Jesus or Muhammad

cjab

Well-known member
I agree with that. "Son of God" is a Hebrew idiom. It simply means someone is beloved by God, not that he was divine or God in human form.

Many Christians I meet online say Jesus was the literal son of God (or God the son) who was co-eternal with "The Father" etc. which makes zero sense and has zero biblical basis.
The phrases "word of God" and "Spirit of God" appear numerous times in the OT. That God is complex and choses to reveal himself by word and by spirit cannot be in doubt (consider the complexity of a human being). That God can be comprised of multiple life forms (word, spirit etc) isn't illogical for one imputed with being the author of life itself. A crude and materialistic analogy would be that God is comprised of parts, but as God is Spirit, there are separate Spirits, with the highest Spirit being the Father.

The Word of God being co-eternal with the Father is reasonable if you impute that Father has always had his word or rather "the Word". As a human being's voice is co-eternal with his body, why can't the Father's Word be coeternal with himself? Now obviously we're talking about Spirit, but the same principle applies. It isn't illogical. We need to broaden our conception of God to realize that God can communicate, create etc, and does this by Word and Spirit.
 

dingoling.

Well-known member
What has the tomb of Jesus being empty got to do with anything I posted?
From an earlier post:

Romans 1:4, "and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord".

Jesus was raised from the dead. His tomb is empty.
 

cjab

Well-known member
From an earlier post:

Romans 1:4, "and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord".

Jesus was raised from the dead. His tomb is empty.
Yes. Why is that specifically relevant to my post?
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
A crude and materialistic analogy would be that God is comprised of parts, but as God is Spirit, there are separate Spirits, with the highest Spirit being the Father.
That God is composed of parts has no biblical support.

As for God being a "spirit" it would imply that God is in the category of "spirits" (like the various spirits mentioned in the Bible). God does not fall into a category but is in a category of His own.

What exactly do you mean by "Word of God being co-eternal with the Father".

When Jeremiah says "The word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." are those words in blue co-eternal with God? Was Jeremiah eternally known to God?
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
That God is composed of parts has no biblical support.

As for God being a "spirit" it would imply that God is in the category of "spirits" (like the various spirits mentioned in the Bible). God does not fall into a category but is in a category of His own.

What exactly do you mean by "Word of God being co-eternal with the Father".

When Jeremiah says "The word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." are those words in blue co-eternal with God? Was Jeremiah eternally known to God?
I said "parts" are a materialistic analogy. But consider this: God is invisible. How can you tell what God consists of?

Can't be too scientific about it. The apostles just say "In the beginning" (i.e. before anything was created) the Word was with God.

Jeremiah was foreknown to God, but not eternally present with God, as the Word of God was.

I agree that God isn't "a spirit". Rather he is "spirit." Thus all description can only be by way of analogy, because God is beyond human conception. Yet even if God is invisible, it isn't irrational that he would seek to communicate with mankind and interact in the physical realm. By what means could that occur?

The problem with the Islamic God is that you've walled him off from public view with high and impenetrable walls. He can't communicate with you and you can't communicate with him (at least you've no evidence of it). He's a walled in God of human conception, and that is irrational. At least the Christian God interacts with mankind to save it from sins: that is rational.
 

BMS

Well-known member
Doesn't change the fact that John declares "no one has EVER seen God".
Correct, and neither does it change the context, no one has seen God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but many saw God the Son.

If Jesus was/is God then John saw God.
Jesus is God the Son.
Since he said "no one has EVER seen God" then it logically follows that according to John, Jesus was not God.
Except that God has 3 persons, Father and Holy Spirit, and also that since John (and others) wrote But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth. it logically follows that according to John, Jesus was God the Son.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
Jeremiah was foreknown to God, but not eternally present with God, as the Word of God was.

Jeremiah said that the "Word of God" came to him. And the "Word of God" said “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...". My question is if you think those Words were eternal, before God sent those Words to Jeremiah.

Yet even if God is invisible, it isn't irrational that he would seek to communicate with mankind and interact in the physical realm.
I'm not saying it's irrational for God to communicate/interact with mankind. I'm saying it's irrational to believe God took on a human form and walked on earth, and ate, drank, slept etc.

The problem with the Islamic God is that you've walled him off from public view with high and impenetrable walls. He can't communicate with you and you can't communicate with him (at least you've no evidence of it).
The Islamic God is the God of Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jesus etc. So Muslims believe God communicated with them and that they comminicated with God via prayer and worship.
 

