Son of God? [Archive] - English Sabla

Jeff

19-01-07, 11:43 PM

Actually, I think this is one of Deedat's less impressive arguments.

The Bible calls Jesus the "only-begotten (or unique) Son of God", his "only Son". It refers to Him as THE Son of God.

Christ says that no one knows the Father but the Son and only the Father knows His Son.

When Christ asks the disciples who THEY think He is, only Peter gets it right. You are THE Christ, THE Son of the Living God, Peter says. And Christ says that Heaven revealed that to him and that the Church would be built on him and he would get the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. All for saying that Christ is a faithful guy made by God? Hmmmm....

This is the key. "THE Son." Not "A son" or just "son."

John says that God so loved the world that He gave His Only Son for it.

No, a real familiarity with the Bible shows that this Sonship of Christ is something much deeper and has to do with Christ's sharing in the nature of God Himself, not the figurative sense that is used of others. "He was in the form of God, but He did not think that something to be clung to, but humbled Himself, accepting death on a cross."

And we become sons and daughters of God by adoption, through sharing spiritually in the death and life of Christ and uniting ourselves to Him and His actions.

The power of Deedat's arguments usually depend on a LACK of deep understanding of the Bible for their effect. They sound very good to those who aren't well versed in Christianity, especially since he is a brilliant debater.

But he's wrong.

STING

19-01-07, 11:55 PM

Jeff thanks for your post. As usual, it makes good sense. Anyhow, from what I have always read from the Bible(s), its easy to get confused by two pieces of text that seem to contradit.

Therefore, I will not question your explaination of the text you shared. I am sure you know better than myself. But please enlighten me about two things here.

How do you, as a Christian, interpret the word "son" in the bible? As in christ being the son of god?

And, how would you explain the verses Sheikh Ahmad Deedat mentioned in that video? As in "god being the father of everybody" and the reference of various characters in the bibles as son/sons?

Jeff

19-01-07, 11:56 PM

I think it's worth mentioning, too, that Muslim tradition--including the Quran--simply rejects the term. And Muslims don't use it.

Now Jesus was called Son of God in the Bible many times and at crucial moments and the Bible uses the phrase of Him over and over.

If this term had a good meaning when applied to Christ which was distorted by the Christians, you would expect the Quran and the Sunna and Muslim tradition to endorse it and explain what it "really means."

But explaining it and endorsing what it "really means" is a recent invention of Deedat's.

And the Jews of the day--who would have been expected to understand what the term "really" meant also rejected it with outrage.

No, no. We who use the term know very well what it meant and what it still means. Christ's Sonship means that He is God from God; just as our children derive their nature from us, humans from humans.

Jeff

20-01-07, 12:01 AM

God is the "father of all" in two senses.

He is the loving origin and creator of all and the inspirer of those who follow him faithfully. No one disputes that this is one use of the term. But it is a figurative one.

Let me point out even that points to a different relationship to God than just one of slaves...sons are different from slaves.

But as I said, the way the Bible talks about Christ's sonship is in a literal sense...that's why it made people so mad and still makes them mad today. That's why Peter gets huge praise and reward for discovering it and naming it.

Look at any dictionary. You will see multiple senses of the use of any word. Words can be used in many different senses.

And if you track down all the uses of "son of God" applied to Jesus in the New Testament, they will not bear the interpretation Deedat puts on them if you read my first post.

Thanks for the generous praise. It's always flattering to be praised by someone I respect and from whom I also learn things!

STING

20-01-07, 12:22 AM

But as I said, the way the Bible talks about Christ's sonship is in a literal sense...that's why it made people so mad and still makes them mad today. That's why Peter gets huge praise and reward for discovering it and naming it.

Jeff, I understand all you wrote above except for what I quoted here.

We all know that the bibles that exist today written in English were all translated from at least two different languages. Right? That is, neither Jesus (PBUH) nor Peter spoke or wrote English. Right? So it is easy to get confused I guess.

Anyhow dear, what do you mean by the sonship in literal sense? Can you clarify that a little bit because I am still not sure about this issue. What did Peter discover? Is Christ the son of god or he is not? If he is, what do you exactly mean by the word son in this case?

I am sorry but I am a bit confused and I hope you explain in more basic terms :think:

Jeff

20-01-07, 01:03 AM

STING

20-01-07, 07:25 PM

Nothing to be sorry about at all!

The Bible is divided into a huge first part and a smaller second part. The first part is the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, written 99% in Hebrew and 1% in Chaldean.

The second part is called the New Testament, which was written in the simplified kind of Greek that was used by everyone in the eastern Mediterranean world in those days, called Koine.

Now this is new to me because so far all Christian members on this thread have been completely dispensing everything related to the Old Testament! I tried to convince them but they insisted that its the New Testament what they follow :bored: :mmhmm:

The point is that the uses of "son" in the New Testament that are applied to Christ are particular and shown to be by the use of a "definite article" like "the" in English. This is made more clear by the times the Bible speaks of Christ as the Only or Only-begotten or Unique Son of God.

That and the other issues I've raised show that the issue is not just "son of God" in some figurative sense as used in the Old Testament, but something special and unique to Christ. Christ is THE Son of God, not just a "son" of God.

What do I mean by "literally" Son of God? I mean that Christ is of God-nature as a son of a human is of human-nature. Christ is God. He is "begotten (or generated if you like) of God before all ages", He comes forth from God's nature and shares it.

I still find that difficult to accept! So are we talking about the physical aspct of this whole "generation" issue? Or more of a intangible part of the Christ. Perhaps like his soul or something?

But now, of course, we get into the deep question of the Trinity again! One nature...that of God...but three persons or self-expressions in God's own nature.

Yes we do. Thats where I was heading. If he is the son then how do you explain the long discussion we had in another thread where you explained trinity to me using graphs and all.

Honestly Jeff, don't you find all this confusing sometimes? Don't you feel large portions of information are missing? And a lot of all these believes were based on assumptions instead of facts!

And again, thanks a lot for your time. I am finally learning about what Christians actually believe!

BrAiKi

21-01-07, 12:54 AM

STING

21-01-07, 01:07 AM

Good point there BrAiKi. We keep on reading and hearing about all these contradicting believes that it only leaves us wondering. Anyhow, I am sure Jeff is the only man to help us out here. Lets wait.

Threadlike

21-01-07, 12:50 PM

STING

21-01-07, 07:16 PM

Thanks a lot Threadlike and I agree with what you said about Jeff and yourself. However, as Muslims, aren't we taugh to think and learn? That is, we can't accept everything a certain preacher tells us just because we claim we have faith.

The basic teachings are crystal clear and there are no two Muslims who will doubt it. So in our case, at worst, we will debate over theoritical issues about certain issues such as in what cases can we break our fast or shorten our players. But the basics are unique and straightforward.

Sadly however, in the cases of Christians, they internally debate on basic issues. And for us Muslims, it is difficult to accept various issues logically, scientifically and practically. And Jeff is the only guy in here who can help.

He explained and convinced me about several issues. And thats is why I feel free asking him more.

Jeff

27-01-07, 10:02 PM

I think that Jeff finds this particularly convincing because, much like any follower of religion, you don't have to work your mind about something you have a 100% 'faith' in. So I know that Allah SWT exists, I don't need to see Him to be sure, but I have an internal 'faith' that he does exist. And I also have faith that the Qura'an sent to his messenger is at no place a lie. Is there anything to back me up beside this 'faith'? Many things, but they all come AFTER that faith, not to prove it at any point, but to strengthen it.

Dr. Ahmed Deedat may sound convincing to all of us Muslims, but to a Christian who believes, it is obviously something you cannot digest if you have read the Bible and have been taught for hundreds of years that 'this' means 'this'. So I can't suddenly come and change the meaning of 'this' to 'that' given the fact that I also do not practise your religion!

STING, there's a better lecture for Dr. Zakir Naik on 'The Qura'an and The Bible In the Light of Science'...He is opposing Dr. William Campbell, you can have it on YouTube Jeff. It is also very convincing and I would like to hear what you think of it.

This is an excellent point about Faith and it's one reason why I have a different approach from some of the Christians who have posted here. From my point of view, Muslims seem mostly honest and God will surely not punish them for honestly misunderstanding or being brought up to look at things a certain way.

But I was NOT "taught" anything for hundreds of years! :p My father was an atheist and my mother has no particular religion and strongly dislikes Christianity and especially Catholicism.

The social and cultural setting in which I grew up was not religious and certainly not Christian. If you haven't lived in the society of a place like New York City, you might think that it is Christian. But it is NOT Christian at all; it is secular. What you get in America today in public schools, in the media, in most circles of intellectuals is not only un-Christian, it is ANTI-Christian. I found my way to Christianity by myself and to the Catholic form of it.

