God and Jesus: two different and separate beings. Islam agrees.

As the verse makes clear, Jesus and God are two different and separate beings: one is Almighty God and the other is Jesus the Messiah whom God has sent.  This is the teaching of Islam too. This correct understanding is key to eternal life. To deny it is to be in danger of hell fire.

Advertisements


Categories: Bible, Islam

120 replies

  1. What is it about islam that makes even people who convert later in life develop poor reasoning skills?

    Consider this; if jesus was “sent” he must have been pre-existent in the eternal realm. LOL!

    Like

    • Erm no. He was SENT to Mary’s womb. God SENT him amongst the Israelites.

      There is no reason to believe he was sent from the “eternal realm”

      Do you think that God can only send from the “eternal realm”?

      Every prophet was SENT by God. But you clearly disagree .

      You really are mentally deficient.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TFK78

      WHen all else fails, muslims always resort to insults. LOL.

      You are a moron, How can yous end something that doesn’t already exist? Jesus was obviously pre-existent.

      Oh, and Verse 5…

      And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

      Is the problem that you guys can only read one sentence at a time before you need to rest your brains? Jesus says clearly that he was with god before creation.

      Just think before you make stupid claims.

      Like

    • Kevin you should check your own comments before lambasting TFK for insults..

      Like

    • Kev,

      Here is a verse from the Bible about someone being sent by God. Is this person pre-existent and in the eternal realm?

      He said: “Son of man, I am sending you to the Israelites, to a rebellious nation that has rebelled against me; they and their ancestors have been in revolt against me to this very day.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Fawaz

      Sad.

      You don’t even have the intellectual nous to commit a false equivalency fallacy properly.

      What is it about the statement….And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began….…are you having trouble understanding? Why is it so difficult to comprehend such a clear passage?

      Like

    • LOL,

      Now you are shifting the goal posts. You said that “if jesus was “sent” he must have been pre-existent in the eternal realm”.

      I demonstrated to you that other prophets were also sent by God according to the Bible. [Ezekiel 2:3].

      Here is the simple fact John 17:3 identifies the One who sent Jesus as the One True God in a context that mentions Jesus but does not put him in the exclusive category “One True God”. If the One True God was a multi-person being this would have been the perfect place to declare that.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Do you also worship Jeremiah who according to the Bible was made holy before he even existed in his mother’s womb?

      “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”[Jer 1:5]

      Liked by 3 people

    • Fawaz

      I’m not moving the goalposts at all.

      The passage clearly says that jesus was sent and that he shared God’s glory before creation – you are ignoring the entire passage to make a moot point. Clearly – for anyone with an ounce of intelligence to understand – jesus says he shared god’s glory (who else but a person of the trinity can share in god’s glory), and that he was “sent” (incarnated).

      It isn’t that hard – jesus was pre-existent and was divine.

      Like

    • Fawaz

      “Do you also worship Jeremiah who according to the Bible was made holy before he even existed in his mother’s womb?

      “Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.”[Jer 1:5]”

      John 17:5

      And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began

      Hardly the same as Jeremiah being sanctified in the womb. Jesus shared God’s glory – hence he was God and pre-existent.

      Like

    • Let’s abolish Fawaz’s false analogy and misuse of Jeremiah 1:5:

      “Before I formed thee in the belly I KNEE THEE; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I SANCTIFIED THEE, and I ORDAINED THEE A PROPHET unto the nations.”

      Please be so kind and show us where Jehovah says to Jeremiah that Jeremiah existed alongside Jehovah in the same divine glory before Jehovah fashioned him in his mother’s womb.

      And since the only true God is the Father of Jesus, his Son, whom he glorifies in the same way that the Son glorifies him:

      “These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; GLORIFY THY SON, that thy Son also may glorify thee: as thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.” John 17:1-2

      This means that Muhammad was a false prophet and antichrist since he denied that his god is a father to anyone, let alone Jesus (cf. Q. 5:18; 6:101′ 9:30; 19:88-93; 21:26; 39:4; 72:3).

      Like

    • Sam,
      Do you accept Jesus’ statement that the father is the (ONLY) true God or not?

      Liked by 1 person

    • Abdullah, better question is do YOU agree with Jesus that THE FATHER is the only true God, which proves that Muhammad was a false prophet and antichrist? Moreover, do YOU believe Jesus when he says he is God’s Son whom his Father glorifies in the same way that the Son glorifies the Father, having existed alongside the Father in the same divine glory before the creation of the world, and who possesses all authority over all flesh, which includes Muhammad also, proving that Muhammad is beneath the feet of Jesus your Lord, and who has the power to give eternal life to all believers? Please answer these questions since, Lord willing, I am writing a reply to this and some other posts where I am going to post your reply for all to see.

      Like

    • Is there any problem with Jesus’ statament? I challange you. Do you have the courage to answer with yes I gree with Jesus?
      Why do christians write long comments to avoid the answer.

