Muslims and Christ Divinity

[Kliska]

It can only be seen when one doesn’t read the Bible “independently” and without any pre-conceived ideas.

As soon as one starts to read the Bible on her own, she will reject the Trinity.

Or, if one reads the Bible after being raised on a desert island, in complete isolation from any tradition, she will never conclude, “There are 3 Persons in 1 God!”

Again, you keep just restating it. The ECF’s and the bulk of Christendom disagree with you; the Trinity IS taught in scripture. I provided a RCC quote from just the gospels to show it.

Sure, they can use the Bible to support their view.

But the dogma came first, delivered once for all to the saints, and the Scriptures which conformed to this view were chosen (by men, Catholic men) to be part of the canon of the NT.

That’s the way you have to see it or it will produce a lot of cognitive dissonance, I understand that.

Have a Merry Christmas, PR!

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you keep just restating it. The ECF’s and the bulk of Christendom disagree with you; the Trinity IS taught in scripture. I provided a RCC quote from just the gospels to show it.

Of course. If you look at Scripture through the Tradition of the CC, you will find it.

But it’s only because you were taught it before you read it.

That’s the way you have to see it or it will produce a lot of cognitive dissonance, I understand that.

Well, that’s like saying, “You have to keep believing that this is a circle, otherwise, it would produce a lot of cognitive dissonance.”


Umm…ok.

Have a Merry Christmas, PR!

Right back at 'cha!

 

[PRmerger]

Kliska,

The other thread had a question directed to you which you have not yet responded.

Would you mind addressing there, please?

Remember, you said that you do not “blindly accept” anyone else’s word for something, so referring me to others’ “text crits” would not be helpful, as I am certain that you have made your own “text crit” rather than accepting, blindly, others’.

So could you please give us your “text crit”.

Please include the list of criteria you used to discern, on your own, the 27 book canon of the NT (if, indeed, you came to the same conclusion as the CC. Or perhaps you have more or less? I really dunno.)

Thanks.

Oh, Kliska. I can imagine your happiness that this thread is coming to a close and you may use that as an excuse for not answering what your “text crit” is that you have used for each of the 27 books of the NT canon, as well as the over 400 other ancient Christian texts that you would have needed to study in order to say, “I independently discerned the canon of the NT, without the CC!”

But there is still time!

Just a few posts left and you can tell us what your “text crit” is that you used.

As far as my researching it to look for others’ “text crit”, that’s an odd statement for you to make. Aren’t you quite proud of the fact that you don’t “blindly follow” anyone and come to your own conclusions? So why would you “blindly follow” someone else’s criteria?

And why would you assume that I would believe that you would “blindly follow” someone else’s criteria when you have asserted that you don’t ever do that here on the CAFs?

There’s still time for you to tell us what your “text crit” is.

And how it would include Hebrews but exclude the Epistle of Barnabas…

And how it would include James but exclude the Didache…

And how it would include the Gospel of Mark but exclude the Gospel of Judas…

 

[AspiringSoul]

I find that Muslims have a harder time embracing the above, but an easier time accepting it when it is presented this way:

Jesus as God, becoming Man.

Can you accept that the All Powerful Creator could do this?

I don’t know what you mean to be honest. Did you read what I wrote fully, including quotes?

Let’s look at it this way. Imagine the Absolute Essence of God as the pure white light. Imagine the Word as a prism through which God is manifested, ie colours representing different attributes of God-head…
GOD is the totality of all the attributes manifested from the prism of the Word.

Obviously this is a weak analogy only. We can only hold a vague idea in our mind of what the Word is. However one thing is clear, the Word does mean…the expression of the Absolute Essence. The analogy of the prism fits and i’ve seen it used by people of various religions when describing the Universal Consciousness (ie the Word).

Then look at how the Word, as the Macrocosm becomes manifest in the Microcosm of the Holy Spirit.

