Is it right to trust a one witness prophet that contradicts all other prophets?

[truth_is_reason]

Greetings,

So basically you're saying that God became man? Logically speaking, this isn't possible because the concept of God becoming man contradicts the very meaning of the term "God" Irrespective of our religious beliefs all of us believe in God's omnipotence, that He is Greater than all things, and through Him all things are possible. But if someone was asked, can God die? Can it be said, "yeah, if he wants to"? Of course not. Given that we know God is without a beginning or an end, it'd be nonsensical to ask such a question. It is self-contradictory. In this same vein, to say that God was born (as Jesus), is also absurd because God has already been defined as eternal, having no beginning. Being born means having a beginning, coming into existence after not existing.

Also, it is not befitting of God to take on human form because it means that God, the Creator has become His creation when the creation is nothing but a product of the creative act of the Creator…can God be the "product" of His own creative act? If one says that the Creator became His creation, he's essentially implying that the Creator created Himself, which is an obvious absurdity. And, the basic meaning of creation is something that comes into existence after a period of non-existence, so for God to be a part of His creation, He would first have to not exist, and, if He did not exist, how could He then create? Besides, if He were created, it would mean that He had a beginning, which means he would no longer be eternal. There's an obvious contradiction in terms. So, how can one say that "Jesus is the perfect reflection of God's character"? It just doesn't make sense.


And, no, one doesn't require blood to atone for sin. God is the Most Forgiving, one needs to sincerely repent.

Micah 5:2 (old testament)
"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times."

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Who are these old testmant prophets talking about?

Christians do not believe that Jesus is actually God in person so there is no contradiction. It is written that after God has handed all the enemies of God over to Jesus and put them under his feet, then Jesus himself will hand the kingdom to God and submit to God. So God the father is always God and has never ceased to be any different.

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and he was not created, he is also eternal like God. He is Gods eternal servant who is the mediator between men and God. He is God's representative. If you deny him , you deny God. As God's eternal servant and spokesman he does nothing outside of God's will. He is a perfect representation of God's will.

Who's to say that God who is eternal cannot create eternal beings in his own character for his own purpose? Are you limiting God?

[truth_is_reason]

And, no, one doesn't require blood to atone for sin. God is the Most Forgiving, one needs to sincerely repent.

Are you saying all sacrifices are in vein? Surely you know the law of Moses regarding atonement for sin? What you are saying is not Islamic because Islam follows the law of Moses?

[Nasir Abdussalam]

Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and he was not created, he is also eternal like God.

Who's to say that God who is eternal cannot create eternal beings in his own character for his own purpose? Are you limiting God?

If by eternal you mean having no beginning, then the point was that that is self-contradictory. It is inconceivable that an eternal being be created, as the very meaning of eternal is to not be created, but rather to exist without a beginning. The question is not one of limiting of God, but of what is conceivable or inconceivable according to the meanings of the terms being used. So, if by eternal you meant something other than having no beginning, then the onus is on you to define your terms so that there is no confusion as to exactly what you mean. Otherwise, your two statements quoted above are incoherent.

Are you saying all sacrifices are in vein? Surely you know the law of Moses regarding atonement for sin? What you are saying is not Islamic because Islam follows the law of Moses?

It is incorrect to say that Islam follows the law of Moses. Rather, Islam affirms the prophet-hood of Moses (peace be upon him) but follows the law of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In our view, the law of Moses was superseded by the Gospel of Jesus (peace be upon him).

[Hannahh]

Does not the law require blood to atone for sin? Who's blood will atone for your sin?

What sin? Who sinned? What was the sin that they committed? How can "blood" make it all better? Why does this "child God" of yours need blood?



Your ideology is a perfect example of what makes so many people in the world today, turn away from the Creator. It is unreasonable, belligerent and complete nonsense.

[truth_is_reason]

If by eternal you mean having no beginning, then the point was that that is self-contradictory. It is inconceivable that an eternal being be created, as the very meaning of eternal is to not be created, but rather to exist without a beginning. The question is not one of limiting of God, but of what is conceivable or inconceivable according to the meanings of the terms being used. So, if by eternal you meant something other than having no beginning, then the onus is on you to define your terms so that there is no confusion as to exactly what you mean. Otherwise, your two statements quoted above are incoherent.



It is incorrect to say that Islam follows the law of Moses. Rather, Islam affirms the prophet-hood of Moses (peace be upon him) but follows the law of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). In our view, the law of Moses was superseded by the Gospel of Jesus (peace be upon him).

When I say Jesus is eternal I mean he is eternal from our perspective. Remember that God created the concept of time and that he did after angels so the angels are in a sense also eternal in that they exist outside of time. We as humans can only understand things in terms of a beginning and an end because we were born into the constraints of time. God lives outside of time and so does the host of heaven. Possibly Jesus was "created" in some sense but not in the same way we were created in a temporal frame.

So just like Christians you are telling me that Muslims also believe that though Christ there is a new covenant that supersedes the old covenant of Moses. So there is no more need for the sacrifice of bulls and lambs because through Christ all is atoned for those who have faith in him as their savior.

