Jesus Christ

[Joseph_Alison]

Reuben J:

Just to expand a bit on the above for the benefit of our Muslim friends here.

Isaiah 6:9 "Go and tell this people: " 'Be ever hearing, but never understanding; be ever seeing, but never perceiving’. And God’s anger was upon them leading to the destruction of their nation.

Thus by saying the verse in John 5:37, the prophecies of the ancient prophets rang true. Those Jews were those who have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear (Mark8:18). Even though they have seen Jesus, they would not know him, and so have not seen God, thus could not be saved.

However for the disciples who were willing to believe in him even though did not understand at first would have their ears heard and eyes opened to see God in Jesus and thus were saved (see Isaiah 32:3).

Peace

Reuben.

Salaam Friend Reuben;
I thank you for taking the matter this far.
I think John did the same thing -in his narrative about a dialogue that took place between Jesus and the Jews- when he brought Isaiah’s supposed prophecy into the picture. Here is the context:

JN 12:35 Jesus therefore said unto them, Yet a little while is the light among you. Walk while ye have the light, that darkness overtake you not: and he that walketh in the darkness knoweth not whither he goeth.
JN 12:36 While ye have the light, believe on the light, that ye may become sons of light. These things spake Jesus, and he departed and hid himself from them.

JN 12:37 But though he had done so many signs before them, yet they believed not on him:

JN 12:38 that the word of Isaiah the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? And to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?
JN 12:39 For this cause they could not believe, for that Isaiah said again,
JN 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and he hardened their heart; Lest they should see with their eyes, and perceive with their heart, And should turn, And I should heal them.
JN 12:41 These things said Isaiah, because he saw his glory; and he spake of him.

JN 12:42 Nevertheless even of the rulers many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess it', lest they should be put out of the synagogue: JN 12:43 for they loved the glory that is’ of men more than the glory `that is’ of God.

JN 12:44 And Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
JN 12:45 And he that beholdeth me beholdeth him that sent me.
JN 12:46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me may not abide in the darkness.
JN 12:47 And if any man hear my sayings, and keep them not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
JN 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my sayings, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I spake, the same shall judge him in the last day.
JN 12:49 For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
JN 12:50 And I know that his commandment is life eternal: the things therefore which I speak, even as the Father hath said unto me, so I speak.

I don’t know if you noticed what I noticed. Please look at what I highlighted in red.

We read “he departed and hid himself from them” followed by Isaiah’s supposed prophecy, then Jesus is made to speak “And Jesus cried and said” Did not he already depart and hide himself?
Since he departed, to whom did he speak again?
Any possible explanation? Thank you.

P.S. In the Arabic Bible “he departed and hid himself from them” does not exist at all; gone!

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Friend Akanke;

I hope I did not imply that I was meaning to convince you of my belief. I was trying to find a common ground of understanding of “messenger” as it relates to other things that make one who they are.

No worries my Friend, I did not understand it that way.

That led me to ask: Is the thing in question what Catholics believe to be true of Jesus?

My dear Friend, Muslims and Catholics share a lot of beliefs concerning Jesus (PBUH):

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity” (Qur’an 003.046)
While there is nothing in the Bible that indicates Jesus (PBUH) spook in the cradle in defense of his mother, the holy Quran states it happened. However his ministry is also stated in the Qur’an “He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity” as it is also stated in the Bible.

"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel” (Qur’an 003.048).
Both books agree on this aspect of Jesus (PBUH)

"And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel” Both books agree on this aspect of Jesus (PBUH).
One example: “JN 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me”. The miracles he was performing witnessed that he was a messenger from a higher authority, namely from God and we don’t call God the Father.

I have found 48 relevancies about the word “him that sent me” and “sent me”.
However, I was puzzled by the unfaithfulness of the translators. Why is the “h” not capitalized whenever “him that sent me” or “he sent me” are stated? Was not Jesus speaking of a higher authority than himself, namely God? This is truly deceitful. We have seen them capitalize the “a” of “I Am”. We have seen them capitalize the “w” of “In the beginning was the Word” and so on. It is truly deceitful.

“I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah’s leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah’s leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe” (Qur’an 003.049)
Both of the two books agree on most of the miracles performed by Jesus (PBUH) with the authority of Allah (SWT).