Now in Islam, the Microcosm is the mirror of the macrocosm. If God’s attributes are manifest in the Macrocosm…then they are reflected in the Microcosm

So for example
the 99 names of Allah in islam.
you have such attributes like
AR-RAHÎM The All Merciful
AL-KHABÎR The All-Aware

These qualities are reflected in the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is in all humans.

Normally a muslim differentiates between the parts and the whole. Ie only God is the whole, but the reflections share some of the qualities of God. This perspective is based on duality, ie Creator and Creation.

The perspective of the Gnostic is to see the Unity of God, whether it’s the prism or the reflection, the ‘light’ (which is merely an analogy) is still GOD. Even if it is darkness the gnostic still sees it’s relation with the Light.
These people, are lovers of the light.
As Jesus Christ preached
Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eyes are healthy, your whole body also is full of light. But when they are unhealthy, your body also is full of darkness.

this is a deep concept in islam
muslimmatters.org/2007/06/01/marifah-being-acquainted-with-allah/

The problem with the Christians is the majority of you are not familiar with the deeper concepts (although they are in your religion, you are not really aware of them). You’re not aware that often times a person, is in a deep contemplation of God and in such a deep spiritual state they may utter things which people in duality to not quite grasp. As a result you people literally make Jesus the man, into God.
whereas me personally, i see God in Jesus. There’s a difference.

No offense intended here, nor am I attempting to present myself as a deeply spiritual person. However what I have, at the very least is an awareness of the concepts leading up to Christianity.
That’s why I’m a muslim who is very fond of my religion, yet one who fully believes in the new testament and has even gone as far as to defend the Unitrian doctrine…which out of sheer ignorance is called ‘the trinitarian doctrine’.

what is more unitarian

to see God as a seperate being
or to see God in all?

David AS had recognised the act of God manifesting through the actions of people.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Here’s a great muslim quote, which will add emphasis to my point

Al-Buti said:

What is the meaning of the expression “oneness of perception”?
When I interact with causes with full respect to Allah’s ways, His orders, and His Law, knowing that the sustenance that comes to me is from Allah; the felicity that enters my home is from Allah Almighty; my food is readied for me by Allah - I mean even the smallest details; the wealth with which I have been graced, comes from Allah; the illness that has been put in my being or that of a relative of mine comes from Allah Almighty; the cure that followed it is from Allah Almighty; my success in my studies is by Allah Almighty’s grant; the results which I have attained after obtaining my degrees and so forth, are from Allah Almighty’s grant - when the efficacy of causes melts away in my sight and I no longer see, behind them, other than the Causator Who is Allah Almighty:
at that time, when you look right, you do not see except Allah’s Attributes, and when you look left, you do not see other than Allah’s Attributes. As much as you evolve in the world of causes, you do not see, through them, other than the Causator, Who is Allah.
At that time you have become raised to what the spiritual masters have called oneness of perception. And this oneness of perception is what Allah’s Messenger expressed by the word ihsan [which he defined to mean]: “That you worship Allah as if you see him.” You do not see the causes as a barrier between you and Allah. Rather, you see causes, in the context of this doctrine, very much like pure, transparent glass: the glass pane is present - no one denies it - but as much as you stare at it, you do not see anything except what is behind it. Is it not so? You only see what is behind it. The world is entirely made of glass panes in this fashion. You see in them Allah’s efficacy in permanence, so you are always with Allah Almighty. None has tasted the sweetness of belief unless he has reached that level of perception.3

please be diligent about this and consider what is meant

in islam there are 3 levels of ‘Faith’

Iman=Belief
Islam=perfect submission but this also assumes the duality of God and Else than God
Ihsan=the unity of God, ie to see God in ALL things.

Christianity is the product of Ihsan. To see the signs of God in all things

Titus 1
To the pure, all things are pure,

*Psalm 44
2 You with Your own hand drove out the nations;
Then You planted them;
You afflicted the peoples,
Then You spread them abroad.
3 For by their own sword they did not possess the land,
And their own arm did not save them,
But Your right hand and Your arm and the light of Your presence,
For You favored them.
*

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what you mean to be honest. Did you read what I wrote fully, including quotes?

