Does God exist? (18 Viewers)

[dan964]

Hi Sy123, I'll post a reply to your bigger post soon.
But yes I agree exegesis is letting the text speak for itself, eisgesis is imposing certain ideas into a text (and is not interpreting the text)

 

[Drsoccerball]

I also don't know why some Muslims claim there are scientific miracles in the Qur'an, it is clearly dodgy exegesis that isn't worthy of the Qur'an, it is exegesis that hasn't appeared in any collections of exegesis, from any sect of Islam

The same goes for the "scientific errors", these are simply misreadings, or reading too much, specifically to find errors.

Masha allah ahmad deedat in the making

 

[dan964]

I cant post much as I am on a phone.
As I stated earlier, the statement Jesus and God differ is incoherent and would need clarification. Also that statement
Has to be clarified in such a way that doesnt assume that Jesus isn't God.
In order to end up at your conclusion.

And I the Christian viewpoint, it is 2 person's of the same essence (there are Greek words which are normally used)

 

[dan964]

Ok, I understand however what did you do in christian studies. I go to a catholic school and we have compulsory religion where all we do is understand the bible and other religions etc.
Definitely not my fav subject *obviously. However we do get some interesting history from it, e.g. How apparently jesus came back from the dead.

not the same as Christian studies in HS. (It already assumes that as groundwork for the notice and then build on that)
so yes the Bible is involved in it. But the particular course I am doing is again not like Christian studies at say USYD or UNSW.
(technically it is a Dipl. of Ministry I think, but it got changed to a shorter course)

 

[dan964]

(Can you please distinguish between porcupinetree and myself, we are not the same person)

[Section 1]
Reason leads me to belief in a monotheistic Omnipotent God, and it also leads me to a rejection of these central Christian doctrines. Saying that we should just stop using reason is incoherent, there are things are beyond understanding, but blatant contradiction is definitely within our view. If you tell me to stop using my reason once we get to God, then the atheist can tell you to stop using your reason once you get the Universe, but this is clearly silly, reason is reason and we must follow where our reason leads us.
I have my reason and you have yours (so let’s see if I can use it) I may have been misrepresented or not clear, I don’t mean that we throw out examination or critique of the Bible, Quran (Koran), Dawkin’s latest book etc. Atheists by their reason have rejected the idea of God. Now in your mind and mine, they are wrong. But if we are relying solely (which was the key thing I was trying to raise), on our reason we can lead to errors. It is why philosophically, this argument is still open. Also you assume there is common ground to work off, apart from the fact we both believe in a God and in monotheism (even though you are Unitarian, and I am not), that is about it. The God we believe in is definitely not the same if we refer to the different religious texts that are used as a basis for the Christianity and Islam faiths respectively. Our unaided reason cannot possibly get us to a full or correct understanding of God; that is why Christianity and Islam teaches revelation (that said although both teach it, the fundamental understanding of it is different e.g. Christianity teaches that the ultimate revelation is through the Son, Jesus Christ.

My reason leads me to belief in one God but reject Islam and uphold Christianity. Various evidence leads me to belief in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as well as the Gospel accounts. And eventually this leads me to believe that Jesus must have been incarnated (come down as a man), and eventually the Trinity (as a side note particularly in relation to the idea of the atonement and the Old Testament sacrificial system how Jesus death fulfilled that, as the writer of the book of Hebrews is quick to point out several times). The Trinity is certainly not the first thing Christians affirm (in fact the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is), but is a logical consequence of what the Bible reveals about the character/nature of the Messiah, and God’s plan throughout the entire Biblical narrative. (Hopefully you are familiar with the fact that the Bible is actually a compilation of what seems on the surface to be independent writings, but in reality span several centuries, different authors from different time periods, which demonstrates also a fundamental difference between Muslims and Christians on inspiration).

Reason alone is not sufficient to get a right understanding of God, if that was the case, then Muslims, Christians, Jews and Hindus would ditch their holy texts and just think philosophically/logically what God is like. Apart from the obvious factor (which you may disagree with). In summary, that is why God reveals himself to us. Islam believes that to be via his Messenger, Mohammed; while Christianity believes that to be through the prophets (of the Old Testament) but ultimately in the Son (Jesus).

If your God is an all-loving God, why did he create us with a reason that leads us AWAY from Him?”

You could equally say if God is all-powerful (omnipotent), why does he let atheists etc. with their reason that leads them AWAY from him? (In that case, the whole free-will argument could be raised which I don’t what to as it is a side issue)

The first thing to consider is did God create us with a reason initially (at the beginning) that would have lead us away from him? I suspect ‘No’ to be the answer, but have nothing to claim that, apart from a firm conviction that God is good.

