Does God exist? (6 Viewers)

[Drsoccerball]

1. I have already explained why the term "begotten" does appear to be likely in the earliest texts, which are present, well at least in John 3:16. I have also explained that the Quran significantly misrepresents the Christian view of the incarnation, especially by what Christians mean when they say Jesus is the Son of God. Even then "only-born" is a better translation but most versions translate "one and only", because Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary.

Pretty bold statement to make when you don't know the native language or at least the words... Also the people who do know it always translate it as the "only begotten son."

Also most people don't question their religion to the extent you question yours. Therefore people blindly say "Jesus is the Son of God" assuming him to be the actual son of God due to their lack of knowledge so the Quran rejects these people by saying "How can God have a son when he has no wife?" explaining it in terms they understand as when you mention son they think of what they know to be a son. Denying this fact would be ignorant. Also doesn't God have sons by the tongue according to the bible? Furthermore there's nothing wrong with saying that God had a special relationship with Jesus(pbuh) we Muslims believe that aswell. But when it's raised to a divine status we have a problem.

Secondly, even if begotten is in the texts, Christians understand it to imply birth by woman but not necessarily conception of man.

So Christian's all misinterpret the word begotten according to the dictionary ?

2. It is like you trying to compare it to an analogy and failing. The Quran affirms that God can see without eyes, hear with ears, speak without a tongue; Christians agree, and also say that God can have a son without a wife; it is not that ridiculous. Your comparison to mathematical induction; is ridiculous, because I haven't assigned cases, or numerical values.

You're proving it similar to mathematical induction. It's not ridiculous you're saying something is true and based of that something you make a generalisation without proving it. You're first telling me that God can do anything because He is God but then say he has the ability to make an equal? That means he reduces his power as there is someone equal to him. That is ridiculous.

People in the 16th century, we now have even more copies, of the New Testament. The same applies for 1 John 5:7, we have enough historical data, to piece together with a great deal of certainty what the original texts were. In fact, we can piece together the entire NT except something like 3 sentences of such, just from quotations in other preserved writings from the early church.

But the reason I can make that inference, is because it we say that God doesn't require what is NORMALLY EXPECTED for that to be the case, for the case of sight, hearing and speaking; why would God having a Son be any different??

Then you could say God eats but without a mouth, He also urinates without anything to urinate with, he Poo's without anything to poo with. ( May I be forgiven for saying such things )

That, if it wasn't for Christ, would make a strong case for atheism. Since if we take the Gospel seriously (and true), then we end up with the conclusion, that Jesus is indeed God, meaning that God has made his nature and character clear. Secondly, God has also made his nature very clear in creation; his divine power as well. Which brings me to this...

Wait so now he's God not God's Son sounds very confusing (and God's nature should be easy to understand) ? I strongly agree with the bolded statement.

The only room for misinterpretation comes when you take a text/revelation that was revealed only to one person, as in every religion, except Christianity (see later down) that comes at least 600 years after the events occurred, comes and then says that the texts which are closer/closest in some cases to the events are corrupted and hence has to redefine or reinterpret what is fairly clear and make it vague:
e.g. "[Jesus said] All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him"

A. God created by the Word.
B. Jesus in the Quran, is called the Word of God.
C. Is the Word, therefore creator or creation?

4. The Bible wasn't collated until the 3rd century. The texts that make it up, already existed and were widely accepted and in circulation.

Link me to the whole bible in its original Aramaic then I'd like to see it.

Ali Unal made a beautiful commentary on those verses where Jesus(pbuh) is referred to as "the Word" here it is:

35. God has two kinds of words, one issuing from His Attribute of speech, the other from
His Power. His words that issue from His Attribute of speech are His Books and scrolls
that He sent to some of His Messengers. His words that issue from His Attribute of Power
are all of His works – His creatures and all events in the universe. why then does God
mention Jesus, upon him be peace, especially as one of His words (of His Power) is that
God, due to His Grandeur and Honor, acts in this world from behind cause and effect. He
does so because this world is the world of wisdom, and some people, unable to discern the
good behind every act of God, would otherwise ascribe to God the things displeasing to
them, which could lead them to perish. God acts from behind the veil of cause and effect so
that people can ascribe displeasing things, such as illnesses, death, and misfortunes, to their
“natural” causes and not complain of God. But since the other world is the world of Power,
God will act there without any veils; everything will happen there instantly. The creation
of Jesus, upon him be peace, was different from that of other people, and God created him
without a father. so, in Jesus, upon him be peace, His law of Power was manifested, rather
than His law of wisdom. Adam, upon him be peace, was also created without parents, but
God did not call him His word. Adam, upon him be peace, was the first to be created as
a human being; but Jesus’ creation was completely unusual after so many centuries during
which all people came to the world with both a father and mother.

The idea of Jesus, upon him be peace, being a spirit from God should also be considered
from this viewpoint. since he was a word of God’s Power, in the meaning of being created
not based on cause and effect, as all other people are, but rather by being breathed into
virgin Mary by or through an angel who is purely a spiritual being, the spiritual dimension
weighs more in his creation. why this was so for Jesus is that he came to spiritually revive
the Children of Israel, who were drowning in materialism and who were selling God’s
revelations for trifling prices. so Jesus’ mission gave priority to the spiritual dimension of
the divine religion. unfortunately, most of his followers overstepped the bounds of truth
in their religion in later years, and in their hands “the spirit from God” became “the spirit
of God,” and “the spirit of holiness” with which he was confirmed (2: 87) was interpreted to
mean God’s own spirit which became incarnate in Jesus. Thus, along with God and Jesus,
upon him be peace, there developed the third person of God – the Holy Ghost. The Qur’ān
categorically refutes all such assertions.