Yes, I did.

The problem with the Christians is the majority of you are not familiar with the deeper concepts (although they are in your religion, you are not really aware of them). You’re not aware that often times a person, is in a deep contemplation of God and in such a deep spiritual state they may utter things which people in duality to not quite grasp.

If a non-Christian person is in deep contemplation of God and utters things which are consonant with Catholicism, we give that a hearty amen.

As a result you people literally make Jesus the man, into God.
whereas me personally, i see God in Jesus. There’s a difference.

Jesus is the Word made Flesh.

We do not make Jesus the man, into God.

That is an incorrect explication of Christian dogma.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Yes, I did.

If a non-Christian person is in deep contemplation of God and utters things which are consonant with Catholicism, we give that a hearty amen.

**Jesus **is the Word made Flesh.

We do not make Jesus the man, into God.

That is an incorrect explication of Christian dogma.

Would you be able to acknowledge that this is the error of most christians? from a historical pov Jesus WAS God incarnated, simple as that. Worshipped as God entirely.

All i’m doing is applying the concept of Marifah(Gnosis) to the topic. By drawing comparisons and also taken from quotes in the new testament.

What I’ve concluded is quite simple

The Word is the ‘prism’
The Father is the White light
God is the Light…the attributes of God are the colours.
The Holy Spirit is the mirror of The Word
and from whichever angle you look
there are the attributes of God.

you cannot escape them from whichever perspective, this is the unity of God in the trinity.
The Trinity is a deeper philisophical concept btw, it originated in the East. The Vedics and the Taoists believe in the Macrocosm and the Microcosm. The best you can do is look into these concepts in order to understand what they mean and how they relate to existence itself, why they’re necessary etc.

Life itself…is about the manifestations of the light. Only a person who has suffered from hatred will understand the value of Love, which is God.
The battle between Good and Evil is a means through which the Light is magnified.

Paul spoke of this in regards to the law. Teaching how the law was designed not to conceal the darkness, but to expose the full depth of darkness all so the Grace/Light of God could be fully recognised.

One notable example is when we’re told we were created to worship God.
It isn’t to say ‘God’ is a particular being who demands us to bow our heads to Him

it means, the ultimate goal of life is to seek the light. Whichever way you look at it, we are seeking God.
Those ‘colours’ representing the attributes of God…are what we’re seeking. Love, Wealth, Happiness, Peace, Beauty, Truth etc etc…they are…the attributes of God, the manifestations of The Father…made known through The Son, reflected in The Holy Spirit, the secret of secrets…of all of humanity.

Our only problem is we become falsely enticed by their shadows in this world, ie we mistake money with wealth, or pleasure with happiness…and this world with the true Eternal World.

Now back to who Jesus is

the person who seeks the light, finds it…especially in Jesus.

When an ignorant person sees this…he wrongly takes Jesus as his God…but he is focused on the physical form, colour etc and not on the light manifesting through him.

What Jesus referred to were the miracles/works being completed through him not his physical appearance.

Can you see the light of God in the trees, rivers, clouds, wind, sunrise/sunset, the cycle of the moon etc etc?
now let’s suppose in your mind, you were One with God…and you bowed your Head to God exclusively…outwardly you appear to worship…trees, stones, the sun, the moon etc…

how else did idolatry originate? enlightened people meant one thing but the unenlightened practiced another.

That’s why I try to differentiate between Jesus the ‘son of man’ and Jesus the ‘son of God’ as I consider them parts of 1 particular person…yet 2 separate realities. We all have separate realities btw…the person you are on this earth, isn’t the real you, for example.

Btw slightly off-topic but can you read this and tell me what you think?
mysticsaint.info/2010/01/untold-story-of-jesus-bawa-muhaiyaddeen.html

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Can you give an example of an apostle teaching that the Holy Spirit is a Person and is the 3rd Person of the Godhead?

