/islam/ - 8ch Masjid

Wrong board. Go ask >>>/christian/

He meant the same thing that Husayn ibn Mansur al-Hallaj (rahimahullah) meant when he said "Ana' al-Haqq!" [I am the Truth!] (a name of Allah) or that Abu Yazid al-Bistami (rahimahullah) meant when he said "There is nothing in my cloak but Allah."

>>16140

ironically as i recall this was the verse that lead to the first great rift in the church.

>>16143

>>16204

I wouldn't bother.

>What did he mean by this?

That's a /4chon/ meme and OP will never be back.

>>16214

i know i just thought it was ironic cause i was watching a series on youtube about early schisms in the church

wat

>>16140

Jesus is God.

>>16271

Then why, when the Jews accused him of ascribing divinity to himself, did he respond by quoting "You are Gods" from the Book of Psalms? And why did he tell the apostles that they would also be one with the Father? It seems as though was ascribing divinity to the whole human race, not just himself.

>>16273

This is all assuming that Isa ever actually said the things written about him in the books by people who weren't around when he was alive.

>>16273

Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 reminding the jews that the Law refers to mere men—albeit men of authority and prestige—as “gods.” It refers to divinely appointed kings, judges, and magistrates who sit and wield authority over men as "gods". Okay.

Jesus’ point is this: you charge me with blasphemy based on my use of the title “Son of God”; yet your own Scriptures apply the same term to magistrates, judges and kings in general. If those who hold a 'divinely appointed office' can be considered “gods,” how much more can the One whom God has chosen and sent (verses 34-36)?

>It seems as though was ascribing divinity to the whole human race, not just himself.

The point is that if humans are protected against the charge of blasphemy when calling themselves "sons of God", via their authority over men or by being "made in God's image" then how much more is the literal Son of God protected against blasphemy in this case? He's twice-protected.

The point isn't to render the title "son of God" totally egalitarian and meaningless, but to show that yes it applies to men, or some men, to some degree…but it applies the most and perfectly to Jesus.

>>16278

>The point isn't to render the title "son of God" totally egalitarian and meaningless

I was not asserting any sort of spiritual egalitarianism. I'm well aware Christ also called that crowd of Jews the sons of Satan.

I was merely pointing out that the Orthodox Christian explanation of these things falls a bit flat IMO.

Interpreting it literally renders it meaningless. The various churches have spent ages trying to make sense of the doctrines regarding Christ's consubstantiality with the Father. This ham-fisted exoteric rationalism does violence to the obvious substance of the words of Christ.

Christ, like all of the prophets, taught a mystical doctrine of union with God. For lack of a less anachronistic term, Christ was a Sufi.

>>16291

>I'm well aware Christ also called that crowd of Jews the sons of Satan.

You take Revelation as truth?

>>16295

he also called them sons of the devil in John 8:44

>>16296

You take the book of John as the truth?

A Muslim is not to accept or reject verses from the Bible. There is no authentication for their book. Any truth within would not matter as it is abrogated for us. (Qur'an 5:48).

What we can say with certainty is that which the Qur'an has made clear. Isa ibn Maryam (صلى الله عليه و سلم) did not teach he is Allah.

>>16297

I believe that the Gospel According to John contains truthful material, though I do not say with absolute certainty what is accurately transmitted from 'Isa al-Masih (alayhis salam) and what is not.

All I know is that it affirms many of the same truths contained in the Qur'an. I do not like the new school of Islamic apologetics which presumes every single word in the Bible to be false. This is not the way of the classical scholars. I have seen how classical theologians like al-Maturidi and al-Baqillani and classical scholars of tafsir like al-Biqa'iand Ibn Barrajan used Biblical material.

>>16301

I appreciate your candor. That's a terrific way of looking at things.

When you put 3 fingers into a fish bowl the fish, being simple, perceptively limited beings, will see 3 separate entities - that's the simplest way I came up with explaining the common Christian position on God's nature/interaction with humanity.

>denying godhood of other peoples' god

Now now, that's very rude, innit? Hurting religious feelings like that? There ought to be some kind of blasphemy laws to prevent such insensitivity. :^)

>>16308

Fun video. As a former Catholic, I can attest to the way folks don't like to analyse the trinity.

>>16308

> each one constituting 1/3 of the Godhead.

No? Fingers aren't 1/3rd of your body, m80. You can't quantify form, your form is one by definition, since it describes all of you. You confuse what the fish see with what there really is.

>>16338

Watch the Lutheran Satire video, [foul language]face.

Also, fingers are body parts. The persons of the Trinity are not parts. Though the way that you are explaining it sounds either like modalism or Arianism (you are not explaining it very well).

