Question for Muslims about God

[hasantas]

You do realise that verse you quoted, Surah 39:4 says that God could have taken a Son if He wanted to?

I’ve already explained the topic of interpretation of the Bible, the Apostles passed on their teachings, and these Traditions were recorded in writing by the Church Fathers, the earliest of whom would be the equivalent to the Salaf in Islam. Such as St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who would be equivalent to a Tabitabieen in Islam, the same Irenaeus wrote this:
newadvent.org/fathers/0103319.htm

Just read the first verse, just keep in mind, St. Irenaeus was the disciple of St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who was the disciple of St. John, the author of the fourth Gospel in the New Testament, and Apostle of Christ Himself.

Was one God not enough for you? You inclined to such thing which seems a bit shirk! Do you realize that?

Salaf did not write anything which conflict with Qur’an but what you claimed that Fathers wrote conflict with Bible!

As much I know during apostles and followers of them(Salaf) there were no such doctrines, were there? Do you have any evidence? No.

What I see in Bible is the Tawhid but not shirk. Some Fathers had added something which conflict with soul of Bible. That is so obvious but some historic or politic issues make it very complex.

 

[SalamKhan]

Was one God not enough for you? You inclined to such thing which seems a bit shirk! Do you realize that?

Salaf did not write anything which conflict with Qur’an but what you claimed that Fathers wrote conflict with Bible!

As much I know during apostles and followers of them(Salaf) there were no such doctrines, were there? Do you have any evidence? No.

What I see in Bible is the Tawhid but not shirk. Some Fathers had added something which conflict with soul of Bible. That is so obvious but some historic or politic issues make it very complex.

Please note, my purpose in quoting the Quran is not to prove that it teaches Christian doctrine, nor is it to prove that Christian doctrines are acceptable within Islam. I am simply provoking thought or discussion on apparent possibilities in Islamic theology that make Christianity less objectionable.

No, what the Church Fathers have said contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, and as I have already explained, you have no authority to interpret the Bible. Only the Church, founded by Christ Himself has the authority. The early Church Fathers, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome and St. Polycarp of Smyrna (whose disciple was St. Irenaeus of Lyons), were taught directly by the Apostles of Christ.

Not only that, but in Ancient times, memorisation was completely normal and not some rare or great feat like it is today; so the earliest of the Church Fathers would have had access to the original or very early copies of the books of the New Testament written by the Apostles, were familiar or well versed in the languages the books were written, and were able to memorise the books by heart. Can you really contend with their interpretations?

 

[hasantas]

No, what the Church Fathers have said contradicts your interpretation of the Bible, and as I have already explained, you have no authority to interpret the Bible. Only the Church, founded by Christ Himself has the authority. The early Church Fathers, such as St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Clement of Rome and St. Polycarp of Smyrna (whose disciple was St. Irenaeus of Lyons), were taught directly by the Apostles of Christ.

Not only that, but in Ancient times, memorisation was completely normal and not some rare or great feat like it is today; so the earliest of the Church Fathers would have had access to the original or very early copies of the books of the New Testament written by the Apostles, were familiar or well versed in the languages the books were written, and were able to memorise the books by heart. Can you really contend with their interpretations?

So you accept that doctrines were interpretations of Fathers but not some thing direct from scripture?

Faith cannot founded on some strained interpretations but must basis on solid ground and it is scripture. I do not put my mind in someone’s pocket.

 

[SalamKhan]

So you accept that doctrines were interpretations of Fathers but not some thing direct from scripture?

Faith cannot founded on some strained interpretations but must basis on solid ground and it is scripture. I do not put my mind in someone’s pocket.

The authors of the New Testament books knew what they wrote about, and the earliest Church Fathers directly knew the authors; what part of that is so difficult to understand? The Fathers do not contradict the Bible, in fact they directly quote verses from Scripture whenever they interpret the Scriptures.

 

[MartinJordan]

So you accept that doctrines were interpretations of Fathers but not some thing direct from scripture?

Faith cannot founded on some strained interpretations but must basis on solid ground and it is scripture. I do not put my mind in someone’s pocket.

The only straining is yours dear Hasantas. I’ve already told you that this tactic is disordered (without order) by selective reading. Worse is that no corroboration with reference from Islamic sources that deals with the Church Fathers interpretation. Islam doesn’t bother it seems.

Peace be with you.

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

The authors of the New Testament books knew what they wrote about, and the earliest Church Fathers directly knew the authors; what part of that is so difficult to understand? The Fathers do not contradict the Bible, in fact they directly quote verses from Scripture whenever they interpret the Scriptures.

Maybe selective tactic employed has blocked his ability to understand. Hasantas will do well to be fair to the scripture available to him.