No, I think it would be sufficient all I have to do is show that Jesus died and rose again. BECAUSE if that was not true, then he would be either a lunatic or liar.
This would show TWO things, one that the Quran does not give us the right view of Jesus (which is doesn't anyway, considering that statement A below is unanimously agreed by all historical scholars, with the exception of Muslims).

And that is enough to verify large amounts of the rest of what he said. The first is already verified in history as fact, and the second follows on logically, if you consider the accounts. The argument is very simple:

A. Jesus had to be dead & buried (in a tomb) - fact, historically verified, and medically consistent.
B. The tomb had to be empty - usually disputed, but there is evidence for that.
C. Jesus appeared to many people - also disputed, and there is evidence also for this, the earliest texts on the resurrection affirm the appearances to many, including Peter, the 12 and 500 individual people.

unanimously= Scholors Basing the events on the account of the Bible.

These translations are done by Muslims or Muslim scholars. I have good reason to trust that the text, is very correct.

Read proper translations I could translate a verse/ hadith and technically were all scholors in some way. If you want to read (in my opinion) the best translation of the quran Ive read so far read Ali Unal. I don't know if he does hadith aswell...

Again the inspiration = from God. So don't know where the basis for your claim. Besides the Quran/Muslims, say that previous revelation FROM God was corrupted; so either its a circular argument, or has no basis for arguing the Quran's superiority.

We believe the Gospel according to Jesus(pbuh) was the Gospel revealed to him. But you believe Bible in your hands to be inspired from God by Mark, Luke etc...

 

[Drsoccerball]

Begotten=born. Doesn't imply conception through a sexual act. Even the Quran, agrees on the Virgin Birth. Jesus was not conceived by sexual acts, how explicit/obvious do I have to be be? Maybe looking into why Christians reject Mormonism gives a good indicator, why we also reject Islam on this particular topic.

Yes we agree on the virgin birth.

Also why would God create himself ( I personally don't get this? ). That is what the Gospel explains, e.g. John 6
"For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all those he has given me, but raise them up at the last day. 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

The purpose is to save people from their sins. Now I know in Islam, Allah forgives... but in both Judaism, Christianity in order for God to forgive, their needs to be atonement. Jesus came to provide a once for all, atonement for sins, so that anyone who believes (i.e. follows) him will be saved.

This opens up another can of worms. So God was sent into the womb of Mary and passed through her baby hole ? This degrades Him more than saying He has a Son.

If the God of Islam which you claim isn't the religion of peace (meaning) you picture Christianity to be more peaceful then why does the God of Christianity require sacrifices to forgive the world? Surely this God has enough power that he doesn't need to sacrifice His "son." Also this means that God died ? One of the Attributes of God was Eternal life. It doesn't make sense to me.

Note: Appealing to human standards of fairness, are irrelevant; when if God was just, he could just wipe us all out for rejecting him. Thankfully he doesn't... And I don't get your argumentation entirely but....

That is what the hereafter is for. We Muslims' believe his mercy is more than his punishment. Also that this world is a test and a teacher cannot stop the test half way through the exam if the student is failing. (That itself wouldn't be just)

The second thing, which is hard to wrap your head around, Jesus is always the Son, at the Incarnation, he didn't become the Son. Actually the Word became flesh.

Your statement in red, is irrelevant because from both the Quran and the Bible, Jesus was without sin. And Christianity, (because Jesus is God etc.) it guarantees that he will not sin. Secondly, there is no chance, in question.
If God's justice was given, there is no chance, all would perish and go to hell.
But God also is merciful, so there is still no chance, because he is purposeful and intentional to accomplish salvation...
e.g. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

There were a lot of church councils and creeds and the like, that clarified a lot of the implications of holding to the idea of the Incarnation. Then it ends up with a lot of technical theological language.

Do you mean "So there is still a chance?"

If God was Just and He is, then he wouldn't create a being He likes more than me because that isn't Just. The concepts of prophets created (which you'll probably mention) I can explain if you want to know how the first sentence and prophets don't contradict each other.

The debated part of the incarnation is the nature of the Spirit/Soul/whatever of that flesh in relationship to the pre-existant Spirit of God the Son. The relationship of that spirit of God to the flesh of that baby born is the root of most Christological heresies like Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and Monophysitism. Here's the "problem" of each:

Apollinarism: Says that the flesh that was created had no mind of its own. The problem with this idea is that God was never actually a man. In its most extreme form docetism Jesus only appeared to be human, and was in fact, merely a 'phantasm' of the flesh - a solid spirit that had no human substance whatsoever. That basically denies the incarnation altogether.

Nestorianism: Says that the flesh was just a normal guy whom God the Son indwelt. In this idea, Jesus was schizophrenic, having two distinct personalities in one body.

Monophysitism: Says that there was only one nature, in that the human nature was so dissolved in the divine that it basically ceased to exist. Of the "heresies" listed, this is probably the closest to Orthodoxy, but fails insofar as it denies the existence of a human will.

How is this related?

====
The orthodox position is the so called hypostatic union. It says that Jesus was fully God and fully man**. It's a bit tricky, but the basic idea is to ensure that any Christology recognizes that Jesus was fully able to fully be both things to fully accomplish what he was sent to do.

Was the light turned on or off It can't be turned on and off at the same time. Was he mortal or immortal. A logical fallacy.