      ============
      Regarding my beloved prophet peace be upon him, he has crushed your paganism long ago. For you, you have the dust in your filthy mouth each time you speak against him. Jebreel & Meak’eel, and all the angels are against you if you don’t repent.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Kev Jesus being ‘sent’ doesn’t imply literal preexistence lol…

      “I was sent” or “I have come” reflects a sense of divine commissioning such as the prophets have expressed throughout the bible.

      Simon Gathercole used the same arguementation only to be throughly refuted by Dunn and other reputable scholars!

      Liked by 1 person

    • Omer

      You are a clown.

      Verse 5….

      And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began

      Why are you guys ignoring the plain and very, very clear statement of jesus that he SHARED God’s glory before creation and that he share in that glory after his crucifixion? Clearly, jesus existed as God before his incarnation and was sent from this pre-existence.

      Are you guys just plain dumb? LOL!!

      Like

    • So according to John Jesus shared God’s glory. Notice that God and Jesus are two separate beings. Other figures in second Temple Judaism also shared God’s glory, his throne, his dominion (eg Moses). Some are even called “God” (eg David – Psalm 45). Does not make them Yahweh.

      The disciples will also share God’s glory:

      ‘The glory that you have given me I have given them, so that they may be one, as we are one”

      Romans 8:17 says the disciples will share in God’s glory.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Paul

      You are still a joke.

      Romans 8 establishes the personhood of the spirit, the incarnation of the son, the difference in personhood between the Father, son, and spirit, and unequivocally establishes islamic belief as against god.

      Why does the truth scare you?

      Like

    • Yes the truth scares me.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I’m sure that christians wish if that veres were not there.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Not at all. If jesus was sent, then he must have been of god and pre-existent.

      Like

    • Jesus is telling you that the father is the (only) true God! Do you agree with Jesus or not?

      Liked by 5 people

    • Classic jihadi denseness.

      I agree with jesus, especially when he says in verse 1 that he is God’s Son, verse 2 that he has authority over all people to impart eternal life to them, and verse 5 where he states quite clearly that he shared God’s glory before creation. Here’s the full passage…

      After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed:“Father, the hour has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may glorify you. 2 For you granted him authority over all people that he might give eternal life to all those you have given him. 3 Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. 4 I have brought you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. 5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

      There are few clearer statement of jesus’ deity than this.

      Like

    • “that he is God’s Son, verse 2 that he has authority over all people to impart eternal life to them, and verse 5 where he states quite clearly that he shared God’s glory before creation”
      If you noticed I didn’t ask you about these verses!
      Do agree with Jesus that the father is the (only) true God? Any answer for that question?
      I didn’t ask if Jesus is the son of that (only) true God or whether Jesus was with that (only) true God before. Again, my question is whether you agree with Jesus that the father is the (only) true God?

      Liked by 2 people

    • abdullah666

      Jesus affirms that god is the father and that he is also god – you are being stupid. The entire passage is a claim to deity.

      Please try to think.

      Like

    • “Jesus affirms that god is the father ”
      This is not an honest presentation for that verse. Jesus affirms that the father is the (only) true God.
      I’ve no idea why you’ve a problem with Jesus’ statement.

      Liked by 2 people

    • The devil is truly mankinds worst enemy!

      Who else could get someone to insist they worship one God and at the same time Insult and blaspheme God All mighty by claiming Jesus is God but a lesser fake one

      The pagans are getting upset and the Irony is that it’s their own scripture that is infuriating them!

      About time they woke up

      Like

  3. “Jesus affirms that god is the father and that he is also god”

    You still avoided the question. Jesus didn’t just affirm that the father is god but that He is the only true God!

    Do you agree with Jesus that the father is the only true God?

    Liked by 2 people

    • mujahid

      John 17:5

      And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

      Like

    • Yes according to the pagans logic Jesus must be a false God.

      If one is the ONE true God then the other must not be God or a false one

      It’s the purest statement of Logic and algorithm

      TRUE is the absence of FALSE

      TRUE is the polar opposite of FALSE

      Jesus himself says “YOU the ONE TRUE GOD”

      Was he talking to himself in the mirror at the time?

      Liked by 1 person

  4. Kev, John 17 :5 does not say that “I Jesus am of the Same Ontology as the Father”. Also, why are non-biblical terms used for the Trinity? Hint: Its because te doctrine, its concepts are non biblical.

    And Scholarly concensus is that the Synoptics does not mention the prexistence of Jesus. Is that not interesting?

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Kev,

    Whatever John 17:5 means or sounds to you, Jesus himself plainly says that the Father is the only true God.

    Do you agree with Jesus that the father is the only true God?

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Lol

    Jesus knows himself better than you and he testified that the Father is the only true God.

    So, why can’t you agree with Jesus that the father is the only true God?!

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m being true to the text – Jesus says that he shared God’s glory. That’s the point of the passage. It isn’t hard guys.