But now (after the Fall/sin) Christians believe that our reasons can lead us away is because we reject God (as Paul writes in Romans 1) and hence reject also the one he sent - Jesus (as according to the Gospels especially John). In short the answer is sin and corruption; and rebellion against God.

The following which you reject: namely that God could become man and then die; is what is considered "foolishness", as Paul notes in his first letter to the Corinthians: "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles [non-Jews/Greeks], but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God "

Why did God do this? Paul continues: “God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.” God is making it clear, that he is much greater than us, and is showing us this, by nullifying those who are strong in the eyes of the world.
It is quite clear and I could post a liturgy of Scripture evidence that shows that the Messiah is God (it is a couple of pages back), and that Jesus is also God, if you really want me to? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Context makes it clear that the ‘Word’ refers to Jesus).
To be continued…

 

[dan964]

Section 2
As I stated earlier: the statement "Jesus and God differ" is incoherent and would need clarification.

Do you mean they differ in nature? Well clearly it is like equating an apple to an apple tree (somewhat).
1. There is one God
2. the Father is God
3. Jesus is God
(just dealing with 2, in Christianity there is actually 3)
4. Jesus is not the Father
---
Explanation of {1} Christianity being Jewish in origin, holds to a strict monotheism, and Jesus, James and other writers affirm this quickly, it isn't hard to notice.
Explanation of {2} this is fairly simple for you to understand, so far no issues.
Explanation of {3} this is a bit harder to understand rationally to some degree (though that said heresy is not eliminated yet e.g. partial-ism) and is very easy to justify (not necessarily correct) with {1}, {2}

It is statement {4} that needs explanation.

When Christians say "Jesus is not the Father" or as you have said "Jesus is different from God" needs clarifying
The second statement which Sy123 has made: It somewhat assumes that there is an contradiction, and that Jesus is not God in the way that you (Sy123) expressed it.

Firstly it is an incoherent statement, which is why I corrected it to say "Jesus is different from the Father", because God is a generic term, that you have your assumptions about (such as he cannot die etc. which you have mentioned).

Secondly, the statement Jesus is God and the Father is God (and Holy Spirit is God), which Christians believe because of the testimony of the Scriptures, means that although the Father is completely God, the Father is not exclusively (all there is to) what God is like.

Christians don't mean that only one of them is God (i.e. which implies they are of different nature*). Clearly Jesus is a man if we except historically he has to be in order to be verifiable, which introduces the 2nd hard teaching of Christianity (that is why Jesus is fully man and fully God)

Christianity don't hold either the Father or Son to be a separate being or separate Gods.

Christians believe that of the one God, there are 3 persons that is the 3 persons of the Trinity make up one entity - God.

At the heart of the issue, is a question, can the Father, Jesus (referred to as the Son*), and the Holy Spirit coexist as a single entity? Christianity thinks yes, Islam thinks no.

(May I add Islam has no reason to believe Jesus is God)

Conclusion for the moment as I have to sleep:
If Islam views the Bible as corrupt and wrong; then of course that will mean the idea of Trinity makes no sense or at the very least is unnecessary. In Christianity it is necessary as you mentioned to understand salvation etc. But Christians don't start ever with a belief in Trinity, it is a logic consequence of holding the testimony of the Bible to be true.

It is not hard to find many Christian websites/books etc. that list many OT/NT verses that prove Jesus is God.
---
To sum up, "1 God, 3 persons; without dividing the substance or confound/confusing the persons."
is probably as simple a statement as it is going to get. As I mentioned, reason in this area, will get us only so far
(probably to Modallism, Oneness Pentecostalism, or Partialism); which we can eliminate as being true from the account of Jesus' baptism, where each three persons of the trinity is independently* present.

(* in some measure)

To clarify "Jesus is equal to the Father" is true in the sense of they are of the same essence (i.e. each is fully God; and they both have wills etc). But in the same way it is also not true, because they are distinct persons.