BMS

Well-known member
That God is composed of parts has no biblical support.

As for God being a "spirit" it would imply that God is in the category of "spirits" (like the various spirits mentioned in the Bible). God does not fall into a category but is in a category of His own.

What exactly do you mean by "Word of God being co-eternal with the Father".

When Jeremiah says "The word of the LORD came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." are those words in blue co-eternal with God? Was Jeremiah eternally known to God?
Except that it does as shown, not least "But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God, who were born, not of blood or of the will of the flesh or of the will of man, but of God. And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth."
Also
26 “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.
 

BMS

Well-known member
The Islamic God is the God of Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jesus etc. So Muslims believe God communicated with them and that they comminicated with God via prayer and worship.
The Judeo-Christian God is the God of Moses, Abraham, and Noah and Jesus is God the Son.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
but many saw God the Son.

Many saw Jesus. But if Jesus was God then John saw God.

Except he didn't. That's why he writes "No one has seen God" (1John 4:12)

Even Paul writes about God "No one has ever seen Him, nor can anyone see Him" in (1Timothy 6:16)
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
The Judeo-Christian God is the God of Moses, Abraham, and Noah and Jesus is God the Son.

No such thing as a "Judeo-Christian" God. TheJewish religion does not teach that God became a man and walked on the earth. Those are Christian ideas.
 

sk0rpi0n

Active member
God is invisible. How can you tell what God consists of?

If God is a spirit as you say, then what exactly is even a "spirit"? I haven't seen one, have you? How can you claim God is spirit if you haven't seen a spirit or know what a spirit is?

FYI I'm not claiming to know what God consists of. The Islamic idea of God is that He is unlike any of His creations and that the human mind cannot conceive of God. At best, we can "know" God by learning about His attributes and how He runs the world, how He deals with people and so on.
 

cjab

Well-known member
If God is a spirit as you say, then what exactly is even a "spirit"? I haven't seen one, have you? How can you claim God is spirit if you haven't seen a spirit or know what a spirit is?

FYI I'm not claiming to know what God consists of. The Islamic idea of God is that He is unlike any of His creations and that the human mind cannot conceive of God. At best, we can "know" God by learning about His attributes and how He runs the world, how He deals with people and so on.
I don't know what spirit is, except that humans, if they are alive to God, also have spirit.

But what I find illogical is why, given that the word of God and spirit of God occur in the Old Testament in connection with the prophets, there should not be a much greater and fuller revelation of the Word of God and the Holy Spirit of God by one sent down from heaven especially for this purpose? That's all that Jesus denotes: the fullest revelation of God there could conceivably be.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Jeremiah said that the "Word of God" came to him. And the "Word of God" said “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you...". My question is if you think those Words were eternal, before God sent those Words to Jeremiah.
The words came from the Word of God in heaven which was eternal: i.e. the origin of the words was eternal. When I use Word with a capital letter, I infer the "Logos" a special manifestation of God having life in himself and "one with God."

I'm not saying it's irrational for God to communicate/interact with mankind. I'm saying it's irrational to believe God took on a human form and walked on earth, and ate, drank, slept etc.
I don't believe in a God in human form. Jesus was a human whose soul originated in heaven, not earth, by a process of spiritual transposition. The souls of humans are created. The soul of Christ wasn't.

The Islamic God is the God of Moses, Abraham, Noah, Jesus etc. So Muslims believe God communicated with them and that they comminicated with God via prayer and worship.
Neither Moses, Abraham Noah nor Jesus were required to obey Islamic / Sharia law, nor were they beholden to Mahomet's interpretation of things. Mahomet made God unknowable except by knowing him, which is essentially to cast Mahomet as "The (true) Son of God."

Mahomet displaced Jesus, which is why Jesus (or the records of him) count for nothing in Islam. But Jesus didn't institute a new law, except a spiritual gloss on the Old Testament law. I find it strange you would accept a prophet as genuine, even a son of God, who devised a law radically different from the Torah of the Old Testament? Jesus offers continuity with the Old Testament, and asserted he was the fulfilment of the law and the spiritual path to salvation by blood sacrifice and the forgiveness of sins leading to reconciliation with God, whereas all Mahomet offers is an alternative set of laws.
 
Top