dennisknapp:
Can you not see how this is simular the Christian (or at least Greek) concept of the Logos? I know there are major differences, but there are true similarities.
I can see how it is similar, but as I said…it’s certainly not the same. The “Logos” technically means “word”, but in reality, in the context of how it would have been understood in the first century, it better means something like “intelligence”. It’s the underlying principle guiding everything…essentially the mind of God. So Christians say the essence of God, His Divine Reason, became flesh.
But the Qur’an is not the Logos. It is God’s Word, but it is neither His entire mind, nor Divine Reason, nor an underlying principle of the universe or anything else. Yes, the Qur’an is essentially God’s thinking, but in being that it is a
snapshot, not God’s entire mind or His entire Divine Reason.
The concept of the Word become flesh says that the essence of what we know as God, the Divine Reason became embodied (“incarnation”). But since the Qur’an represents not the mind of God, but only a snapshot of its thinking, it is not the essence of God become book (“imbibliation”).
Thus, we see that because “Logos” doesn’t truly mean “word” in the sense of what the Qur’an is, a snapshot of God’s thinking, but rather the entire Divine Reason itself…God Himself, the Qur’an is not an apt comparison the Christian concept of the Word of John 1:1, and thus whatever a few Muslim scholars may have worried about…they shouldn’t have worried about (if only they’d understood the true meaning of “Logos”).
Booklover:
How do you know that any of this is true? Where’s your proof??
Booklover, the Qur’an is self-justifying as the Word of God. It is beyond the scope of this thread to list all the proofs for the authenticity of the Qur’an as God’s word. But
this twelve-page expose on the topic should help in answering your question. You might also try googling “Qur’an authenticity” for some other pages that may aid your understanding.
hlgomez:
Shenango,
Do you know what “Logos” means? God the Son, if you are referring to him, wasn’t incarnated into a Book. I haven’t heard anything like this before.
And I don’t know if your definition of incarnation means becoming a book. You have a very good definition of what Christianity is.
Go back and
carefully read what I wrote. Even what you quoted me on saying contained the word: “
analogous”. I did not say “
the same”. I know well the Christian concept of the Word becoming flesh as the “
incarnation”, which is why I referred to the
analogous concept of the Word becoming book as “
imbibliation”.
After all, Our Lord Jesus Christ told us that unless we accept the Kingdom of God as a child, we would not enter it!
