Misquotes by Mohammed?

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**Let us look at John 10:30 “I (Jesus) and the Father are One.” **This verse is severely misunderstood and is taken out of context, because beginning at verse John 10:23 we read (in the context of 10:30) about Jesus talking to the Jews. In verse John 10:28-30, talking about his followers as his sheep, he states: “…Neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father who gave them me, is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are One.”

No prophet ever said that. Mohammed did not; nor Moses. Jesus calls God “My Father” because He knows Him. As the Gospel insists elsewhere.​

These verses prove only that Jesus and the Father are one in that no man can pluck the sheep out of either’s hand.

IOW, they strongly hint at the full Divinity of Jesus. What human prophet can have attributed to him such power that those who are his, cannot be plucked from his hand ?​

It does not at all state that Jesus is God’s equal in everything.

He isn’t. As man, He is the Servant of the Father: He was mortal, hungered, thirsted, wept, slept, sorrowful, died. That is not in dispute, nor is it a difficulty.​

In fact the words of Jesus, " My Father, who gave them me is Greater than ALL…," in John 10:29 completely negates this claim, otherwise we are left with a contradiction just a sentence apart. All includes everyone even Jesus.

This is not a problem - for the Father was not a man. The Incarnate Word, was. Indeed, how could Jesus be our perfect Model and Example, if He had been in all things the equal of the Father ? As man, He was not - as Hebrews 5.4 says, “He learned obedience through what He suffered…” - this is difficult for us, because we are sinners, so God Himself has become one of us (sin alone excepted). What we cannot of ourselves do, He shows by His own life how to do; and sends His Holy Spirit, that we may be able to do it.​

Also let us look at verse John 17:20-22 “That the ALL may be made ONE. Like thou Father art in me, I in thee, that they may be ONE in us. I in
them, they in me, that they may be perfect in ONE”. In this verse, the same word ONE used, the Greek, HEN is used, not only to describe Jesus and the Father but to describe Jesus, the Father and eleven of the twelve disciples of Jesus. So here if that implies equality, we have a unique case of 13 Gods.

Not at all - the communion between the Father & the Son, is the exemplar and cause of the unity between the disciples. Since Christians are “sharers in the Divine Nature” (2 Peter 1.4), and have been adopted as the Father’s sons, this is entirely appropriate - indeed, necessary.​

Of the verse in question, “I and the Father are One” in (John 10:30), we also need to take note of the verses following the 30th verse in the text. In those verses, the Jews accuse Jesus falsely of claiming to be God by these words. He however replies, proving their accusation wrong by their own text: “The Jews answered him saying,'For a good work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy, and because that thou being a man, makest thyself a God '” (John 10:33).

Jesus replies to this accusation saying: “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, "I said ye are gods. If He can call them gods, unto whom the word of God came, say ye of him whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, “Thou blasphemeth,” because I said I am the son of God?’” (John 10:34-36).

[continue…]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…continued & ended]

Jhn 10:22 It was the feast of the Dedication at Jerusalem;

Jhn 10:23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple, in the portico of Solomon.

Jhn 10:24 So the Jews gathered round him and said to him, “How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us plainly.”

Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name, they bear witness to me;

Jhn 10:26 but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep.

Jhn 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me;

Jhn 10:28 and I give them eternal life,

What man does that ?​

and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand.

Jhn 10:29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.

Jhn 10:30 I and the Father are one."

Jhn 10:31 The Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?”

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came (and scripture cannot be broken),

Jhn 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Jhn 10:37 If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me;

Jhn 10:38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

How is this applicable to a purely human prophet ?​

Jhn 10:39 Again they tried to arrest him, but he escaped from their hands.

Let us look at Acts 2:22 “O you men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a MAN approved of God among you…” Peter in the Book of Acts testifies about Jesus. Jesus thus even to his disciples, as to early Christians, not poisoned by Pauline doctrine, was a man, not a God.

Of course He is a man - but He is also Lord and God. No words about His being man, are proof that He is not also God.​

From www.jewsforjudaism.org:

Question: In John 10:30 Jesus says, “I and the Father are one [hen].” Doesn’t this show that they are one in essence?

This statement does not suggest either a dual or triune deity. What John’s Jesus meant by the word hen (“one”) becomes clear from his prayer concerning the apostles: “That they may be one [hen], just as we are one [hen]” (John 17:22), which means that they should be united in agreement with one another as he (Jesus) is always united in agreement with God, as stated: “I [Jesus] always do the things that are pleasing to Him [God]” (John 8:29).