I just say that because these doctrines are not doctrines that were bred in me along with my mother's milk. They are convincing to me at the deepest level and that's why I believe them. And the more I hear the arguments against them, the more convincing I find them!

But you are right, Threadlike, about the way we have been brought up channelling our religious thinking. And about our COMMITMENT limiting our freedom of thought. After all, we have to think freely but we ALSO are not supposed to doubt our faiths. It's a fine line to find the right balance sometime.

I think sometimes about one of fatamooo's threads from a while ago. She asked a question like, "How easy would it be for you to change your religion if you thought another religion was true?" Most people on the thread figured that she was talking to the "other side"! :p But she made it clear that she was talking to Muslims and Christians both.

It's a fascinating question and one that has all kinds of levels...how to you balance honesty and freedom of thought with committment to the Truth, if you believe your religion has a Truth bigger than yourself?

Part of the answer I think is in being honest and open about other peoples beliefs; really trying to understand why they think and feel the way they do, rather than just getting it out of a book. That means not being satisfied with what your own people say, but being fearless about getting to know the people and their thoughts and arguments directly. Why should we be afraid to open our eyes and hearts if we have the Truth?

Of course, on a deeper level one gets to see God's role in one's own life and that is the core of Faith. That really IS unarguable. But it's also in the incommunicable! Or else the best way to communicate it is to witness by being GOOD, showing God's power by obeying Him.

I haven't seen Dr. Naik's presentation with Dr. Campbell, but I have to admit that I have some preconceptions about it because I've read things presenting it in a very poor light. But I will try to find time to look at it.

Jeff

27-01-07, 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff View Post
Nothing to be sorry about at all!

The Bible is divided into a huge first part and a smaller second part. The first part is the Holy Scriptures of the Jews, written 99% in Hebrew and 1% in Chaldean.

The second part is called the New Testament, which was written in the simplified kind of Greek that was used by everyone in the eastern Mediterranean world in those days, called Koine.

Now this is new to me because so far all Christian members on this thread have been completely dispensing everything related to the Old Testament! I tried to convince them but they insisted that its the New Testament what they follow :bored: :mmhmm:

The key point on that is that we consider the Old Testament an INCOMPLETE revelation, later fulfilled by the New Testament. The night before He died, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with His Apostles. There a million things to say about that hugely important event, but I'll tell you one for now. After supper was finished, He took the cup filled with wine and blessed it and looked up to His Father in Heaven and said, "This is the Cup of My Blood, the Blood of the NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT."

In His Person and in His Blood, Christ has revealed a New and Final covenant which completes the Old one.

So, we still believe in the Old Testament. Nothing in it can be simply evil or wrong. So it's a good point if you find something that appears to be allowed by God in the Old Testament and you use it to question a Christian who is criticizing something in Islam. They can't simply say, "Well, we don't believe in the Old Testament."

But remember, too, that not all Christians are very well versed in their faith. This is true of Muslims also. Some Muslims don't know their faith well and they can't defend it or they use bad arguments. Or if they run up against a tricky or difficult question, they answer it wrong. I wish I could persuade more Christians to come here and more Muslims from here to investigate Christian sites.

Some things in the New Covenant seem easier than the Old. Some seem harder. For example, we are freed from "the bondage of the Law," as St. Paul tells us. We live the freedom of the Gospel.

But we can't divorce and remarry. This is harder than the Old Testament. In fact, when Christ declares this to the Apostles, they react by saying, "Well, if that's the case then it's better not to get married at all!" And Jesus says, "For those who are called to live like that, you are exactly right: It really IS: 'Better not to marry at all.'"

See the pattern? One hard thing. The Apostles say, "Too hard!" Jesus responds by revealing something even HARDER!

But the reason why I brought this up (Jesus' "word" about divorce) is that He illustrates the point about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments here. The Apostles say "Lord, if divorce is unlawful, why did God allow it to Moses?"

And Jesus says, "God allowed it to Moses because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not that way in the Beginning [this means before the Fall of Man]. And if you want to be my followers, you can't do it."

So, the New Testament is both Harder and Easier.

"Be ye perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is Perfect." Hard! No, Impossible!

But also, "My yoke is easy and My burden light." Because He does it all for us and with us and in us and whenever we fall, He picks us up and carries us.

The New Testament fulfills and completes the Old Testament and you can see that operating in the Domininical "Word" about Divorce above.

Jeff

27-01-07, 10:54 PM

The point is that the uses of "son" in the New Testament that are applied to Christ are particular and shown to be by the use of a "definite article" like "the" in English. This is made more clear by the times the Bible speaks of Christ as the Only or Only-begotten or Unique Son of God.

That and the other issues I've raised show that the issue is not just "son of God" in some figurative sense as used in the Old Testament, but something special and unique to Christ. Christ is THE Son of God, not just a "son" of God.

What do I mean by "literally" Son of God? I mean that Christ is of God-nature as a son of a human is of human-nature. Christ is God. He is "begotten (or generated if you like) of God before all ages", He comes forth from God's nature and shares it.

I still find that difficult to accept! So are we talking about the physical aspct of this whole "generation" issue? Or more of a intangible part of the Christ. Perhaps like his soul or something?

Okay. Let's look at it this way:

Suppose the Incarnation had never happened. Suppose God had never become Man in Christ. Suppose that God had never even created anything. Nothing exists but God. Got it?

There would be no man called Christ. There would be no body of that man and no soul of that man. But there would be God.

What would God be like?

God would be what He remains today: a Trinity of Persons. This is His Nature and it has nothing to do with whether or not He became Man.

The fount and origin of God's nature is God the Father. God the Son is "begotten" or "generated" of God the Father, but not materially, since God is pure Spirit and not a material entity at all. God the Holy Spirit proceeds from God the Father and God the Son.

That doesn't "solve" the whole question of the Trinity for you, no doubt! :p But I'll try to answer more when I respond to the third part of your question below. Still, one step at a time.

God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity existed before all ages. He is part of God's nature from always. If there had been no Incarnation He would still have existed. If there had been no creation of anything, He would still have existed.

That's what we mean when we say that the Doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of Christianity. Like mathematics or maybe physics is the foundation of Physical Sciences. You can't understand any of the other doctrines completely if you don't understand it at least in a basic sense. And it's about God's nature...something intimate about Himself that He revealed to us out of Love, out of the desire to share Himself with us. NOT something we could have figured out on our own.

BrAiKi

27-01-07, 11:39 PM

Jeff

28-01-07, 12:08 AM

But now, of course, we get into the deep question of the Trinity again! One nature...that of God...but three persons or self-expressions in God's own nature.

Yes we do. Thats where I was heading. If he is the son then how do you explain the long discussion we had in another thread where you explained trinity to me using graphs and all.

Honestly Jeff, don't you find all this confusing sometimes? Don't you feel large portions of information are missing? And a lot of all these believes were based on assumptions instead of facts!

And again, thanks a lot for your time. I am finally learning about what Christians actually believe!

Okay, I hope the last post made sense, about the Trinity. You have to get that part first. God the Son exists as part of the Holy Trinity before all ages as part of God's nature. You CAN'T understand Jesus, God made Man, without understanding the Holy Trinity. But you CAN understand the Holy Trinity and God the Son without understanding anything about Jesus. It's a separate truth. It would have been true if there never was a Jesus.

Now, the Second Person of the Trinity became Man. He "took flesh" as the saying goes. That's a separate truth, the Incarnation.

Does all this seem "confusing" to me? Honestly: No! :p

But it DOES seem mysterious. I can't understand it fully, of course.

And this is something you have to understand about the Christian attitude. I don't think it's right for Christians to go around acting like non-Christians are idiots for not understanding or not accepting the Trinity and the Incarnation. These are astounding Truths, which challenge our understanding. They are not unreasonable, but reason alone will not convince you of them and they are surprising, even astounding, Truths, not ordinary things that are easy for anyone.

And that makes them all the more believable to me.

Like Muslims, I think God is beyond our understanding. Whatever He might tell us about Himself, especially if it's an inner secret about His own life should not be a matter of a "Ho-hum, yes that's easy to understand, I would have expected as much, nothing strange about that." It should be something that we can barely understand, like ignorant children whose brains are being stretched to capacity or even beyond capacity.

Even the physical universe is like this: when we discover the Truth, it seems crazy and contradictory. Light is both a wave and a particle, space is curved, time is relative and so is space.

Even the roundness of the earth seems to defy rationality. We take it for granted now, but it sure wasn't obvious. And we believe it because we take a lot of things on faith and we've had it built into our imagination from childhood.