“(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me. (Qur’an 003.050)
Both books agree on this. Jesus (PBUH) is reported to have said he did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law and he also added to it.

According to the Bible, Jesus (PBUH) finished his mission: “JN 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do”. He said these words before being arrested; therefore dying for the sins of mankind was not in his mission, but a latter addition.

We differ in the beliefs about the son ship and the divinity of Jesus as being God incarnate and one of the three persons of the trinity. You know well what is the position of Muslims on these three aspects.

Let’s look at the Bible and specifically to what is reported as being the words of Jesus himself. I am not interested about what others said of Him.

Some interesting sayings of Jesus as reported by the gospel according to John:

JN 17:1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee:

JN 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”
Who is the only true God? The Father? Or the Father and Jesus Christ? Where is the Holy Ghost in here?

JN 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.
He has finished the works he has been given, mission accomplished. Conclusion: dying for the sins of humankind were not part of that mission but a later addition by those who don’t fear God.

JN 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
No need to interpret this verse, it is self-explanatory.

Continued…

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

…Continued and end.

Son of God: many others are called sons of God in the OT. Again the translators always capitalize the “s” of “son of God” in the NT when it comes Jesus, but do not do it when the subject is another person. Since son of God was used in OT times by the Jewish people, it only shows that it was part of their semantics and was meant to say righteous.

God himself: you can never, ever convince a Muslim of the divinity of Jesus. More so, Christians themselves -and in the 21st century- are still asking: is Jesus God? Visit any Christian message board and you will see what I am talking about.

People make huge money selling books, some to prove the divinity of Jesus and some to disprove it; all the while they use the same book as their source! (Do a quick search in amazon.com, you will see for yourself). If they write books, it is because they have readers who want to know. If the matter of the divinity of Jesus was settled in the Bible, no one will dare write something to say the contrary, because he will be ridiculed and the publisher will loose cradibility and his shareholders will fire him.You can argue heretics can do whatever they want, and I will agree with you, but they do so because there is room in the Bible that allows them to do so and where? In matters concerning whom God is.
Can you imagine someone reading the Qur’an and then coming out with a book claiming that Allah (SWT) is more than one? Absolutely no. Why? Because no room is left there for interpretations as far as the nature of God is concerned in the Qur’an.

One of the proof people use to prove the divinity of Jesus is JN 1:1: “in the beginning was the Word…” Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus say that Jesus is the Word spoken about in the verse. I ask myself: in the beginning! Which beginning? How can we even speak of a beginning when it comes to God? I thought God has no beginning and no end.

I suggest reading This article. It is an eye opener.

More to come Incha’Allah.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Booklover]

Joseph_Alison:

…Continued and end.

Son of God: many others are called sons of God in the OT. Again the translators always capitalize the “s” of “son of God” in the NT when it comes Jesus, but do not do it when the subject is another person. Since son of God was used in OT times by the Jewish people, it only shows that it was part of their semantics and was meant to say righteous.

God himself: you can never, ever convince a Muslim of the divinity of Jesus. More so, Christians themselves -and in the 21st century- are still asking: is Jesus God? Visit any Christian message board and you will see what I am talking about.

People make huge money selling books, some to prove the divinity of Jesus and some to disprove it; all the while they use the same book as their source! (Do a quick search in amazon.com, you will see for yourself). If they write books, it is because they have readers who want to know. If the matter of the divinity of Jesus was settled in the Bible, no one will dare write something to say the contrary, because he will be ridiculed and the publisher will loose cradibility and his shareholders will fire him.You can argue heretics can do whatever they want, and I will agree with you, but they do so because there is room in the Bible that allows them to do so and where? In matters concerning whom God is.
Can you imagine someone reading the Qur’an and then coming out with a book claiming that Allah (SWT) is more than one? Absolutely no. Why? Because no room is left there for interpretations as far as the nature of God is concerned in the Qur’an.

One of the proof people use to prove the divinity of Jesus is JN 1:1: “in the beginning was the Word…” Christians who believe in the divinity of Jesus say that Jesus is the Word spoken about in the verse. I ask myself: in the beginning! Which beginning? How can we even speak of a beginning when it comes to God? I thought God has no beginning and no end.

I suggest reading This article. It is an eye opener.