There is thus no implication that Jesus and God, or the twelve apostles are to be considered as of one essence.

Except for the fact that the Gospels were the works of those who believed in the Divinity of Jesus: they were written to nourish the faith of those who already possessed it​

What should perhaps be made clear, is that we do not believe that the Divinity of Christ cancelled or obscured the reality of His humanity: instead of that, the reality of His humanity was no less real for being the human nature of the Word of God. A true human nature was assumed by the Divine Word Who is God with the Father & the Holy Spirit, so that the God-man Jesus was truly conceived, and truly born into the world - but the Divine Nature which is the Nature of all three Divine Persons is unchanged. Nothing is added to God. The Divinity and the Human nature of the Incarnate Word Who is Jesus Christ each retain what is proper to each nature. ##

 

[Faith101]

chb03c:

I find this very funny. If you knew anything you would know that the Author of this Gospel was refering to the Holy Spirit. It sounds like you are going to some Anti-Catholic web site or something to get your info. I suggest you don’t do that, the Catholics on this forum know there stuff and you can’t tell them otherwise. You will get canned right away.

Hey chb03c

I understand the concept of God and son of god, but what is the holy spirit? Thanks

 

[True-Jesus]

Gottle of Geer:
What are you trying to prove by qouting the “entire” Bible?

The more you qoute the more it become evident that your case has no point.

By just adding/inserting some “blue” remarks into the text of the Bible doesn’t mean that you have a valid point.

After reading the whole text it becomes more clear that Jesus (pbuh) was not claiming any divinity but rather refuting it and even telling the Jews to take a look your Law to make sure that I am not telling any contrary to what is already there.

Like for example “ye are gods” —82nd Psalm (verse 6)

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God?

**
WHY “YOUR LAW”?**

He is a bit sarcastic in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say: “Your Law”? Is it not also his law? Didn’t he say: THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS: I AM COME NOT TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL (the Law). FOR VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED. (Matthew 5:17-18).

"YE ARE GODS"

“Ye are gods:” He is obviously quoting from the 82nd Psalm (verse 6) - “I have said, YE ARE GODS: and all of you are the children of the most High.”

Jesus, continues, “If he (i.e. God Almighty) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (meaning that the prophets of God were called ‘GODS’) and the scripture cannot be broken (in other words - YOU CAN’T CONTRADICT ME!).” - Jesus knows his Scripture; he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that “if good men, holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as “GODS” in our Books of Authority, with which you find no fault - then why do you take exception to me? - When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. “a son of God” as against others being called “GODS” by God Himself. Even if I (Jesus) described myself as “god” in our language, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me.” This is the plain reading of Christian Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric meaning to words.

 

[jjwilkman]

True-Jesus:

Dear iamrefreshed:
Please read the below text:

What parts of the Bible do Muslims believe are closest to the Truth?

"The Noble Quran came to CONFIRM the Truth that exists in the Bible. Allah Almighty NEVER claimed that the bible is fully and 100% Divine. Islam is a witness on the Bible. It filters out the truth from falsehood and corruption in the Bible. The Noble Quran only recognizes the Bible as a HISTORY BOOK with errors and man’s alteration in it. Anything that agrees 100% with Islam is valid, and anything else that has even the slightest disagreement with Islam is discarded:

HUH?

 

[The_Eurasian]

Jesus saying “I and the Father are One.”:

Before we start on John 10:30 Verse, let us examine some of the exaggerating expressions that were said by Jesus himself in the New Testament:

An exaggerating expression in the Bible: The Bible contains many verses in it that contain irrational statements. For instance we read in Matthew 21:21 " Jesus replied, ‘I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, ‘Go, throw yourself into the sea,’ and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.’" I challenge any “faithful” believing Christian to move one brick, not a mountain with his sight or words. Have any Christian from the time of Jesus till now been able to do it?

Dec 26, 2004, day after Christ’ Birthday === earthquake tsunami in Sumatra. The whole island of Sumatra which is as big as the state of Florida MOVED 66 feet!!!

Day after ressurection, 2005, earthquake in Sumatra, I think in Nias

At least 2 Roman Catholics noticed that these deadly earthquakes occured after Catholic Church Feastdays.

One of the Roman Catholics asked people in the internet to abstain from sins and ask not only once, but ask, ask,ask God not to send a deadly earthquake in Sumatra day after Ascension, nor any day nor any place but to send many little earthquakes instead, but of couse, not my will, not our will, but thy will oh Father be done, in Jesus’ name we pray.