MJ

 

[JimmyDFG]

I don’t know about the intricacies of each sect, so my answer may not be that good

In the dunya, we see Allah’s 99 names being acted upon all the time. We see His wrath, like when He seals someone’s heart, but we also see His mercy, like when He guides someone to the truth. He gives and takes; those are connected to His 99 names as well. The reason we don’t die as soon as we’re born is because He acts out of mercy when He sustains us. He does act out His wrath, but not all the time. He often is merciful even to the people that deserve it the least.

Does God have to behave in a wrathful way? of course. That’s because His sense of justice is perfect. A sin deserves a punishment. He pours out wrath not on innocent people, but only on law breakers. There is not a single person in Hell who is innocent. God could send us all to Hell and He would be justified in doing so because we’ve all broken His laws.

That’s the relationship between God’s actions and God’s names. He acts according to His names. He would be justified in punishing everyone, but He often acts more mercifully than wrathfully. As I said before, He’s merciful even to people who don’t deserve it. Islam is not about a God that wants to take from you – it’s about a God who wants to give to you.

Even when He does act out wrathfully, His names of mercy are still present, though. He is merciful by His very nature. He is also One (al-Ahad) by His very nature. He can’t become more than One Divine Person because that would by nature not be possible. It’s like if God can create a rock so heavy He can’t lift. He can’t do that which is by definition impossible. It’s not possible for Him to become a man because a man is needy, while God on the other Hand is Self-Sufficient. One can’t be needy and self-sufficient at the same time. That’s a big problem I have with Christianity-- it associates human frailties to God.

Since a man is bound to make mistakes, that cannot be associated with God because God is incapable of mistakes. I suppose God could make a Son in the sense of being a thing that ought to be worshiped, but that would be a lesser deity. It could never reach the same status as God because God has always been the supreme God. Indeed, the Qur’an says: “Say, [O Muhammad], "If the Most Merciful had a son, then I would be the first of [his] worshippers’”.(surah 43:81)

If God told us to worship another entity, I would do it, but since He hasn’t, I only worship Him.

Is true that whoever remembers Allah’s 99 names will enter paradise upon death?

 

[Reuben_J]

In that Tafsir, it says hypothetically speaking, as in what if situation, God could (it doesn’t say should) beget a Son, meaning it is possible for Him if He so wishes, but the Tafsir says that ultimately, God did not beget a Son.

hasantas:

Most of scholars interpret that hypothetically speaking is the arguendo which is not possible to happen in any case. Just like in that:

4- If Allah had intended to take a son, He could have chosen from what He creates whatever He willed. Exalted is He; He is Allah, the One, the Prevailing. Az-Zumar(39)

As a person who once was exploring Islam, this was an issue that interested me but also where I got stuck due to the narrow scope of Muslims’ argument on this which did not satisfy me.

A neutral supposition would be to say that God can beget a Son since He can do anything; but he did not.

My Muslims protagonists were saying that, unlike what was proposed in your post, that God cannot (unable, incapable) beget a Son. He cannot do that, it is not within His power and ability to do so.

If that is so, then to me God’s power was limited, if there is actually something that He cannot do.

 

[hasantas]

As a person who once was exploring Islam, this was an issue that interested me but also where I got stuck due to the narrow scope of Muslims’ argument on this which did not satisfy me.

A neutral supposition would be to say that God can beget a Son since He can do anything; but he did not.

My Muslims protagonists were saying that, unlike what was proposed in your post, that God cannot (unable, incapable) beget a Son. He cannot do that, it is not within His power and ability to do so.

If that is so, then to me God’s power was limited, if there is actually something that He cannot do.

If you think that you get more wide scope by ignoring scripture hence I prefer stay in scope which you call narrow.

What you suppose for Jesus is a fictional thought which God mention that it is not true. So I prefer to trust in God but not caprice of humanbeing.

You say that God can do everything. Not to make faith complex but to make it more clear so I ask that do God can kill Himself absolutely? I have an answer so do you have?

 

[hasantas]

Is true that whoever remembers Allah’s 99 names will enter paradise upon death?

Yes. That Hadith is ture. Remembering is not just by word but also by heart and implementing. Names of God imply to obey God. So if someone do not obey God and do not worship so that mean the names of God had not been remembered.

The meaning of hadiths is not cursory. So just by remebering names of God but no believing in God or doing evil deeds etc do not help to go in Heavens.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Excellent thread.

 

[Lion_IRC]

I think we are all children of the same God

 

[SalamKhan]

What you suppose for Jesus is a fictional thought which God mention that it is not true. So I prefer to trust in God but not caprice of humanbeing.

Thus far, you haven’t proven this. You still have not offered anything to dispute the evidence for the Catholic Church being able to trace Her teachings to Jesus Christ Himself. You only asserted that the early Church Fathers, who received their teachings directly from the Apostles of Christ, somehow got their teachings all wrong, without providing any evidence to back this up.