{As a sidenote, at this point, the same kind of concepts that lie behind the Trinity, lie behind this. So it is understandable if you reject both from your position; odd if only one is rejected.}
====

I've tried to understannd the trinity but It just doesn't make sense to me.

pls let me go sleep

 

[dan964]

This opens up another can of worms. So God was sent into the womb of Mary and passed through her baby hole ? This degrades Him more than saying He has a Son.

Like I said, you agree on the Virgin birth as before and the pre-existence of Jesus. Not necessarily.

If the God of Islam which you claim isn't the religion of peace (meaning) you picture Christianity to be more peaceful then why does the God of Christianity require sacrifices to forgive the world? Surely this God has enough power that he doesn't need to sacrifice His "son." Also this means that God died ? One of the Attributes of God was Eternal life. It doesn't make sense to me.

1. God did not cease to exist when Jesus died; neither did the Son either. Christians and Muslims disagree on what death actually is. This might explain better that I can: https://carm.org/christianity/chris...-die-jesus-died-therefore-jesus-cannot-be-god

3. The concept of "sacrifice" was not invented by Jesus or by Christians, it actually comes from the Old Testament Laws. The problem is not with the power of God, but the justice of God. Because God is just, it means there are punishment for sin, namely death. What the animal sacrifices, and then ultimately Jesus, were firstly a reminder of such punishment, and secondly a substitution; so instead of people like you and me dying for our sin, Jesus, an innocent man dies instead.

That is what the hereafter is for. We Muslims' believe his mercy is more than his punishment. Also that this world is a test and a teacher cannot stop the test half way through the exam if the student is failing. (That itself wouldn't be just)

Christians agree but not really that much; but we don't believe God's mercy is arbitrary or up to chance (that was the bold statement which I was trying to make); but is purposeful and intentional, and accomplished in Jesus Christ.

Your comparison to the exam when I compare to how I have seen you done in the past is inconsistent. Basically what has happened is everyone isn't sitting the test and the test is cancelled half-way through; they have already failed, lets say 0, and what Jesus does is he is the only one who passed, in fact he didn't just pass, he got a perfect score, lets say 10; and so what happens when Jesus dies, he takes on our 0; so that we can get 10. (this analogy tends to break down eventually, as do most analogies but it demonstrates the point).

In a court room, the evidence is in, and the verdict is already out, everyone is guilty, but imagine God, in his mercy, then says, I will take the punishment and the sentence instead, so you can walk free and have a clean slate. Now that may be unfair, but it is a non-justice of mercy rather than an injustice. Clearly you would dispute this, so I am not expecting agreement on this.

If God was Just and He is, then he wouldn't create a being He likes more than me because that isn't Just. The concepts of prophets created (which you'll probably mention) I can explain if you want to know how the first sentence and prophets don't contradict each other.

"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. 3"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."" Why would God not love his Son? Of course not.
The basis for your charge doesn't stand, because God loves us more because he sent his Son (Jesus).

Why would God not love himself more than you? Show me the basis for that statement: "If God was Just and He is, then he wouldn't create a being He likes more than me because that isn't Just. " from the Quran. And show me also from Islam, that God's love is unconditional and the same for everyone.

You would find in Christianity, although God's love is not conditional, or based on anything that we do; God is also free to show mercy to specific people and not to others; otherwise he would not be God.

God's justice means that atonement is needed; because think about it like this; if you cut yourself off from the source of life, death* naturally results. But God in his mercy, provided a replacement, instead of us dying, an animal was sacrificed in his place by a high priest (this all comes from the book of Leviticus in the Torah).

But this was not a good fix; the problem was the sacrifices had to keep being offered over and over again; because the high priest wasn't without sin himself etc. so that is why Jesus had to come, he had to be perfect (only possible if he is God), but also had to be a man also, so to represent and interceded between both God and man (which is why he has to be both as a side note). What Jesus did is died once for all, to deal with sin once and once only. (The idea of someone dying for others they love is not unusual)

The concept of the "Word becoming flesh" is one that is entirely consistent with the Jewish Scriptures, and if we understand that Jesus is the Messiah; and this is exactly what the Messiah had to come and do. We also from the Old Testament, figure out that Messiah has to be God himself. So yes, that would mean a lot of reading up on the subject, but the basis for these things, actually is found in a lot of we call nowadays classical Judaism.

(*death does not mean ceasing to exist; Christians have a different understanding to that of Muslims)

Is God not entitled to? Exactly, which since the prophets do not contradict each other, which is why I know Mohammed is a false prophet.

How is this related?

A lot of your objections; come down to the fact that Jesus was both man & God, not just one or the other. This list is a list of how not to understand this.

There is this thing that is called concurrence; which pops up in all 3 of the most difficult concepts in Christianity. For instance, consider this example: the shadow caused by tree, what caused it? The Sun, yes, but also by the tree. While this analogy isn't perfect, it doesn't demonstrate that we can hold two things to be true, without there necessarily being conflict.

Was the light turned on or off It can't be turned on and off at the same time. Was he mortal or immortal. A logical fallacy. I've tried to understannd the trinity but It just doesn't make sense to me.

His human nature was mortal, his divine nature was not. (Yes, Jesus has 2 natures, which is a very difficult concept), but yes the same kind of understanding as for the Trinity... hence my side-note.

pls let me go sleep

You didn't have to reply, but ok. You could have waited until morning



=====
But anyway, like I have said in the past, most of these discussions arise because there are different understandings of key concepts, even the nature and character of God. And other concepts, such as inspiration, intercession, justice and even death.