More to come Incha’Allah.

Salaam.
Joseph.

On another thread you posted a link to good manners in debating. I just want to let you know that I, as a Catholic and member of this Catholic forum, find your constant attacks on Jesus’ divinity offensive! Remember that you are a guest here and try to show the same respect for us that you expect from us.

 

[hawk]

Booklover:

On another thread you posted a link to good manners in debating. I just want to let you know that I, as a Catholic and member of this Catholic forum, find your constant attacks on Jesus’ divinity offensive! Remember that you are a guest here and try to show the same respect for us that you expect from us.

Booklover,
They are only saying what they believe, please dont react like this

Peace

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Booklover:

On another thread you posted a link to good manners in debating. I just want to let you know that I, as a Catholic and member of this Catholic forum, find your constant attacks on Jesus’ divinity offensive! Remember that you are a guest here and try to show the same respect for us that you expect from us.

Salaam Booklover;
Seems like I have crossed some red lines without me noticing it. Obviously what I wrote offended you. Please accept my deepest apologies.
I don’t know if you have been following the thread; I was reacting to my Friend Akanke who asked me some questions and I gave him my answers.

His question was: "Is the thing in question what Catholics believe to be true of Jesus? To which I answered sincerely without any intent to offend him first and also those reading my reply.

To anyone who has read my reply and found it offending: please accept my deepest apologies.

Note to the moderator: Would you please delete the post our Friend BookLover found offending. Thank you.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joe_Monahan]

I have deleted the post at issue, at Joseph’s request; however, I note my agreement with Hawk’s comment. It is inappropriate to chide a non-Christian or even a Christian non-Catholic forum member for expressing his beliefs, albeit they are not in concert with our own. The purpose of these forums is to do exactly that - learm what others believe and allow them to learn what we believe - so that we can understand each other. Understanding does not equate to agreement, but is absolutely essential to knowing one another.

I thank all who are participating in this civil and charitable discussion, most especially to Joseph, for his being concerned enough about offending to ask that his post be deleted, and to Hawk, who has expressed very succinctly and clearly the need for non-Catholics to be able to state their beliefs here, unfettered by the fact that those beliefs are different from ours.

Joe

 

[Booklover]

Joseph, apology accepted! I’m sorry, I never meant my remark to cause so much trouble or to have a post deleted. I never asked for that.

Vickie

 

[Ghosty]

Joseph_Alison: Greetings friend.

Allow me to respond to your first citation of John regarding the apparent inconsistancy of Jesus departing and then addressing people. John is not actually written in a sequential order by any stretch, and in fact is regarded as a wholly different style of Gospel from the other three (which are themselves refered to as the Synoptic Gospels because they share a similar style and order of events). John’s Gospel is regarded as mystical rather than as a historical treatise, though it deals with true history. It’s not written, nor is it read, the way one would read a history book, or even the other Gospels. In a way it’s more like a story-poem about Jesus.

One example: “JN 5:36 But I have greater witness than that of John: for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me”. The miracles he was performing witnessed that he was a messenger from a higher authority, namely from God and we don’t call God the Father.

Yes, the Son is sent from the Father the same way a word is sent from the mind. The word is still the thought, and the mind is simply thought, so the word and the mind are the same thing, though they are distinguished through the language of relationship. When quoting anything from John, you must remember the first chapter which says:

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be. What came to be 4 through him was life, and this life was the light of the human race; 5 the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. 6 A man named John was sent from God. 7 He came for testimony, to testify to the light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the light, but came to testify to the light. 9 The true light, which enlightens everyone, was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world came to be through him, but the world did not know him. 11 He came to what was his own, but his own people did not accept him. 12 But to those who did accept him he gave power to become children of God, to those who believe in his name, 13 who were born not by natural generation nor by human choice nor by a man’s decision but of God. 14 And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory as of the Father’s only Son, full of grace and truth.

The Word is God, and Jesus is the Word, and John tells us this first so we can keep it in mind through the whole tale. Everything John is about to tell us is going to be in context of this first passage. “The Son” is the Word, and “The Father” is the Mind, and both are God. The Holy Spirit, then, is the Breath (which is what spirit actually means).