I checked. Sure enough, there was an earthquake in Sumatra on the day after our diocese celebrated the Feast of the Ascencion, 2005. In one source it was preliminarily reported as a 6 point something earthquake and in a later report it was a 5 point something earthquake.

 

[True-Jesus]

The Eurasian:

Thanks for your unrelated post.
I too heard on “internet” some Mormon and Lavender Baptists who were claiming not just same thing as you narrated but much more than your “revelation”. They even had dreams right before an hour tsunami disaster hit the western tourists on the coastal areas.

 

[exoflare]

Guys, is it not obvious “True-Jesus” just has a blind agenda here? If he doesn’t learn to cool down, I wouldn’t take him seriously. Just adds to all the confusion. Thanks.

Just as an aside, I do get a kick out of people like this who say all Christian scripture is just plain corrupt yet they try to use Christian scripture as so-called evidence to their claims when they think it suits their purpose.

 

[Irenicist]

True-Jesus:

And when I qouted what were actual views/attitudes of Catholic Church throughout the centuries, you all of a sudden changed your rejecting tone to apologetic but confusing at the same time which is evident from your recent post.

I am sorry to correct you yet again, but you did not quote “views/attitudes of Catholic Church throughout the centuries”. You quoted selectively the writings of a few churchmen out of context and without even understanding their gist or import. The positions of the Catholic Church are set out in doctrinal statements made by councils or by the Pope.

True-Jesus:

Now while being apologetic you are trying to either confuse yourself or confusing me by saying “They are not describing the Jews as literal deicides” when in the qoutes the attitude is very very clear and there is no need to mystify it by attributing and giving new meaning. Any person with elementary common sense can understand what has been said and you do not need a doctor of divinity to explain it.

If your interpretation were correct, you would have to explain why Jews were accepted as converts, were allowed to live in Christian lands, and why no efforts were made to arrest them for this “guilt”. It is now apparent from your tone that you aren’t looking for answers. Instead, you are out to lecture us about what we believe and what are theologians meant by what they wrote. I humbly submit that this somewhat presumptious on your part.

True-Jesus:

I am really amazed how people changed their stand all of a sudden and think not how they will be perceived.

Frankly, I don’t care how you perceive me. If you did not find my explanation and clarification convincing, then I am afraid I can’t help you. I am not an apologist, and you seem in any case more interested in lecturing us on our own faith than in learning about what we actually believe.

True-Jesus:

And then you don’t stop here but go further to defend those “Christ Killers” stand which makes someone more laughable than your previous stand. This reminds me:
of the witness who was in a court case more active than the plaintiff or the complainant himself.

“Christ Killers” is your expression, not that used by any of the Church Fathers. This in itself is rather telling.

True-Jesus:

This is really ridiculous and amazing…but I want you to take a look again by keeping your eyes open enough the following words and try not to read your own deliberate thoughts/words in them but rather see them as they are and ask yourself : Hey what I said earlier? and what I should say now when these words really need no clarification?

If I respond to you at all, it’s as an act of charity. I don’t owe you my time or my thoughts. If you choose to abuse my efforts by labelling them “really ridiculous and amazing”, I guess meaningful dialogue is at an end. But I will go through your quotes one by one for you one last time in my next post, before ending this.

Irenicist

 

[Irenicist]

True-Jesus:

**3rd century CE: Origen (185 - 254 CE): “The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world.” **

Origen is not saying Jews were “Christ Killers”. He is saying that by rejecting Christ’s mission to them, they made Him shed His blood in vain (at least for them). Hence his blood falls upon them and upon those Jews who follow them in rejecting Christ.

True-Jesus:

St. Hilary of Poitiers (315 - 367) referred to Jews as a perverse people who God has cursed forever.

St Hilary is merely following the Jewish prophets who essentially said as much. It is a running theme of the Old Testament that time and time again the Jewish people turned against God and suffered for it. Each time, despite their hardened hearts, God was willing to lift up His chosen people again when they returned to Him. And so it is for Jews who return to Christ in this day.

True-Jesus:

John of Antioch (347 - 407) (a.k.a. John Chrysostom): “They crucified the Christ whom you adore as God. Do you see how great the difference is? How is it, then, that you keep running to those who slew Christ when you say that you worship him whom they crucified?”

