Islam and Catholicism Same God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter adawgj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TheSufi said:
And my reply again to this objection, is the most obvious meaning is that because God is not man, He does not lie, because God is not the son of man, He doesn’t repent (or go back on His word, God knows all things, past, present and future). For God to suddenly become man, would mean He went back on His word in the Old Testament, of Him, not being man.
Click to expand...
I say again: CHRONOLOGY
Find me one verse where God said EXACTLY that he would never become incarnate.

In the meantime, let me bring up a prophecy concerning Jesus that did come to pass:For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to
us; And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Eternal Father*, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)
* (It’s worth noting that titles like Eternal
Father, Father of Eternity, or *Everlasting
Father *is to refer to the Messiah as the
Eternal Creator of all things)

So this prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah calls the Messiah the Mighty God, and we’re not just talking about a hu-
man being called a “god” as a representative of The God, but this is THE **MIGHTY **God, God himself would come as the Messiah.

This is Jesus.

​
 
TheSufi said:
And my reply again to this objection, is the most obvious meaning is that because God is not man, He does not lie, because God is not the son of man, He doesn’t repent (or go back on His word, God knows all things, past, present and future). For God to suddenly become man, would mean He went back on His word in the Old Testament, of Him, not being man.
Click to expand...
That’s not what it says though, it says God is not a man THAT He should lie. This passage, with the language being used could easily be applied to Jesus, watch:

“Jesus is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent.”

Jesus was a man, and a Son of Man, but not that He should lie or repent. Jesus did not have these qualities and this passage in context could be said about Jesus as well.

It is Christian Theology that Jesus could not tell a lie. Therefore Jesus was not a man that He could lie. Although He was a man.
 
dronald said:
That’s not what it says though, it says God is not a man THAT He should lie. This passage, with the language being used could easily be applied to Jesus, watch:

“Jesus is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should repent.”

Jesus was a man, and a Son of Man, but not that He should lie or repent. Jesus did not have these qualities and this passage in context could be said about Jesus as well.

It is Christian Theology that Jesus could not tell a lie. Therefore Jesus was not a man that He could lie. Although He was a man.
Click to expand...
Well, to properly argue either point, one would have to look at the Hebrew.
 
TheSufi said:
Well, to properly argue either point, one would have to look at the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
Sure!

kazab: to lie, be a liar
Original Word: כָּזַב
Part of Speech: Verb

Definition
to lie, be a liar

nacham: to be sorry, console oneself
Original Word: נָחַם
Part of Speech: Verb

Definition
to be sorry, console oneself

Notice how both words are verbs. It could read, “God is not a man to be a liar, God is not a son of man to be sorry.”

Again this works for Jesus. “Jesus is not a man to lie or be a liar, Jesus is not a son of man to be sorry.”
 
TheSufi said:
Well, to properly argue either point, one would have to look at the Hebrew.
Click to expand...
I THINK THIS CAN ANSWER
FOR ANY MUSLIM AROUND
READING:
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_god_not_man.htm

Let me give this little sample though:
Thus, passages such as Numbers 23:19 do not rule out the possibility of God appear-
ing as a man and/or becoming a man. It simply states that God’s essence is distinct
from man, without denying the fact that God could/would eventually take on a human
nature. In reality, these texts simply illustrate that God is not a man by nature and
doesn’t therefore lie or change his mind like men normally do.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I THINK THIS CAN ANSWER
FOR ANY MUSLIM AROUND
READING:
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_god_not_man.htm

Let me give this little sample though:
Thus, passages such as Numbers 23:19 do not rule out the possibility of God appear-
ing as a man and/or becoming a man. It simply states that God’s essence is distinct
from man, without denying the fact that God could/would eventually take on a human
nature. In reality, these texts simply illustrate that God is not a man by nature and
doesn’t therefore lie or change his mind like men normally do.
Click to expand...
Meh. Although it doesn’t say that God could not enter into the world as a man, that’s not what the passage is getting at anyways when we get into the Hebrew.

The Hebrew shows that God does not take on the qualities of a man that He should lie or change His mind. Jesus did not take on the qualities of a man or a son of man either that He should lie or change His mind. I’ve dug into the Hebrew for TheSufi to show the verb can apply to both God or Jesus.

