Skip to main content

In all honesty, out of all the sites I've been on, the people on here have provided me with some clear cut answers backed up by facts and some opinions and I have always appreciated that and thank God, regardless of your views you are honest and always thinking, compared to the other sites I've been on. Because this site is that much better. Now I have to ask these two ultimate question that a Christian and Muslim must answer separately. Many of you know I do not have a concrete religion and I am quite spiritual and believe in their being a creator. So here they are...

To any Christian:

If you believe in the Trinity's, how can Jesus be God? Does God not transcends Time (measurement of change), Matter (anything involving a occupant of space), and Space (measurement from one distances to another)?
In other words, God is omnipresent, immaterial, and Omnipotent,, how can Jesus be God if he was mortal flesh?


To any Muslim:
In regards to the death and resurrection of Jesus. Many Muslims say that Jesus did not die on the cross, yet he died before he was crucified and the Romans and Jewish Pharisees murdered a man who "look" like Jesus in his place. So if that is the place, are you saying Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John made up the little account of Jesus resurrection?

Please, in all honesty, some one answer these questions. This site is the only site now that I regard it as being any good for valuable information. Thanks, God bless.
Original Post
I am not Muslim, but from speaking to muslims, it is my understanding that Muslims believe the Jews were conspiring to have Jesus killed and Allah sent a whirl wind and took him up to heaven to be with him; sorta the same way Christians believe Elijah was taken to heaven.

As far as what Matthew, Mark, and others who wrote the books of the bible say, I am sure anything that contridicts what the Koran says will be seen as misinformation by the Muslims.

Kevin
quote:
If you believe in the Trinity's, how can Jesus be God? Does God not transcends Time (measurement of change), Matter (anything involving a occupant of space), and Space (measurement from one distances to another)?
In other words, God is omnipresent, immaterial, and Omnipotent,, how can Jesus be God if he was mortal flesh?


I think you answered your question, if God is omnipresent, and Omnipotent, that means he can be anywhere and do anything. He could be you if he so choose.

If I can do anything, than anything can be done, therefore there is nothing I can't do. That is why I immediately invalidate any arguments against the trinity based upon the duality of God and Christ.

I think much stronger arguments can be made against the concept of the trinity not from a theoretical standpoint of matter, space and time, but from the apologetical standpoint of scripture interpretation.
quote:
That is why I immediately invalidate any arguments against the trinity based upon the duality of God and Christ.


The "can do anything" idea begs the question: WHY?

Why all the heavy drama? Certainly since God can do and could do anything, there was never any need for a Christ. God certainly could have chosen to do something, anything else. But that's not the Christian story. The Christian faith is based on a "need" for a Christ which causes questions about the concept of God especially when the Original Sin concept is involved.

So, yes: WHY??

For that, there is no Christian (i.e. Christ-like... which is not to be confused with child-like) explanation.

Biblically, we move from an Old Testament that speaks of a sovereign God who is "God and God alone" then, without explanation, we have this Trinity concept that abandons the Old Testament theme and commandment, as it was/is.

If anything, the Islamic idea would be closer to the Old Testament than the New Testament Christian and their Catholicized(???) Trinity. The Qu'ran sticks to the "purity" of God introduced (in the so-called major religions) in the Old Testament.

In YOUR Bible, Jesus tells his followers NOT to worship him -- the issue when it comes to the question of God and whether Jesus "is" God -- but to "worship the Father..."

One thing some Christian can't seem to keep straight in their own Trinity mess is just that -- who is being worshiped. I mean, it's their concept... They want to make three distinctions. Well, be clear about which is which or admit that you can't keep the stuff straight your own self. So it would seem that Christian clergy do a poor job of explaining the idea of the Trinity.

And the first thing they would have to do to validate the idea is establish WHY an ALL-POWERFUL God would "need" the Jesus drama to accomplish the salvation thing and why the Trinity concept -- which, again, goes out of its way to justify distinctions that, in the end, Christians want to downplay or disregard -- is the way to explain it. That's without considering WHERE the concept came from given its obvious absence in the Old Testament scripture.

(Side note: On the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John question... The idea not only assumes their accounts are valid but implicitly suggests that the accounts of Islam's prophet Muhammad, etc. are inaccurate based on.... WHAT??)

Beyond that, it's like Christians say, "to hell with what Jesus said, I'm going to worship Jesus"... and excuse it with some "God can do anything" idea which, when we really look at it, gives perfect support and justification for any and every other religion up to and including Islam.