 

[Mr_Kap]

Agreed Dan.
As the orthodox church believs:

"In discussing God's relationship to His creation, Orthodox theology distinguishes between God's eternal essence, which is totally transcendent, and His uncreated energies, which is how He reaches us. The God who is transcendent and the God who touches us are one and the same. That is, these energies are not something that proceed from God or that God produces, but rather they are God himself: distinct, yet inseparable from, God's inner being.[109]

In understanding the Holy Trinity as "one God in three persons", "three persons" is not to be emphasized more than "one God", and vice versa. While the three persons are distinct, they are united in one divine essence, and their oneness is expressed in community and action so completely that they cannot even be considered separately. For example, their salvation of mankind is an activity engaged in common: "Christ became man by the good will of the Father and by the cooperation of the Holy Spirit. Christ sends the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father, and the Holy Spirit forms Christ in our hearts, and thus God the Father is glorified." Their "communion of essence" is "indivisible". Trinitarian terminology- essence, hypostasis, etc. - are used "philosophically", "to answer the ideas of the heretics", and "to place the terms where they separate error and truth."[110] The words do what they can do, but the nature of the Trinity in its fullness remains beyond our comprehension and expression, a Holy Mystery that can only be experienced."

 

[wannaspoon]

If he does, there's a special place in hell reserved for the person who wrote this letter...

 

[dan964]

^ kind of thing that someone from Westboro would write

 

[Sy123]

(Can you please distinguish between porcupinetree and myself, we are not the same person)

[Section 1]
Reason leads me to belief in a monotheistic Omnipotent God, and it also leads me to a rejection of these central Christian doctrines. Saying that we should just stop using reason is incoherent, there are things are beyond understanding, but blatant contradiction is definitely within our view. If you tell me to stop using my reason once we get to God, then the atheist can tell you to stop using your reason once you get the Universe, but this is clearly silly, reason is reason and we must follow where our reason leads us.
I have my reason and you have yours (so let’s see if I can use it) I may have been misrepresented or not clear, I don’t mean that we throw out examination or critique of the Bible, Quran (Koran), Dawkin’s latest book etc. Atheists by their reason have rejected the idea of God. Now in your mind and mine, they are wrong. But if we are relying solely (which was the key thing I was trying to raise), on our reason we can lead to errors. It is why philosophically, this argument is still open. Also you assume there is common ground to work off, apart from the fact we both believe in a God and in monotheism (even though you are Unitarian, and I am not), that is about it. The God we believe in is definitely not the same if we refer to the different religious texts that are used as a basis for the Christianity and Islam faiths respectively. Our unaided reason cannot possibly get us to a full or correct understanding of God; that is why Christianity and Islam teaches revelation (that said although both teach it, the fundamental understanding of it is different e.g. Christianity teaches that the ultimate revelation is through the Son, Jesus Christ.

That's missing the point, my claim is that correct reason leads us a coherent understanding of some aspects God. This is taught in Islam, where God commands us to use our intellects to arrive at the existence of God, Exalted is He, i.e. "Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding." (3:190)

Atheists do think their reason leads to rejection of the existence of God, but clearly I claim that their reasoning is incorrect and based upon unsound premises. But when you admit that the idea of God becoming man is absurd, as you do here: "I understand the idea that God becoming man is absurd.", http://community.boredofstudies.org...cs/106355/does-god-exist-696.html#post6988969

Then a valid question can be asked, if you admit that it is absurd, you are essentially admitting that correct reason believes it to be absurd, but if so, then why if God is an all-Loving God, have my correct reason lead to his rejection?

My reason leads me to belief in one God but reject Islam and uphold Christianity. Various evidence leads me to belief in Jesus’ life, death and resurrection as well as the Gospel accounts. And eventually this leads me to believe that Jesus must have been incarnated (come down as a man), and eventually the Trinity (as a side note particularly in relation to the idea of the atonement and the Old Testament sacrificial system how Jesus death fulfilled that, as the writer of the book of Hebrews is quick to point out several times). The Trinity is certainly not the first thing Christians affirm (in fact the life, death and resurrection of Jesus is), but is a logical consequence of what the Bible reveals about the character/nature of the Messiah, and God’s plan throughout the entire Biblical narrative. (Hopefully you are familiar with the fact that the Bible is actually a compilation of what seems on the surface to be independent writings, but in reality span several centuries, different authors from different time periods, which demonstrates also a fundamental difference between Muslims and Christians on inspiration).

Why do you think the idea of God becoming man is absurd if you think that reason leads to belief in all these central Christian tenets?

Reason alone is not sufficient to get a right understanding of God, if that was the case, then Muslims, Christians, Jews and Hindus would ditch their holy texts and just think philosophically/logically what God is like. Apart from the obvious factor (which you may disagree with). In summary, that is why God reveals himself to us. Islam believes that to be via his Messenger, Mohammed; while Christianity believes that to be through the prophets (of the Old Testament) but ultimately in the Son (Jesus).

I don't claim that reason is sufficient to get a right understanding of everything about God, but surely it gives us knowledge about certain aspects of God, such as the fact that God is one. In the same vein, the claim is that reason (and I have given arguments for this and I will repeat them below) shows the impossibility of the Trinity, to simply say that our intellect is limited is simply to beg the question against the unitarian.