But even though the Trinity is a "basic" doctrine of Christianity, it is not usually where we begin when we approach the Truth of Christianity. We begin with the reality of Sin and the need for Salvation. The conviction that we are creatures caught in a web of evil and every day, every hour we betray God and our neighbors and loved ones over and over and over again. And we are powerless to stop.

When Christians go out to preach the Gospel, that is where they start. The Gospel means, "Good News!" The Good News is that we have been saved. That we are far worse than we ever imagined, our sins have utterly cast us out of the presence of God and we can do nothing to change that.

BUT that in our powerlessness, God Himself came to save us in an appalling, miraculous way, because He loved us in a way that is beyond all understanding. We deserved eternal damnation, we are not fit to raise our eyes to God. If He destroyed us body and soul or cast us into hideous torment, we could have no just complaint because that is what we all deserve.

But instead, He loved us in a way that passes all understanding and delivered us into His Own wonderful Light. He gave Himself utterly for us in order to save us and He has shared His very Life with us and delivered us beyond our wildest dreams, far beyond Paradise.

Why do Christians put up with "complicated" truths instead of something simple? Because this Good News is the essence of the Gospel. This Amazing News of God's Love and Salvation speaks to the heart and makes people confess themselves to God and repent their sins and turn themselves over to Christ. This is the Truth that touches and changes lives. And the Trinity FOLLOWS from that. That's why Christians accept it without understanding it first. "'Credo ut intelligam'; I believe IN ORDER TO understand," says St. Augustine. That's why a Christian can accept it without understanding it at all!

So, if you look at in the Order of Reality, the Trinity is first, the foundational truth. Like Math or Physics.

But if you look at it in the Order of Understanding, the Trinity comes later. So do Math or Physics in the order of understanding for humans in the natural world also. First, you have to learn that you exist and Mommy and Daddy exist and what words mean and millions of things before you can get to Math and Physics, even though they are the Basic Sciences.

Before you can explore the Foundation, you need to find the Door into the House. And the Door is not a Doctrine or a Law. The Door is a Person: Jesus Christ, the Eternal Son of God, Our Savior and Our Lord. And what does He say about that Door? "Knock, and it shall be opened for you."

Now, I don't mean to say that you can't learn to understand something about the Trinity without being a believer, I'm happy to keep discussing it. But when I try to understand Islam, I don't just look at concepts on the internet. For example, when some non-Muslims say that the essence of Islam is Jihad as war and they quote the Quran and the Ahadith, it's all very interesting and useful.

But to understand Islam as Muslims understand it, I have to walk with them and look at their hearts. I can't do that 100% successfully, but it teaches me a lot even about their doctrines. If I just accept from a bunch of quotes that Jihad is the foundation of Islam or that Muslims execute Apostates or that Mohammed had slaves, I will get a false or incomplete picture of what Islam is. But if I start out from what Muslims feel in their hearts and what Islam means to them, I get a VERY different picture. See what I mean? I mean, how much time does Arabian Princess or Solafa spend thinking about invading other countries and subjecting non-Muslims to the Caliph? :p Probably about zero! And even tougher customers like Ice Tea probably spend very little of their time on such things...

So if I start from there, maybe I will come at Jihad or these other things from another direction and understand them better. As my beautiful Pope just said, "Without sympathy, there is no true understanding."

So, I thank you for YOUR sympathetic approach also. I'll try to walk with you and you try to walk with me and who knows what we will discover, Brother Sting! :)

Jeff

28-01-07, 01:39 AM

The bible has many things that I don't understand, one of them is when Jesus is calling himself the "son of God" and the jewish elders got crazy about it, and then he replied to them: God called you gods (in the OT) then why do you want to stone me when I called myself the Son of God.
now obviously here the title of Son of God has less "weight" than "god" otherwise Jesus wouldn't have mentioned it. What do you think about this jeff ?

Well, I understand what you're saying, Braiki. This was part of the topic of a whole wonderful thread we had.

For others, the quotation is from the Gospel according to St. John, Chapter 8. "Gospels" are small books containing the Life and Teachings of Jesus. There are four of them in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

The first thing I would mention, Braiki, is: If Son of God is such an innocent title, why does it outrage the Jews so much? Why do they say in other places, "He has claimed to be God" or "He has made Himself equal to God"?

Well, you may say, "the Jews wanted to misunderstand him; they always stone the Prophets. They didn't want to understand His real meaning."

But it seems to me that this is an odd argument for a Muslim to make. After all, the Quran seems to understand the phrase the way the Jews of Jesus' time understood it. It doesn't do like Deedat and tell us that "Son of God" has a perfectly fine meaning. It simply condemns the phrase as if it meant something far more than just "a faithful believer."

No, I think Jesus was claiming far more than just to be like a "son of God", but rather that He was THE Son of God, in a special and unique sense. That's why He rewarded Peter by saying that God had revealed to him that Christ was "the Son of the Living God."

Look, nobody else, no other prophet says "I have seen the Father," and "I am in the Father and He is in Me," and "He Who has seen the Father has seen Me" and "the Father and I are One." I'm not saying you can't find other explanations for these if you try, but I AM saying that for Christian eyes, if you read the WHOLE Gospel, those explanations seem unnatural and strained.

Yes, in John 8, Jesus asks the Jews why they object to Him using the phrase "son of God" of Himself when the Bible calls men "gods." If that was all there was in the passage, I might agree with you.

But as you know He doesn't stop there. He goes on to say that He existed before Abraham. And He says that in answer to their question, "You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?" And Jesus says, "Amen, Amen, before Abraham ever was I AM." "Amen, amen" is something Jesus says when He solemnly endorses something. If He only meant that we all exist in God's mind before we are made, He would have to say, "Abraham and I always existed and so did you." But He claims to have existed BEFORE Abraham. And He endorses the Jews' idea that He has SEEN Abraham; He doesn't contradict it.

(Of course, as you know, we understand this passage to be a claim of the Divine Name and of Divinity, but I won't go through all that complicated argument again unless someone specifically wants it!)

So, I understand His explanation about "gods" to be a call to the Jews who are attacking Him to look at their own hypocrisy and go deeper in understanding. He is saying, "You are objecting to language, but there is language you use that is even stronger. So: you have no business attacking me when even ON YOUR OWN terms, I have said nothing wrong." He DOESN'T say, "I AM ONLY SPEAKING THE WAY YOU SPOKE BEFORE ABOUT SON OF GOD." He says, "WHY DO YOU OBJECT TO THE TERM WHEN YOU HAVE HAD EVEN STRONGER SOUNDING ONES USED OF YOURSELF?" His focus is not on the meaning of the term, but on the hypocrisy of his accusers' outrage.

Look: this is my argument with your method. You have to read the WHOLE Gospel to understand rightly. It's easy to pick out one passage and read it wrongly. For example, Jesus said, "No one who does not hate his father and his mother is worthy to be my follower." But no one thinks He meant that we have to hate our parents in the literal sense except people who have no respect for Jesus.

He tells the rich young man to sell all his property and follow Him. When the rich young man refuses, He says to His Apostles, "It is harder for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle." The Apostles are shocked! "How can anyone be saved then, Lord?" they say. And Jesus says, "For men it is not possible, but with God everything is possible."

No, what I say is that the impression that Jesus left about Himself to people He spoke with was that He was claiming to be Greater than anyone could have imagined. And Son of Man and Son of God are keys to that Reality. They offended people because they were claims not just of being Messiah, but of being, as He was accused, "equal to God."

No one had ever spoken of themselves the way Jesus does in the Gospels. No prophets ever used the term, "Son of God" of themselves. None ever said things like "If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father," or "the Father and I are One."

Remember that in this last instance, the Apostle Philip has said to Jesus, "Lord, we want to see the Father." We want to SEE God. And Jesus responds, "You have been with Me all this time and you still don't understand Who I Am? He who has seen Me has seen the Father." In other words, if you have seen Me, you have seen God. If you understood Who I was, you would not say, 'We want to see God.'

Now these kinds of things can be explained away. But for me, the enormous fact is that no prophet, no person who was Holy and a Believer ever talked this way. This points to a completely different and profound relationship between Jesus and God that is different from anything ever seen before. All Prophets are always at great pains to make sure everyone understands perfectly well that they are inferior to God and His servants only. None talks this way.

And of course, from the very earliest times, Christians acknowledged Christ as God and understood the Scriptures to say this. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who himself knew the Apostle John, writing at the turn of the first century did so: "the Church by the will of Him who willed all things that exist, beloved and illuminated through the faith and love of Jesus Christ our God." And the pagans and Jews who wrote about us said, "The Christians worship Christ, their God." Sure, there were a few sects here and there that popped up as the years went by with one objection or another, but the vast stream of believers always acknowledged this. It didn't wait for Constantine to declare it in the fourth century, that's just false.

