (Bible Studies From a Muslim Perspective, p. 12).

 

[11] See Acts 14:11-13. In the city of Lystra (Turkey), Paul and Barnabas preached, and the pagan peoples claimed that they were gods incarnate. They called Barnabas the Roman god Zeus, and Paul the Roman god Hermes.

 

[12] Bible Studies from a Muslim Perspective, p. 15.

 

[13] Matthew 5:9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus is a man who was a messenger of Allah (God) to the lost sheep of the house of israel. Jesus is not God for Jesus is just a man.

 

Throughout the Qur‘aan, Jesus is identified fundamentally as a Messenger of God. In Chapter as-Saff (61):6, God quotes Jesus as follows:

 

} æóÅöÐú ÞóÇáó ÚöíÓóì ÇÈúäõ ãóÑúíóãó íóÇÈöäöí ÅöÓúÑÂÆöíáó Åöäøöí ÑóÓõæáõ Çááåö Åöáóíúßõãú ãõÕóÏøöÞðÇ áøöãóÇ Èóíúäó íóÏóíøó ãöäó ÇáÊøóæúÑÇÉö {

 

“And [remember] when Jesus, son of Mary, said: ‘O Children of israel, I am the messenger of Allaah sent to you, confirming the Torah [which came] before me.”

 

There are many verses in the New Testament supporting the messengership / prophethood of Jesus. The following are only a few: In Matthew 21:11, the people of his time are recorded as referring to Jesus as a prophet: “And the crowds said, ‘This is the prophet Jesus of Nazareth of Galilee.’ ” In Mark, 6:4, it is stated that Jesus referred to himself as a prophet: “And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house.’ ”

 

The Qur’aanic revelation not only affirms Jesus’ prophethood, but it also clearly denies Jesus’ divinity. In Chapter al-Maa’idah, (5): 75, God points out that Jesus ate food, which is a human act, obviously not befitting to God.

 

} ãóÇ ÇáúãóÓöíÍõ ÇÈúäõ ãóÑúíóãó ÅöáÇøó ÑóÓõæáñ ÞóÏú ÎóáóÊú ãöäú ÞóÈúáöåö ÇáÑøõÓõáõ æóÃõãøõåõ ÕöÏøöíÞóÉñ ßóÇäóÇ íóÃúßõáÇóäö ÇáØøóÚóÇãó ÇäúÙõÑú ßóíúÝó äõÈóíøöäõ áóåõãõ ÇúáÂíóÇÊö Êõãøó ÇäúÙõÑú Ãóäøóì íõÄúÝóßõæäó {

 

“The Messiah, Son of Mary, was no more than a messenger and many messengers passed away before him. His mother was exceedingly truthful, and they both ate food. See how I have made the signs clear for them, yet see how they are deluded.”

 

There are numerous accounts in the New Testament which also deny Jesus’ divinity.

 

For example, in Matthew 19:17, Jesus responded to one who addressed him as “O good master”, saying: “Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God.” If he rejected being called “good”, and stated that only God is truly good, he clearly implies that he is not God.

 

In John 14:28, Jesus was saying: “The Father is greater than I.” By stating that the “Father” is greater than himself, Jesus distinguishes himself from God. Also in John 20:17, Jesus told Mary Magdalene to tell his followers: “I ascend unto my Father and your Father; and to my God and your God.” Jesus’ reference to God as “my Father and your Father” further emphasizes the distinction between himself and God. Furthermore, by referring to God as “his God”, he left no room for anyone to intelligently claim that he was God.

 

Even in some of the writings of Paul, which the Church has taken to be sacred, Jesus is referred to as a “man”, distinct and different from God. In 1st Timothy, 2:5, Paul writes: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

 

There are also verses in the Qur‘aan which confirm Prophet Muhammad’s humanity, in order to prevent his followers from elevating him to a divine or semi-divine status, as was done to Prophet Jesus. For example, in Chapter al-Kahf (18):110, Allaah instructs the Prophet Muhammad (e) to inform all who hear his message:

 

} Þõáú ÅöäøóãóÇ ÃóäóÇú ÈóÔóÑñ ãöËúáõßõãú íõæÍóì Åöáóìøó ÃóäøóãóÇ ÅáóÜåõßõãú Åöáåñ æóÇÍöÏñ {

 

“Say: ‘Indeed, I am only a man like you to whom it has been revealed that your God is only one God.’ ”

 

In Chapter al-A‘raaf (7):187, Allaah also directed Prophet Muhammad (e) to acknowledge that the time of the Judgement is known only to God.

 

} íóÓúÃóáõæäóßó Úóäö ÇáÓøóÇÚóÉö ÃóíøóÇäó ãõÑúÓóÇåóÇ Þõáú ÅöäøóãóÇ ÚöáúãõåóÇ ÚöäúÏó ÑóÈøóí áÇó íõÌóáøöíåóÇ áöæóÞúÊöåó ÅöáÇøó åõæó {

 

“They ask you about the Final Hour: 'When will its apointed time be?’ Say: ‘Knowledge of it is with my Lord. None can reveal its time besides Him.’ ”

 

In the Gospel according to Mark 13:31-32, Jesus is also reported to have denied having knowledge of when the final hour of this world would be, saying: “Heaven and the earth shall pass away but my word shall not pass away, but of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in the heaven nor the Son but the Father.” One of the attributes of God is omniscience, knowledge of all things. Therefore, his denial of knowledge of the Day of Judgement is also a denial of divinity, for one who does not know the time of the final hour cannot possibly be God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×