If your God is an all-loving God, why did he create us with a reason that leads us AWAY from Him?”

You could equally say if God is all-powerful (omnipotent), why does he let atheists etc. with their reason that leads them AWAY from him? (In that case, the whole free-will argument could be raised which I don’t what to as it is a side issue)

That's not an adequate analogy at all. God's being omnipotent doesn't at all imply that he should force atheists to believe in Him.

Whereas if God is an all-Loving God, why would God create me with a nature (my reason) that directs me away from him? How can you say God is all-Loving if God will punish me for simply using what He gave me? This is NOT about the intellect being limited, because we have already established that the Trinity is absurd, NOT that it is beyond rationality, those are two different terms.

The first thing to consider is did God create us with a reason initially (at the beginning) that would have lead us away from him? I suspect ‘No’ to be the answer, but have nothing to claim that, apart from a firm conviction that God is good.

But now (after the Fall/sin) Christians believe that our reasons can lead us away is because we reject God (as Paul writes in Romans 1) and hence reject also the one he sent - Jesus (as according to the Gospels especially John). In short the answer is sin and corruption; and rebellion against God.

The following which you reject: namely that God could become man and then die; is what is considered "foolishness", as Paul notes in his first letter to the Corinthians: "but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles [non-Jews/Greeks], but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God "

Why did God do this? Paul continues: “God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.” God is making it clear, that he is much greater than us, and is showing us this, by nullifying those who are strong in the eyes of the world.
It is quite clear and I could post a liturgy of Scripture evidence that shows that the Messiah is God (it is a couple of pages back), and that Jesus is also God, if you really want me to? "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (Context makes it clear that the ‘Word’ refers to Jesus).
To be continued…

All this is, is quoting Christian creed

To pick out the important bits though, you're saying that it's due to sin and corruption that leads us to God, but surely using our reason, our intellects is not a sin?

-------------------

1. Jesus died on the cross
2. The Father did not die on the cross
3. The Father is God
4. Therefore God did not die on the cross (2, 3)
5. Therefore Jesus and God differ (1, 4)
6. Jesus is not God (5, indiscernibility of identicals)

There is no equivocation here, there is no logical inconsistency, yet Christians hold premise 1 as a fundamental to your creed, premise 2 as a fundamental to your creed, and premise 3 as fundamental to your creed, yet the conclusion is something that is contrary to a fundamental of your creed. So contradiction abounds.

1. God is triune
2. Jesus is not triune
3. God and Jesus differ (1, 2)
4. Jesus is not God (3, indiscernibility of identicals)

Again, 1 and 2 are central to your creed, yet we get the conclusion 4 which is against your creed.

And so on, one can multiply arguments like these with many examples, to what extent are you willing to sacrifice your intellect?

 

[Sy123]

Section 2
As I stated earlier: the statement "Jesus and God differ" is incoherent and would need clarification.

Do you mean they differ in nature? Well clearly it is like equating an apple to an apple tree (somewhat).
1. There is one God
2. the Father is God
3. Jesus is God
(just dealing with 2, in Christianity there is actually 3)
4. Jesus is not the Father
---
Explanation of {1} Christianity being Jewish in origin, holds to a strict monotheism, and Jesus, James and other writers affirm this quickly, it isn't hard to notice.
Explanation of {2} this is fairly simple for you to understand, so far no issues.
Explanation of {3} this is a bit harder to understand rationally to some degree (though that said heresy is not eliminated yet e.g. partial-ism) and is very easy to justify (not necessarily correct) with {1}, {2}

It is statement {4} that needs explanation.

When Christians say "Jesus is not the Father" or as you have said "Jesus is different from God" needs clarifying
The second statement which Sy123 has made: It somewhat assumes that there is an contradiction, and that Jesus is not God in the way that you (Sy123) expressed it.

Firstly it is an incoherent statement, which is why I corrected it to say "Jesus is different from the Father", because God is a generic term, that you have your assumptions about (such as he cannot die etc. which you have mentioned).

Secondly, the statement Jesus is God and the Father is God (and Holy Spirit is God), which Christians believe because of the testimony of the Scriptures, means that although the Father is completely God, the Father is not exclusively (all there is to) what God is like.

The statement "Jesus and God differ" is quite clear, it would mean that Jesus has a property that God does not. It could be a property of the essence that is the problem (as I outlined before, Jesus isn't triune, yet God is triune, a difference in essence), or it could be a property of action that is the problem (Jesus dies, God does not die, Jesus ate and drank, God does not eat or drink, etc.). If your rebuttal to the latter point is that you think "God does not eat or drink" begs the question, then I'll happily provide rational evidence for it, I simply assumed you thought it was true since we agree God is transcendent.