St John Chrysostom is referring to the Jewish religious leaders who condemned Christ, not to the Jewish people in general. He is here denying that these leaders or their contemporary equivalents have any moral authority for Christians.

True-Jesus:

5th century CE: St. Jerome (circa 345 - 420): “Judas betrayed Me [Jesus], the Jews persecuted and crucified Me…In particular, this is the story of Judas; in general it is that of the Jews…Judas is cursed, that in Judas the Jews may be accursed.”

See my comments regarding St Hillary.

True-Jesus:

St. Augustine (354 - 430) wrote: “The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot, who sells the Lord for silver. The Jew can never understand the Scriptures and forever will bear the guilt for the death of Jesus.”

On another occasion, he wrote: “Judaism, since Christ, is a corruption; indeed, Judas is the image of the Jewish people: their understanding of Scripture is carnal; they bear the guilt for the death of the Savior, for through their fathers they have killed Christ.”

Note that Judas didn’t kill Christ. Jews are not Christians, hence by definition do not understand Scripture. If they persist in denying Christ they bear the guilt of making His death vain. As soon as they accept Christ, they become Christians and no longer bear this “guilt” because Christ’s death will have redeemed them.

True-Jesus:

7th century: The 17th Church Council of Toledo, Spain in 694 CE defined Jews as the serfs of the prince. This was based, in part, on the beliefs by Chrysostom, Origen, Jerome, and other church fathers that God punished the Jews with perpetual slavery because of their collective responsibility for the death of Jesus.

I suspect that if you read the canons of the Council you will find that this is not the explanation. Jews were unable to take Christian oaths. This made them legally unable to assume the responsibilities of free men in Christian Europe, hence they became legally dependent on Christian rulers as serfs. Note also that serfdom is not slavery. Jews couldn’t be bought and sold, and if they wished to leave, they were free to do so.

True-Jesus:

11th to 13th centuries: The First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE. Although the prime goal of the crusades was to liberate Jerusalem from Muslim control, Jews were a secondary target of opportunity. As the soldiers passed through Europe on the way to the Holy Land, large numbers of Jews were challenged with the order: "Christ-killers, embrace the Cross or die!" 12,000 Jews in the Rhine Valley alone were killed in the first Crusade. This behavior continued for eight additional crusades until the 9th Crusade in 1272. Hundreds of thousands of defenseless Jews died in the attacks.

There probably weren’t hundreds of thousands of Jews in all of Western Europe at that time to kill. The anti-Jewish acts (including massacres, sadly) by some of those who took up the cross were condemned in unambiguous terms by Christian bishops throughout Europe at the time. Do the actions of Osama bin Ladin prove that Islam is bent on the extermination of innocents?

As indicated before, I don’t believe you have come here in good faith either to learn from us about Christianity or to enlighten us about Islam. Feel free to have the last word. I won’t be reading it. I have better things to do with my time.

Irenicist

 

[chb03c]

Faith101:

Hey chb03c

I understand the concept of God and son of god, but what is the holy spirit? Thanks

The Holy Spirit is nothing more then another part of God. The Holy Spirit acts in everyone of us and guides us while we are here on earth. As far as the Trinity goes; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, Each part if just a peice of God NOT SEPERATE IN ANY WAY. Just like I have a foot hand and a face God has a Father, Son and Holy Spirit. All have one will and all seek the same will.

 

[The_Eurasian]

Faith101:

Hey chb03c ** POSTS #23 #31 **

I understand the concept of God and son of god, but what is the holy spirit? Thanks

God is GREAT!!! SO DON"T EXPECT TO UNDERSTAND GOD FULLY!!!

Faith 101 is only one person. True or false???

Faith 101, as a human, was created IN THE IMAGE OF GOD.

What could it be when we are told that God made man in His Image and Likeness?

I think it must be because UNLIKE ANIMALS, MAN HAS A SOUL.

Maybe the Spirit is to the Father and the Son what the soul is to Faith 101 or to any human being.

 

[Ahimsa]

iamrefreshed:

From Sura 7-40:

“Surely (as for) those who reject Our communications and turn away from them haughtily, the doors of heaven shall not be opened for them, nor shall they enter the garden until the camel pass through the eye of the needle; and thus do We reward the guilty”.

Is this Muhammed’s misunderstanding of Mark 10:25?

Abdel Haleem’s translation:

(7:40)“The gates of Heaven will not be open to those who rejected Our revelations and arrogantly spurned them; even if a thick rope were to pass through the eye of a needle they would not enter the Garden. This is how We punish those who do evil.”