 

[dan964]

Also most people don't question their religion to the extent you question yours. Therefore people blindly say "Jesus is the Son of God" assuming him to be the actual son of God due to their lack of knowledge so the Quran rejects these people by saying "How can God have a son when he has no wife?" explaining it in terms they understand as when you mention son they think of what they know to be a son. Denying this fact would be ignorant.

The same could be said of Muslims, that don't question.

Christians do not assume Jesus to be Son of God; and certainly not in the way that the Quran thinks what they mean. Like I have said: "How can God see without eyes?" etc. are similar kind of questions, yet we have no problem saying that God can see without eyes,

Fact?? Why does God NEED a wife to have a Son??

Secondly, concerning your quip saying produce the entire Bible in Aramaic. Firstly, the Bible was not written in Aramaic at all, it was written in Hebrew or Greek; of which none of it would be much use to you (and frankly not much more use to me either), considering you do not know Hebrew or Greek.

"Pretty bold statement to make when you don't know the native language or at least the words... Also the people who do know it always translate it as the "only begotten son." " - Big generalisation there, I do the Greek word, behind it, the reason why I knew that because I looked up an interlinear version (Greek/English in the same version). So please don't jump to conclusions, I do actually know, sometimes, what I say.

Concerning your quip regarding the dictionary, meanings change over time. Yes Christians believe that Jesus was born of Mary; but not conceived by Mary. Like you have yourself confirmed, we both agree on the Virgin Birth.

You're proving it similar to mathematical induction. It's not ridiculous you're saying something is true and based of that something you make a generalisation without proving it. You're first telling me that God can do anything because He is God but then say he has the ability to make an equal? That means he reduces his power as there is someone equal to him. That is ridiculous.

That which is italics, is something that you have read into something I say, thus the rest of the argumentation after that is fallacious. There is no reduction in power.

1. What I say, is there is no requirement for a Son to necessarily be produced from a natural offspring. The fact that you affirm the Virgin Birth shows that you hold that to be true. It is not some arbitrary cases, as you raise in your counter-statement that follow, which I don't need to quote/reproduce here. No it is induction, it is deduction, big difference.

2. Secondly, Christians don't think the Incarnation degrades God in any way as you would probably be aware. Because in becoming a man, Jesus (or the Son), God is making himself publicly and directly known, not via some prophet Mohammed via ""Gabriel"" who received a private revelation in a private place; but rather in the open, for all to see, so there is no vagueness or unclarity about who he really is.

3. As I have repeated myself, in the Incarnation, God did not make an equal. The Son already was there (cough cough the Trinity... moving on...) (Islam agrees with the pre-existence of Jesus)

unanimously= Scholors Basing the events on the account of the Bible.

The only single source that disputes it; are people ignorant of history or Muslims because of the Quran. Tacitus, affirms that Jesus died on the cross. Find me as many qualified non-Muslim historian who does not believe that Jesus died on the cross; and not I don't think the swoon theory is valid.

"Wait so now he's God not God's Son sounds very confusing (and God's nature should be easy to understand) ? I strongly agree with the bolded statement."

I know you would agree with the bolded statement, which is why I made it. Why should God's nature be easy to understand, where do get that from?? I can understand, understanding who God is, if that is what you implying.

It sounds confusing, but the Son of something, is of the same substance as that something. The offspring of a cow is not suprisingly a cow; yes it breaks down. There is no difference between God and God's son, the only difference is between the Father and the Son. To be a bit more technical, the term Son of God, is a wee-bit clearer than God's son. It is more so a description of the relationship between the Father and the Son, rather than the Father getting a wife and giving birth as such. Hence the term Son of God, has a particular meaning...

Michael Licona says it better here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUjaXHyBsw; if you have the time.

tb continued ///

 

[dan964]

Hmm... that when you reply to the second before the first...

===
Mine is in italics; sorry a bit hard to put quotes. The original is non-italicised. My first general comment, is for a commentary that makes only one reference to the Quran, hmm.... puzzling

35. God has two kinds of words, one issuing from His Attribute of speech, the other from
His Power. His words that issue from His Attribute of speech are His Books and scrolls
that He sent to some of His Messengers. His words that issue from His Attribute of Power
are all of His works – His creatures and all events in the universe.

Firstly we are not dealing with the words of God; but the Word of God; note capitalisation; it is a title. Yes, Jesus himself is recorded as speaking the Father's Word. But there is more to that idea when the New Testament writers raise it, then what you think. So yes there might be a different understanding

why then does God mention Jesus, upon him be peace, especially as one of His words (of His Power) is that
God, due to His Grandeur and Honor, acts in this world from behind cause and effect.


He
does so because this world is the world of wisdom, and some people, unable to discern the
good behind every act of God, would otherwise ascribe to God the things displeasing to
them, which could lead them to perish. God acts from behind the veil of cause and effect so
that people can ascribe displeasing things, such as illnesses, death, and misfortunes, to their
“natural” causes and not complain of God. But since the other world is the world of Power,
God will act there without any veils; everything will happen there instantly. The creation
of Jesus, upon him be peace, was different from that of other people, and God created him
without a father. so, in Jesus, upon him be peace, His law of Power was manifested, rather
than His law of wisdom. Adam, upon him be peace, was also created without parents, but
God did not call him His word. Adam, upon him be peace, was the first to be created as
a human being; but Jesus’ creation was completely unusual after so many centuries during
which all people came to the world with both a father and mother.