Christians don't mean that only one of them is God (i.e. which implies they are of different nature*). Clearly Jesus is a man if we except historically he has to be in order to be verifiable, which introduces the 2nd hard teaching of Christianity (that is why Jesus is fully man and fully God)

Christianity don't hold either the Father or Son to be a separate being or separate Gods.

Christians believe that of the one God, there are 3 persons that is the 3 persons of the Trinity make up one entity - God.

At the heart of the issue, is a question, can the Father, Jesus (referred to as the Son*), and the Holy Spirit coexist as a single entity? Christianity thinks yes, Islam thinks no.

You are simply repeating Christian creed in a different form

Conclusion for the moment as I have to sleep:
If Islam views the Bible as corrupt and wrong; then of course that will mean the idea of Trinity makes no sense or at the very least is unnecessary. In Christianity it is necessary as you mentioned to understand salvation etc. But Christians don't start ever with a belief in Trinity, it is a logic consequence of holding the testimony of the Bible to be true.

It is not hard to find many Christian websites/books etc. that list many OT/NT verses that prove Jesus is God.
---
To sum up, "1 God, 3 persons; without dividing the substance or confound/confusing the persons."
is probably as simple a statement as it is going to get. As I mentioned, reason in this area, will get us only so far
(probably to Modallism, Oneness Pentecostalism, or Partialism); which we can eliminate as being true from the account of Jesus' baptism, where each three persons of the trinity is independently* present.

(* in some measure)

To clarify "Jesus is equal to the Father" is true in the sense of they are of the same essence (i.e. each is fully God; and they both have wills etc). But in the same way it is also not true, because they are distinct persons.

This is a good conclusion in so far as you are summing up what you have said, it is also a good conclusion since you outline explicitly the contradiction you believe in (bolded).

If you admit a true contradiction, then all of reason and reality is lost, it then becomes coherent to state that God doesn't exist, that down is up, that black is white, and everything else

 

[dan964]

That's missing the point, my claim is that correct reason leads us a coherent understanding of some aspects God. This is taught in Islam, where God commands us to use our intellects to arrive at the existence of God, Exalted is He, i.e. "Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding." (3:190)

And you are missing mine, you have conceded that reason can "coherent understanding of some aspects God."
My statement is that "reason cannot gain us a coherent understanding of all aspects of God"
and because it can only gain us to some aspects of God, which ones are these, how do we determine which these are?

My understanding* is that these aspects are limited to his power and his divinity, which is both from creation.
*from testimony of the Scriptures

Atheists do think their reason leads to rejection of the existence of God, but clearly I claim that their reasoning is incorrect and based upon unsound premises. But when you admit that the idea of God becoming man is absurd, as you do here: "I understand the idea that God becoming man is absurd.", http://community.boredofstudies.org...cs/106355/does-god-exist-696.html#post6988969

Correction is needed. I have corrected that statement and the other to reflect my intentions in saying that. But it is quite interesting that you take one statement of mine, i make mistakes and I have corrected that one just now. The evidence I have given in that post, is to show that the Messiah cannot just be a man, but must be God, and this is from the Old Testament scriptures.

To the non-Christian esp. the Muslim, ofc that statement is absurd. In my mind it is fine, but still causes offensive and is a stumbling block to many people because it is stupid in their eyes, they have a different worldview and different assumptions about God.

I'll address the rest later.

"Why do you think the idea of God becoming man is absurd if you think that reason leads to belief in all these central Christian tenets? " - that was an incomplete sentence, the original statement had been fixed to match what I had intended to say.

"I don't claim that reason is sufficient to get a right understanding of everything about God, but surely it gives us knowledge about certain aspects of God, such as the fact that God is one. "

- how can you make a claim like that without referencing to the revelation for instance in the Quran.
Yes, Christians and Islam believe in one God, but how that works out is difference.

"Whereas if God is an all-Loving God, why would God create me with a nature (my reason) that directs me away from him? "

Christians believe that man's reason is affected by the fall, and that is why it directs them away from God.
The list I posted is in the same post you already linked, and is not Christian creed, it is mostly the Jewish Scriptures.

To pick out the important bits though, you're saying that it's due to sin and corruption that leads us to God, but surely using our reason, our intellects is not a sin?
Not in itself, but to say our reason can lead us perfectly to God. It is not the Creed I am quoting, I am quoting actually from Paul's letter to the Corinthians (chapter 1).


