Mary- 'The Mother of God'

[Vile_Servant]

Well to us, the original followers of Jesus(peace be upon him) were upon the truth. They followed the original teachings of Jesus and died that way. Islam sees them as ‘saved’. This is for any child of Adam that came into the world; if they died believing in their original messenger and died believing in that, they died saved. Allaah gave people free will. Its unfortunate that people add and invent things into beliefs and say ‘this is the truth’, this is the path of Satan. I would say the blame is upon those who innovated new ideas into the teachings of Jesus. Like I said, once the true message comes to a person and then they reject it, they will be held responsible for their choice.

Muslims don’t want anyone to go to the hell-fire, but Allaah’s word must come true.

It does not make sense that Person A (Jesus’s original disciples) can be saved and enjoy eternal life in paradise, while Person B (any Catholic or Christian born after the prophet Muhammed) is damned to eternal hellfire, for believing exactly the same thing (i.e. Jesus is the Son of God).

Can this really be the true decree of the Merciful and Loving Allah?

By the way, do you believe that Mother Teresa is burning in hellfire for all eternity?

 

[SonofAdam]

SonofAdam,

planten says in forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=6332372&postcount=222
The prophet Muhammad said, “Hell will be empty one day and the morning breeze will rattle (swing to and fro) the open doors of empty hell.”

Thank you for informing me. I responded to planten saying:

As salamu 'alaykum wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakaatu,

Please bring your reference as to the hadith that you posted. In the meantime,

Imam 'Abd al-Qahir Baghdadi says:

“The scholars of Ahl al-Sunna and all the previous righteous of the Muslim Community are in unanimus agreement (ijma’) that paradise and hell are eternal, and that the bliss of the inhabitants of paradise and the torment of unbelievers in hell will endure forever.”

Imam Taqi al-Din Subki says:

"The faith of Muslims is that paradise and hell do not perish, Abu Muhammad Ibn Hazm having transmitted scholarly consensus (ijma’) on this point and on the fact that whoever denies it is an unbeliever (kafir) by scholarly consensus. And there is no doubt of this, for it is necessarily known(def:f1.3(N) as part of the religion of Islam, and proof after proof bears it out.

(1) “Nay, but whoever earns a wicked deed and is encompasssed by his error, those are the inhabitants of hell, abiding therein forever” 2:81

(2) “Verily those who disbelieve and die as unbelievers; the curse of Allah, the angels, and people, one and all, is upon them, abiding therein forever; the torment shall not be lighted from them, nor shall they be respited.” 2:161 "

{Umdatul Saalik eng trans page. 995}

There are plenty of evidences from the revelation that proves that Jannah/Paradise and Jahenum/Hell-fire last forever.

 

[SonofAdam]

It does not make sense that Person A (Jesus’s original disciples) can be saved and enjoy eternal life in paradise, while Person B (any Catholic or Christian born after the prophet Muhammed) is damned to eternal hellfire, for believing exactly the same thing (i.e. Jesus is the Son of God).

Can this really be the true decree of the Merciful and Loving Allah?

By the way, do you believe that Mother Teresa is burning in hellfire for all eternity?

The condition is if anyone rejects his message (peace be upon him) after it was presented to them, they will be in the hell-fire. Other than that, if they didn’t hear of the message then they will be tested in the Hereafter(as I posted previously). This has always been the rule. People followed Moses(peace be upon him) and his Sunnah(commands and tradition) then Allaah sent Prophet Jesus(peace be upon him) then after that, Allaah sent Muhammad(peace be upon him). Once a new messenger comes, one must follow him.

Please listen to Imam Anwar al Awlaki in the Series Lives of the Prophets. He will talk about all of the Prophets that Allaah has mentioned in the Qur’an from Adam to Eesa(Jesus)peace be upon them. God-Willing this will make things very clear. It is a beautiful series.

Full Series here:kalamullah.com/lectures.html

A sample of the lecture is here: youtube.com/watch?v=7sW7c-P39Fo

 

[Betterave]

SoA, does it say in your revelation that God is incapable of eternally (without beginning or end) creating something; that an eternal act of creating is impossible for God? I think it does not. Please correct me if I am wrong and tell me where it says this.

SonofAdam? Do you have an answer for me? Does your revelation affirm what you believe here? If you wish to flatly contradict Ibn Rushd, one of the greatest Islamic intellectuals in history, please explain your reasoning. You can change the subject all you want. Your religion is not confusing to you because you are not guided by Wisdom - True Wisdom would not let you ignore your own confusion. You just insist that your own interpretation of your religion is authoritative and that your religion is true. Who are you to do such a thing? Anyone can do that, in any religion, or any ideology. Allah knows best where your true devotion is, whether it is to Him and to the Truth, or whether it is to your own opinions.