With that in mind, I’ll respond to the rest…

 

[Ghosty]

While there is nothing in the Bible that indicates Jesus (PBUH) spook in the cradle in defense of his mother, the holy Quran states it happened. However his ministry is also stated in the Qur’an “He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity” as it is also stated in the Bible.

No, we don’t necessarily believe He spoke as an infant. We do believe He taught in childhood, though. This is described in Luke 2:46-50.

However, I was puzzled by the unfaithfulness of the translators. Why is the “h” not capitalized whenever “him that sent me” or “he sent me” are stated? Was not Jesus speaking of a higher authority than himself, namely God? This is truly deceitful. We have seen them capitalize the “a” of “I Am”. We have seen them capitalize the “w” of “In the beginning was the Word” and so on. It is truly deceitful.

It’s not actually a big issue when you understand the linguistics. In Greek and Hebrew there are no capital letters, so there’s no rule for capitalising the “h” when someone is speaking of a higher authority (which is not necessarily the case anyway with Jesus, since Jesus is God). The reason “I Am” is capitalized is because in English we capitalize proper names, and “I Am” is a proper name of God, just like Joseph, or Jesus, or Mary, ect. Word falls under the same category of proper name. Nothing deceitful at all.

I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do”. He said these words before being arrested; therefore dying for the sins of mankind was not in his mission, but a latter addition.

Again, John is not a sequential tale, and this does not indicate that He was done completely at that moment. You’ll see He says the same thing in John 19:30 when He dies on the cross.

Who is the only true God? The Father? Or the Father and Jesus Christ? Where is the Holy Ghost in here?

All three are the name of the one God. This is seen in Matthew 28:19 in which the word name (singular) is used, rather than “names”. The true God is the Trinity. The Trinity is an individual.

JN 17:7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee.
No need to interpret this verse, it is self-explanatory.

Only when understood in the context of John 1, which you don’t seem to read it in. Remember, John 1 is the foundation of the whole story that is to come. Without it, the Gospel of John can’t be understood properly. Jesus is God; God is the one who sends Jesus, just as I send my mind out with words. There is a very important reason why John calls Jesus Logos (the Word). It is a very important metaphor, and reveals the Trinity.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Ghosty:

Joseph_Alison: Greetings friend.

Allow me to respond to your first citation of John regarding the apparent inconsistancy of Jesus departing and then addressing people. John is not actually written in a sequential order by any stretch, and in fact is regarded as a wholly different style of Gospel from the other three (which are themselves refered to as the Synoptic Gospels because they share a similar style and order of events). John’s Gospel is regarded as mystical rather than as a historical treatise, though it deals with true history. It’s not written, nor is it read, the way one would read a history book, or even the other Gospels. In a way it’s more like a story-poem about Jesus.

Salaam Friend Ghosty;
I understand your explanation, but it does not answer my question.
He was speaking to the Jews up until JN 12:36 when he “departed, and did hide himself from them” then he is made to speak in JN 12:44 “Jesus cried and said…”, to whom was he speaking? What was the second audience he was addressing?

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Ghosty:

Only when understood in the context of John 1, which you don’t seem to read it in. Remember, John 1 is the foundation of the whole story that is to come. Without it, the Gospel of John can’t be understood properly. Jesus is God; God is the one who sends Jesus, just as I send my mind out with words. There is a very important reason why John calls Jesus Logos (the Word). It is a very important metaphor, and reveals the Trinity.

Salaam Friend Ghosty;
I took on myself not to discuss the subject of the divinity of Jesus anymore, at least in this forum.
However, I would like to chat a little bit with you about the concept of mind and thought; I saw you have used it concept in another thread “Son of God” and it was my intent then to talk to you about it but it escaped me, I got stuck in other matters.

While you rightly pointed out that there is no thought without mind and mind without thought, you concluded that “a mind is thought, and a thought is mind”. Did you make this conclusion because you anticipated someone would say: since the thought is the product of the mind and if Jesus is the Word (thought); therefore the thought came after the mind, which also means that Jesus was created? Or did you have another idea in mind?

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Ghosty]

I understand your explanation, but it does not answer my question.
He was speaking to the Jews up until JN 12:36 when he “departed, and did hide himself from them” then he is made to speak in JN 12:44 “Jesus cried and said…”, to whom was he speaking? What was the second audience he was addressing?