      Like

  7. So failing to agree with Jesus that the father is the only true God is not being true to the text?

    You know that John 17:5 is subject to interpretations according to scholars. It could be interpreted that Jesus had glory in the mind of God since before the world began. This won’t make him any other than a special creature in God’s eyes. Similarly, 2 Timothy 1:9 says that each Christian was given grace “before the beginning of time”.

    In anyy way, the doctrine of Jesus – which is the actual point of the passage – is that the father is the only true God and Jesus was just His Messenger.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. acts 3:13 the god of abraham isaac and jacob,the god of our fathers,has glorified his servant jesus………. acts 3:26 acts 2:22 acts 2:26 rom 15:6 ……. the god and father of our lord jesus christ. 2.cor 1:3 …… the god and father of our lord jesus christ 2.cor 11:31 the god and father of the lord jesus, ……….

    Liked by 1 person

  9. If i went down to the beach and put a glass down into the sea i would have the pacific ocean in my glass. If i took it home i would still have the pacific ocean in my glass. Are there 2 pacific oceans? Of course not. There is only one pacific ocean.

    Is Jesus God? Of course he is. Is he the whole of God? Of course not. The whole of God cannot be contained in one person.

    Like

  10. achillies53,

    So each of the persons of the trinity is not fully God as God cannot be contained in one person?

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Nope. Jesus is fully God. But the whole of God could not be contained in a single human being.

    Like

    • You get an A+ for creative theology from me. What are you talking about? The New Church of Containerism?

      Any orthodox trinitarians want to comment on the idea of “God being contained in a single human being.”?

      No questions, accusations of not understanding “the trinity”? No? At least please pray for this heretic.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jesus shares in the One divine essence, although he is neither the Spirit nor the Father.

      In other words, the Spirit and Father did not incarnate as the Son did, thus Achilles is accurate, assuming this is what he means?

      But you are only interested in being a troll anyway Burhan, aren’t you?

      Why don’t you go get involved in the conversation about burning apostates like Ali with your ummah on the other thread?

      Like

    • Incarnation means “God being contained i a single human being”?

      An open invitation to be burned at the stake.

      The human nature is assumed into the divine person. You claim the opposite. Anti-true-Christ-like.

      “Deus enim verbum non accepit personam hominis sed naturam, et in aeternum persona divinitatis temporalem accepit substantiam carnis.” XII Council of Toledo

      Like

    • yep got it Paulus ….Jesus shares in the One divine essence, just as the Spirit and the Father also share in the one divine essence… in other words three distinct personal gods that all share the one divine essence 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  12. So now you changed “person” with a “human being”?!

    How many percentage of God can be contained in a single human being?

    So, now do you believe that the full God can be contained in a single “person”?

    How could Jesus be God since Jesus is a single person and God cannot be contained in a single person?

    Liked by 3 people

  13. They insist that a pre-eternal (but not necessary, I guess?) existent can be acted upon temporally, while also insisting that Muslims have poor reasoning skills.

    Lol.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Go back to my original illustration. You can have the pacific ocean in a glass. But you cant have the whole pacific ocean in a glass.

    Muslim attempts at “gotcha” are tedious.

    Like

    • Yeah, not ever having an adequate response must get tedious for you lot. Add to that the absurdity of the position that God can broken up into bits and pieces. Tedious and absurd pretty much sums up your entire theology though, doesn’t it…

      Liked by 2 people

    • As Augustine said: “if you can understand it; its not God.” It amazes me that muslims take infinity and eternity at face value. But somehow cant grasp the fact that God cant enter creation in a limited form of himself.

      And no-one has said God breaks himself into bits and pieces. Another musil strawman.

      Like

    • …all the things you say are silly and stupid. I don’t think I’m going to continue here. It’s useless.

      Liked by 1 person

    • So you use that logic to come up with an illogical concept of God?

      Liked by 1 person

    • if you cant understand why you trying to explain.

      Liked by 3 people

  15. achillies53

    So in your so-called illustration, you are saying that a person (glass) cannot contain the full God (whole ocean).

    So go back to my original question: If Jesus is a single person and full God cannot be contained in a single person, how could Jesus be fully God?

    God has to full (whole) God to be true God. Just like a drop of water from Pacific Ocean in a glass is not the pacific ocean

    Liked by 2 people

  16. Muslims always fall back to opinionated nonsense. As though the omniscient transcendant creator has to fit in with in with their definitions.

    As if God cant cant enter creation in a limited form of himself while still being omniscient and transcendant.

    Like

    • And Christians always fall back on accusing Muslims of “limiting God” when we point out how ludicrous it is that they’re trying to limit God.

      😂

      You people are good for a laugh at least…

      Liked by 2 people

  17. Lol

    So the infinite (unlimited) God has finite (limited) form? And you are talking of “opinionated nonsense”!

    Why should God “enter” creation if He is ever omnipresent and omniscient?