Too many things to say; too many things to say! Well, a book can be written on this and I always go on so long when I try to answer these questions that it almost amounts to a book! :p

Jeff

28-01-07, 01:59 AM

one thing I don't understand in this Doctrine is why isn't it mentioned in the OT that God is of 3 persons. God communicated to people through Moses and other prophets but such things are not mentioned in the OT. It's not even clearly mentioned in the NT but we have discussed that earlier :yes:

Well, because God teaches through experience. He does things at the right time and in the right place when we are prepared for it.

Why didn't God reveal the Quran at the beginning of Time instead of waiting, according to the Muslims? I'm sure Muslims have explanations!

The Epistle to the Hebrews says:

God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in past times to our ancestors through the prophets,

Has in these last days spoken to us by his Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, and through whom also He made the universe.

Hebrews 1:1-2.

God teaches gradually. He prepared us over the centuries for His full self-revelation through His Son and when the time was ready, He came and encountered us Himself, revealing Himself to us Face to Face.

Of course, I don't agree that there is any question about the Trinity in the New Testament, though the name is not used. And I think the doctrine was alluded to even in the Old Testament.

The first task to childish, sinful mankind was to make sure we understood that there was NO OTHER GOD. This is the great fight of Monotheism against Polytheism, the temptation to think that we live in a world controlled by numerous gods who fight and argue and compete for our worship and service. Even that seemed to be very hard for us to grasp. To understand the nature of the Life of this One God, that He was One from the Outside, but Three from the Inside needed to wait until our minds had been properly prepared and we had been fully weaned from Polytheism.

Polytheism, by the time Christ came was and old tired idea. Even the people who worshipped many gods were scarcely able to believe in it any more. The Roman and Greek religion was worn out and just a matter of habit and superstition. Thinking people knew there had to be something more.

Even the Jews who had fallen into the temptation to be Polytheists many times seemed to have gotten over that. They weren't constantly making Golden Calves and building secret Temples to strange gods as they had done in past centuries. Mankind seemed to have Gotten the Idea in some sense and were sort of weaned away from it.

Ghost477

28-01-07, 02:09 AM

BrAiKi

28-01-07, 02:26 AM

Good explanation, it makes sense to me since Islam was also built that way during the time of Prophet Mohammed :PBUH: but can you quote where the idea of the doctrine was alluded to in the OT ?

BrAiKi

28-01-07, 02:27 AM

Ghost, please provide the links of the debates in your post :)

Jeff

28-01-07, 05:41 AM

Scientific Errors Found In Bible:

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr. William Cambell Part 2 (5 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCpDc-L5_go)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr. William Cambell Part 2 (6 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-4dKsVyTog)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr. William Cambell Part 2 (7 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6AiBo0COUQ)

Logical Errors Found In Bible:

Is Jesus God? (Part 1) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIlcSWbvtao)

Is Jesus God? (Part 2) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86nLzFiPIso)

I'm not trying to offend anyone, i just want someone to prove them wrong with proper facts. Anyone care to explain?

Anyone care to explain?

No, no, Ghost, there is nothing to offend anyone here. It's a good thing to link to stuff like this, thank you. I'm a pussycat anyway, I won't jump down your throat! :p

I will try to watch a little bit at least of Zahir Naik. But as I said, I have seen a very damaging review of his presentations on the Bible and especially on the Quran. My problem is: I don't intend to get into anything like an attack on the Quran. That's not my style here on Sabla. Everyone reads these things and maybe it wouldn't bother some people here, but it would bother others even if I try to be respectful. So I don't do that.

I don't think the Bible is a scientific book. Neither do most Christians. It's not written by scientists or for scientists and its descripition, for example, of the Creation of the world is not a literal, scientific one. St. Augustine in the 4th Century and Philo, the great Jewish philosopher before the birth of Christ both agreed that the world was not created in six literal days.

I mean, if God had really wanted to put scientific truths in the Bible or the Quran in clear scientific language He could have done so easily! The Second Law of Thermodynamics or E = mc squared would have come in very handy. But He wasn't writing a scientific treatise.

Are there any arguments in the Jesus and God shows that we haven't discussed already? Just coz I don't want to go over repeated ground again. Maybe someone can listen and tell me if there are any arguments we haven't covered recently. If they are interested.

As far as "logical errors" in the Bible, well, I've heard all about them. And as I tell Muslims, if you try spending an hour Googling "Quran contradictions" you can find lots of this kind of thing about the Quran, too. My feeling is that most of these in the Bible and the Quran just appear to be contradictions and can be explained satisfactorily by believers. Otherwise, we just end up playing a game: "Your contradictions are worse than my contradictions!" And you can see Muslims and Christians fighting this game all over the internet. Better that we defend together I think, or we both lose to the people who want to destroy the whole notion of ancient holy texts. We BOTH lose.

BTW, is there a reason the first four Naik debates aren't linked? Are they different or irrelevant somehow?

Jeff

28-01-07, 07:52 AM

Good explanation, it makes sense to me since Islam was also built that way during the time of Prophet Mohammed :PBUH: but can you quote where the idea of the doctrine was alluded to in the OT ?

Thanks, Braiki.

Well, there are a lot of these Old Testament allusions, but they are INDICATIONS, not proofs. Jews dispute them of course, but for us they point the way for a person whose mind is open.

First, God is not usually called by His Proper Name--Yahweh--in the Old Testament. Jews usually referred to Him by two other names: Elohim and Adonai. Both of these are PLURAL in form. Elohim means, "The Gods" and Adonai lilterally means "My Masters".

God often uses the plural when speaking of Himself: "Then God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.'" Genesis 1: 26. This is a a very important reference because God uses the plural when He is creating man ''in [His] image and likeness." And in that passage, He identifies Himself as plural.

Now: Look at the vision of God that Abraham had at Mamre:

The LORD appeared to Abraham by the terebinth of Mamre, as he sat in the entrance of his tent, while the day was growing hot.

And how did the Lord look? I continue on with no break:

Looking up, he saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them; and bowing to the ground,

And look how Abraham addresses these three men, in the SINGULAR:

he said: "Sir, if I may ask you this favor, please do not go on past your servant.
Let some water be brought, that you may bathe your feet, and then rest yourselves under the tree.
Now that you have come this close to your servant, let me bring you a little food, that you may refresh yourselves; and afterward you may go on your way." "Very well," they replied, "do as you have said."

Genesis 18: 1-5.

Here is the most famous Russian icon of all time by Alexander Rublev of precisely this scene:

http://www.rollins.edu/Foreign_Lang/Russian/rutrinsm.jpg

Isaiah 9: 8 speaks of a Son born to us who is called "the Mighty God" among other things.

Genesis 16 has "the Lord's messenger" speaking to Hagar in verse 7-12. But the Bible in verse 13 then says that this Messenger is also Himself God,

"To the LORD who spoke to her she gave a name, saying, "You are the God of Vision"; she meant, "Have I really seen God and remained alive after my vision?"

There are lots of similar passages that you can find if you scout around a bit. For us, they function best not to convince people of the Trinity but to show that the seed of the Trinitarian concept is present in the Old Testament in a way that is not completely fleshed out, but still indicated for later Believers. In other words, one who already believes in the Trinity or is troubled by people claiming that the doctrine is somehow contradicted by the Old Testament can look back and say, "Yes, I see, He was showing us this in a way all the time."

STING

28-01-07, 11:54 AM

Oh cool I see this thread is back in action. I will read the posts and come back later :p

Jeff

28-01-07, 11:12 PM

Oh cool I see this thread is back in action. I will read the posts and come back later :p

Yeah, sorry for the delay! I didn't forget about it, I just had limited time. I have to think and pray over this stuff because good questions deserve good answers...

At least I got back to it in the end!

BrAiKi

29-01-07, 12:11 AM

Jeff, about the plural, even in the Holy Quran it is used, but According to Hebrew and Arabic languages, it's only to show how mighty God is. In Quran it says for example "Inna nahno no`hyii al mawta" meaning "we are who resurrect the dead" but we here refers to God alone, in one person. It is also used in arabic formal letters for example in our Sultan's letters it says "nahno Qaboos Bin Said" which literally means "we are Qaboos Bin Said" the word "we" here doesn't mean it's plural, it is only used for respect...

about the story of Abraham, lets read the first verse of chaprer 19 (which is right after the chapter you mentioned)
it says:
1.The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them; and bowing down with his face to the ground

at the end of the 18th Chapter, it says that two of them left and one remained, which Abraham bargained with, then in chapter 19 it refers to them as Angels, not God. Thus, the 3 persons weren't God :)

Perhaps Monothiest can explain this from a jewish point of view

Jeff

29-01-07, 01:27 AM

Well, as I said, it's not "proof", it's an indication for those willing to see.