(Please note the difference between ‘except’ and ‘accept’ - these are very different words. Check your dictionary.)

 

[Betterave]

Jesus is not completely God, because he was “of the flesh”… So therefore, Jesus was half God, and half man… Jesus had two natures, which is the official Christian position.

TEPO, Jesus was not half God and half man. Please do not say this, especially to our Muslim friend who is already very confused.

Jesus is fully God and fully man.

 

[TEPO]

TEPO, Jesus was not half God and half man. Please do not say this, especially to our Muslim friend who is already very confused.

Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Yes, I’m sorry… Wont happen again.

 

[SonofAdam]

SonofAdam? Do you have an answer for me? Does your revelation affirm what you believe here? If you wish to flatly contradict Ibn Rushd, one of the greatest Islamic intellectuals in history, please explain your reasoning…,"

First of all, Ibn Rushd is a highly controversial Aristotlean philosopher and not a representative of the Islamic faith. He made it his life mission to insert Greek theology into the Islamic faith. This is why he is so heavily promoted by the west. In any case, at the end of the day it matters not what non-prophet says what, but the evidence at hand.

The evidence states that those who say that anything other than Allaah is beginningless are not Muslims, as has been stated by Al-Ghazaaliyy and others. This is because Allaah said in the Qur’aan that He created everything (wa khalaqa kulla shay’), and that He is Al-Awwal (the one attributed with absolute precedence), and the Prophet said, “Allaah existed and there was nothing else.” After that, it matters little what Ibn Rushd might have said.

What has no beginning, cannot be created, since the meaning of create (khalaqa in Arabic) is to bring into existence according to specification. The linguists Ibn Manţħuur in Lisaanu-l-ˆArab, and Az-Zabiidiyy in Taaju-l-ˆAruus [8] narrate from the imaam of Arabic, Al-’Azhariyy: “Among the attributes of Aļļaah is “the Creator” (Al-Kħaaliq and Al-Kħallaaq), and He is the one that brought everything into existence after it being non-existent, and the root meaning of the word kħalq is specifying, so He is in the sense of what gets existence from Him the one that specified it, and in the sense of bringing into existence according to the specification, the one that created it.”

It has the same sense in English. E.g. in the American Heritage Dictionary “To cause to exist; bring into being”

Your statement “does it say in your revelation that God is incapable of eternally (without beginning or end) creating something; that an eternal act of creating is impossible for God?”

You are confusing the act with the creation. To say a creation can be beginningless is self contradictory, because to be created is to be brought into existence, which necessarily implies being preceded by non-existence. It also implies that God would have had no choice but to create it, as it is not preceded by non-existence, which again implies being subdued or helpless and being fed upon without choice. In other words it would not be an act at all.

It also leads to saying that the world is necessary in existence, because the beginningless does not need to brought into existence, i.e. it is not in need of preponderation of its existence, so it is not intrinsically possible in existence, but necessary.

In general, the philosophical notion of something possible in existence being eternal stems from the mistake of thinking of Allaah in terms of worldly cause and effect, that His will is an event like ours, etc. It is not based on real proof, but on drawing analogies between the world and its Creator, and thinking of the Creator as a cause in the sense of worldly cause.

As for the idea that Jesus is the Creator himself incarnated as a human being, this is impossible, because the incarnation existed after non-existence, and since the Creator is an eternal being, He cannot actually be this so called incarnation, because the incarnation is not eternal. It is that simple. One cannot be both eternal and not eternal. That is, beginningless existence is an attribute of the Creator, and the human being called Jesus existed after non-existence, so he is not eternal, so he is not the Creator.

If you say that Jesus was not a human being, but eternal and became one, then He was something else before that, and this something else must have ceased to exist before the HUMAN BEING Jesus existed. Otherwise the human being would not be Jesus. This means you believe that the eternal self of the Creator ceased to exist. This means, according to you, that God Himself is only possible in existence, and not intrinsically necessary in existence, because His existence ceased. This would make him equal to all creation in being only intrinsically possible in existence, and thus in need for someone necessary in existence, and not God. There is no escape from that

.