    Liked by 2 people

  18. As The great man Calvin said, in Jesus God reduces himself to our level so that we can know him.

    Like

    • But then how will people know ‘The father’, if he isn’t on earth. As jesus said,
      ”that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.”

      The father never came to earth, only the son did. So according to your logic, they can only know the Son, not the father.
      If you say they know the father through the son, then it doesn’t make it any different than knowing God through a prophet.

      Liked by 3 people

  19. “God reduces himself to our level so that we can know him.”

    The Infinite (unlimited) God reduces Himself to finite (limited)? !

    Why should creatures not able to know the Creator unless He reduces Himself to creature?

    Don’t tell me that God was not known before 2000 years ago? People knew God for thousands of years before Christians came along with this philosophy.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. “As Augustine said: “if you can understand it; its not God.”

    Amazing!

    So we can’t understand that God is absolutely one?

    So we can’t understand that God is perfect and thus immutable which excludes God becoming (changing into) anything other than Perfect God?

    So we can’t understand that God is omnipresent and thus there is no question with Him of “entering into creation”?

    So we can’t understand that God is omniscient and thus knows everything including “the Day” and “the Hour” ?

    Liked by 1 person

  21. God is one. Who said he wasn’t?

    Btw, Jesus does know the day and the hour. The greek word used aido means also proclaim or reveal. Jesus was really saying the son of man does not reveal the last hour.

    Like

  22. After reading all the comments, i still didn’t find Kev’s answer.

    Kev, do you believe the father is the only true God?

    Liked by 3 people

  23. We believe that three persons are one and the same God.

    This is absolute oneness.

    Although to make a distinction, as Islam does, between one and absolute one seems logically incoherent to me and appears to violate the law of the excluded middle.

    For instance if I said about something that it was “one of a kind” is the one here not absolute? But if not then it would not be true to say of that thing that it is one. So one is always absolute or it is untrue in my view. The islamic distinction between one and absolute one is logically incoherent.

    “Kev, do you believe the father is the only true God?”

    Jesus has a unique relationship to God which is in some respects the same as ours but in others different. I think this should be taken in to account. His statement about the Father reflects that distinction.

    Like

    • madmanna although you believe that three persons are one and the same God..know that your belief about the “oneness” of God is not conceptualized in the bible..it’s true 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

  24. The Trinitarian Dogma was rejected by its Godfather. If the Godfather of the dogma was a heretic, how could Jesus be a Trinitarian?

    For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as he himself confesses, “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm his inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and he who is begotten is another. He, too, who sends is one, and he who is sent is another, and He, again, who makes is one, and he through whom the thing is made is another. (Against Praxeas, 9).

    Liked by 2 people

  25. I want to challenge the whole method of the original post. The original post takes one verse from the gospel according to John and transports it into the new context of Qur’an/Islamic theology. You cannot do this. You have to read the verse on its own terms in its own context. I have seen people do the same thing with the Bible and Buddhism where they take a verse and say it is teaching Buddhist ideas.

    Like

    • SG,
      We didn’t do anything what of what you mentioned.
      We just asked if you agree with Jesus that the father is the (only) true God?

      Like

    • Not at all!
      We just asked if you agree with Jesus that the father is the (only) true God. Do you agree?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Yes Samuel do you agree? Or do you think this verse is wrong in it’s theology?

      Liked by 2 people

    • What is the correct theological understanding then?

      In what way is the Father “the only true God”? Correctly?

      In a trinitarian sense it can only mean “that they know you, the only true divine nature, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Right?

      Like

    • I understand John 17:3 in terms of the whole book of John.

      1. In several places Jesus is shown to have full divinity that he shares equally with God the Father.

      2. John 17:3 shows the mission of Jesus in bringing us to God. There is only one God and this is God bringing us back to himself. 17:3 is a mission statement. That is the context. If 17:3 was said in 1:1-3 then you may well have a case. But the context here is mission.

      3. As Sam has pointed out God is father this implies a son. This is not and Islamic concept of God.

      Just read all of John. It is a great book.

      Like

    • Thanks Burhanuddin1

      > What is the correct theological understanding then?
      > In what way is the Father “the only true God”? Correctly?
      > In a trinitarian sense it can only mean “that they know you, the only true divine nature, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” Right?

      17:3 does not say the Father alone is God but that the Father is the only God. The rest of John includes the Son and Spirit in the nature of God too. They are all the only God. This is the doctrine of the Trinity. God is inter-relational.

      Like

    • “does not say the Father alone is God but that the Father is the only God”
      ???
      What’s this supposed to mean for God sake?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Greetings `Abdullah

      To explain Mr. Green’s nuanced point, think of it as being like the difference between…

      (1) Him being a Person who bears the title only true God

      …and…

      (2) Him being the only Person who bears the title true God.

      The first option does not necessarily exclude other Persons from bearing the title, while the second option does.

      This subtle distinction brings us back to an important question: in the extraordinary case of a multipersonal being, is it necessarily the case that the persons therein cannot be addressed with the name or titles of the being which encompasses them?