Actually, it does answer your question. John is not a sequential history, meaning it does not describe events as they happened one after the other. Those verses describe two completely seperate events. Traditionally, verse 37 is understood to start a new discourse, which verse 44 is a part of; verse 44 does not refer to the same incident as verse 36.

I don’t know what version you are reading, but in all versions I use they are explicitely seperated. Two different events, related in theme but not in sequence. He was likely speaking to an audience of Jews in both cases, as Jesus only preached directly to the Jews. It was not the exact same group that he departed from, however, at least not at a later time. It’s quite possible, in fact, that the later verses occur before the earlier ones in time. John loved to jumble the sequence of events for dramatic or revelatory purposes.

While you rightly pointed out that there is no thought without mind and mind without thought, you concluded that “a mind is thought, and a thought is mind”. Did you make this conclusion because you anticipated someone would say: since the thought is the product of the mind and if Jesus is the Word (thought); therefore the thought came after the mind, which also means that Jesus was created? Or did you have another idea in mind?

No, the idea I have in mind ( ) is that a mind can only be said to exist if it has thought. A mind is nothing but thoughts, but thoughts come from the mind. You can’t have one without the other, even though one is said to come from the other. There is no such thing as a mind without thought, and no such thing as a thought without a mind.

Thoughts “come from” the mind, but the mind does not exist without thought. If you remove one, you lose the other, so you can’t rightly say that one is the creation of the other. Rather, what you have is what’s called procession, a continuing forth. Thoughts proceed from the mind even as they must co-exist for the mind. The different terms are ones of relation (thought comes from mind, mind sends forth thought), not ones that distinguish natures (thoughts are essentially a mind going forth, and a mind is essentially thoughts staying in place).

This is the same thing that is believed when we say Father (Mind) and Son (Thought/Word). Father refers to the “Mind” aspect of God, not the whole of God, and Son refers to the “Word” that makes up, and is sent forth from, the Mind. Without the Son, the Father does not exist (after all, what is He the Father of?), just like without the thought, the mind does not exist (after all, what is the mind thinking?). The Father and Son are not seperate people the way a real father and his son would be, they are philosophical terms and understandings about the internal make-up of God and His internal relations (just like you have internal relations between mind and thought).

The Trinity is not something that we made up, it’s something that Jesus taught explicitely, and it took some time for the Apostles to understand it completely. Jesus said “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, not the “names”, as I’ve said before. He was teaching His followers that God, who is One, is named Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It refers to one being, the being that Jesus is, the being that talked to Abraham, the being that created the Universe, the being that breathed (spiritus = breath) life into Adam. God IS the Father, God IS the Son, and God IS the Holy Spirit. One being, three identities, three terms for internal relations between those identities. This is not a being that can be seperated or divided, but it can be described by three different identities.

I hope that helps. If not, feel free to ask for clarification

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Ghosty;

This is the same thing that is believed when we say Father (Mind) and Son (Thought/Word). Father refers to the “Mind” aspect of God, not the whole of God, and Son refers to the “Word” that makes up, and is sent forth from, the Mind

For the purpose of this discussion, I will dwell into your philosophical explanation for the express purpose to explore its limits.

The above explanation may satisfies you, but I see a problem with it: The mind cannot have more than one thought at any given time. If as you explained, Jesus (the Son) was the thought of the mind (the Father) and knowing that a mind cannot have more than one thought at a time, your explanation limits the mind aspect of God (the Father according to you) and therefore denies the divinity of the father because it makes him limited and denies the divinity of God himself since his Mind (the Father according to you) is limited to one thought at a time.

Now, if you say, no, God’s mind can have multiple thoughts at a time, then I tell you that Jesus (The Son) was not the only thought and therefore he was not the first but co-existed with other thoughts and if he was not the first then how can you make him divine. At best you can make him divine among multitude other divine thoughts.

If you also say that Jesus was the very first thought, then also -according to your explanation- you made a start (a beginning) to the “thinking” of God, and if you make a start to the thinking of God, then what was he doing before he started thinking?

If you maintain that the mind is the thought and the thought is the mind, then it also means -in the case of God- that God is not capable of more one thought at a time, or that God has multiple minds and multiple thoughts every mind with its own thought.