But I don't think the story is as simple as you present it.

In chapter 18, it simply says that the LORD appeared to Abraham and goes on to describe the appearance as three men (not angels.) Later, it says that TWO men left and THE LORD remained. Is the Lord the Third Man?

Then in Chapter 19, it calls the two men "angels." So, are they angels, men or the Lord or are some of them or one of them the Lord or what? The text is not clear.

For us, it seems obvious that there is some deep mystery involved here. And the text begins by describing this vision as a revelation of the LORD who "appeared" to Abraham. Not just angels, the LORD.

For me, angels just means "messengers" and these messengers appear in what the text says is an appearance or vision of the Lord--as Three Who seem to the senses in Abraham's vision to be men. And Abraham, our Father in Faith, calls them "Sir," not "Gentlemen," obscurely perceiving that they are also One.

So, I don't find your explanation satisfactory, but I concede that the text is not a "proof" of anything...I never said it was. You will say I am reading the story one way to prove the Trinity because I believe in it. I will say you and the Jews will read it another way to DISPROVE the Trinity, because you are prejudiced against it. Who is right? We will need much more than just this text to establish that!

As far as the "we" plural, well, that's an explanation. Especially if it were by itself. But it isn't by itself. It doesn't deal with the fact that God is usually called by plural names--Elohim and Adonai--for no very satisfactory reason. Or that the usage of "we" is comparatively rare and used at precisely this time when God is talking of making men in His own image.

As I said, these are not "proofs", just evidences. We Catholics don't say the Trinity is taught in the Old Testament, but that it is adumbrated or indicated there. No one could prove the Trinity from the Old Testament ALONE. We need the New Testament.

And to understand the New Testament correctly we need the Church, which is guided by the Holy Spirit. And we need Faith, which is a gift of the Most High.

BrAiKi

29-01-07, 02:03 AM

I don't think we went through this before, have we :os ? However, I am satisfied with the first part since the texts are not clear, but like you said, your explanation to the passage that you quoted was satisfying, but then chapter 19 obviously says otherwise and vice versa. My explanation of the first verse in chapter 19 is satisfying, but chapter 18 says otherwise. Each chapter has its own explanation. That was my point.

About using plurals while calling God. Only a person who speaks Hebrew can explain it right, I read about it before from a jewish author and it has the same explanation as the Arabic Language. Muslims use Elohim as well while calling God, it is plural but doesn't mean multiplication, it means respect.

from Names of God in Judaism article:
Adonai

Jews also call God Adonai, Hebrew for "Lord" (Hebrew: אֲדֹנָי). Formally, this is plural ("my Lords"), but the plural is usually construed as a respectful, and not a syntactic plural. (The singular form is Adoni: "my lord". This was used by the Phoenicians for the god Tammuz and is the origin of the Greek name Adonis. Jews only use the singular to refer to a distinguished person.)

Since pronouncing YHWH is considered sinful, Jews use Adonai instead in prayers, and colloquially would use Hashem (The Name). When the Masoretes added vowel pointings to the text of the Hebrew Bible in the first century CE, they gave the word YHWH the vowels of Adonai, to remind the reader to say Adonai instead

and

Other scholars interpret the -im ending as an expression of majesty (pluralis majestatis) or excellence (pluralis excellentiae), expressing high dignity or greatness: compare with the similar use of plurals of ba`al (master) and adon (lord). For these reasons many Christians cite the apparent plurality of elohim as evidence for the basic Christian doctrine of the Trinity. This was a traditional position but modern Christian theologians now largely accept that this is an exegetical fallacy.

Refference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism)

Jeff

29-01-07, 08:42 AM

Well, I'll use some of the same articles to respond! :p

We shouldn't get too bogged down in this grammatical argument because I'm afraid it will turn off people on the thread: too much detail! :-)
So let me just respond here and then you can respond and I'll let this issue lie. It's a minor point to our discussion after all. I WISH that we would have a wide audience for arguments about Hebrew grammar, but I don't think so! :p

First, no, I don't agree that we have to let someone who speaks Hebrew settle the question. If we could pull in ten people of differing views who were all scholars in Hebrew then we might learn something. But we can look at books and the internet and discover facts and opinions cited by other people who do understand Hebrew well and use those. I'm not going to agree that whatever one guy who speaks Hebrew says is the true answer. It's not just a question of Hebrew, it's a question of perspective.

Second, when people say things like "nowadays Christian scholars agree" what they usually mean is "nowadays Modernist, Secularized so-called Christian scholars agree." Orthodox Christian scholars don't agree. For example: You believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, right? Well, there's a famous passage in Isaiah predicting this. But "most Christian scholars" and Jewish ones as well will tell you that the word "almah" doesn't mean "virgin" it means "young girl."

I find this argument ridiculous. It means "young girl" like "maiden" means "young girl" in English. But "losing your maidenhood" means no longer being a virgin. If you say, "she was maiden before she married" the clear import is that she was a virgin. "Modern Christian scholars" make this argument because they don't believe in miraculous virgin births and they don't believe in real prophecy. And Jews make this argument because they don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, not out of pure disinterested linguistic motives.

Now, is it really true that "Elohim" was an "honorific plural" in Hebrew as in Arabic? That's highly debatable. Genesius in his Hebrew grammar says that "respectful plurals" were not used in Hebrew until two or three hundred years after the birth of Christ:

" The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

If that's true, it means all those uses of "we" mean something more than just an "honorific plural" also.

Elohim is often used to mean gods (plural) with a plural verb, for example, when we are told that "you must not have strange GODS before me" in Exodus, the word is "Elohim."

But the same word is used of God Himself and then the PLURAL noun uses a SINGULAR verb. It is simply plural in form and the argument that the "scholars" make is that that somehow doesn't matter. Here is another passage from the same article:

" A plural noun governing a singular verb may be according to oldest usage. The gods form a heavenly assembly where they act as one. In this context, the Elohim may be a collective plural when the gods act in concert. Compare this to English headquarters, which is plural but governs a singular verb "

A plural noun used with a singular noun means in cases like this that Many act as One!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

This supports the Christian interpretation.

You can see from the Wikipedia article that there is no single understanding or interpretation of this word among Hebrew scholars. No one knows for sure what it means. No one knows for sure what the root of the singular is. No one knows why the plural noun is used with the singular. THE SCHOLARS OF HEBREW ALL DISAGREE BECAUSE THE MEANING AND GRAMMAR OF THIS WORD REMAIN MYSTERIOUS.

And the reference you give to Adonai: it points out that it is "usually construed" as a respectful plural. But then it says that when a distinguished person is addressed, "Jews only use the singular". So what happened to the "respectful plural"? When do you use respectful plural if not to a distinguished person? :os You know what? There are no cases of Jews using this word in plural for single people! :p So, no one knows why the plural is used for God! And here the verb used with it is plural too. And so they have to "construe" something: that means make up an answer. So they say "respectful plural". :D But there is no respectful plural in ancient Hebrew! And there are no examples of Jews using this word in a respectful plural way! It's another linguistic mystery and nobody knows the answer, it's all just guesses. And the Christian explanation is:

Holy Father, Holy Son,
Holy Spirit, Three we name Thee;
While in essence only One
Undivided God we claim Thee!
And adoring bend the knee,
While we own the Mystery....

Firmly I believe and truly
God is Three and God is One.

This is my point, remember. I keep saying over and over again that this point is not a PROOF of anything. You can argue it a number of different ways. All I'm disputing with you is that you seem to be saying there is no argument: everyone now agrees that this is not any kind of substantial plural in meaning, that it's only a "respectful plural". But that simply isn't true: from a scholarly point of view the question is open and debated to this day. I find the connection to the Trinity persuasive. A Muslim or Jew will probably not find it persuasive. But it's an arguable point. And the traditional Christian point of view is certainly not "disproved."

So, like I said: You can't use it to PROVE the Trinity from the Old Testament. But you can use it to support the Trinity in a perfectly legitimate way.

I'm afraid I don't understand the point about Genesis 18 and 19. I thought you were saying that 19 proved that it was only angels in 18. But now you seem to say there is no connection. So, I'm confused. My point was just this. In Chapter 18, the Bible says 1.) the Lord appeared. 2.) The appearance of the Lord is three figures. 3.) Abraham addresses them as a singular, "Sir." There is no clear and convincing explanation of WHY in the story. For Christians, the Trinity provides the best explanation. Others may have other explanations. No one can establish that their interpretation is the only right one. Both your point of view and the classic Christian point of view are respectable from a linguistic point of view.