      Like

    • “The first option does not necessarily exclude other Persons from bearing the title, while the second option does.”
      Not at all! I mean that verse excludes the second person clearly as the sun, and it’s quite clear!
      Even I’ve read it in Arabic in case my English disappointed me.
      You cannot change the language for an idea which doesn’t make sense! Fear Allah!
      Then if that the case, why no one has answered the question directly without making long comments if that verse is easy to accept.
      It’s clealy that it challenges an idea already in your mind, and it doesn’t match with it. Let’s be honest.

      Liked by 3 people

    • @ Samuel Green

      The question is what means the “the Father is the only true God” in John 17:3 in trinitarian sense.

      Every statement has to make sense in the context of trinitarian doctrine.

      Liked by 1 person

    • SG

      In what sense ist the Father the “only true God”?

      Is the Father the only Trinity – the triune being? No.
      Is the Father the only divine person – no.

      It can only mean the Father is “the only true divine nature”, the “ousia. Nothing else makes sense from a trinitarian reading.

      Like

    • Greetings `Abdullah

      «I mean that verse excludes the second person clearly as the sun, and it’s quite clear!
      Even I’ve read it in Arabic in case my English disappointed me.»

      In light of the fact that the Bible has the Father bearing the title monos alethinos Theos and the Son bearing the titles monogenes Theos and alethinos Theos, it seems clear that the individual Persons are not bearing such titles exclusively.

      On a side note, can you tell me which `Arabic translation you employed? Van Dyke? Yasu`wiya? If it is online, might you link to it?

      «You cannot change the language for an idea which doesn’t make sense!»

      I have not made any change to the language. I have presented a more nuanced approach which is in keeping with my understanding of the Bible.

      «Fear Allah!»

      I do.

      «why no one has answered the question directly without making long comments if that verse is easy to accept.»

      Which question might that be? Is it the question about whether one agrees with the statement in John 17:3? If so, I answered it. Yes, I agree. But the issue between us comes in with regard to how we understand that statement. I don’t read it in a vacuum; rather I read it in the larger context of the Bible as a whole (in particular the Johanine texts).

      Like

    • SG

      We are told by trinitarians “never confuse divine person and being”. Never confuse the “Who’s” and the “What” of the trinity. Never ever.

      But here the trinitarian does it himself. In order to make John 17:3 work, the divine nature is turned into a “Who”.

      Is Jesus saying here “…that they know you, the only true divine ousia?”

      No, he is speaking of the ONE WHO sent him, the only true God. One personal identity, not one nature/substance/essence.

      Like

    • “If so, I answered it. Yes, I agree.”
      No, you haven’t. You just keep avoiding what it’s obvious in that verse. The question from the begining has been whether you agree with Jesus or not.
      Basically, what you did is taking the meaning of verse out. That’s it!
      I would imagine if Jesus told you that the father is(only) true God, you would answer him, but that was just a title!

      Liked by 1 person

  26. On the subject of John 17:3, the phrase μονον αληθινον θεον, applied to the Father in that verse, does not strike me as significantly different in meaning from μονογενης θεος, applied to the Son in John 1:18. Moreover, I would note that 1 John 5:20 can be read as applying αληθινος θεος to the Son.

    In short, an orthodox Christian need not read John 17:3 as contrary to his faith. Yes, the Father bears the title “only true God,” and so too the Son is alternatively called “unique/only God” and “true God”. And yet they are not two distinct gods, but rather Persons within the one God. One bearing such a title need not exclude the other from bearing such, nor would it constitute a denial of their union (on the contrary, the ability of both to bear such titles can easily be understood as being by virtue of their union). Perhaps that has a mysterious feel to it, but the salient point remains that it is not contrary to classical Christian doctrine. In fact, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed’s phrase Θεον αληθινον εκ Θεου αληθινου strikes me as almost straight out of a joint reading of John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20.

    Like

    • Do you agree with Jesus that the father is the(only) true God?

      There’s a significant difference between the wording in (1 John 5:20.) & ( John 17:3)

      Liked by 2 people

    • Greetings `Abdullah

      As I wrote above, my reading of the Bible is that the Father bears the title monos alethinos Theos, while the Son bears the titles monogenes Theos and alethinos Theos, and that there are not significant differences between these titles.

      To answer your question another way, of course I agree that the Father bears the relevant title, but I do not see the text as requiring that He bears such to the exclusion of the Son (i.e. I believe the Son too can bear that title, by virtue of the fact that both Persons are within the one God).

      As for the claim that there is significant difference between 1 John 5:20 and John 17:3, could you elaborate?

      Like

    • ” The Father Bears” ?
      Are you suggesting it’s just a title? Don’t forget that Jesus who was talking and the subject that he was talking about is (the Eternal Life)!
      The father is the (Only) true God, and Jesus is the christ whom that (only) true God sent.