The idea of Jesus, upon him be peace, being a spirit from God should also be considered
from this viewpoint. since he was a word of God’s Power, in the meaning of being created
not based on cause and effect, as all other people are, but rather by being breathed into
virgin Mary by or through an angel who is purely a spiritual being, the spiritual dimension
weighs more in his creation. why this was so for Jesus is that he came to spiritually revive
the Children of Israel, who were drowning in materialism and who were selling God’s
revelations for trifling prices. so Jesus’ mission gave priority to the spiritual dimension of
the divine religion. unfortunately, most of his followers overstepped the bounds of truth
in their religion in later years, and in their hands “the spirit from God” became “the spirit
of God,” and “the spirit of holiness” with which he was confirmed (2: 87) was interpreted to
mean God’s own spirit which became incarnate in Jesus.

I can understand his reasoning for it, not that I agree entirely with it, but don't see any external basis for it. The only basis I see seems to be speculation OR a reading of the Quran. I would be more convinced of the latter, if there was more references. But unfortunately there isn't.

Thus, along with God and Jesus,
upon him be peace, there developed the third person of God – the Holy Ghost. The Qur’ān
categorically refutes all such assertions.

====
{Now me speaking}

Why do some Muslims take ages to make a single point, this summarises it quickly
Yusuf Ali went to great details to state that "a Word from God", not "the Word of God", the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii.59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by God's word "Be", and he was. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 132).
Goldsack then explains Ali's explanation showing that many Muslim writers follow the same pattern, arguing that Jesus is called a Word from God solely because he was created by the Word of God, kun - "be", just as Adam was created (Surah 3.59) "Thus Imam Razi, followed by some modern writers, would have us believe that the term 'Word of God' means no more than that, 'Jesus was created by the command or word of God"' (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 14)

The second I note; is if Adam is created in the same way as described, even though the circumstances, why aren't both called the Word of God. Why is the title exclusively applied to Jesus??

Further, in the verse from the Qur'an which we have quoted, Christ is called 'His Word', that is, 'God's Word'. The Arabic shows that it means 'The Word of God', not merely 'a Word of God'. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God's mind and will. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15).

I really could drag this on, but I'd rather not. I am not convinced, by the commentary. But that is okay, you can be.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Like I said, you agree on the Virgin birth as before and the pre-existence of Jesus. Not necessarily.

How does this not degrade a "god?" He's not only degraded by being born through pregnancy but also his title of God is removed when he is in the belly of Mary. One of the Attributes of God is that he is not needing of anyone and independent. But when you say he is born you remove that title from him as the child requires sustenance from the mother in order to survive.

1. God did not cease to exist when Jesus died; neither did the Son either. Christians and Muslims disagree on what death actually is. This might explain better that I can: https://carm.org/christianity/chris...-die-jesus-died-therefore-jesus-cannot-be-god

3. The concept of "sacrifice" was not invented by Jesus or by Christians, it actually comes from the Old Testament Laws. The problem is not with the power of God, but the justice of God. Because God is just, it means there are punishment for sin, namely death. What the animal sacrifices, and then ultimately Jesus, were firstly a reminder of such punishment, and secondly a substitution; so instead of people like you and me dying for our sin, Jesus, an innocent man dies instead.

Doesn't sound like a just God to me... You cannot violate an innocent man's rights for the rest of society. We Muslims' believe that God punishes sins only if not repented for. Why would Jesus sacrafice himself for someone he never met and doesn't know what sin's he's going to commit. No wordly punishment can eliminate the whole mankind's sins. Also last time I read the bible :

"The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them." Ezekiel 18:20

...

Christians agree but not really that much; but we don't believe God's mercy is arbitrary or up to chance (that was the bold statement which I was trying to make); but is purposeful and intentional, and accomplished in Jesus Christ.

Read above.

Your comparison to the exam when I compare to how I have seen you done in the past is inconsistent. Basically what has happened is everyone isn't sitting the test and the test is cancelled half-way through; they have already failed, lets say 0, and what Jesus does is he is the only one who passed, in fact he didn't just pass, he got a perfect score, lets say 10; and so what happens when Jesus dies, he takes on our 0; so that we can get 10. (this analogy tends to break down eventually, as do most analogies but it demonstrates the point).

If the example breaks its a faulty comparison. That is not how test work. Think of this test as life and you fail. God with his Mercy would allow you to pass unless you've violated more than a specified amount of exam rules. God with his All-Knowledge would not create beings who fail but rather create beings with the ability to pass or fail. Just another example of the Mercy of God.

In a court room, the evidence is in, and the verdict is already out, everyone is guilty, but imagine God, in his mercy, then says, I will take the punishment and the sentence instead, so you can walk free and have a clean slate. Now that may be unfair, but it is a non-justice of mercy rather than an injustice. Clearly you would dispute this, so I am not expecting agreement on this.

Not everyone only the people guilty. God is just and also Merciful. In this example for the safety of the state he will imprison those he thinks would cause destruction in society and allow those free who have minor offences and track record showed that when they said they wouldn't do something again they actually would stop.

"The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. 3"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."" Why would God not love his Son? Of course not.
The basis for your charge doesn't stand, because God loves us more because he sent his Son (Jesus).

Why would God not love himself more than you? Show me the basis for that statement: "If God was Just and He is, then he wouldn't create a being He likes more than me because that isn't Just. " from the Quran. And show me also from Islam, that God's love is unconditional and the same for everyone.

If God loved us which He does according to my religion he would just forgive us rather then having his "Son" be tortured and crucified.
What point is saving us from sin if we don't know that sin is wrong and constantly commit it...
Here it is again The Son=God argument even though I see them as distinctly two different entities.