I can see in scripture that the holy spirit is a person, who speaks to the apostles, who guides the apostles and influences them in variously different ways. I can also see that the holy spirit is God. Now the fathers of the church also saw this or are you going to deny they argued from scripture and relied on tradition alone? Because I can garuntee you they did no such thing and would be offended at the very notion they were relying on tradition alone. When the fathers however did rely on tradition alone they told us sometimes, like for instance the tradition of Crossing oneself or the date of pascha, but for matters of who God is, general Christian practice they went to scripture. Why are you afraid of this?

Now my responce to Aspiring soul.

I am not sure what this concept of Marifah is, but what I am sure of is the trinity. That true Christians accept the trinity as the best interpretation of scripture within the arms of church tradition. I do however take issue at your total distortion of the athanasian creed and we must not mince words here, it is a pure distortion of the intention of what this creed means. It does us no good to go back in time an reinterpret documents and its phrases and theology as if it were written from our perspective, we must see it within the time.

So you quote this specific portion of the athanasian creed. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords

Now this is quite true within a Trinitarian context, there is only one substance of divinity and to suggest that there are three substances would amount to three Gods or three lords. Look at what we told in this, do you accept the son as being equal to the father? Its strange to me also that you consider this a true creed because God is called a father and he denies being a father in the quran.

“Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated.”

We might also consider this key phrase to the creed.

“The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten.”

Does allah beget? No he doesn’t, in fact he denies this in the quran but the quran has a simplistic understanding of begetting, conceiving it only within natural terms. What Christians and the author of the athanasian creed (not actually Athanasius) mean by the son being begotten of the father is that he is of the exact same substance of the father who is the fount of all divinity, thus the son listens to his father and the father enjoins all judgement and love to the son.

Look at this theology as well

“For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ”

I could say the exact same thing worded a little differently and you wouldhave to interpret me as saying things an orthodox muslim should say. I think you are desperate to try and find something Christian to cling to and say we modern Christians are wrong, whereas the ancient Christians were right.

Now I am not convinced by your reading of the athanasian creed, you could argue the exact same thing with the Nicene and Constantinopolitan creed (the theology is near identical in both creeds) and any of the fathers. You are forcing an understanding of your islam on to the past and that is not acceptable. We have no reason to think of jesus’s divinity as the holy spirit within him according to the Athanasian creed or else Jesus’s unique position isn’t so unique after all. We have no reason to assume a gnostic dualism between Jesus and the Christ and the son, as if these can be split into three individuals, no the terms and names are used in such a way which indicates they are speaking about one person.
“Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ”

I suggest you read the theology of the time and not merely what you want onto an ancient text. Go read Basil and Athanasius and the Trinitarians or histories of them by professionals. Consider reading Jaroslav Pelikan’s history of church tradition series to gain a broader understanding of the Trinitarian controversies and why creeds like the Nicene and Athanasian were created in the first place.

But in the end it comes back to what scripture says and you would have me read it in a way in which I separate the Christ from Jesus as a separate entity, or the son from Jesus as a separate entity. I am not sure, you need to clarify your theology and define for yourself who Jesus, the son, the spirit, the father, the Christ and etc are before we can continue in this conversation.

For myself I see no reason to distinguish between the one person Jesus who is the Christ who became incarnate and existed from all time as the word of God as the son of God only begotten of the father before all ages.

 

[AspiringSoul]

^^
I like the use of the words
‘substance of divinity’ although the muslims usually use the word Light of God.

Unfortunately you’ve not just misunderstood me, you’ve overlooked a lot of what i’ve said.

You’ve also misunderstood islam.

Terms like Father/Son are purely metaphorical…

the problem occurs when ignorant people…receive these metaphorical terms and they have no way of understanding them, except to take them literally
bringing them down, to the lowest level

literally, Baby Jesus is the son of God, who is a giant Man-God in the sky, afterall we were ‘made in His image’ right? which means God is just a huge giant.