 

[Vile_Servant]

As for the idea that Jesus is the Creator himself incarnated as a human being, this is impossible, because the incarnation existed after non-existence, and since the Creator is an eternal being, He cannot actually be this so called incarnation, because the incarnation is not eternal. It is that simple. One cannot be both eternal and not eternal. That is, beginningless existence is an attribute of the Creator, and the human being called Jesus existed after non-existence, so he is not eternal, so he is not the Creator…

It is not impossible for an eternal Divine being to take on an additional temporal nature (e.g. human nature) without changing the essence of His Divine being. For example, the eternal God took on the additional temporal nature of fire (which He created) when He spoke to Abraham.

 

[Betterave]

First of all, Ibn Rushd is a highly controversial Aristotlean philosopher and not a representative of the Islamic faith. He made it his life mission to insert Greek theology into the Islamic faith. This is why he is so heavily promoted by the west. In any case, at the end of the day it matters not what non-prophet says what, but the evidence at hand.

True; but you obviously are highly ignorant of the evidence at hand - that is the point you must learn to admit if you wish to progress to understanding.

The evidence states that those who say that anything other than Allaah is beginningless are not Muslims, as has been stated by Al-Ghazaaliyy and others. This is because Allaah said in the Qur’aan that He created everything (wa khalaqa kulla shay’), and that He is Al-Awwal (the one attributed with absolute precedence), and the Prophet said, “Allaah existed and there was nothing else.” After that, it matters little what Ibn Rushd might have said.

You are confusing *matters of fact *with what is possible. Allaah may well have not actually chosen to create eternally; but we are discussing whether it was *possible *for Him to do so.

What has no beginning, cannot be created, since the meaning of create (khalaqa in Arabic) is to bring into existence according to specification. The linguists Ibn Manţħuur in Lisaanu-l-ˆArab, and Az-Zabiidiyy in Taaju-l-ˆAruus [8] narrate from the imaam of Arabic, Al-’Azhariyy: “Among the attributes of Aļļaah is “the Creator” (Al-Kħaaliq and Al-Kħallaaq), and He is the one that brought everything into existence after it being non-existent, and the root meaning of the word kħalq is specifying, so He is in the sense of what gets existence from Him the one that specified it, and in the sense of bringing into existence according to the specification, the one that created it.”

It has the same sense in English. E.g. in the American Heritage Dictionary “To cause to exist; bring into being”

This is all irrelevant. You are just vainly repeating the same misunderstandings. These claims have already been addressed and explained to you. I am sorry if you are unable to understand - may Allaah guide you and help you.

Your statement “does it say in your revelation that God is incapable of eternally (without beginning or end) creating something; that an eternal act of creating is impossible for God?”

You are confusing the act with the creation. To say a creation can be beginningless is self contradictory, because to be created is to be brought into existence, which necessarily implies being preceded by non-existence. It also implies that God would have had no choice but to create it, as it is not preceded by non-existence, which again implies being subdued or helpless and being fed upon without choice. In other words it would not be an act at all.

It also leads to saying that the world is necessary in existence, because the beginningless does not need to brought into existence, i.e. it is not in need of preponderation of its existence, so it is not intrinsically possible in existence, but necessary.

In general, the philosophical notion of something possible in existence being eternal stems from the mistake of thinking of Allaah in terms of worldly cause and effect, that His will is an event like ours, etc. It is not based on real proof, but on drawing analogies between the world and its Creator, and thinking of the Creator as a cause in the sense of worldly cause.

I think *you *are the one who is confused in the manner you suggest. You are thinking of God as confined to time. That is why you think **there must have been a time when nothing but God existed before He started creating. You are confusing the Creator with earthly time-bound creatures. But He and His Acts are not bound by these earthly categories.

As for the idea that Jesus is the Creator himself incarnated as a human being, this is impossible, because the incarnation existed after non-existence, and since the Creator is an eternal being, He cannot actually be this so called incarnation, because the incarnation is not eternal. It is that simple. One cannot be both eternal and not eternal. That is, beginningless existence is an attribute of the Creator, and the human being called Jesus existed after non-existence, so he is not eternal, so he is not the Creator.

Of course, that is true: He **is not **the incarnation - you betray your misunderstanding once again in suggesting we believe this. He is *present *in the incarnation.

If you say that Jesus was not a human being, but eternal and became one, then He was something else before that, **and this something else must have ceased to exist before the HUMAN BEING Jesus existed. Otherwise the human being would not be Jesus. **This means you believe that the eternal self of the Creator ceased to exist. This means, according to you, that God Himself is only possible in existence, and not intrinsically necessary in existence, because His existence ceased. This would make him equal to all creation in being only intrinsically possible in existence, and thus in need for someone necessary in existence, and not God. There is no escape from that.