Jesus is not a man to be a liar, nor is He a son of man to change His mind. Nothing in Christianity would put Jesus as a liar or someone who does not follow through with His Word.
 
After pondering over it, it is quote obvious that God is not a man. Jesus is not God based on the fact that he repented.-]/-]

Whether you read it from my perspective or your perspective Jesus is not God.

It is quite obvious God is saying He is not man. It is
Still the most obvious meaning.
 
adawgj said:
I am a bit confused on if Catholics and Muslims believe in the same God because Catholics believe in a trinity and Muslims do not.

Yet in the Catechism of the Catholic Church it says in
841 “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in first place amongst whom are Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Is the paragraph in means with God the father in the trinity that we share the same God?
I’m confused.
Click to expand...
Are you confusing “the same” with “both views are equally correct”?

Place an apple in front of two people an ask them what it is. Person A states it’s a red fruit called an apple. Person B states it’s a blue fruit called an orange. Stating that both Person A and Person B know that the object placed before them is a fruit does not equate to stating both are equally correct.
 
TheSufi said:
After pondering over it, it is quote obvious that God is not a man. Jesus is not God based on the fact that he repented.-]/-]

Whether you read it from my perspective or your perspective Jesus is not God.

It is quite obvious God is saying He is not man. It is
Still the most obvious meaning.
Click to expand...
Now you make the premise that Jesus repented THEREFORE is not God? When?
 
TheSufi said:
After pondering over it, it is quote obvious that God is not a man. Jesus is not God based on the fact that he repented.-]/-]

Whether you read it from my perspective or your perspective Jesus is not God.

It is quite obvious God is saying He is not man. It is
Still the most obvious meaning.
Click to expand...
It’s actually obvious God is saying that He is not a man to be found lying, or a son of man to be found changing His mind. This is from the Hebrew.

You’re saying now that Jesus changed His mind but we know this is not true. From both a Christian and Muslim perspective, Jesus was a Prophet who would not have changed His mind or lied.
 
dronald said:
It’s actually obvious God is saying that He is not a man to be found lying, or a son of man to be found changing His mind. This is from the Hebrew.

You’re saying now that Jesus changed His mind but we know this is not true. From both a Christian and Muslim perspective, Jesus was a Prophet who would not have changed His mind or lied.
Click to expand...
The problem with the Hebrew argument, you don’t know Hebrew. Even if you know a little bit, I’m not convinced that you know enough Hebrew translate it to any degree of arguing. You translated a couple of words but failed to demonstrate your understanding of that verse is the correct understanding.

The English translation alone, supports my argument. It Might support your argument, but not really convinced of it. I’d have to give it some thought.
 
TheSufi said:
The problem with the Hebrew argument, you don’t know Hebrew. Even if you know a little bit, I’m not convinced that you know enough Hebrew translate it to any degree of arguing. You translated a couple of words but failed to demonstrate your understanding of that verse is the correct understanding.

The English translation alone, supports my argument. It Might support your argument, but not really convinced of it. I’d have to give it some thought.
Click to expand...
I don’t know myself either, but how do you know he doesn’t know Hebrew? Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but that isn’t what we’re talking about. So long as we’re on that discussion, however, before departing it, do you know Hebrew well yourself?

You also said “English translation alone, supports my argument,”
which tells me that you base your argument only on the English
version. It does matter to you what the original language says…
right?
 
TheSufi said:
The problem with the Hebrew argument, you don’t know Hebrew. Even if you know a little bit, I’m not convinced that you know enough Hebrew translate it to any degree of arguing. You translated a couple of words but failed to demonstrate your understanding of that verse is the correct understanding.

The English translation alone, supports my argument. It Might support your argument, but not really convinced of it. I’d have to give it some thought.
Click to expand...
Well meditate on it a little bit. I know that it would fit your beliefs to say, “God cannot become a man or a son of man.” As it fits my beliefs to say that “God is not a man that He lies or a son of man that He can change His mind.”

Fortunately for my side, the entire chapter is about God’s moral nature and not about Him coming to Earth as a man in the future. Look at how 23:19 continues:

…hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Notice the focus is still on God following through with what He says He will do, just as Jesus would do. The next verse:

20 Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

Read the entire chapter afterwards and see the meaning is of God’s nature and how He can not change what He has promised, and cannot lie.