Philosophy can be dangerous when applied to a Being far beyond our intellectual reach and capacities. As Muslims, we are strongly discouraged from dwelving into these matters, however we are very often asked to look at the creation to appreciate the Creator.

Assataghfur’Allah El Adim (I beg forgiveness from the Mighty Allah); I used words not suitable with His Majesty.

The Trinity is not something that we made up, it’s something that Jesus taught explicitely, and it took some time for the Apostles to understand it completely. Jesus said “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”, not the “names”, as I’ve said before. He was teaching His followers that God, who is One, is named Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It refers to one being, the being that Jesus is, the being that talked to Abraham, the being that created the Universe, the being that breathed (spiritus = breath) life into Adam. God IS the Father, God IS the Son, and God IS the Holy Spirit. One being, three identities, three terms for internal relations between those identities. This is not a being that can be seperated or divided, but it can be described by three different identities.

I hope that helps. If not, feel free to ask for clarification

I cannot discuss the doctrine of the trinity, there is potential for offending my Catholic friends here and I was already reminded of my guest status. All I can say is that the verse you talked about " In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" has been attacked as being a late addition.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Ghosty]

Joseph_Alison: Don’t forget that any analogy is inherently limited. I’m not saying that God is exactly like human mind and thought, only that the Son is related to the Father like a thought is to a mind. The purpose is to provide some insight into the Christian understanding of Father and Son by way of limited similarity with an earthly thing. This is exactly the same as calling God “Father” in the first place. I never give such descriptions as if they were adequate to describe God perfectly; this is precisely why we call things like the Trinity “Mysteries”. They are things that can be known, and understood within our human limits, but there are aspects of them that go beyond human limits because they relate to God. Those parts that we can’t possibly understand are “mysterious”, hence the word.

In short, acting as if comparing God to a mind is the same as limiting God is both philosophically and logically in error. That Muslims are afraid of comparison, even when it’s understood by both parties that it’s not meant as an absolute comparison, demonstrates a grave limitation of the Islamic religion to deal with issues of theology.

Catholics do not limit God when discussing such comparisons, rather we recognize our own limitations in perceiving God. We speak of what we know, not because we believe God is limited by what we know, but because WE are limited by what we know, and can only speak of what we know. Every word is limited when discussing God, even the word God. This is why Catholics do not limit ourselves in our appreciation of God, and we do not pray only by speaking with God. We also practice what is called contemplative prayer, which is nothing less than the silent, thoughtless looking upon God’s glory, insofar as our limited selves can even comprehend It.

In short, comparison is only a trap if you allow it to be. It’s only a trap if you believe that God IS exactly what you describe, which Catholics never do. There is no blasphemy in comprehending God according to our limited senses, because if it was then God would never revel Himself to us at all. God is not afraid of our limited senses blaspheming against Him just because they are limited. He knows our limits, He MADE our limits, and He cherishes us. So long as we do not force our limits on God, we are doing nothing more than what God Himself has given us to do, namely know God as humans can in their limited way.



EDIT:

I cannot discuss the doctrine of the trinity, there is potential for offending my Catholic friends here and I was already reminded of my guest status. All I can say is that the verse you talked about " In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost" has been attacked as being a late addition.

You’d have to show me where, because it exists in the earliest manuscripts available, both inside and outside of the Bible. Please show me where it has been attacked, and by what scholarship, because there are no credible manuscripts in existance that do not have that passage. I’ve done much research on this topic, and I’ve never found credible scholarship to indicate it’s a late addition.

You are going to have to provide sources.

 

[Ghosty]

Joseph_Alison:

I think you may be refering to 1 John 7 in the KJV which says:

7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That IS a late addition, and is NOT accepted by the Catholic Church. You should never use the King James Version, it’s a faulty, terrible translation.

In the New American Bible, the official bible of the American Catholic Church, says this in the same verse:

7 So there are three that testify,

And the Latin Vulgate, which is the official Bible for the WHOLE Church, says this:

5:7 quia tres sunt qui testimonium dant

I realize you can’t read Latin, but you can see that it does not include the Latin words “Patris” (Father) “Filis” (Son) or “Spiritus Sancti” (Holy Spirit).