Note: Not ‘camel.’ The roots of the words for ‘camel’ and ‘thick twisted rope’ are the same in Arabic and ‘rope’ makes more sense here (Razi).

It’s my understanding that contemporary New Testaments have also replaced ‘camel’ with the more logically sounding ‘rope’.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

True-Jesus:

Gottle of Geer:
What are you trying to prove by qouting the “entire” Bible?

I’m not - I thought it a good idea to give the entire text, so that we could all see what had been left out - such as verses 32 & 33​

The more you qoute the more it become evident that your case has no point.

That reply is one way of avoiding having to discuss objections to one’s case ​

By just adding/inserting some “blue” remarks into the text of the Bible doesn’t mean that you have a valid point.

That was done to highlight passages which were difficult to reconcile with the notion that Jesus is a prophet. If a Muslim is done the courtesy of having his case answered - a bit of the same in return is not unwelcome You made some objections - they could be answered - and they were answered: unless you would like to return to them​

After reading the whole text it becomes more clear that Jesus (pbuh) was not claiming any divinity but rather refuting it and even telling the Jews to take a look your Law to make sure that I am not telling any contrary to what is already there.

So why not answer the objections made to your argument, as well as those your post makes now ? ​

Like for example “ye are gods” —82nd Psalm (verse 6)

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the son of God?

WHY “YOUR LAW”?

He is a bit sarcastic in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say: “Your Law”? Is it not also his law? Didn’t he say: THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS: I AM COME NOT TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL (the Law). FOR VERILY I SAY UNTO YOU, TILL HEAVEN AND EARTH PASS AWAY, ONE JOT OR ONE TITTLE SHALL IN NO WISE PASS FROM THE LAW, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED. (Matthew 5:17-18).

A fair question - FWIW, I think he is speaking ironically, as though to say: “You are making objections from the Law, so you have to take responsibility for all of what it says; so, how do you deal with this text in Psalms ?” This is not in itself a disavowal of the Law, though it could certainly be read that way.​

“YE ARE GODS”

“Ye are gods:” He is obviously quoting from the 82nd Psalm (verse 6) - “I have said, YE ARE GODS: and all of you are the children of the most High.”

Jesus, continues, “If he (i.e. God Almighty) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came (meaning that the prophets of God were called ‘GODS’) and the scripture cannot be broken (in other words - YOU CAN’T CONTRADICT ME!).” - Jesus knows his Scripture; he speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that "if good men, holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as “GODS” in our Books of Authority, with which you find no fault - then why do you take exception to me? - When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. “a son of God” as against others being called “GODS” by God Himself.

If he is a son of God, he is more than man - the “sons of God” were the retinue and courtiers of JHWH. “God” was less specific, because it could be taken in several ways.​

Even if I (Jesus) described myself as “god” in our language, according to Hebrew usage, you could find no fault with me." This is the plain reading of Christian Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric meaning to words.

Then we (almost entirely) agree - which is excellent.​

Except that you don’t go far enough - for the same book applies to Jesus imagery which goes far beyond the idea that Jesus is a god in the sense in which the word is used in that passage in Psalms. Chepter 1 uses of Jesus the imagery of the Shekinah: He is the Glory of the God Who He alone has seen, come to dwell, to tabernacle, among men. Hebrews 1 uses the same imagery. Tabernacle imagery is also recalled in the accounts of His Transfiguration.

In Revelation 1, the vision of John describes Jesus in terms drawn from the description of the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7: it is a manifestation of the Glorified Christ: so John “becomes as one dead”. The use of imagery from Daniel 7 makes good sense if - as there is good reason to suppose - the intention is to show that Jesus is God with the Father.

John’s Christology can’t be understood if we pick out a verse here and there - we have to see the chapters we don’t quote, and the books we don’t quote.

Words need to be understood in their context: historical, religious, and so on. ##

 

[Faith101]

+ + + + + + + + + + + +

What could it be when we are told that God made man in His Image and Likeness?

I think it must be because UNLIKE ANIMALS, MAN HAS A SOUL.

Maybe the Spirit is to the Father and the Son what the soul is to Faith 101 or to any human being.

Perhaps the meaning of God creating humans in his image…means that he has instilled in them a sense of truth, mercy, justice, compassion, love…all the things which he possesses a 100 %, he has given us, but in a lesser quanitity.