As for the Hebrew, the word, “Kazab” כָּזַב literally means to lie or to be a liar. It is a verb in the Hebrew language, like the word “nachem” נָחַם which means to be sorry or to console ones self. So the direct translation would be, “God is not a man to lie, not a son of man to be sorry.”

Again, Jesus was not a man to lie, nor a son of man to be sorry. It fits perfectly fine with our belief in Jesus and His nature.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I say again: CHRONOLOGY
Find me one verse where God said EXACTLY that he would never become incarnate.

In the meantime, let me bring up a prophecy concerning Jesus that did come to pass:For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to
us; And the government will rest on His shoulders;
And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor,
Mighty God, Eternal Father*, Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)
* (It’s worth noting that titles like Eternal
Father, Father of Eternity, or *Everlasting
Father *is to refer to the Messiah as the
Eternal Creator of all things)

So this prophecy concerning the coming of the Messiah calls the Messiah the Mighty God, and we’re not just talking about a hu-
man being called a “god” as a representative of The God, but this is THE **MIGHTY **God, God himself would come as the Messiah.

This is Jesus.

​
Click to expand...
This passage comes from Isaiah and it refers to the birth of a royal baby called Hezekiah, who was regarded as a sign that God was still with the House of David. A literal translation of Isaiah 7:14 says,"A young woman [almah] is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Immanu-El [God-with-us]. When the baby was born, he was in fact named Hezekiah, and Isaiah imagined the entire Divine Assembly (Yahweh and all the other gods) celebrating the royal child, who like all the Davidic kings, would become a divine figure and a member of their heavenly council: on his coronation day, he would be called, “Wonder-Counselor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Father, Prince-of-Peace”.

Hezekiah was revered as a devout king who tried to outlaw the worship of foreign gods. In reality he advocated rebellion against the Assyrians, resulting in the almost total destruction of Jerusalem and the brutal laying waste of the countryside of Judah.
 
nmgauss said:
This passage comes from Isaiah and it refers to the birth of a royal baby called Hezekiah, who was regarded as a sign that God was still with the House of David. A literal translation of Isaiah 7:14 says,"A young woman [almah] is with child and will soon give birth to a son whom she will call Immanu-El [God-with-us]. When the baby was born, he was in fact named Hezekiah, and Isaiah imagined the entire Divine Assembly (Yahweh and all the other gods) celebrating the royal child, who like all the Davidic kings, would become a divine figure and a member of their heavenly council: on his coronation day, he would be called, “Wonder-Counselor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Father, Prince-of-Peace”.

Hezekiah was revered as a devout king who tried to outlaw the worship of foreign gods. In reality he advocated rebellion against the Assyrians, resulting in the almost total destruction of Jerusalem and the brutal laying waste of the countryside of Judah.
Click to expand...
No, You COULD NOT be more WRONG!
I think this following link begs to differ with you:

Isaiah 9:6, 7 Cannot Be About Hezekiah

Don’t toy with Messianic Prophecy​
 
nmgauss said:
Which part differs? Citing a long reference with many themes does not clarify the issue.
Click to expand...
You said that the Isaiah passage I brought up was referring to Hezekiah, not Jesus.
The link lead to a page entirely based against your interpretation.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
No, You COULD NOT be more WRONG!
I think this following link begs to differ with you:

Isaiah 9:6, 7 Cannot Be About Hezekiah

Don’t toy with Messianic Prophecy​
Click to expand...
The Prophecy could very well be about both, although it pertains more to Jesus.

It’s important to note that God can not lie and if He says,

Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.

You see, if it’s only about Hezekiah then God’s promise has failed. If it’s about Jesus (or both) then He has succeeded in His promise.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I THINK THIS CAN ANSWER
FOR ANY MUSLIM AROUND
READING:
answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_god_not_man.htm

Let me give this little sample though:
Thus, passages such as Numbers 23:19 do not rule out the possibility of God appear-
ing as a man and/or becoming a man. It simply states that God’s essence is distinct
from man, without denying the fact that God could/would eventually take on a human
nature. In reality, these texts simply illustrate that God is not a man by nature and
doesn’t therefore lie or change his mind like men normally do.
Click to expand...
We don’t need font size of 100
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top