If you’re refering to this verse, then you need to stop using the KJV. In fact, you should stop using it anyway when discussing the Bible with Catholics, because we do not regard the KJV as scholarly or correct, and neither to historians.

The verse I cited in my previous post has never come under attack for being a late addition to my knowledge, and I’ve studied up on this quite a bit. If you HAVE seen it come under attack please provide the source, because it would be completely new to the Catholic world as I know it.

God Bless!

 

[Joseph_Alison]

Salaam Ghosty;

Joseph_Alison: Don’t forget that any analogy is inherently limited. .

This is true and I did not forget. I honestly believe it is you who forgot; you seemed so confident in the analogy you presented that you equated the mind with its product, the thought; all in an attempt from you to demonstrate that Jesus the Son (the thought) is equal in divinity to the Father (the mind). The analogy does not work and nor does any analogy no matter how sophisticated it is, I think we agree on this. It is not for any reason that people are simply asked to have faith on these matters, because they are mysteries, no one can explain.

I’m not saying that God is exactly like human mind and thought, only that the Son is related to the Father like a thought is to a mind.

You equated the mind with its product, the thought; this, you have yet to demonstrate, and I showed how impossible the analogy was.

The purpose is to provide some insight into the Christian understanding of Father and Son by way of limited similarity with an earthly thing.

Here what you wrote in another reply: “The Father and Son are not separate people the way a real father and his son would be, they are philosophical terms and understandings about the internal make-up of God and His internal relations (just like you have internal relations between mind and thought)” Internal make-up of God? His internal relations? Let me say that I find this to be utterly shocking. I respectfully believe you’ve gone far with this one.

That Muslims are afraid of comparison, even when it’s understood by both parties that it’s not meant as an absolute comparison, demonstrates a grave limitation of the Islamic religion to deal with issues of theology.

My dear Friend;
Muslims are not afraid, I did write we are afraid; I wrote we are strongly discouraged. Islam produced great theologians across the ages; the most known of them is Imam Al Ghazali. “The Shorter Encyclopedia of Islam says of Al Ghazali: “He was the most original thinker that Islam produced and its greatest theologian.” A.J. Arberry, professor and director of the Middle East Center at the University of Cambridge, England referred to him as being: “He was one of the greatest mystical theologians of Islam and indeed of all mankind.” Source here . It is said St Thomas Aquinas used some of his arguments to establish Christian Orthodoxy!

Some of his greatest works are:
“The incoherence of the philosophers ” Thsi is a PDF file. A great work of his. Some say he greatly damaged the cause of philosophy with that work.
“The foudations of the Islamic belief ” a must read for anyone trying to grasp how Muslims view Allah (SWT)
And “The revival of the religious science” To my opinion, the best of his works, to the extent that some said: “If you did not read the revival, you are read”, an exaggeration of course.

You are correct about the verse I mentioned, It was a mistake from my part. Sorry for any confusion I might have created.

Salaam.
Joseph.

 

[Reuben_J]

Hi brother Joseph,
Just to let you know that I’ve read your posts in this thread. Sorry that I did not respond as I was away traveling for the week. I guess the subject been covered sufficiently and I’m willing to let it go at that. Basically the difference in Christians vs Muslims’ position is in the divinity of Christ.

I am satisfied that the Bible points to this divinity and it cannot be otherwise as the Bible is canonized by the church fathers’ who had this in mind. As I often said, it can be interpreted differently. All you need to do is to make up prior conclusion, look for isolated verses and interpret it accordingly. Of course in doing that you will encounter more difficulty with the other verses that say otherwise.

Joseph_Alison:

I don’t know if you noticed what I noticed. Please look at what I highlighted in red.

We read “he departed and hid himself from them” followed by Isaiah’s supposed prophecy, then Jesus is made to speak “And Jesus cried and said” Did not he already depart and hide himself?
Since he departed, to whom did he speak again?
Any possible explanation? Thank you.

Ghosty has explained that to which I concur with to some extent. Yes, that could be another discourse for the same people or another group. But my earlier explanation still stand – the unbelievers and the rebellious shall not see God as opposed to those who are willing to believe.

Ghosty:

In short, acting as if comparing God to a mind is the same as limiting God is both philosophically and logically in error. That Muslims are afraid of comparison, even when it’s understood by both parties that it’s not meant as an absolute comparison, demonstrates a grave limitation of the Islamic religion to deal with issues of theology.