So thanks for trying your hand at logic. God can do anything, so God just so happened to inspire the Bible, the Qu'ran, etc., etc., etc.

"That is why I immediately invalidate any arguments against [any non-Christian religion." Big Grin
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Nmaginate:
quote:
That is why I immediately invalidate any arguments against the trinity based upon the duality of God and Christ.


The "can do anything" idea begs the question: WHY?

Why all the heavy drama? Certainly since God can do and could do anything, there was never any need for a Christ. God certainly could have chosen to do something, anything else. But that's not the Christian story. The Christian faith is based on a "need" for a Christ which causes questions about the concept of God especially when the Original Sin concept is involved.

So, yes: WHY??

For that, there is no Christian (i.e. Christ-like... which is not to be confused with child-like) explanation.

Biblically, we move from an Old Testament that speaks of a sovereign God who is "God and God alone" then, without explanation, we have this Trinity concept that abandons the Old Testament theme and commandment, as it was/is.

If anything, the Islamic idea would be closer to the Old Testament than the New Testament Christian and their Catholicized(???) Trinity. The Qu'ran sticks to the "purity" of God introduced (in the so-called major religions) in the Old Testament.

In YOUR Bible, Jesus tells his followers NOT to worship him -- the issue when it comes to the question of God and whether Jesus "is" God -- but to "worship the Father..."

One thing some Christian can't seem to keep straight in their own Trinity mess is just that -- who is being worshiped. I mean, it's their concept... They want to make three distinctions. Well, be clear about which is which or admit that you can't keep the stuff straight your own self. So it would seem that Christian clergy do a poor job of explaining the idea of the Trinity.

And the first thing they would have to do to validate the idea is establish WHY an ALL-POWERFUL God would "need" the Jesus drama to accomplish the salvation thing and why the Trinity concept -- which, again, goes out of its way to justify distinctions that, in the end, Christians want to downplay or disregard -- is the way to explain it. That's without considering WHERE the concept came from given its obvious absence in the Old Testament scripture.

(Side note: On the Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John question... The idea not only assumes their accounts are valid but implicitly suggests that the accounts of Islam's prophet Muhammad, etc. are inaccurate based on.... WHAT??)

Beyond that, it's like Christians say, "to hell with what Jesus said, I'm going to worship Jesus"... and excuse it with some "God can do anything" idea which, when we really look at it, gives perfect support and justification for any and every other religion up to and including Islam.

So thanks for trying your hand at logic. God can do anything, so God just so happened to inspire the Bible, the Qu'ran, etc., etc., etc.

"That is why I immediately invalidate any arguments against [any non-Christian religion." Big Grin

Just wanted to add a few observations:
1. The claim that "God can do anything" when articulated in most Xian contexts, is predicated not only on the notion that God is omnipotent, but that God can not do that which is self contradictory, that God is internally consistent. This then ties to the nature of atonement and the role of the Christ. It is also very important to note that there are numerous interpretations and articulations of atonement within the Xian tradition.

2. I would also argue that there is not simply one notion of God in the Old Testament. Biblical scholarship holds that the Hebrew Bible is a redacted work, that is a composite of various traditions which over centuries came together. Thus, one has different understanding of God, as noted by documentary theorists, from the so called J/Yahwists, Elohists, Priestly community, and the Deuteronomists. One also sees an evolution if not from polytheism, certainly henotheism (e.g., the creation narrative where it says, "let us make humanity in our image, after our likeness." Indeed, what Hebrew monotheism really only comes about in the wake of the exile.
quote:
1. The claim that "God can do anything" when articulated in most Xian contexts, is predicated not only on the notion that God is omnipotent, but that God can not do that which is self contradictory, that God is internally consistent.


I was hoping you would comment. Your observations are duly noted. I would, however, like you to elaborate on how the Trinity concept as a God concept is "internally consistent" with whatever particular, present-day church doctrine that does more than make a passing reference to creation narrative as the Old Testament foundation for the Trinity.

Obviously, I'm not acquainted with any such rigorous church doctrine and, of course, I never meant to say no doctrine exists.... just that from my experience, with UrbSun's comments as an example, few (I exaggerated when I said "no") Christians can adequate explain or defend.