The claim I have bolded does not make sense at all. You have no reason for making such an absurd assertion. I am sorry, but I suspect you say obvious falsehoods like this because you do not want to understand. We do not believe that Jesus, the son of God, is a contingent being as regards His Divinity. Your silly statement assumes that the Son of God ceased to be God at the Incarnation! You are obviously missing the whole point of what the Incarnation is! How can you not see that?

 

[SonofAdam]

There is a response to what you have said but I will not continue in this discussion because I do not want to keep running in circles; its a waste of time.

 

[Betterave]

There is a response to what you have said but I will not continue in this discussion because I do not want to keep running in circles; its a waste of time.

Allaah knows your reasons; He will make the whole truth clear to you and to me some day. I pray that He will have mercy on you and on me. Peace to you.

 

[SonofAdam]

It is not impossible for an eternal Divine being to take on an additional temporal nature (e.g. human nature) without changing the essence of His Divine being. For example, the eternal God took on the additional temporal nature of fire (which He created) when He spoke to Abraham.

Indeed He has changed because before He ‘took on’ i.e., changed, He was not temporal. It is impossible to be infinite and finite at the same time. God Almighty does not contradict Himself.

ex:

God is All-Knowing therefore He has affirmed perfect knowledge for Himself. In order to truly understand His Attribute of being All-Knowing one must negate the opposite of having knowledge, which is to be ignorant of something. One cannot be ‘All-Knowing’ and ‘ignorant’ at the same time. This is a contradiction in terms, and contradictions in terms don’t exist i.e, they cancel each other out; its one or the other.

As for your example with Prophet Ibraheem (Abraham-alayhis salam- peace be upon him), I think you meant Prophet Musa (Moses-alayhis salam). I never said that God ‘became’ the fire. A point to be made here though is that- Prophet Musa-alayhis salam- didn’t go around telling his people that they should worship fire, or that God was a flame after this incident.

 

[Saravy]

She was the mother of Jesus, not God! Jesus is the son, God is the father. That is a false teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Steven_John]

affirmed

perfect knowledge for Himself. In order to truly understand His Attribute of being All-Knowing one must negate the opposite of having knowledge, which is to be ignorant of something. One cannot be ‘All-Knowing’ and ‘ignorant’ at the same time. This is a contradiction in terms, and contradictions in terms don’t exist i.e, they cancel each other out; its one or the other.

Amen

AoA

mans linguistic acrobatics to make sense of what another man has said keeps us from fully sharing the one truth.

May G-d / Allah bless and guide us to unity in truth.

 

[Betterave]

Amen

AoA

mans linguistic acrobatics to make sense of what another man has said keeps us from fully sharing the one truth.

May G-d / Allah bless and guide us to unity in truth.

the law of non-contradiction not-(A and not-A) is only true insofar as A is intended in the same sense, at the same time in each of its appearances in the proposition. this is basic logic and extremely obvious, not linguistic acrobatics.

 

[Steven_John]

the law of non-contradiction not-(A and not-A) is only true insofar as A is intended in the same sense, at the same time in each of its appearances in the proposition. this is basic logic and extremely obvious, not linguistic acrobatics.

I appreciate your helping me maybe i did not understand the others post or yours.

I had taken form the OP that G-d is always all knowing, needs nothing form anything or any body

 

[JDaniel]

Is it true that Catholics consider Mary to be the ‘Mother of God’? If so, what does it mean?

Also,

Do all branches of catholicism agree to this term?

Thank you for your responses.

It means that Mary is the biological Mother of God, through the birth of Christ. God, being Infinite Being, cannot have had a mother, per se, as one does not create his own mother. But, God was never born of any mother until Christ, in the hypostatic union.

God bless,
jd

 

[Betterave]

I appreciate your helping me maybe i did not understand the others post or yours.

I had taken form the OP that G-d is always all knowing, needs nothing form anything or any body

That is correct, but the OPer went on to claim that this implies the impossibility of the hypostatic union. His logic was very bad in trying to make this case because he didn’t understand how the law of non-contradiction works. To use a classic medieval example: I can affirm that an Ethiopian is both black and not-black without contradiction, provided I mean that his skin is black, but his teeth are not-black (they are white).

 

[Steven_John]

That is correct, but the OPer went on to claim that this implies the impossibility of the hypostatic union. His logic was very bad in trying to make this case because he didn’t understand how the law of non-contradiction works. To use a classic medieval example: I can affirm that an Ethiopian is both black and not-black without contradiction, provided I mean that his skin is black, but his teeth are not-black (they are white).