Here's the point I was trying to make. God does not create human beings better than one another they earn the love of God themselves. His love is expressed through his Mercy. Disrespect him disobey him for 10,20,30,40,50,60,70 years and just once say "God please forgive me" if you mean it sincerely He will forgive you. No matter who you are.

Here's a verse from a surah I just memorised :
"...Indeed, Allah loves those who are just." 49:9

"...Surely Allah loves those who are devoted to doing good, aware that God is seeing them." 2:195

"... For Allah love the righteous."

"And He is the All-Forgiving, the All-Loving; 85:14

"...And God loves the patient and steadfast." 3:146
There's alot of these verses. Our love is earned and thus if we do sins we know that we may be losing the love of God.

You would find in Christianity, although God's love is not conditional, or based on anything that we do; God is also free to show mercy to specific people and not to others; otherwise he would not be God.

God's justice means that atonement is needed; because think about it like this; if you cut yourself off from the source of life, death* naturally results. But God in his mercy, provided a replacement, instead of us dying, an animal was sacrificed in his place by a high priest (this all comes from the book of Leviticus in the Torah).

But this was not a good fix; the problem was the sacrifices had to keep being offered over and over again; because the high priest wasn't without sin himself etc. so that is why Jesus had to come, he had to be perfect ( only possible if he is God), but also had to be a man also, so to represent and interceded between both God and man (which is why he has to be both as a side note). What Jesus did is died once for all, to deal with sin once and once only. (The idea of someone dying for others they love is not unusual)

The concept of the "Word becoming flesh" is one that is entirely consistent with the Jewish Scriptures, and if we understand that Jesus is the Messiah; and this is exactly what the Messiah had to come and do. We also from the Old Testament, figure out that Messiah has to be God himself. So yes, that would mean a lot of reading up on the subject, but the basis for these things, actually is found in a lot of we call nowadays classical Judaism.

Prophets are perfect aswell It doesn't sit right with me I'm actually trying to take this in it just doesn't make sense.

(*death does not mean ceasing to exist; Christians have a different understanding to that of Muslims)

Muslims don't believe that either ? When we die our souls are still there but on the Day of Judgement God will take everyone's souls causing them to be in a state of death and he's going to announce His independence, His Power, His Munificence etc...

Is God not entitled to? Exactly, which since the prophets do not contradict each other, which is why I know Mohammed is a false prophet.

wat??

A lot of your objections; come down to the fact that Jesus was both man & God, not just one or the other. This list is a list of how not to understand this.

There is this thing that is called concurrence; which pops up in all 3 of the most difficult concepts in Christianity. For instance, consider this example: the shadow caused by tree, what caused it? The Sun, yes, but also by the tree. While this analogy isn't perfect, it doesn't demonstrate that we can hold two things to be true, without there necessarily being conflict.



His human nature was mortal, his divine nature was not. (Yes, Jesus has 2 natures, which is a very difficult concept), but yes the same kind of understanding as for the Trinity... hence my side-note.

Why didn't Jesus just say so then if it's a matter of eternal pain or eternal pleasure lol... Also you should be able to prove this logically if it is true not through a few verses in the Bible that may appear to allude to it. What benefit would God have in having a "son?" Is God incapable of forgiving someone so he must restrict himself to a human form ? Is he not powerful enough to do this in his current form? Is His Knowledge and Power of creation so limited that he is unable to make his Nature clear cut?

You didn't have to reply, but ok. You could have waited until morning

You make your posts so long I'll reply to the other soon if time permits. )
=====

But anyway, like I have said in the past, most of these discussions arise because there are different understandings of key concepts, even the nature and character of God. And other concepts, such as inspiration, intercession, justice and even death.

God wouldn't make his Nature, Character and the rest so hard to understand.

 

[Drsoccerball]

The same could be said of Muslims, that don't question.

Yes ! The Quran many times curses those who blindly follows their forefathers. Also it is compulsory to learn about our religion and have a strong conviction of God and prove him without circular arguments. Ustadh Said Nursi taught me this and it really pains me when people believe blindly whether in Islam, Christianity or atheism.

Christians do not assume Jesus to be Son of God; and certainly not in the way that the Quran thinks what they mean. Like I have said: "How can God see without eyes?" etc. are similar kind of questions, yet we have no problem saying that God can see without eyes,

Fact?? Why does God NEED a wife to have a Son??

You don't assume? Do you believe in that because it makes sense or because you believe in the Bible and the Bible insinuates it a bit? That's the concept people of that time had of a son...

Secondly, concerning your quip saying produce the entire Bible in Aramaic. Firstly, the Bible was not written in Aramaic at all, it was written in Hebrew or Greek; of which none of it would be much use to you (and frankly not much more use to me either), considering you do not know Hebrew or Greek.

What do you mean or? Did Jesus (pbuh) speak Greek ?

"Pretty bold statement to make when you don't know the native language or at least the words... Also the people who do know it always translate it as the "only begotten son." " - Big generalisation there, I do the Greek word, behind it, the reason why I knew that because I looked up an interlinear version (Greek/English in the same version). So please don't jump to conclusions, I do actually know, sometimes, what I say.

Concerning your quip regarding the dictionary, meanings change over time. Yes Christians believe that Jesus was born of Mary; but not conceived by Mary. Like you have yourself confirmed, we both agree on the Virgin Birth.

Not much to say here except that theres a difference between translating the word and actually knowing the meaning (not trying to make fun of you or roast you im just saying...)