 

[hasantas]

Thus far, you haven’t proven this. You still have not offered anything to dispute the evidence for the Catholic Church being able to trace Her teachings to Jesus Christ Himself. You only asserted that the early Church Fathers, who received their teachings directly from the Apostles of Christ, somehow got their teachings all wrong, without providing any evidence to back this up.

You also have not any valid evidence that the doctrine was taught by Jesus directly, have you?

I believe in Jesus and there was no such doctrines among disciplines of Jesus. If there have been such very but very important issue so it must be informed in Bible very clearly! There should not be so many doubts upon a very crucial knowledge which direct interest in faith. And also there is direct word of God(Qur’an) which declare very clearly that such doctrines made up by human is not true.

 

[hasantas]

I think we are all children of the same God

 

[SalamKhan]

You also have not any valid evidence that the doctrine was taught by Jesus directly, have you?

I believe in Jesus and there was no such doctrines among disciplines of Jesus. If there have been such very but very important issue so it must be informed in Bible very clearly! There should not be so many doubts upon a very crucial knowledge which direct interest in faith. And also there is direct word of God(Qur’an) which declare very clearly that such doctrines made up by human is not true.

If you believe that the evidence provided does not validly prove that the Catholic Church received Her teachings from Jesus Christ Himself, then why do you trust that Muslims have truly inherited Muhammad’s teachings? Remember, Muslims believe that Muhammad was illiterate, therefore he did not even write the Quran, but the Sahaba did; moreover, Hadith was also not written until after all of the Sahaba had passed away, by the Tabitabieen onwards.

The Bible does clearly teach Christian doctrines, one would be blind not to see that the opening chapter of the Gospel according to St. John affirms the doctrine of the Incarnation. But of course, you would shout “that is not what it means!”, according to your own private interpretation, as if you somehow know the intentions of the authors when they wrote what they wrote. Which is exactly why I keep referring you to the early Church Fathers, as they received their teachings from the authors of the New Testament.

I do not think I can say this more plainly. So I ask you, are you purposely trying to misinterpret my posts? If not, then what exactly is so difficult to understand about what I am saying?

 

[Wesrock]

In discussions with Muslims I have had, there are always objections to God having a son, as if it’s a separate deity, but this is a bit of a strawman, as actual Trinitarian doctrine is that God IS Father and Son (and Spirit), not that God has a son separate from Himself. There’s also an emphasis that God assuming a union with human nature is God reducing Himself in some way to human nature, which is not what Christians believe either.

 

[hasantas]

In discussions with Muslims I have had, there are always objections to God having a son, as if it’s a separate deity, but this is a bit of a strawman, as actual Trinitarian doctrine is that God IS Father and Son (and Spirit), not that God has a son separate from Himself. There’s also an emphasis that God assuming a union with human nature is God reducing Himself in some way to human nature, which is not what Christians believe either.

Was Jesus not a human?

Jesus was on the world and Father is out of world so are there not seperate deities?

Jesus had % 100 human nature and it is said that God assumed a human body!

Then what is the connection between Jesus and God?

 

[hasantas]

If you believe that the evidence provided does not validly prove that the Catholic Church received Her teachings from Jesus Christ Himself, then why do you trust that Muslims have truly inherited Muhammad’s teachings? Remember, Muslims believe that Muhammad was illiterate, therefore he did not even write the Quran, but the Sahaba did; moreover, Hadith was also not written until after all of the Sahaba had passed away, by the Tabitabieen onwards.

The Bible does clearly teach Christian doctrines, one would be blind not to see that the opening chapter of the Gospel according to St. John affirms the doctrine of the Incarnation. But of course, you would shout “that is not what it means!”, according to your own private interpretation, as if you somehow know the intentions of the authors when they wrote what they wrote. Which is exactly why I keep referring you to the early Church Fathers, as they received their teachings from the authors of the New Testament.

I do not think I can say this more plainly. So I ask you, are you purposely trying to misinterpret my posts? If not, then what exactly is so difficult to understand about what I am saying?

Your heart inciline to a mystic thought which seems a bit fantastic. Such amazing ways depart from the right way many times.

Ofcourse Fathers did a very good work by conveying disciplines of Jesus. But these doctrines were not taught by Fathers. These far-out thoughts emerged very away from land of Jesus.

 

[SalamKhan]

Was Jesus not a human?

Jesus was on the world and Father is out of world so are there not seperate deities?

Jesus had % 100 human nature and it is said that God assumed a human body!

Then what is the connection between Jesus and God?

Christian doctrine does not teach that Jesus is the Father. You clearly aren’t familiar with the doctrine of the Trinity. See the Trinity shield.

On the topic of what Christian doctrine teaches about the Incarnation of Christ and His humanity, in relation to His Divinity; read about the Hypostatic Union.