I dont quite understand the analogy that you have made. My body eventually dies but my soul lives on…does that apply to the father and son in regards to the spirit? Is it the spirit that gives the father and son “life”?

 

[The_Eurasian]

Faith101 -------Post #35:

Perhaps the meaning of God creating humans in his image…means that he has instilled in them a sense of truth, mercy, justice, compassion, love…all the things which he possesses a 100 %, he has given us, but in a lesser quanitity.

I dont quite understand the analogy that you have made. My body eventually dies but my soul lives on…does that apply to the father and son in regards to the spirit? Is it the spirit that gives the father and son “life”?

What you say about us receiving some truth, mercy, justice, compassion, love is I believe true not only for humans but far more so in the case of the angels.

But I don’t think that God has ever said that He created the angels in His image and likeness.

So from this view, it looks like humans are the only ones in creation - who like an image and likeness of God - have a spirit and a body.

In fact some Catholic decades, centuries ago theorized that maybe what happened in heavern was this. The angels whom God gave great knowledge knew that God would become a man, and as a man, they, the great angels would have to humble themselves and worship God in the form of a man. A third of the angels did not want to do this. And this Catholic theorized that MAYBE, THIS IS WHAT CAUSED GOD TO EVICT THESE ONE THIRD OF THE ANGELS OUT OF HEAVEN!!!

It is easy to adore God when you see Him MIGHTY. But if God appeared to you in the form of a dirty, poor beggar, would you still adore and worship Him???

 

[Faith101]

+ + + + + + + + + + +

What you say about us receiving some truth, mercy, justice, compassion, love is I believe true not only for humans but far more so in the case of the angels.

But I don’t think that God has ever said that He created the angels in His image and likeness.

So from this view, it looks like humans are the only ones in creation - who like an image and likeness of God - have a spirit and a body.

It is easy to adore God when you see Him MIGHTY. But if God appeared to you in the form of a dirty, poor beggar, would you still adore and worship Him???

Angels do not have free will, they are obedient to God b/c they have to be…they dont have the option to be disobedient. So the option to love, be merciful, be compassionate is not in their capacity. Do you know what i mean?

I would give the poor, dirty beggar some food and clothes and send him on his way…but i would NOT Worship him…for he is not worthy of my worship. THe richest most powerful king to ever live on this earth is also NOT worthy of my worship. The only being worthy of my worship is HE who neither gets tired nor hungry, who has control over all things…no one can hurt Him, let alone kill Him. He is above all of that.

 

[Ahimsa]

Faith101:

Angels do not have free will, they are obedient to God b/c they have to be…they dont have the option to be disobedient. So the option to love, be merciful, be compassionate is not in their capacity. Do you know what i mean?

If angels do not have free will, then where did Satan/Iblis come from?

 

[exoflare]

Ahimsa:

If angels do not have free will, then where did Satan/Iblis come from?

Created for the express purpose of being evil?

 

[The_Eurasian]

Faith101 Post #37:

Angels do not have free will, they are obedient to God b/c they have to be…they dont have the option to be disobedient. So the option to love, be merciful, be compassionate is not in their capacity. Do you know what i mean?

I would give the poor, dirty beggar some food and clothes and send him on his way…but i would NOT Worship him…for he is not worthy of my worship. THe richest most powerful king to ever live on this earth is also NOT worthy of my worship. The only being worthy of my worship is HE who neither gets tired nor hungry, who has control over all things…no one can hurt Him, let alone kill Him. He is above all of that.

Faith 101

In Islam, does Mahomet or the Koran tell you that the bad angels or devils used to be good angels before???

Does Mahomet or the Koran tell you that Satan used to be one of the highest ranking angels in Heaven? That in Heaven, Satan was known as the Angel called “LUCIFER” meaning “LIGHT”. In Spanish, “LUZ” means “LIGHT”.
If you are kind to a poor beggar, you remind me of the “GOOD SAMARITAN” that Jesus mentioned in the Gospel. Like you, that Good Samaritan was also a decendant of Hagar. I wish, I too and all Christians will be good samaritans.
By the way, Abraham (Ibrahim?) and Sarah (Sarai?) did receive 3 visitors who foretold that the next time they visit, the very old, barren, sterile lady Sarah(Sarai) would already have a son(Isaac (Ishaq?))).

To God, nothing is impossible. And the old sterile Sarah(Sarai) did get pregnant!!! That’s why there is an Isaac (Ishaq?) Is this also in the Koran?