^^
This is absolutely, the belief of a lot of ‘Christians’ who have actually insisted they are correct.
Even if you deny it, it’s a historical fact, this is how the average medieval European Christian would have thought of God.

metaphorical terms taken as metaphysical truths instead.

Islam didn’t need to explain the meaning of each term, it just avoided the controversy altogether by simplifying the religion

ie God is One, he doesn’t beget children.

so many people become muslim today and when questioned they say ‘i never did believe God has a son’.

These people have to be catered for and Christianity just wasn’t doing it for them. what use is religion if it can’t even be understood?

btw if you’re not aware of the concept of marifah and have actually ignored most of my views, why disagree with me? it’s a bit short-sighted given marifah, as a concept…explains the ‘Trinity’ perfectly.

I’ve already explained, quite clearly my beliefs on what The Word and the Holy Spirit are, in relation with the Absolute Essence. Please read what i’ve said more diligently.

 

[Kliska]

AspiringSoul; is it a contention in your belief system that the scriptures, the OT and NT are changed or corrupted? For even when you are trying to make God fit one Islamic view, He describes Himself and what happened to Jesus very differently than any Muslim explanation I’ve seen.

So, while you are trying to make Jesus as God the Son fit your view, do you recognize that the scriptures in Christianity record things very differently? For example, His true crucifixion, the fact that Jesus was crucified and died on the cross, and rose physically 3 days later to prove His control and command over death, Hell and the grave.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Oh, I do care very much that a Muslim find my argument compelling.

I’m not sure where your comment comes from.

It can only be found with the lens of the CC.

That is incontrovertible.

And it is limned by the fact that if you ask a Unitarian, JW, Christadelphian if he sees the Trinity in the Bible…

he will tell you…

http://media.tumblr.com/c0569ea4b1d95d1133a9d9c861572681/tumblr_inline_mhf45fEQkh1qz4rgp.gif

And that is why you need the CC to settle the matter.

The word “Trinity” might not be found in the bible but what about Jesus’s baptism by John?

What about when Jesus said to baptize people “In the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit”?

What about when Jesus said that He must go to the Father but that He would send the Advocate, the Holy Spirit?

These are three incidents right off the top of my head and they are not the only ones spoken of in the bible, don’t you think that we should give the Holy Spirit a little credit here?

Jesus did say that He would “send the Holy Spirit to guide…” and He did NOT say that He would only send the Holy Spirit to the higher-ups, so to speak.

Jesus did say, “I Am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one come to the Father except thru Me” but Jesus never said that there was only one way to Him (Jesus), I believe that this is something that we should ponder.

 

[Tom_Baum]

AspiringSoul

You wrote, “As a result you people literally make Jesus the man, into God.”

It was God Who made God into a man, Jesus in the Incarnation, not us “you people” who made a man into God.

It doesn’t matter if you believe it, it is either true or it isn’t true.

If it is true than islam is false since islam denies the Divinity of Jesus and Christianity is all about the Divinity of Jesus.

If it is not true than there is no such a thing as Christianity since Christianity is all about God becoming One of us and islam is either true or false.

Islam and Christianity can not both be true, one can be true and the other false or they can both be false but they can not both be true.

Jesus Is either God-Incarnate or He isn’t, there is no middle ground here whatsoever.

 

[Tom_Baum]

AspiringSoul

You wrote, “literally, Baby Jesus is the son of God, who is a giant Man-God in the sky, afterall we were ‘made in His image’ right? which means God is just a huge giant.
This is absolutely, the belief of a lot of ‘Christians’ who have actually insisted they are correct.
Even if you deny it, it’s a historical fact, this is how the average medieval European Christian would have thought of God.”

I really don’t know what the “average medieval European Christian would have thought of God” but I think that your thoughts on this are quite off the mark, to put it mildly.