Now, I will let you have the last answer on this question, Braiki, if you want. Otherwise, we (or at least I) will bore people to death! :p

I'll leave you with another verse from the hymn above:

Cherubim and seraphim, (Hebrew: See? -im is plural!)
In unceasing chorus praising;
Fill the heavens with sweet accord:
Holy, holy, holy, (3) Lord! (1).

Yes, we do love to sing to and adore the Most Blessed and Holy Trinity!

http://paulmccain.worldmagblog.com/paulmccain/heaven-duerer.jpg

Ghost477

29-01-07, 11:11 AM

No, no, Ghost, there is nothing to offend anyone here. It's a good thing to link to stuff like this, thank you. I'm a pussycat anyway, I won't jump down your throat! :p

I will try to watch a little bit at least of Zahir Naik. But as I said, I have seen a very damaging review of his presentations on the Bible and especially on the Quran. My problem is: I don't intend to get into anything like an attack on the Quran. That's not my style here on Sabla. Everyone reads these things and maybe it wouldn't bother some people here, but it would bother others even if I try to be respectful. So I don't do that.

I don't think the Bible is a scientific book. Neither do most Christians. It's not written by scientists or for scientists and its descripition, for example, of the Creation of the world is not a literal, scientific one. St. Augustine in the 4th Century and Philo, the great Jewish philosopher before the birth of Christ both agreed that the world was not created in six literal days.

I mean, if God had really wanted to put scientific truths in the Bible or the Quran in clear scientific language He could have done so easily! The Second Law of Thermodynamics or E = mc squared would have come in very handy. But He wasn't writing a scientific treatise.

Are there any arguments in the Jesus and God shows that we haven't discussed already? Just coz I don't want to go over repeated ground again. Maybe someone can listen and tell me if there are any arguments we haven't covered recently. If they are interested.

As far as "logical errors" in the Bible, well, I've heard all about them. And as I tell Muslims, if you try spending an hour Googling "Quran contradictions" you can find lots of this kind of thing about the Quran, too. My feeling is that most of these in the Bible and the Quran just appear to be contradictions and can be explained satisfactorily by believers. Otherwise, we just end up playing a game: "Your contradictions are worse than my contradictions!" And you can see Muslims and Christians fighting this game all over the internet. Better that we defend together I think, or we both lose to the people who want to destroy the whole notion of ancient holy texts. We BOTH lose.

BTW, is there a reason the first four Naik debates aren't linked? Are they different or irrelevant somehow?Are there contradictions in the Quran? A lot have tried to prove it wrong, but everyone failed, and one of them is Dr. William Cambell. I'll post some vids later about him mentioning errors in the Quran, but Dr. Zakir Naik proved all of them wrong with facts only, no assumptions. The Quran is a book of signs, not science. There are more than 1000 scientific facts in the Quran, each one will blow you away.

Please watch these videos, it will take only 32 mins total to watch all of them, if you watch all of it and you're not satisfied, then i swear that i won't post any more videos. Just please watch it. It would mean a lot, and who knows? It might change your life just as it has done to others. Oh and these videos are only about scientific facts in the Quran, and Dr. Zakir Naik corrects Dr. William Cambell's errors in the Quran.

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 1 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdA07nqqszA)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 2 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Itr5spFmE)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 3 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoR_lPgWc9Q)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 4 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEigZv7QFKk)

P.S The only reason why i want to show you this is because you're one of the most open minded Christian i ever met.

STING

29-01-07, 02:35 PM

The key point on that is that we consider the Old Testament an INCOMPLETE revelation, later fulfilled by the New Testament. The night before He died, Jesus celebrated the Last Supper with His Apostles. There a million things to say about that hugely important event, but I'll tell you one for now. After supper was finished, He took the cup filled with wine and blessed it and looked up to His Father in Heaven and said, "This is the Cup of My Blood, the Blood of the NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT."

In His Person and in His Blood, Christ has revealed a New and Final covenant which completes the Old one.

So, we still believe in the Old Testament. Nothing in it can be simply evil or wrong. So it's a good point if you find something that appears to be allowed by God in the Old Testament and you use it to question a Christian who is criticizing something in Islam. They can't simply say, "Well, we don't believe in the Old Testament."

But remember, too, that not all Christians are very well versed in their faith. This is true of Muslims also. Some Muslims don't know their faith well and they can't defend it or they use bad arguments. Or if they run up against a tricky or difficult question, they answer it wrong. I wish I could persuade more Christians to come here and more Muslims from here to investigate Christian sites.

Some things in the New Covenant seem easier than the Old. Some seem harder. For example, we are freed from "the bondage of the Law," as St. Paul tells us. We live the freedom of the Gospel.

But we can't divorce and remarry. This is harder than the Old Testament. In fact, when Christ declares this to the Apostles, they react by saying, "Well, if that's the case then it's better not to get married at all!" And Jesus says, "For those who are called to live like that, you are exactly right: It really IS: 'Better not to marry at all.'"

See the pattern? One hard thing. The Apostles say, "Too hard!" Jesus responds by revealing something even HARDER!

But the reason why I brought this up (Jesus' "word" about divorce) is that He illustrates the point about the relationship between the Old and New Testaments here. The Apostles say "Lord, if divorce is unlawful, why did God allow it to Moses?"

And Jesus says, "God allowed it to Moses because of the hardness of your hearts. But it was not that way in the Beginning [this means before the Fall of Man]. And if you want to be my followers, you can't do it."

So, the New Testament is both Harder and Easier.

"Be ye perfect, even as your Heavenly Father is Perfect." Hard! No, Impossible!

But also, "My yoke is easy and My burden light." Because He does it all for us and with us and in us and whenever we fall, He picks us up and carries us.

The New Testament fulfills and completes the Old Testament and you can see that operating in the Domininical "Word" about Divorce above.

I hope the Christians members read this because it proves how wrong they were and probably are. Thanks for making it clear now Jeff. I won't go into the details of why and how because its off-topic. But I like your answer and find it convincing. :)

STING

29-01-07, 02:50 PM

Jeff regarding your post about Trinity, what I understand is basically the same thing we Muslims say when it comes to the relation between Allah and Prophet Muhammad :PBUH: and in fact, all of god's prophets! In other words, if I understood you right, basically you are saying what Muslims say. But of course, only in a very complicated way :p

However, the sad part is, you the the only Christian I came across who understands it this way. And thats very confusing!

STING

29-01-07, 03:09 PM

Okay, I hope the last post made sense, about the Trinity. You have to get that part first. God the Son exists as part of the Holy Trinity before all ages as part of God's nature. You CAN'T understand Jesus, God made Man, without understanding the Holy Trinity. But you CAN understand the Holy Trinity and God the Son without understanding anything about Jesus. It's a separate truth. It would have been true if there never was a Jesus.

Now, the Second Person of the Trinity became Man. He "took flesh" as the saying goes. That's a separate truth, the Incarnation.

Does all this seem "confusing" to me? Honestly: No! :p

But it DOES seem mysterious. I can't understand it fully, of course.

....

So, I thank you for YOUR sympathetic approach also. I'll try to walk with you and you try to walk with me and who knows what we will discover, Brother Sting! :)

Ok Jeff now thats makes more sense. I read the whole post, like all your posts, and I will be very honest. I still don't get the part where "he took flesh". And I don't want to you to explain any further. But I do understand how you understand Trinity and I will call that a huge step forward.

As a Muslim, I know that god sent many prophets to warn the people and show them the right path. Even you as a Cristian believe that right? For us, as you know, Jesus was another prophet in the series that ended with Prophet Muhammad :PBUH:. And of course, history proves Islam right because no Prophet was sent after Prophet Muhammad :PBUH: and its more than 1400 years now.

Back to Trinity, I would like to know one more thing so I better understand how you and other Christians understand and believe in Trinity. What teaches you and all Christians about Trinity? Where did you learn all that you mentioned in all these posts from? Is it from the Bibles? The old or new testaments? Or was this basic doctrine derived from the bibles?

STING

29-01-07, 03:20 PM

BrAiKi

29-01-07, 04:33 PM

Well, I'll use some of the same articles to respond!

We shouldn't get too bogged down in this grammatical argument because I'm afraid it will turn off people on the thread: too much detail! :-)
So let me just respond here and then you can respond and I'll let this issue lie. It's a minor point to our discussion after all. I WISH that we would have a wide audience for arguments about Hebrew grammar, but I don't think so!

sure no problem, such details should be examined carefully :p miskeen are the people who will read! HOwever, this is my last post about the language issue, then the case can be closed if you don't have anything to add :D

First, no, I don't agree that we have to let someone who speaks Hebrew settle the question. If we could pull in ten people of differing views who were all scholars in Hebrew then we might learn something. But we can look at books and the internet and discover facts and opinions cited by other people who do understand Hebrew well and use those. I'm not going to agree that whatever one guy who speaks Hebrew says is the true answer. It's not just a question of Hebrew, it's a question of perspective.