The difference is Christians believe that Christ himself was an atoning sacrifice to satisfy the old covenant so that a new covenant of grace could supersede.

By what reasoning do Muslims believe the old covenant is superseded?

[Hannahh]

Possibly Jesus was "created" in some sense but not in the same way we were created in a temporal frame.

But I thought he was God and Eternal, and may Allah bless the prophet Isa on the day he was born, the day he dies and the day he returns to testify against the liars. Why did he then have to be "created"?

Why did the old covenant have to 'go away' and be 'superceded'? Did God create a bad deal? Couldn't the perfect God just get it right the first time and therefore not have to kill his own son in order to renegotiate a deal?











Listen up. Where you come from, religion doesn't have to make sense does it? You can just make up whatever fairy tale you like and blend it in with a soft focus lens.

Where WE come from it has to make sense not only in a rational sense but in a historical one as well. It has to demonstrate integrity over time (this time you so flippantly refer to over and over and over in your post above).

Now we have a new one...a "covenant of grace".

What's that? What are the parameters of the agreement and who is included on this go around? Certainly not the Jews because we now know (thanks to your kind interventions here) that the Jews have their own deal and we have ours as potential converts to Christianity.




Does your God have any issues with you making stuff up?




Because ours certainly does.

[Nasir Abdussalam]

When I say Jesus is eternal I mean he is eternal from our perspective.

You have yet to define what eternal means from your perspective. What Muslims mean by eternal is the negation of a beginning to the existence of a thing - a negation that necessarily applies to God alone. What we mean by created is whatever exists after previously not existing (in other words, whatever has a beginning). So, if you agree with the aforementioned definitions, then to say that something is eternal yet created is inconceivable, because it's a conflation of two mutually exclusive concepts. If, however, you disagree with these meanings (or are using them in another sense) then I ask you again to please explain.

God lives outside of time and so does the host of heaven. Possibly Jesus was "created" in some sense but not in the same way we were created in a temporal frame.

Time is a consequence of creation. Therefore, to affirm that something is both created and atemporal is nonsensical. Due to the mutual exclusivity of what each term signifies, the affirmation of one is the negation of the other by necessity - unless you're proposing that the terms have some other meanings which are not mutually exclusive. If that is the case, then for the third time, please clarify.

So just like Christians you are telling me that Muslims also believe that though Christ there is a new covenant that supersedes the old covenant of Moses. So there is no more need for the sacrifice of bulls and lambs because through Christ all is atoned for those who have faith in him as their savior.

We do believe that the Torah was superseded by the Gospel, but when we say "the Gospel", we're referring to the book revealed to Jesus (peace be upon him), not the Christian doctrine of salvation - very big difference! Both the Torah and the Gospel are superseded by the Qur'an, so any discussion of the two as they are now is mostly irrelevant.

The difference is Christians believe that Christ himself was an atoning sacrifice to satisfy the old covenant so that a new covenant of grace could supersede.

Consider the fact that you may be misinterpreting the old covenant. You most certainly are if Jews had anything to say about it. I don't know of any rabbi in the history of Judaism that understood blood sacrifice to be an actual necessity (as opposed to a symbolic ritual) for atonement as Christians later construed it. But, that discussion is better suited to a Jewish forum! We Muslims believe in the Qur'an - so, your new covenant is an old one relative to our view.

By what reasoning do Muslims believe the old covenant is superseded?

We believe that past revelations are superseded because that's what the Qur'an tells us. Now, why we believe the Qur'an is a whole different topic.

[Shafique]

Original sin is a concept that was introduced into Christianity long after the time of Jesus' ministry.

The concept of Trinity is also not something that all early believers in Jesus' message believed in. It took the Council of Nicea for the 'official' view on the nature of Jesus to be decided - by a committee! Both sides were represented in the discussion.

Some Christians insist that there is only one God, then insist that God did die. The problem is that when you ask for the logic/answers to the questions:
1. if God is one, was Jesus praying to this one God?
2. if God is one, if God died - was the God Jesus prayed to also dead, or was this one God alive? Was God both dead and alive at the same time?

And the main problem is that the statement that the Bible today is identical to that of the earliest manuscripts is one that cannot be taken seriously. The Bible was compiled by men at different times in the Church's history and AFTER theological arguments had been discussed - and compiled by the victors.

Islam, by contrast, has one Quran and a simple and clear message from God that this is the final testament and the fulfilment of all the previous prophecies about the religion/message that was to come. Jesus prophecised that another would come, and that there were things that the comforter would bring after Jesus had gone.

Cheers,
Shafique

[Hannahh]

Not to give mileage to a troll but I will say this. Original Sin was introduced "as such" by Christianity (anti human, anti knowledge and anti sex) perhaps but it does exist in Islam and Judaism.... if not as an article of faith but as a concept that informs everything else and I mean everything.

Original Sin is actually Shirk.

Allah instructed Adam and Huwa, pbut to not take the advice of any except for Allah. It was and remains the core cause of all disbelief.

It couldn't be simpler than that!

Thing is, people like ole truth the troller up there end up getting tangled up in their sticky web fluids and all. So unnecessary to understand the principles of Tawheed.