You also wrote, “Islam didn’t need to explain the meaning of each term, it just avoided the controversy altogether by simplifying the religion
ie God is One, he doesn’t beget children.”

Actually, islam did not avoid any controversy by simplifying the religion, what islam did was to simply say that Christianity is a lie and yet claim Jesus as one of their prophets.

As I have said in another post, islam and Christianity can NOT both be true, they can both be false, one can be true and the other false but they can not both be true.

What is known as the New Testament flows from what is known as the Old Testament.

What is known as the koran, flows from neither and is a corruption of both.

By the way, I have met God the Father and I have met the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus, one could say that I have met the Trinity.

I have also met satan and I can tell you and everyone else that satan is upset, that is satan’s problem, not mine.

 

[AspiringSoul]

Islam itself is very simple. Muslims might like discussing deeper topics, which ultimately create divisions/sects but how Prophet Mohammed SAW himself taught the religion was so it would be easily accessible for anyone…and would avoid controversy. It was preferred for people to avoid the deeper topics and to focus on devotion to God, our actions etc.

The crucifixion theme is based on just 1 single verse
*
(1) And because of their saying (in boast), “We killed Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah,” - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them [the resemblance of 'Îsa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man)], and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not :
( سورة النساء , An-Nisa, Chapter #4, Verse #157)

now notice, this particular quotation is in the english language, a translation…and yet the writer purposely writes in brackets…in otherwords spoonfeeding us what he wants us to believe.
There are tafsirs (interpretations) of this ayah by muslims but most of them actually differ in opinion
some interpret it to mean someone else was put on the cross in place of Jesus, having resembled Jesus or made to appear like him.
some interpret it to mean, there was no crucifixion at all
some interpret it to mean, Jesus was on the cross, appeared to die but was merely unconscious and then woke up.

For me personally my intention when reading the new testament was to familiarise myself with the teachings of Jesus…Not to just try and refute Christians on the topic of crucifixion. Naturally many muslims approach the new testament not with the intention to learn, but to merely p(name removed by moderator)oint whatever they require and use it for their purpose. For that reason they always, get it wrong.

For example, lets look closer at this verse.
*And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Îsa (Jesus), son of *
Here, God is not ‘refuting’ the Christians

I’m being completely honest when i say this but i have yet to even find a single muslim scholar (from the few english speaking ones anyway) who’se even noticed the fact it’s not talking about Christians here.

Only the study of the bible will make it very clear who is being referred to here.
Initially i used to just say ‘it’s the jews who rejected Jesus’.

The next issue with the crucifixion was my own understanding of the concept of death, in relation with the concept of Barzakh (sheol) in islam. The idea that the ‘awliya are living’ ie the saints or those close to God…are living and not dead ie they do not die though their body is in the grave. The idea is our carnal soul attaches to the Earth and since we pass away from Earth, our soul is left…‘dead’ literally it cannot attain it’s desires.

So our understanding in islam about the concept of death in the grave is very much connected with the carnal soul. Why do you think the martyrs are ‘alive’ in islam? it’s because if they give up their carnal desires, sacrificing them in the way of God…they do not die.
*
(2) And say not of those who are slain in the way of Allah: “They are dead.” Nay, they are living, though ye perceive (it) not.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #154)*

suddenly, the crucifixion verse takes on a different meaning.

Do you see my point?
this was what i first thought when i read the gospels. I realised Jesus was fully expecting and ready to sacrifice his carnal soul on the cross

The carnal soul, in islam…is a ‘serpent’. so to speak. Ie
“*the dragon (al-tinnûn) that nestles in the human breast and breeds manyheaded snakes ( equal to the number of his traits ) biting and snapping at him in the grave. *”

so can you imagine what went through my mind whilst i’m reading the gospels, thinking this and suddenly read

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, thus The Son of Man is going to be lifted up

at that point, it made perfect sense what was happening.

whenever i’ve discussed this with muslims they’ve rejected it EXCEPT when they were muslims from a sufi background. Why is that?

random examples
amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Sufi-Lost-Dimension-Christianity/dp/1902733088
youtube.com/watch?v=si0G-Z1xHaY

It didn’t end there. The questions i was asked were

if that’s true why does the Quran speak in such terms and specifically say ‘he wasn’t crucified’

my response was to try and explain that the physical body is not the true person, nor is the carnal soul
Jesus taught the difference between the Spirit (the true self) and the false self, the ‘flesh’ (ie the carnal soul).