I guess the "self-contradictory" idea would be the very question I raise(d) with respect to the Old Testament doctrinal idea (from which ever tradition of the various traditions that exists) of the sovereign God who is "God and God alone." Seems to me that that is a major theme and point-of-emphasis -- one that's been used to establish Christianity/Bible as monotheistic especially when, in Old Testament times, much of the world was deemed to be polytheistic.

quote:
Indeed, what Hebrew monotheism really only comes about in the wake of the exile.


But it is that Hebrew monotheism that has always been emphasized, at least from my Christian experience.

quote:
Biblical scholarship holds that the Hebrew Bible is a redacted work


I doubt many lay Christians or Christians like UrbSun would admit/acknowledge/espouse that idea. And you'd have to correct me but I'm not familiar with any large/significant pockets in the Black Church that has a church or denominational doctrine that acknowledges that kind of Bibilical scholarship.

My Christian experience was in a Black (Missionary) Baptist church and, also, briefly in the COGIC. Black Baptists comprise some 65% or so of Black Christians. Perhaps you could share the particular Black Baptist doctrines that are centered on the Biblical scholarship you mentioned. I know for sure that the COGIC's doctrine is overtly at odds with that scholarship.
quote:
Biblical scholarship holds that the Hebrew Bible is a redacted work, that is a composite of various traditions which over centuries came together.


This ABOUT THE BIBLE portion from "What We Believe" entry on the website for the National Baptist Convention would seem to differ from you recognized Biblical scholarship:

ABOUT THE BIBLE
The Bible is God´s word to all men. It was written by human authors, under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is the supreme source of truth for Christian beliefs and living. Because it is inspired by God, it is truth without any mixture of error.

http://www.nbca-inc.com/believe.html


WITHOUT ANY MIXTURE... or error...

I guess I wouldn't expect anything other than that but I think that's an example of how, perhaps, a majority of Black Christians are more literalistic in their view of the Bible as THE infallible "Word of God"...

The National Baptist Convention, USA doctrine includes the same "without any mixture" clause and says this in reference to the Trinity:

II. THE TRUE GOD.
We believe the Scriptures teach that there is one, and only one, living and true God, an
infinite, intelligent Spirit, whose name is Jehovah, the Maker and Supreme Ruler of
heaven and earth; inexpressibly glorious in holiness, and worthy of all possible honor
confidence and love; that in the unity of the Godhead there are three persons, the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; equal in every divine perfection, and executing
distinct but harmonious offices in the great work of redemption.


One God whose name is Jehovah but Jesus (a name that is not Jehovah) is an "equal" or "co-equal"???

In Islam, the monotheistic doctrine and scriptures speaks about "ascribing partners" to Allah/God. The baffling pronouncement from the NBC-USA insisting that there is "only ONE" true God which is then followed by the Trinity concept, IMO, tampers with the "purity" of the ONE God concept. When someone can find me an Old Testament passage where the name of Jehovah is invoked AND some form of the Trinity concept is established with whatever is mentioned about Jehovah... then I can reconcile the idea with my Christian experience.

From the numbers I've seen, the NBC, Inc. and NBC-USA is comprised of approximately 10 million Black Christians. So I feel like its safe to say a plurality if not most Black Christians subscribed to an "internally inconsistent" idea and can no more logically explain/defend the Trinity concept than I can do nuclear physics.
Holy smokes! I just typed out a multi paragraph answer and question that got eaten. Oh well.

In a nut shell, my answer is based upon logic not bible.

If X is Omnipotent, then X can do anything. It has nothing to do with monotheism, atheism etc. outside of the fact it was framed from a particular perspective.

If Nmag is Omnipotent then Nmag can exist dually.

Your question of why is purely a doctrinal and faith based question.
quote:
In a nut shell, my answer is based upon logic not bible.


And your answer simply fails when it comes to logic. Any logic other than a child's logic which is why Kresge point about being "internally consistent" is key here.

Your answer is a parents "because I said so" catch-all response that explains nothing and, given the original question that tries to resolve the point of view of two different religions... Well, the "can do anything" stock response exists as a non-answer to the inherent question/issue of which religion has the Jesus story right.

The "God can do anything" response, again, works for saying, in essence, God could have (and did) inspire both the Bible and Qu'ran and whatever the tenants of the religions drawn from those scriptures are right/truth and, for our purposes, at least the beliefs specified in Willy's questions.

So the ultimate issue is not "If Nmag is Omnipotent then Nmag can exist dually" but if the two different ideas about Jesus in Christianity and Islam can exist dually and both be true at the same time. After all, God can do anything... Such is your logic and it is not internally consistent.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×