Wow Bro, being at CAF shows me how i am too stupid to be in the community of believers, i dont know the word hypostatic and cant find it in my dictionary.

I pray some and see G-d as all ways all knowing as i saw in the OP post. So i ask Him what you both mean.
I feel assured G-d is always all knowing, and wants us to be in union with his holyness even here where we are stuck where men are so hard of hearing each other.

Best i can see at this time is you both are trying to please G-d with knowledge of our relationship with G-d. I can quite see his word but it sounds like umah or oomarr and you its unity. Whether yous can put the words aside and look for each others heart is your choice

Hes comes from Arabic teaching and you from greek both in history seeking the true spirit of what was given to the Jews and offered to all. We can never own it but are blessed to be in it and it in us.

From my listening the Jews also think G-d is all ways all knowing. We are offered to be in unity with G-d but we need to be humble and realise there can still be times we we cry out as if He has left our unity. It does not mean the divine is not with us just that we are blinded by what evil we men are doing.

G-d does know it all, even when we cry out as if He abandoned us IMO the cry only reflects our state of being the cry being directed to G-d shows our faith that He is above what we do and experience for He is al ways all knowing.

If one did not have in the very core of our being G-d is all ways all knowing we would look to ourselves as G-d and not cry to Him who is greater than us.

G-d indeed dwells in the flesh of the humble man, while the righteous man depending on what other men have told goes on believing G-d is more in ones self than the other whos words seem different.

I pray thanks to G-d for your trying to help me, may he forgive me for goofing of so much at school as it maybe what make it hard for me to understand your words.

Your love for me is inspiring.

I guess the OP was just much easier to follow given my low intellect, I do wish G-d was for the stupid and the scholar like the bible says. Its going to be so hard for so many in the world of developing countries to really find G-d as you do without good education. I guess when we look at the smarter man with good speech we are humbled and trust them and place our faith in them, by accepting what they say while only understanding what The Spirit stirs in us.

I will be what I will be", you have free will so choose what you see

 

[JDaniel]

Wow Bro, being at CAF shows me how i am too stupid to be in the community of believers, i dont know the word hypostatic and cant find it in my dictionary.

Steven:

Here is a link to the phrase, hypostatic union, from the Catholic encyclopedia, New Advent. Have fun!

newadvent.org/cathen/07610b.htm

I pray some and see G-d as all ways all knowing as i saw in the OP post. So i ask Him what you both mean.
I feel assured G-d is always all knowing, and wants us to be in union with his holyness even here where we are stuck where men are so hard of hearing each other.

Best i can see at this time is you both are trying to please G-d with knowledge of our relationship with G-d. I can quite see his word but it sounds like umah or oomarr and you its unity. Whether yous can put the words aside and look for each others heart is your choice

Hes comes from Arabic teaching and you from greek both in history seeking the true spirit of what was given to the Jews and offered to all. We can never own it but are blessed to be in it and it in us.

From my listening the Jews also think G-d is all ways all knowing. We are offered to be in unity with G-d but we need to be humble and realise there can still be times we we cry out as if He has left our unity. It does not mean the divine is not with us just that we are blinded by what evil we men are doing.

G-d does know it all, even when we cry out as if He abandoned us IMO the cry only reflects our state of being the cry being directed to G-d shows our faith that He is above what we do and experience for He is al ways all knowing.

If one did not have in the very core of our being G-d is all ways all knowing we would look to ourselves as G-d and not cry to Him who is greater than us.

G-d indeed dwells in the flesh of the humble man, while the righteous man depending on what other men have told goes on believing G-d is more in ones self than the other whos words seem different.

I pray thanks to G-d for your trying to help me, may he forgive me for goofing of so much at school as it maybe what make it hard for me to understand your words.

Your love for me is inspiring.

I guess the OP was just much easier to follow given my low intellect, I do wish G-d was for the stupid and the scholar like the bible says. Its going to be so hard for so many in the world of developing countries to really find G-d as you do without good education. I guess when we look at the smarter man with good speech we are humbled and trust them and place our faith in them, by accepting what they say while only understanding what The Spirit stirs in us.

I will be what I will be", you have free will so choose what you see

Never forget, you are loved, not only by those close to you, but also by the community of Faith throughout the world. Bless you for trying. This is Philosophy. It’s supposed to be tough.

God bless you,
jd