Yet it didn’t end there…

i was later introduced to another text by a Christian
The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter

pretty much confirmed my view

and then, the best one

The Book of Wisdom
Chapter 2 & 3 specifically*

 

[AspiringSoul]

Also, no, i don’t believe the OT/NT are corrupt and i can easily answer any muslim who thinks this, proving my views from the Quran whilst their views are actual misinterpretations of the Quran lacking any real context.

However I believe scriptures are different due to their intended audience.
Ie the Genesis creation story, i don’t believe it literally, but i accept it…there’s a difference.
I accept it because i imagine in the mind of an Israelite 3000+ years ago, it would be very powerful.

I mean, in the mind of many people even today…(keeping in mind most of the worlds population is still poor and not very well educated) their understanding of the cosmos, is quite simple.

I believe there’s a wisdom behind everything in scriptures where each point has a deeper purpose.
I’m not just saying this stuff, if anybody cares to try refute my points i have evidence to back it up
the problem is a lot of people are far behind, ie if a muslim tells me i’m wrong, how would he know if he’s never studied the entire bible?
likewise a christian who tells me i’m wrong cannot know since he’s never studied islam from my perspective.

The Quran sums up my view in this verse

*Surah 5
48 To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
*

 

[Kliska]

But then there is a problem. If you accept scripture, then you know the OT was mainly written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. In much the same way that Muslims hold to the Arabic Koran to be THE Koran, Christians acknowledge that we must study the scripture in Hebrew and Greek. What happens then, is that we see that Jesus literally and physically was crucified, that He literally and physically died, and then literally and physically rose. To study that actual scriptures, there can be no doubt because of the words used, as well as historical witness.

As other have said, I can appreciate a Muslim trying to rectify Christian belief with their own, but it just won’t work. If you approach scripture with the idea that it is intact, then Islam (even the way you are interpreting things) and Christianity are incompatible.

 

[AspiringSoul]

But then there is a problem. If you accept scripture, then you know the OT was mainly written in Hebrew and the NT in Greek. In much the same way that Muslims hold to the Arabic Koran to be THE Koran, Christians acknowledge that we must study the scripture in Hebrew and Greek. What happens then, is that we see that Jesus literally and physically was crucified**, that He literally and physically died, and then literally and physically ros**e. To study that actual scriptures, there can be no doubt because of the words used, as well as historical witness.

As other have said, I can appreciate a Muslim trying to rectify Christian belief with their own, but it just won’t work. If you approach scripture with the idea that it is intact, then Islam (even the way you are interpreting things) and Christianity are incompatible.

you shouldn’t ask people questions if you’re not even capable of understanding the answer…
you’ve just confirmed this topic is beyond the scope of your understanding by telling me something, i already confirmed i believe in

 

[Kliska]

you shouldn’t ask people questions if you’re not even capable of understanding the answer…
you’ve just confirmed this topic is beyond the scope of your understanding by telling me something, i already confirmed i believe in

You may well be right, maybe I can’t comprehend nor understand your answer. You are laying out a view of Jesus that doesn’t conform to the entirety of scripture, but I think you know that. Again, I do get that you are trying, in a sense, to reconcile the scriptural Jesus with the Jesus that you see in the Koran. But that is not a tenable position as His description doesn’t match yours. He did not just shine forth the Light, He literally IS the Light. True God from True God. To not grasp that or not agree with it is to not grasp or agree with scripture.