I don't quite get it, why not!? if we get 10 jews I am sure they will have the same point of view, same goes for Arabs (since the same style of wording are used in arabic), even A christian Arab who has a deep knowledge in arabic language will tell you that plural nouns and pronouns in Arabic Language (In the Quran as well) are used only for respect. I asked for a Hebrew person because he known his language better and would tell us if it's used only for respect or not :)

Now, is it really true that "Elohim" was an "honorific plural" in Hebrew as in Arabic? That's highly debatable. Genesius in his Hebrew grammar says that "respectful plurals" were not used in Hebrew until two or three hundred years after the birth of Christ:

" The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism

If that's true, it means all those uses of "we" mean something more than just an "honorific plural" also.

now let's read the whole article that contained that line:

The Jewish grammarians call such plurals … plur. virium or virtutum; later grammarians call them plur. excellentiae, magnitudinis, or plur. maiestaticus. This last name may have been suggested by the we used by kings when speaking of themselves (compare 1 Maccabees 10:19 and 11:31); and the plural used by God in Genesis 1:26 and 11:7; Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way. It is, however, either communicative (including the attendant angels: so at all events in Isaiah 6:8 and Genesis 3:22), or according to others, an indication of the fullness of power and might implied. It is best explained as a plural of self-deliberation. The use of the plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign to Hebrew

so what does this tell us? the first sentence in bold agrees with what said about kings using "we" to themselves, now true a king is one, but does he have many persons :os? However, it shows later as you quoted that using plural as a form of respectful address is quite foreign. I don't want to jump to conclusions but there obviously were some confusuions!

But the same word is used of God Himself and then the PLURAL noun uses a SINGULAR verb. It is simply plural in form and the argument that the "scholars" make is that that somehow doesn't matter. Here is another passage from the same article:

" A plural noun governing a singular verb may be according to oldest usage. The gods form a heavenly assembly where they act as one. In this context, the Elohim may be a collective plural when the gods act in concert. Compare this to English headquarters, which is plural but governs a singular verb "

A plural noun used with a singular noun means in cases like this that Many act as One! This supports the Christian interpretation

Where ? :think: can't find that passage in the article!

And the reference you give to Adonai: it points out that it is "usually construed" as a respectful plural. But then it says that when a distinguished person is addressed, "Jews only use the singular". So what happened to the "respectful plural"? When do you use respectful plural if not to a distinguished person? You know what? There are no cases of Jews using this word in plural for single people! So, no one knows why the plural is used for God! And here the verb used with it is plural too. And so they have to "construe" something: that means make up an answer. So they say "respectful plural". But there is no respectful plural in ancient Hebrew! And there are no examples of Jews using this word in a respectful plural way! It's another linguistic mystery and nobody knows the answer, it's all just guesses.

now I'm sure you missed it, Adonai is the plural and it's "construed as a respectful, and not a syntactic plural" while Adoni is the singular and "Jews only use the singular to refer to a distinguished person"
you probably got mixed but the two words are not the same, so I dont see anything wrong with it.

It is not a proof of anything, but according to Jews who speak hebrew and some christian sholars, using plurals in calling God is only a matter of respect nothing more. That was my whole point :)

the case can be closed now if you don't have anything to add, thanx for your time and may God shows us the right path!

Jeff

29-01-07, 09:28 PM

Are there contradictions in the Quran? A lot have tried to prove it wrong, but everyone failed, and one of them is Dr. William Cambell. I'll post some vids later about him mentioning errors in the Quran, but Dr. Zakir Naik proved all of them wrong with facts only, no assumptions. The Quran is a book of signs, not science. There are more than 1000 scientific facts in the Quran, each one will blow you away.

Please watch these videos, it will take only 32 mins total to watch all of them, if you watch all of it and you're not satisfied, then i swear that i won't post any more videos. Just please watch it. It would mean a lot, and who knows? It might change your life just as it has done to others. Oh and these videos are only about scientific facts in the Quran, and Dr. Zakir Naik corrects Dr. William Cambell's errors in the Quran.

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 1 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdA07nqqszA)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 2 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2Itr5spFmE)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 3 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoR_lPgWc9Q)

Dr. Zakir Naik VS Dr William Cambell (Part 4 of 7) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEigZv7QFKk)

P.S The only reason why i want to show you this is because you're one of the most open minded Christian i ever met.

Well, I thank you for the compliment!

But you see, Naik's arguments rest on his honesty in translating the Arabic. I don't speak Arabic. And the things I have read about Naik say he is not translating the Arabic honestly.

Here's a taste of the kind of thing I mean:

"# Verse 21:33 says the sun and the moon yasbahun. This means both of them rotate around the earth and not around their own axis as Dr. Naik has claimed.
# Verse 51:47 says the universe is vast and not “expanding”. Dr. Naik is wrong on that.
# The description of water cycle claimed by Muslims as miraculous is incomplete because the stage of evaporation is missing and what Muhammad has described has been common knowledge since man became homo sapience. Dr. Naik says verse: 86:11 talks “specifically about the capacity of heavens to return back rain” i.e. the stage of evaporation. This is clearly not so. This verse is about the return of the firmament (sun, moon, start) that happens every 24 hours."

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp11.htm

Now, I'm going to stop there because of "Jeff's Rule." Jeff's Rule says, "Jeff will always defend and explain Christianity, but he will try as hard as he can to draw the line at anything that looks or feels like attacking Islam, the Quran, or the Prophet of Islam. I don't want to hurt people's feelings or undermine their own faith and even though of course questioning Naik doesn't equal attakcing Islam, he is important to many Muslims.

So, I don't see how I can judge whether the things he says are in the Quran or not in the way he describes them? But I will watch a little of the videos.

Yes, it's true that to be fair to Naik, I ought to watch a little. But you can't tell if someone is right just by watching a debate. Because you have to check on the accuracy of the things they say and you can't do that in a debate format.

For example, if I were an average Muslim and I watched Ahmed Deedat's debates, I would get the impression that he simply destroyed Christianity and no serious person could be a Christian. But I know something about the subject Deedat is talking about and I can see a lot of questionable things, confusions, mistakes, etc. in his debates. They impress me as debates, but not as Truth or Proof.

If you are just concerned with being a good Muslim, then it's fine to watch Naik and strengthen your faith. But if you are wanting to CHECK and see if Naik is right then you need to do independent research and check out his claims. And that doesn't come from watching the debates only.

Anyway, I will watch at least one debate and then let you know what I think. But I will do it by PM and if you want to talk more about this subject, you are welcome to PM me! :)

Jeff

29-01-07, 09:41 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff
But the same word is used of God Himself and then the PLURAL noun uses a SINGULAR verb. It is simply plural in form and the argument that the "scholars" make is that that somehow doesn't matter. Here is another passage from the same article:

" A plural noun governing a singular verb may be according to oldest usage. The gods form a heavenly assembly where they act as one. In this context, the Elohim may be a collective plural when the gods act in concert. Compare this to English headquarters, which is plural but governs a singular verb "

A plural noun used with a singular noun means in cases like this that Many act as One! This supports the Christian interpretation

Where ? :think: can't find that passage in the article!

Sorry, it's here!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

I accidentally left it out of the first post, but I edited it in now!

Well, we still disagree; I have lots of responses I could make. But I want you to have the last word, so I will let it lie. Maybe it will come up again another time!

BrAiKi

29-01-07, 10:14 PM

Jeff

29-01-07, 10:19 PM

Ok Jeff now thats makes more sense. I read the whole post, like all your posts, and I will be very honest. I still don't get the part where "he took flesh". And I don't want to you to explain any further. But I do understand how you understand Trinity and I will call that a huge step forward.

As a Muslim, I know that god sent many prophets to warn the people and show them the right path. Even you as a Cristian believe that right? For us, as you know, Jesus was another prophet in the series that ended with Prophet Muhammad :PBUH:. And of course, history proves Islam right because no Prophet was sent after Prophet Muhammad :PBUH: and its more than 1400 years now.

Back to Trinity, I would like to know one more thing so I better understand how you and other Christians understand and believe in Trinity. What teaches you and all Christians about Trinity? Where did you learn all that you mentioned in all these posts from? Is it from the Bibles? The old or new testaments? Or was this basic doctrine derived from the bibles?

Well, it depends on what kind of Christian you are! :p

Protestants are true "people of the Book." They claim to get all their teaching from the Bible alone.

Catholics and Orthodox are "people of the Church." If you were an illiterate person meeting the Apostles after Jesus' Resurrection, you would learn Christianity from them, not from any book. And we believe that the Church has Apostolic Authority: what she teaches definitively, is Apostolic and therefore true.