      ===============
      “As for the claim that there is significant difference between 1 John 5:20 and John 17:3, could you elaborate?”
      Just read them! They are not alike regarding the definition of the eternal life! I wouldn’t imagine that you claim that they are same definitions in both.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Greetings `Abdullah

      «Are you suggesting it’s just a title? »

      I don’t know what you mean by just a title, but it is certainly a title the Father bears. My position is the Son bears essentially identical titles, and thus neither Person bears such a title to the exclusion of the other Person.

      «The father is the (Only) true God, and Jesus is the christ whom that (only) true God sent.»

      One small technical note: the verse does not exactly say “the Father is the only true God,” nor does it say “you are the only true God;” rather, it addresses the Father as “you, the only true God”. The difference may seem negligible (i.e. they’re saying essentially the same thing), but this distinction is of interest to the question of whether persons within a multipersonal being can bear the name or titles of that being.

      For example, consider this thought experiment: suppose there is a being that comprised two persons. The being is called X (i.e. that is a name or title of the being in question). Suppose the persons therein are named Primus and Secundus. I see nothing precluding the possibility of addressing either Primus or Secundus by the title “X,” e.g. saying “you, X…”. In short, in the extraordinary case of a multipersonal being, I see no logical reason to preclude the possibility of addressing the persons therein by the name or titles of that being. Nor do I think that if one such person bears a title, it necessarily has to be at the exclusion of the other person.

      [Admittedly, this part might seem especially fantastic, but anticipating one possible objection, permit me to add that, if (a) the being described above was non-human, and (b) one person within the being acquired a secondary, human form, I would see nothing that logically precludes that person from addressing the other in such a way, from the vantage point of his secondary, human form.]

      Regarding 1 John 5:20 and John 17:3…

      «Just read them! They are not alike regarding the definition of the eternal life! I wouldn’t imagine that you claim that they are same definitions in both.»

      I was merely noting that one has the Father bearing the title monos alethinos Theos while the other can be read as having the Son bearing the title alethinos Theos. I don’t think a side discussion about eternal life is necessary here.

      Like

    • Jesus gave that “title” for the father (only).
      Jesus is telling you that the father is the(only true) God.
      Jesus gave for himself the title (the christ) whom that (only true)God has sent.
      That is the eternal life according to Jesus. Do you agree with Jesus?

      Liked by 2 people

    • “The difference may seem negligible”
      Rather it’s negligible!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Greetings `Abdullah

      I certainly agree with Jesus. However, I may not agree with how you interpret His words.

      Yes, the Father bears the title only true God. The question is whether He bears such exclusively. I see no reason to believe that He does, especially since the Son bears the essentially identical titles only God and true God.

      Like

    • “I may not agree with how you interpret His words”
      Have I done that? I just repeat Jesus’ words as it’s.

      “The question is whether He bears such exclusively”
      According to Jesus? Yes the father is the (only) true God and exclusively. Clear and simple!
      Also, I’ve no idea why you insist with the “title” notion.
      If I refered to you as the (only true) friend, and I meant it, would that mean something or it’s just a “title” for you? Rather what would you understand?

      Liked by 2 people

    • Greetings `Abdullah

      «Have I done that? I just repeat Jesus’ words as it’s.»

      You read the statement almost in a vacuum (i.e. stripped of the context of the rest of the Bible, which is different from how I read it), and you then import certain assumptions which I do not import (nor which are in the Biblical text).

      «Yes the father is the (only) true God and exclusively.»

      But the text does not say that. It has the Father bearing the title, but it does not have the Father bearing the title exclusively. As I have noted, the Bible also has the Son bearing the nearly identical titles monogenes Theos and alethinos Theos, which seems to clearly entail the Father does not bear such a title to the exclusion of the Son.

      «I’ve no idea why you insist with the “title” notion.»

      Because it is a title.

      «If I refered to you as the (only true) friend, and I meant it, would that mean something or it’s just a “title” for you?»

      Yes, it is a title. But there is a question of context, too. If we take for granted that I am a person who is not united with other person in a multipersonal being, then yes, we would lean towards the likelihood of me bearing that title exclusively. However, if it were the extraordinary case that I am one person within a multipersonal being, the same title was bestowed on another person in that union, and even the being encompassing us could be referred to as such, that would be rather different.

      And that is the real problem here: while I can appreciate your approach, it requires (a) stripping the text of the context of how Christians would understand other verses, and (b) begins with the tacit assumption that the relevant Persons are not united within a single being. Even if the assumption is subconscious, it is nonetheless the case that beginning with a position and then concluding that position is to move in a circle.

      Hence why I have said that an essential question, here, is this: in the extraordinary case of a multipersonal being, what precludes the possibility of the Persons within the union being addressed by the Name or titles of the being which encompasses them?

      Like

    • Forgive the constant underline in my post above. It seems in my haste (I typed that while making breakfast for my daughter), I made an error in my HTML scripting.