1. Jesus died on the cross - straighforward
2. The Father did not die on the cross - correct, some people forget this is actually very important, thanks for that.
3. The Father is God - yes, but not exclusively (which is what you imply for #4)
4. Therefore God did not die on the cross (begging the question, that Jesus is not God #6)
5. Therefore Jesus and God differ (yes, but this statement is vague as I have mentioned)
6. Jesus is not God (inconclusive as statement #4 assumes this premise to be true)
No contradiction, statement #4 is "begging the question" or "assuming the premise".

Statement #4 would be rather to prove that God cannot possibly die. The idea of God dying is stupid*, but to me, it is perfectly fine.
*in most peoples mind, this is my intention behind my original statement
1. God is triune
2. Jesus is not triune
3. God and Jesus differ (1, 2)
4. Jesus is not God (3, indiscernibility* of identicals)
* I dispute this.

So, I could pose a similar structure, (Father is interchangeable with Jesus)
1. God is triune ==> which basically means God is a Trinity with 3 persons.
2. The Father is not triune ==> which I take you mean that Father is not the Son, and Holy Spirit
(i.e. the Father is only one person not three), technically the Father is not exclusively the Trinity, so there is no
issue with this statement. Statement 1 implies this, rather than just making this assumption out of thin air.
3. The Father and God therefore differ. ==> no, as the Father is a person of the Trinity, from (1) by definition, he cannot differ from God, and as (2) clarifies. Again I find this argument is inconclusive. Indiscernability does not apply because of statement 1 in full from (from the definition of triune) clarifies that Father is God, Jesus is God, HS is God, yet each of the 3 persons is unique and distinct from each other.


Clearly the point of contention is clearly then the first statement "God is triune"
Yes, God is one (one being/unit), but is also 3 'persons'* of God, there is 3 persons/hypostatis/subsistences*. That is. That is the very term Trinity (which trinity), encompasses the 'one' of God, but the '3' persons of God.
*not beings

1. God is triune ==> Basically this statement means that God is a Trinity, one God, 3 distinct persons.
i.e. The Father is of the essence of God. (from statement 1)
i.e The Son is of the essence of God. (from statement 1)
2. The 3 persons are distinct:
The Father is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit etc.
"


To clarify "Jesus is equal to the Father" is true in the sense of they are of the same essence (i.e. each is fully God; and they both have wills etc). But in the same way it is also not true, because they are distinct persons.
However being distinct persons, does not mean 'one person' = 'one being'.

Yes, I outline the difficulties in this belief, which is why I keep referring back to the creed, as that is the best expression of it, outside of the Scriptures.

It is more so conceding that the matter is not simple, that God is not necessarily something simple to understand and can only be fully understood to some degree by faith and revelation*
(which Islam/Christianity differs on what this entails)

Christians will for starters always start with Jesus etc.

to be continued...

 

[dan964]

QUOTE: "The statement "Jesus and God differ" is quite clear, it would mean that Jesus has a property that God does not. It could be a property of the essence that is the problem (as I outlined before, Jesus isn't triune
yet God is triune, a difference in essence), or it could be a property of action that is the problem (Jesus dies, God does not die, Jesus ate and drank, God does not eat or drink, etc.). If your rebuttal to the latter point is that you think "God does not eat or drink" begs the question, then I'll happily provide rational evidence for it, I simply assumed you thought it was true since we agree God is transcendent*.

*yet we both reject the "watchmaker" view of God, where God just lets the Earth run its course, he indeed is actively involved, in Christianity, this extends as far, as God even experiencing and becoming a human.

1. Firstly, God is not exclusively transcedent, Christians also believe he is immanent, as the way he relates to his people has been through covenant promises, which Christians see the fulfillment of such in Jesus.[/I]
2. God is triune, is basically the statement "God is a Trinity". The term Trinity is derived from 'tri-unity', describing the union of 3 persons in one being. 'God does not die' does beg the question as I already mention, but just to mention the Christian view of death is different to that of the Islamic view, which means in Islam the idea seems irrational/absurd, while in Christianity, it is the only possibility.
Christians first of all, don't start usually by trying to logically prove the Trinity. But rather look at the firstly the account of the resurrection and then the death (both of which Islam denies), and as a result of such, deduce that Jesus (in addition to his claims that he was God) and the Father are one. Modallism for example, says there is one God revealed in 3 forms, while the creed as mentioned earlier, says that God is revealed in 3 persons, but these are co-current existly. (Cocurrence pops up a lot in Christian thought). As I have already stated:
each has a will, personality etc. Clearly the two persons are not same, there is distinction. But at the same time, there is unity.