The teachings are all there either in the Bible or in unwritten Tradition. But when questions arise like, "Is God really a Trinity or does He just seem like that to us?" we go to the Church, not to our own understanding of the Bible.

The Bible is not a handbook of Theology. What we find in the Bible are words or power...it's not like a dictionary or encyclopedia or a cookbook. You can't look up under "T" and find "Trinity: The Inner Life of God Explained". The Bible is not that kind of book. I'm not sure the Quran is either... that's why you need hadith and sunna and fatwas of scholars, etc.

Because, you know, the human mind will always think of new questions to ask and the Bible can't have answers to all of them. Whatever is written there, people will always think of a way to use them to make new questions.

But Catholics would certainly point to the Bible as well as Tradition for the teaching on the Trinity. We don't find the term or the doctrine as such. But we do find these things:

1. God is One. There is no other God but He.

2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that means that He is God.

3. The Father is God and the Son is God and they are One.

4. But the Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. They are completely united but they are not the same.

5. The Holy Spirit is also God, but He is not the Father and not the Son. He can be "sent" by the Father.

How do we talk about this; how do we put it in a handy formula? One God in Three Persons; united and undivided in substance, but distinct in personality.

Protestants believe it because they see all those things 1-5 in the Bible. Catholics see it too but we believe also because the Church teaches it with solemn Apostolic authority.

I'm sorry that you haven't met Christians who understand this well. But I bet if you asked Wudjab for example, "Is this Catholic doctrine, do you accept this?", he would say, "Yes."

And all the educated Catholics I know understand this and could explain it to you. If you go to the Catholic Catechism, which is the Pope's Handbook for Catholic Teaching on Trinity you can read about it:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm#III

or if you go to the old Catholic Encyclopedia you can read about it:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

I guarantee you it's not something special cooked up by Jeff! :p

Our classic statement of Trinitarianism is the Athanasian Creed and it has all the parts of what I said:

1. The Trinity is not about Jesus; it is God's own nature from always, from before Time:

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

2. The Persons of the Trinity are not Three Gods, but One God:

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.

19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

3. Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity who entered Time and the World as a Man. So He is True God and True Man:

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

http://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html

See? I didn't make it up! :)

monotheism

30-01-07, 05:29 PM

I was asked to respond in this thread. I speak Hebrew. Adoni is used to refer to a distinguished person, never to G-d. Ad-nai is used to refer to G-d. According to Jewish teaching, Elokim sometimes refers to the One G-d of Israel, sometimes to judges, and sometimes to false deities, sepending upon the context. Hope that's sorted out now.

Jeff

30-01-07, 06:52 PM

Thanks, Mono. I don't think there's any disagreement from anyone about those points.

I'm still hoping that one day you will do a post about the Hasidim. I'm sure it would be fascinating!

Jeff

30-01-07, 06:56 PM

fair enough, I thank you for your time :) Wikipedia says that hebrews use plurals as a way of respecting God, but then it says that it's alien to hebrew language, wikipedia is confused too :os. Your explanation makes sense (to me) and I explained it the way judaism explained it. Both of our explanations can be right, yet, both of them don't prove anything! I asked you a questiona and you answered satisfying answers, thank you :)

Well, Braiki, you have a handsome and beautiful way of discussing and your questions and your points are always good and challenging. It's always a pleasure to discuss things with you. And your example makes me want to act the same way and try to be a better person. :)

Ghost477

30-01-07, 08:41 PM

Well, I thank you for the compliment!

But you see, Naik's arguments rest on his honesty in translating the Arabic. I don't speak Arabic. And the things I have read about Naik say he is not translating the Arabic honestly.

Here's a taste of the kind of thing I mean:

http://www.faithfreedom.org/debates/NaikCampbellp11.htm

Now, I'm going to stop there because of "Jeff's Rule." Jeff's Rule says, "Jeff will always defend and explain Christianity, but he will try as hard as he can to draw the line at anything that looks or feels like attacking Islam, the Quran, or the Prophet of Islam. I don't want to hurt people's feelings or undermine their own faith and even though of course questioning Naik doesn't equal attakcing Islam, he is important to many Muslims.

So, I don't see how I can judge whether the things he says are in the Quran or not in the way he describes them? But I will watch a little of the videos.

Yes, it's true that to be fair to Naik, I ought to watch a little. But you can't tell if someone is right just by watching a debate. Because you have to check on the accuracy of the things they say and you can't do that in a debate format.

For example, if I were an average Muslim and I watched Ahmed Deedat's debates, I would get the impression that he simply destroyed Christianity and no serious person could be a Christian. But I know something about the subject Deedat is talking about and I can see a lot of questionable things, confusions, mistakes, etc. in his debates. They impress me as debates, but not as Truth or Proof.

If you are just concerned with being a good Muslim, then it's fine to watch Naik and strengthen your faith. But if you are wanting to CHECK and see if Naik is right then you need to do independent research and check out his claims. And that doesn't come from watching the debates only.

Anyway, I will watch at least one debate and then let you know what I think. But I will do it by PM and if you want to talk more about this subject, you are welcome to PM me! :)I read the article, many of his facts were based on assumption of the verse (hell, some were even wrong as he claimed). And the rest were based on three types of translations in English, keep in mind that not all translation can be correct. The Arabic language is a very complicated one. A single mistake could jeopardize the whole verse. Also, one must know when and for what reason the verse was for.

One more thing, do you actually think a person who is truly biased would convince anyone that the Quran is wrong? http://www.faithfreedom.org/challenge.htm

If a person thinks that Mohammed is a rapist, psychopath, terrorist...etc. Obviously you could tell that he's ignorant. If Dr. Zakir Naik was wrong, then why didn't anyone notice it? There were over thousands of people, one of them including a Christian follower. I bet a lot have proved him wrong, but he didn't publish it (if you were proven wrong, would you publish it?), i'm sorry but i have come across a lot of liars. I really don't take his word for publishing error corrections. He seems extremely devoted to give Islam a bad name.

Conclusion:
If someone really wants to prove the Quran is false, first thing he should do is learn how to speak Arabic. That is THE most important rule. Until now, Muslim scholars try to find errors in the Quran, none ever did.

That site is notorious for having false facts and accusations based without any real proof. I'm sorry Jeff, but anyone who calls Mohammed a psychopath, terrorist or whatever, shouldn't even bother listen to what he says. And i'm sure many would agree, including scholars from any religion.

P.S Don't worry, it may seem that i'm mad, but i'm not.

Jeff

30-01-07, 10:01 PM

^^^

Thanks for not being mad! It's very ticklish to refer to Ali Sina's site since he is very, very anti-Muslim. I certainly disagree with a lot that he says. And I don't like linking to him here on Sabla, but you know most of the anti-Naik sources are anti-Muslims...what can I do? :p Who is making the mistakes about Naik? The Muslims because they are too "pro-Muslim" and closed-minded about Islam? Or the anti-Muslims because they are too "anti-Muslim" and closed minded about questioning the Quran? I don't know!

I think your point about Arabic is a very good one. But, you see, it leaves me in a difficult position, right? Since I don't know Arabic, I can't say that Ali Sina is right. But I can't say that Zakir Naik is right either! :p

As far as Ali Sina's bad opinions of Mohammed, I don't think they mean he can't be right about ANYTHING. I have heard very anti-Christian statements from Muslims even about thousands of childrens' bones sacrificed and buried under Catholic churches. But I can still listen to what they have to say about other subjects!

As far as "why didn't the Christians in the audience challenge Naik," well, most Christians know nothing about the Quran and they don't know Arabic, so how can they question Naik? What do they know? Why should Campbell know about the Quran? No, they are not in a position to challenge him...not because he has to be correct, but because they are ignorant of the subject.

So, I can't say Naik is wrong. But I also can't say he's right! And anyway, if he helps your faith and your connection with God, I don't want to discourage you. I am not interested in proving Naik wrong or in disrespecting the Quran. I am just replying to you since you say that this stuff is "proved" and explaining why I am highly suspicious!

But I very much respect the way you acknowledge that Naik might be wrong on some words. And I appreciate the way you want to share your convictions about the truth of Islam with me.

Just to show you that I try to keep an open mind and a friendly attitude about all this, here is a link I found and I thought, "Muslims would be interested in this!" There is a verse in the Quran somewhere about "the moon being 'split'" or something like that. I don't remember it well. But Naik has an explanation and Ali Sina disputes it. I though on this one Ali Sina's idea is better. BUT I found this link about the future of the moon and I thought you guys might like it--it's on a Catholic website too!:

http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2007/01/moon_to_explode.html

Now I think I'll just watch a segment or two and get back to you on PM. But this topic is getting a little off from the central point, so unless you have something else you want me to respond to, I'll go to other matters...