      Like

    • “Yes, it is a title. But there is a question of context, too. If we take for granted that I am a person who is not united with other person in a multipersonal being”
      I really don’t appreciate this from you! It’s a title!? If somone told you that you’re the (only) true friend, would you understand that as just a title?
      “I am a person who is not united with other person in a multipersonal being”
      So you try to put the cart before the horse, don’t you?
      Man, Jesus who is telling that the father is the (only) true God! How could he be more clear about this?
      “And they rejected them, while their [inner] selves were convinced thereof, out of injustice and haughtiness. So see how was the end of the corrupters.”

      Like

  27. Hmmm.. two separate individuals each “only true God”?! What sort of language is this?

    Also, they are two individuals “within (only) one (true) God”!!

    Then can you show us where the ghost is also claimed to be “the only true God” in addition to the other two to get your trinity?!

    Liked by 2 people

    • Greetings Mujahid

      «two separate individuals each “only true God”?»

      Or each being capable or worthy of bearing that title.

      «they are two individuals “within (only) one (true) God”!»

      Yes, historically a great many Christians have believed in a multipersonal conception of God, where the one God comprises multiple Persons.

      «can you show us where the ghost is also claimed to be “the only true God”»

      If you mean show such from the Bible, there is no verse which explicitly says such, but of course the Holy Spirit’s ability to bear the title need no hinge of the Bible explicitly calling Him such. Nor need this issue effect the points made in my original post.

      Like

  28. Thanks Denis,

    You wrote:

    “each being capable or worthy of bearing that title.”

    Response:

    Still it is quite a strange language.

    If one individual is “the ONLY true God” then how can another individual also be “the ONLY true God”? Do words have meanings?

    You wrote:

    “Yes, historically a great many Christians have believed in a multipersonal conception of God, where the one God comprises multiple Persons.”

    Response:

    Strange!

    Did any of the Prophets and people of God believed this exactly before Christianity?

    Does the Bible ever say that there is a multi-personal Individual? And if EACH of the persons is fully god, how many fully gods do you have?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Greetings Mujāhid

      «If one individual is “the ONLY true God” then how can another individual also be “the ONLY true God”?»

      I would propose that the only true God comprises both Persons, and thus each Person can bear the title by virtue of their union within that God. And I think the Biblical text supports such a view: two distinct Persons bear essentially the same title(s), yet they are not distinct gods; rather, it remains the case that there is only one God. The collective picture seems to fit with a multipersonal conception of God rather that contradict it.

      «Did any of the Prophets and people of God believed this exactly before Christianity?»

      Well, in a debate over unipersonal and multipersonal conceptions of God, it is hard to say what past prophets believed, as they are not recorded explicitly weighing in on the question (rather each ideological camp attempts to infer positions from less than explicit statements). I’m ultimately agnostic on the question, but I’m fine with either possibility (though my gut leans towards at least some past prophets being Trinitarian, even if such is not explicitly recorded).

      «Does the Bible ever say that there is a multi-personal Individual?»

      The Bible does not state explicitly that in a single verse, but I do believe the Bible collective implies such. Above I already noted distinct Persons bearing variations of the title only/true God, yet there still being only one God. Aside from that, the Bible also teaches that three distinct Persons take part in creation, yet God acts alone in creation (I can go into more detail if you’re interested). I believe the best reconciliation of those various points is a multipersonal conception of God.

      «if EACH of the persons is fully god, how many fully gods do you have?»

      I would note that “fully God” is a popular translation of phraseology from the Chalcedonian creed. You might not interpret that English translation the same way I interpret the Greek phrases behind it. The creed describes Him as θεον αληθως, which I take to mean truly or authentically divine, as the creed itself contains the clarification that He is τελειον τον αυτον εν θεοτητι
      (perfect in His divinity). So I don’t believe the creed is referring to distinct gods, but rather Persons sharing in the divinity of the one God that comprises them.

      Like

  29. Thanks alot Denis,

    You wrote:

    “I would propose that the only true God comprises both Persons, and thus each Person can bear the title by virtue of their union within that God.”

    Response:

    Still it sounds quite linguistically wrong that two separate individuals can each be ONLY true God. Since they are separate individuals, I think the word ONLY exclude the possibility that both can bear the title.

    Godhood (divinity) is just a quality not an entity. Thus, to talk of two separate individuals having union in a quality is quite vague. What does this union mean? That both are gods – each is a god? Yes, if each has this quality (if each is god) then they both share this quality – like those having many gods. Thus they can be said to have union in this quality.

    My point is that being in union in a quality never makes two separate individuals in such a union other than two in everything. For example, “human” is also a quality. If three individuals are in union in this quality, they are still three individuals and three humans, not one human. Being in union in this quality never makes them only one human.

    You seem to realize that the phrase “fully god” used for each of the three individuals of the trinity makes them more than one fully god, thus you preferred for the phrase “perfect in His divinity” for each of the three!