That which is italics, is something that you have read into something I say, thus the rest of the argumentation after that is fallacious. There is no reduction in power.

1. What I say, is there is no requirement for a Son to necessarily be produced from a natural offspring. The fact that you affirm the Virgin Birth shows that you hold that to be true. It is not some arbitrary cases, as you raise in your counter-statement that follow, which I don't need to quote/reproduce here. No it is induction, it is deduction, big difference.

The statements you make assumes God can do everything and everything... We don't believe that... We believe that He can do everything within His Nature. He cannot lie, He cannot not see something, He cannot be a man, Can't bear a child etc...

2. Secondly, Christians don't think the Incarnation degrades God in any way as you would probably be aware. Because in becoming a man, Jesus (or the Son), God is making himself publicly and directly known, not via some prophet Mohammed via ""Gabriel"" who received a private revelation in a private place; but rather in the open, for all to see, so there is no vagueness or unclarity about who he really is.

Becoming a man means you have the lowly features of man such as urination, pooing etc... lel then why are there countless amounts of different churches which believe different things if it was clear ? And you're mistaken the prophet(Sas) did get revelations in public places. He would be put in a situation and he would be given a revelation and then he would recite it. Listen to the rhyming man...

3. As I have repeated myself, in the Incarnation, God did not make an equal. The Son already was there (cough cough the Trinity... moving on...) (Islam agrees with the pre-existence of Jesus)

Not to a divine level.

The only single source that disputes it; are people ignorant of history or Muslims because of the Quran. Tacitus, affirms that Jesus died on the cross. Find me as many qualified non-Muslim historian who does not believe that Jesus died on the cross; and not I don't think the swoon theory is valid.

Have you heard of the Jonah theory

I know you would agree with the bolded statement, which is why I made it. Why should God's nature be easy to understand, where do get that from?? I can understand, understanding who God is, if that is what you implying.

This deserves to be a single post ill post later about this.

It sounds confusing, but the Son of something, is of the same substance as that something. The offspring of a cow is not suprisingly a cow; yes it breaks down. There is no difference between God and God's son, the only difference is between the Father and the Son. To be a bit more technical, the term Son of God, is a wee-bit clearer than God's son. It is more so a description of the relationship between the Father and the Son, rather than the Father getting a wife and giving birth as such. Hence the term Son of God, has a particular meaning...

Michael Licona says it better here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgUjaXHyBsw; if you have the time.

tb continued ///

yeah.... I don't it

 

[Drsoccerball]

Hmm... that when you reply to the second before the first...

?

===
Mine is in italics; sorry a bit hard to put quotes. The original is non-italicised. My first general comment, is for a commentary that makes only one reference to the Quran, hmm.... puzzling

Just put it in quotes it makes it look better and also less bothersome for me to reply.

Firstly we are not dealing with the words of God; but the Word of God; note capitalisation; it is a title. Yes, Jesus himself is recorded as speaking the Father's Word. But there is more to that idea when the New Testament writers raise it, then what you think. So yes there might be a different understanding

Words' of God*

I can understand his reasoning for it, not that I agree entirely with it, but don't see any external basis for it. The only basis I see seems to be speculation OR a reading of the Quran. I would be more convinced of the latter, if there was more references. But unfortunately there isn't.

Saying it's from the Quran would be circular tho ?

Why do some Muslims take ages to make a single point, this summarises it quickly
Yusuf Ali went to great details to state that "a Word from God", not "the Word of God", the epithet that mystical Christianity uses for Jesus. As stated in iii.59 below, Jesus was created by a miracle, by God's word "Be", and he was. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p. 132).

There's a problem with this argument. We don't believe God actually said "Be" or "kun" rather it's to show how easy it is for him to create, it's like saying a word that's one syllable very easy.

Goldsack then explains Ali's explanation showing that many Muslim writers follow the same pattern, arguing that Jesus is called a Word from God solely because he was created by the Word of God, kun - "be", just as Adam was created (Surah 3.59) "Thus Imam Razi, followed by some modern writers, would have us believe that the term 'Word of God' means no more than that, 'Jesus was created by the command or word of God"' (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 14)

It's to show the power of God as Ali Unal mentioned. Also what the verse is trying to reply to is those who claim Jesus to be God. Saying that if you believe him to be God because he has no father than Adam should have more right to be God than Jesus as he had no father nor a mother. (we can draw that meaning from that) Or the very fact that they are all equal in title and status.

The second I note; is if Adam is created in the same way as described, even though the circumstances, why aren't both called the Word of God. Why is the title exclusively applied to Jesus??

Every prophet has their own unique title eg: prophet Abraham's title was habibullah, the friend of Allah. Also Jesus had no father while Adam had no father nor a mother so how can they share the same name? Also we believe that Adam (pbuh) died while we believe Jesus didn't.

Further, in the verse from the Qur'an which we have quoted, Christ is called 'His Word', that is, 'God's Word'. The Arabic shows that it means 'The Word of God', not merely 'a Word of God'. (Kalimatullaah, not kalimatimmin kalimaatullaah). Thus we see that Jesus is the word or expression of God, so that by Him alone can we understand the mind and will of God. No other prophet has been given this title, because none other is, in this sense, the special revelation of God's mind and will. (Goldsack, Christ in Islam, p. 15).

He carried God's Word what's wrong with that? Didn't all the prophet's carry His Word and speak it to the people ?

I really could drag this on, but I'd rather not. I am not convinced, by the commentary. But that is okay, you can be.

Stop reading Yusuf Ali then... Read Ali Unal I find his translation to be the best.