Catholics do not limit God when discussing such comparisons, rather we recognize our own limitations in perceiving God. We speak of what we know, not because we believe God is limited by what we know, but because WE are limited by what we know, and can only speak of what we know. Every word is limited when discussing God, even the word God. This is why Catholics do not limit ourselves in our appreciation of God, and we do not pray only by speaking with God. We also practice what is called contemplative prayer, which is nothing less than the silent, thoughtless looking upon God’s glory, insofar as our limited selves can even comprehend It.

In short, comparison is only a trap if you allow it to be. It’s only a trap if you believe that God IS exactly what you describe, which Catholics never do. There is no blasphemy in comprehending God according to our limited senses, because if it was then God would never revel Himself to us at all. God is not afraid of our limited senses blaspheming against Him just because they are limited. He knows our limits, He MADE our limits, and He cherishes us. So long as we do not force our limits on God, we are doing nothing more than what God Himself has given us to do, namely know God as humans can in their limited way.

I think the above is a beautiful thought regarding analogy. From the Christian’s perspective, yes, the Muslims do afraid of comparison. But perhaps that’s because your theology is comparatively straight forward.

1 of 2

 

[Reuben_J]

continued…/

I too had mentioned to a Muslim with regards to our usage of analogy. Here’s an excerpt of the dialogue from my previous post.

It is clearly established in Islam that when God mentions His Hands or Eyes in the Quran, it is not meant that He has eyes like ours or hands like ours. Rather God also says in the QUran “There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer and All-Seer”. God’s attributes, even if they share the same name as that of humans, they do not resemble that of humans. God also has Knowledge. Does that mean He has knowledge like ours? No. God also Has Power, does that mean it is like our power? no. And God does NOT forget. Please do not attribute to the Quran that it says God forgets.

Reuben:
Why does God speak to us in term of Hands or Eyes? It’s because of human limitation of vocabulary, intellect and understanding. Thus God in trying to bring His message to human must use term that humans can understand. Sure His Hands or Eyes are nothing like humans ones, but when these words are used humans get the ideas what God is trying to convey.

Christians understand this limitation and dilemma of humans. When Christians understand God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, we used capital letters F, S and HS. They are something that humans can understand but they are nothing like humans ones.

Islam believes God has 99 attributes. Do you limit God to this 99 attributes or are there more to God than just the 99?

I feel an inter-faith discussion will go a long way if we are free to state what we believe respectively with due consideration to each other’ sensitivity. We also need to keep in mind the difference in understanding of the terminologies. For example a Christian’s prayer is different from a Muslim’s one. But very often we have difficulty in trying to achieve quick understanding because of our entrenchment in our respective religious teaching and upbringing that restrict us from accepting each other’s explanation.

I end by telling you a joke:

You’ll have to be quiet,” a father told his little son. “We are in God’s house now”.

The little boy looked all around the church and asked his father, “Which door will God be coming in?”

God bless you.

Reuben

2 of 2

 

[Ghosty]

You equated the mind with its product, the thought; this, you have yet to demonstrate, and I showed how impossible the analogy was.

Show me a mind without thought, and you’ll have made your point. It’s impossible to do so because the mind is defined by having thought. Without thought, there is no mind. They are coexistant, contemporaneous by their very nature. If God has a mind (Father), then God MUST have a thought (Son) at the exact same time; there is no mind before thought, and no thought before mind.

Internal make-up of God? His internal relations? Let me say that I find this to be utterly shocking. I respectfully believe you’ve gone far with this one.

Why? Muslims list the 99 attributes that compose God, but Catholics aren’t allowed to discuss 3? That’s what I find shocking. Irony at its greatest.

Muslims are not afraid, I did write we are afraid; I wrote we are strongly discouraged. Islam produced great theologians across the ages; the most known of them is Imam Al Ghazali.

You certainly seem to be afraid from my perspective, and I’ve never read any Muslim theology that indicated a lack of fear in this regard. Perhaps there is some solid, strong Muslim theology on this matter, but I’ve not yet seen it. I will read the links you provided when I have more time. In a few minutes I must catch a plane so I can hang out with Akanke!

God Bless!