This is a good conclusion in so far as you are summing up what you have said, it is also a good conclusion since you outline explicitly the contradiction you believe in (bolded).
If you admit a true contradiction, then all of reason and reality is lost, it then becomes coherent to state that God doesn't exist, that down is up, that black is white, and everything else

'Person'* is not interchangeable with essence. Actually my statement is to clarify that it is not as simple to say "Jesus is not equal to the Father"
"Jesus is not the Father" is true, as mentioned, they are of the same essence (each is fully God)
But in the same way, they are not the same, as they are not same person, no contradiction. Christians for one, do not reject the 'that God is one' but hold the God is a Trinity (lit: tri-unity, which the word 'triune' comes from).
Clearly if by property you are referring to the fact that Jesus became a man, and the Father did not, then there is a difference. (That said Jesus didn't lose his divinity). If you are talking about character, there is not difference.
Feel free to offer rational prove that God cannot eat or drink/die*

*understanding we view the topic differently.
*Greek: hypostatis, Latin: subsistence

 

[dan964]

How I would pose it:

[1] God is triune ==> Basically this statement means that God is a Trinity, one God*, 3 distinct persons.
i.e. The Father is of the essence of God. (from statement 1)
i.e The Son is of the essence of God. (from statement 1)

[2] The 3 persons are distinct* (*this is made known also from revelation/the Gospel)
The Father is not Jesus, Jesus is not the Holy Spirit etc.
This is why Jesus for example can become a man and die, and we can say God died. But at the same time say the Father did not die.
The Scriptures confirm "I and the Father are one", which some-people refer to purpose, clearly the early apostles of the church thought otherwise.
*distinction implies difference rather than separation. However the difference is not that 'one is God' and the other is not.

These statements sum up most of the Christian creed on the subject as mentioned,

[3] To clarify "Jesus is equal to the Father" is true in the sense of they are of the same essence (i.e. each is fully God; and they both have wills/personality etc). But in the same way it is also not true, because they are distinct persons.
This is my original statement, there is no contradiction, because essence does not equal person.
A. Is Jesus equal to the Father in every way? Clearly not, as the Father did not become a man* (*in the Gospels that is)
B. Is Jesus equal to the Father, in the sense that they are both God (of the same essence)? Yes
C. Is Jesus equal to the Father, in the sense that each person is equally God and a full 'subsistence' - Yes
D. Is Jesus equal to the Father, in the sense that they are the SAME person? No.

Rejecting #D leads to modallism in Christian thought. Rejecting #C leads to partialism. There is no reason to reject #A
The point of the contention then lies in #B. The weight of evidence within Christianity implies this.

To continue: here is Craig's defense (it probably isn't perfect), but it is certainly better than mine:
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
However being distinct persons, does not mean 'one person' = 'one being'.

Yes, I outline the difficulties in this belief, which is why I keep referring back to the creed, as that is the best expression of it, outside of the Scriptures.

It is more so conceding that the matter is not simple, that God is not necessarily something simple to understand and can only be fully understood to some degree by faith and revelation*
(which Islam/Christianity differs on what this entails)

Am I saying that we should throw out reason/evidence? No. But we shouldn't be 'sola-reason'. It is evident that our reasons can lead us away from God, and do lead us away from God. Why? Because we want a God that fits our presuppositions/ideals. (And the reverse from a Islamic perspective can apply to the non-believers)

 

[dan964]

As I have mentioned earlier, the difference lies between Islam and Christianity, revolves around different presuppositions leading
Islam to reject:
1. The death of Jesus
2. The resurrection of Jesus*
3. That is Jesus is God.

*number 2 is key to Christian faith, even more so than number 1. Without number 2 being true: number 1 is pointless (means nothing), and clearly number 3 has to be false as well.
There you are, the best proof from an Islamic perspective to disprove Jesus is God, is to accept that he died, and then say he didn't rise again from the death, you will have to reject the Scripture (or adopt tenuous interpretations) or view it as unfaithful at the very least.
Christianity hinges on the resurrection of Jesus.

 

[dan964]

Sy123 or DrSoccerball or others
for the sake of balance: how about you present your case for Islam?