 

[Drsoccerball]

Also :
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" Numbers 23:19

 

[BandSixFix]

I think there is a god

 

[Drsoccerball]

I think there is a god

You the real MVP.

 

[Sien]

I think there is a god

Jezuz ayy lmao

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

[RenegadeMx]

oh explains alot soccerball must be paid to present muslims in a good light

 

[Drsoccerball]

oh explains alot soccerball must be paid to present muslims in a good light

ahahhahahaahahahahahahahahahahah wot... I do not accept money for such services and have never been offered money

 

[Drsoccerball]

y doesnt god heal amputees?

all miracles are fake

checkmate theists

gg wp no re

I've spoken about laws of the universe and laws of God before. God will not help you if you don't satisfy the laws of the universe. For example I can't ask God to win the lottery (Assuming gambling is allowed in this example) if I don't buy a lottery ticket. It's just not the way God does things. So you can't grow a limb back by accident. However, if we try to satisfy all the laws of the universe by creating bionic legs or stem cell research etc... it is possible for that guy/girl to have a leg again.

It's really up to you whether or not you believe in miracles at the end of the day God makes physical laws so he is able to break them any time he wants. And He only breaks them to show to the people that the messengers were in fact messengers from God as they broke the laws of nature.

I don't think we have to discuss this in much detail im pretty sure you understand.

 

[rustlemyjimmies]

my parents treat me like god...

...they dont believe in me

 

[Drsoccerball]

my parents treat me like god...

...they dont believe in me

Probably because you don't live up to their expectations

 

[dan964]

Also :
“God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" Numbers 23:19

I cannot remember if I have addressed this one in the past.
Here is another one, which I am suprised you didn't pick up on
I cannot carry out my fierce anger! I cannot totally destroy Ephraim! Because I am God, and not man– the Holy One among you – I will not come in wrath! – Hosea 11:9

Let’s point out the flaws of this objection:

1 – No Christian believes that God is a man.
2 – Christians believe in Jesus as 100% God and 100% man.

These are implied from a simple note: "None of those biblical texts say God CANNOT be a man, but say that God IS not a man." The second one above is important to note, if raising the idea well God changed when the Son became a man.

There is a big difference, maybe subtle. You may not see any, so not point arguing further if you don't.

One of the main assumptions, which I'll hopefully get to when I reply to your longer ones, that you have, is that you presume, that somehow Jesus
in becoming a man, loses his divinity or changes? This is why Christians have established Jesus as two natures... it is a very deep concept, that parallels with the Trinity itself in complexity.

For the verse itself, what this is saying, God is not a man, in a sense that:
1 – He cannot lie like men do (Allah is the greatest deceiver according to Surah 3:54, please explain, but the Bible calls Satan as the Father of lies/deceptions – John 8:44, Revelation 12:9)
2 – He does not change His mind like men do (you might need to address Surah 2:106 in your response also???).

====
It is true that during the Old Testament period God hadn’t become a man, but this doesn’t deny that God could choose to later become a man, specifically in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Hebrew Bible itself supports the view that God can become a man, without ceasing to be God, since there are places where God appeared in human form:

"The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw THREE MEN standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, ‘If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash YOUR FEET and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way-now that you have come to your servant.’ ‘Very well,’ they answered, ‘do as you say’… He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. WHILE THEY ATE, he stood near them under a tree. ‘Where is your wife Sarah?’ they asked him. ‘There, in the tent,’ he said. THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son’… THEN THE LORD SAID TO ABRAHAM, ‘Why did Sarah laugh and say, "Will I really have a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.’ Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, ‘I did not laugh.’ BUT HE SAID, ‘Yes, you did laugh.’ WHEN THE MEN GOT UP TO LEAVE, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?’ ... THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.’ The men turned away and went toward Sodom, BUT ABRAHAM REMAINED STANDING BEFORE THE LORD. Then Abraham APPROACHED HIM and said: ‘Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing - to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ THE LORD SAID, ‘If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake’… WHEN THE LORD HAD FINISHED SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM, HE LEFT, and Abraham returned home." Genesis 18:1-5, 8-10a, 13-17, 20-26, 33

I will engage more so on your other replies hopefully, as this verse is well known to be (ab)used by Muslims, as with Deuteronomy 18.

====
Again, the most concerning thing, is you don't even think the Old Testament or New Testament is true, except when Muslims cherry-pick verses they like, because if not explained properly appear to support Islam. You would find, that by analysing thematical concerns (treating for instance the Old Testament like a text studied in English), the themes, ideas, hopes (if you want specifics I can give if needed) that are raised in the Old Testament, find either their fulfilment, embodiment or explanation in the New Testament (notably in Jesus), something which for the most part cannot be said of Islam, which has none of these concerns in mind.

 

[dan964]

y doesnt god heal amputees?

all miracles are fake

checkmate theists

gg wp no re

I am sorry but the fact that specific miracles do not occur, does not mean they do not occur at all. It seems to make certain demands of God, and the question is of the same form as "Why doesn't God just end suffering?"
But secondly, miracles serve a particular purpose.
Thirdly, I don't have much more to say on this topic. I could post a link if needed but no-one would read it anyway, so meh.
Fourthly, on this issue, it is a stalemate not checkmate; no arguments from ignorance please.

 

[Paradoxica]

Fourthly, on this issue, it is a stalemate not checkmate; no arguments from ignorance please.

This is a good ending to leave on.

This is the final score of every metaphysical debate, as a lack of empirical observation means that nothing can be confirmed or denied.