 

[AspiringSoul]

AspiringSoul

You wrote, “literally, Baby Jesus is the son of God, who is a giant Man-God in the sky, afterall we were ‘made in His image’ right? which means God is just a huge giant.
This is absolutely, the belief of a lot of ‘Christians’ who have actually insisted they are correct.
Even if you deny it, it’s a historical fact, this is how the average medieval European Christian would have thought of God.”

I really don’t know what the “average medieval European Christian would have thought of God” but I think that your thoughts on this are quite off the mark, to put it mildly.

You also wrote, “Islam didn’t need to explain the meaning of each term, it just avoided the controversy altogether by simplifying the religion
ie God is One, he doesn’t beget children.”

Actually, islam did not avoid any controversy by simplifying the religion, what islam did was to simply say that Christianity is a lie and yet claim Jesus as one of their prophets.

As I have said in another post, islam and Christianity can NOT both be true, they can both be false, one can be true and the other false but they can not both be true.

What is known as the New Testament flows from what is known as the Old Testament.

What is known as the koran, flows from neither and is a corruption of both.

By the way, I have met God the Father and I have met the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus, one could say that I have met the Trinity.

I have also met satan and I can tell you and everyone else that satan is upset, that is satan’s problem, not mine.

I really don’t know what the “average medieval European Christian would have thought of God” but I think that your thoughts on this are quite off the mark, to put it mildly.*

not really, it’s genuinely something i’ve encountered from some christians.

*Actually, islam did not avoid any controversy by simplifying the religion, what islam did was to simply say that Christianity is a lie and yet claim Jesus as one of their prophets.
*

You just made this up

Surah 5
48 To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;

^^ it talks about Jews, Christians and Muslims

*(2) Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.
( سورة البقرة , Al-Baqara, Chapter #2, Verse #62)
*

If Islam/The Quran claims Christianity is false, why did it specifically remind us of the story of the Sleepers of the Cave, who are considered Saints in Islam?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Sleepers

*What is known as the New Testament flows from what is known as the Old Testament.
*
Jesus was jewish that’s why.

*By the way, I have met God the Father and I have met the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit revealed to me that the Catholic Eucharist Is Jesus, one could say that I have met the Trinity.

I have also met satan and I can tell you and everyone else that satan is upset, that is satan’s problem, not mine.*

Can you describe God the Father?
what did he look like?

 

[AspiringSoul]

You may well be right, maybe I can’t comprehend nor understand your answer. You are laying out a view of Jesus that doesn’t conform to the entirety of scripture, but I think you know that. Again, I do get that you are trying, in a sense, to reconcile the scriptural Jesus with the Jesus that you see in the Koran. But that is not a tenable position as His description doesn’t match yours. He did not just shine forth the Light, He literally IS the Light. True God from True God. To not grasp that or not agree with it is to not grasp or agree with scripture.

*You are laying out a view of Jesus that doesn’t conform to the entirety of scripture
*

You’re saying this but earlier on you were trying to explain to me how 'Jesus was physically and literally crucified" only i’d already said i believe the crucifixion

What the religion of islam teaches…something which the bible also teaches is to explain how the Spirit doesn’t suffer Death…and the Spirit is our TRUE Self.
The physical body…and the carnal soul are the parts of us that are subject to death.

Fact is you’re not even aware of your own holy scriptures and what’s contained in them.

*He did not just shine forth the Light, He literally IS the Light. True God from True God. To not grasp that or not agree with it is to not grasp or agree with scripture.
*
No, he never said ‘i am the light’ he said ‘i am the light of the heavens and the earth’

How do you reconcile with the fact Jesus said

‘i am the true vine and God is the gardener’?

the fact is, they are not the same.

The concept of Marifah however allows a person to accept the light…whether it is reflected, magnified, shone, makes no difference, the people of Marifah see God in all the light. That’s why the trinitarian doctrine is actually the product of Marifah

you don’t know what Marifah is
despite the fact Jesus and Paul spoke of it.