>>16360

90% of the early church arguments came from this verse and the subsequent different points of view like the arians and the monophosites

>>16360

aren't you a salty sperg

>Also, fingers are body parts.

irrelevant, because the analogy doesn't identify the trinity with the fingers, but you're too simple to catch that I guess.

>>16370

>irrelevant, because the analogy doesn't identify the trinity with the fingers, but you're too simple to catch that I guess

It identifies the three fingers with the three persons of the Trinity. So your analogy obviously identifies the Trinity with the fingers, or else you don't understand how analogies work.

You are really committed to this awful analogy even though it makes it clear that you have no knowledge of the Orthodox, traditional understanding of the Trinity.

>>16371

>It identifies the three fingers with the three persons of the Trinity. So your analogy obviously identifies the Trinity with the fingers,

look, just give it a rest, you're obviously too stubborn for reason. I already said it was the human form in its entirety, that was obvious from the start since the analogy revolves around how fish see you, not your fingers

Go play with some figurines, autismo, don't bother normal people.

>>16373

In that case, your analogy is similar to Modalism, though not identical. It doesn't conform to Orthodoxy at all though.

In classical Trinitarian doctrine, though the persons of the Trinity are not *parts* of the Trinity, they do form the whole of the Godhead.

In your explanation, the fingers are merely aspects of God which are perceived by creation (as in the fingers being perceived by the fish).

This is not Trinitarian, because the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ARE God. There is not some reality higher than them, they are the only God.

In your analogy, the fingers are merely the aspect of the human that the fish perceive and interact with. This is similar to Modalism where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the three aspects of God that man interacts with.

Orthodox Trinitarianism states that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct Persons.

حيث صلبوه وصلبوا اثنين آخرين معه من هنا ومن هنا ويسوع في الوسط

>>16140

Jesus is the 'ruh' of God manifested in a way that is comprehensible to man. Right?

>>17392

in Christianity maybe.in islam he is just a prophet.

>filioque

what did he mean by this?

>>17406

He meant go back to /4chon/

>>17395

More than just a prophet. We also call him the kalamullah and we even say he is made of the Ruh of Allah.

The difference is that we do not say that makes him divine.

>>17408

Enjoy worshiping the creature(Jesus ﷺ/the pope/the priest) instead of the creator.

>>17413

>the Ruh of Allah

الم (1) تَنزِيلُ الْكِتَابِ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهِ مِن رَّبِّ الْعَالَمِينَ (2) أَمْ يَقُولُونَ افْتَرَاهُ ۚ بَلْ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّكَ لِتُنذِرَ قَوْمًا مَّا أَتَاهُم مِّن نَّذِيرٍ مِّن قَبْلِكَ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَهْتَدُونَ (3) اللَّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَىٰ عَلَى الْعَرْشِ ۖ مَا لَكُم مِّن دُونِهِ مِن وَلِيٍّ وَلَا شَفِيعٍ ۚ أَفَلَا تَتَذَكَّرُونَ (4) يُدَبِّرُ الْأَمْرَ مِنَ السَّمَاءِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ ثُمَّ يَعْرُجُ إِلَيْهِ فِي يَوْمٍ كَانَ مِقْدَارُهُ أَلْفَ سَنَةٍ مِّمَّا تَعُدُّونَ (5) ذَٰلِكَ عَالِمُ الْغَيْبِ وَالشَّهَادَةِ الْعَزِيزُ الرَّحِيمُ (6) الَّذِي أَحْسَنَ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ خَلَقَهُ ۖ وَبَدَأَ خَلْقَ الْإِنسَانِ مِن طِينٍ (7) ثُمَّ جَعَلَ نَسْلَهُ مِن سُلَالَةٍ مِّن مَّاءٍ مَّهِينٍ (8) ثُمَّ سَوَّاهُ وَنَفَخَ فِيهِ مِن رُّوحِهِ ۖ وَجَعَلَ لَكُمُ السَّمْعَ وَالْأَبْصَارَ وَالْأَفْئِدَةَ ۚ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَشْكُرُونَ (9) وَقَالُوا أَإِذَا ضَلَلْنَا فِي الْأَرْضِ أَإِنَّا لَفِي خَلْقٍ جَدِيدٍ ۚ بَلْ هُم بِلِقَاءِ رَبِّهِمْ كَافِرُونَ (10) ۞ قُلْ يَتَوَفَّاكُم مَّلَكُ الْمَوْتِ الَّذِي وُكِّلَ بِكُمْ ثُمَّ إِلَىٰ رَبِّكُمْ تُرْجَعُونَ (11)

>>17416

"What did he mean by this" is a /4chon/ meme.

>>17417

If you're gonna copy/paste, you could at least do it in English.

Lord Jesus is fully divine and fully human.

>>17432

>>>/christian/

>>17432

>>>/oven/

>>17436

pretty rude m8