 

[dan964]

more food for thought from "Concise Dictionary of Islam" :

'In some cases the "material" which forms the substance of Quranic narrative, details of the creeds of Christianity and Judaism for example, does not correspond to those religion’s own understanding of their beliefs. This could be said, for example, of the notion of the Trinity found in the Quran, the story of Satan’s refusal to bow down to Adam, the Docetist view of the crucifixion, all of which can be traced to the dogmas of Gnostic sects, which are heretical in relationship to orthodox Christianity and Judaism. The Trinity "seen" in the Quran is not the Trinity of the Apostles Creed, or of the Nicene Creed. (Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World’s Fastest Growing Religion [Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon 1992], pp. 152-153)'

this gives a big clue as to why Christianity and Judaism for the most part reject Islam.

 

[Drsoccerball]

more food for thought from "Concise Dictionary of Islam" :

'In some cases the "material" which forms the substance of Quranic narrative, details of the creeds of Christianity and Judaism for example, does not correspond to those religion’s own understanding of their beliefs. This could be said, for example, of the notion of the Trinity found in the Quran, the story of Satan’s refusal to bow down to Adam, the Docetist view of the crucifixion, all of which can be traced to the dogmas of Gnostic sects, which are heretical in relationship to orthodox Christianity and Judaism. The Trinity "seen" in the Quran is not the Trinity of the Apostles Creed, or of the Nicene Creed. (Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World’s Fastest Growing Religion [Harvest House Publishers, Eugene, Oregon 1992], pp. 152-153)'

this gives a big clue as to why Christianity and Judaism for the most part reject Islam.

That could either mean two things
1) he copied the quran off other sources (Which is impossible)
2) They're both from the same source
As a Muslim it is compulsory to believe that Jesus(pbuh) was one of the mightiest messengers of god. So we believe that jesus was revealed the gospel as you probably already know. However, this book was only meant for those people and that period of time so God did not see it fit to preserve it. Many people changed it. For example we even spoke about the verse about drinking poison it was thrown out of the bible as a fabrication etc... And in regards to your previous point what do you mean by presenting our case?

 

[dan964]

That could either mean two things
1) he copied the quran off other sources (Which is impossible)
2) They're both from the same source
As a Muslim it is compulsory to believe that Jesus(pbuh) was one of the mightiest messengers of god. So we believe that jesus was revealed the gospel as you probably already know. However, this book was only meant for those people and that period of time so God did not see it fit to preserve it. Many people changed it. For example we even spoke about the verse about drinking poison it was thrown out of the bible as a fabrication etc... And in regards to your previous point what do you mean by presenting our case?

Thanks for that. We actually have the original manuscripts, and scholars have compared, which is why Mark 16 is disputed because it doesn't appear in a majority of the earliest manuscripts. Most Christians agree that Mark did not write that section, the question of inspiration is still a heated debate, of whether it should be in the Bible. As a result of it being disputed, Christians do not build teachings off that. (To answer your poison question, it was most likely borrowed somewhat from the book of Acts or is sometimes described as a metaphor for defeating demons - particularly as snakes and scorpions refer in other parts of the Bible to the devil and demons)

The argument that the Bible was somehow not preserved, is not correct, the amount of original manuscripts is about 24,000 in total if you include Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic.
https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence

Jesus clearly viewed the Septuagint as authoritative as he quotes from it, calling it Scripture.
The Apostles held Scripture (the Old Testament) to have a high authority. The Apostles for instance were all but one, killed off for their belief in Jesus (everything that Islam rejects).

I also find it incredibly interesting also that the Quran (as far as I know) does not quote at all from the Bible, or quote from anywhere, while the NT does (it quotes the OT)
Also this: https://carm.org/quran-says-bible-not-corrupt

----
The Muslims repeatedly claim that the Bible has been corrupted and that the Qu'ran is the only trustworthy scripture in existence. This is why Muslims often attack the Bible. But this cannot be according to the Quran. The Quran says that the books of Moses, the Psalms, and the gospel were all given by God.

Torah--"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).1
Psalms--"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163).
Gospel--"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).
We see that the Qu'ran states that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel were all given by God. With this we Christians heartily agree. But, the Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and full of contradictions. If that is so, then it would seem they do not believe the Qu'ran since the Qu'ran says that the Word of God cannot be altered:

"Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).
"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).
"For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).
When Muhammed (570-632) was alive, he claimed to receive the revelation of the Qu'ran from Allah. This means that at that time the Bible, which was in existence, could not have been corrupted because the Qu'ran states that God's word cannot be corrupted. The question I have for the Muslims is: "When and where was the Bible corrupted since the Qu'ran says that the Torah, the Psalms, and the Gospel are from Allah and Allah's words cannot be changed?"
---
There are also several points where the Quran actually gets what Christian or Jews actually teach wrong. I already posted one example on another thread.

 

[FlyingKanga]

Does anyone find it amazing how the poll's ratio has nearly been 1:1 for all these years?