    Sorry, but I think this is just a round about way of saying the same thing. If each is a “perfect” god then each is a “fully” god. If each of three separate individuals is a perfect god, how many perfect gods do you have? Just like asking, if each of three individuals is a perfect human, how many humans do you have?

    Liked by 4 people

    • Greetings Mujahid

      «Still it sounds quite linguistically wrong that two separate individuals can each be ONLY true God.»

      I agree that it has an almost mysterious side to it, and is not a common, every day concept. Nonetheless, it seems to me to be the indirect teaching of the Bible itself, which has two distinct Persons bearing these titles, while still affirming a monotheistic position.

      While no analogy is perfect (especially as I’m about to employ an example of a finite thing within spacetime to explore concepts about a being which is ultimately a dimensionless infinite outside of spacetime), perhaps it is helpful to explore ways that interaction with a part of an entity can constitute interaction with the entity itself. Let’s, for the sake of argument, refer to you as “the one and only Mujahid” (and yes, I know what the word means, but let’s assume you’re the only one, at least within our universe of discourse). If I touch your left hand, I will have touched the one and only Mujahid. And, likewise, if I touch your right hand, I will have touched the one and only Mujahid. Both statements are true, despite you having two distinct hands (i.e. your left hand is not your right hand). In a mily analogous way, I would read John 17:3’s “they may know you, the only true God,” as alluding to how their knowledge “touching” the Father constitutes their knowledge “touching” the only true God, without such being at the expense of the other Perspons within the Trinity.

      [On a side note, I would point out that, perhaps the distinction, between finite entities within spacetime and a dimensionless infinite outside of space time, is actually in the Trinitarians’ favor, as distinguishing a Person within the multipersonal God from God would be different from, say, distinguishing the leg of a wooden stool from the stool as a whole. But that’s a deeper issue…]

      That brings us back to what I feel is the essential question: in the extraordinary case of a multipersonal being, what precludes addressing the individual persons therein by the name or titles of the being which encompasses them?

      «Since they are separate individuals, I think the word ONLY exclude the possibility that both can bear the title.»

      Many people will feel that’s a natural conclusion, and yet, it is not the position of the Bible.

      «Godhood (divinity) is just a quality not an entity. Thus, to talk of two separate individuals having union in a quality is quite vague.»

      But more than a mere quality, a being that actually exists. That is to say, my position is that the one God comprises multiple Persons (and that the Persons therein can bear the Name and titles of the one God which encompasses them).

      «What does this union mean?»

      Quick note: both our faiths have their own semblances of mystery. A Christian need not be able to comprehend or explain the full “mechanics” of the unity of Persons and more than would a Muslim need to be able to comprehend or explain the full “mechanics” of saying God istawā `alā āl-`arsh or that God “says” things (e.g. kun).

      «That both are gods – each is a god?»

      No, what I believe does not entail that. Rather, the position is that there is one God, that one God encompasses multiple Persons, those Persons are not individual gods, yet those Persons can bear (and thus can be addressed by) the Name and titles of the one God which comprises them.

      «My point is that being in union in a quality never makes two separate individuals in such a union other than two in everything.»

      In a situation where one X comprises multiple Ys, yes, we have multiple Ys, but we also have one X. What’s important is to note the units being quantified. One God comprising three Persons does entail three Persons, but that does not negate that it also entails one God.

      «You seem to realize that the phrase “fully god” used for each of the three individuals of the trinity makes them more than one fully god, thus you preferred for the phrase “perfect in His divinity” for each of the three!»

      What I realized is that people interpret the English phrase differently from how I understand the Greek phrase behind it (especially in the larger context of the relevant creed). Note, again, that the creed calls Him both θεον αληθως and τελειον τον αυτον εν θεοτητι. “Fully God” is a popular English translation of the latter. “Perfect in His divinity” was my attempt at translating the latter. [By the way, just for the sake of clarification, the two phrases appear in an order opposite of how they appear here.]

      I do not agree that this implies more than one God, as I understand the terms to be employed more as predicates than mere nouns. The Greek term τελειος can mean not lacking anything which is essential. So, consider the analogy, with the word “feline”. If we have a universe of discourse in which there is a single cat, we can refer to that cat as “the feline”. We can also refer to different parts of the cat as bearing the predicate “feline” (e.g. the cat has a feline brain, a feline skeleton). The latter case would not constitute a reference to multiple felines within our universe of discourse. Moreover, we could even say a given part lacks nothing essential to it being feline (e.g. its feline brain has all that is essential to being a feline brain; it is fully or truly or authentically feline insofar that it is a fully, truly, authentically feline brain). But that would not mean the individual parts so described are therefore distinct felines.

      Ergo, similarly, being that the composers of the creed did not believe the Persons of the Trinity were distinct gods, and being that they employed τελειον τον αυτον εν θεοτητι as a veritable (preemtive?) clarification of θεον αληθως, it seems clear to me that the phrase often translated “fully God” meant truly or authentically divine, which is to say lacking nothing which is essential to being a divine Person within the one God (but it does not establish the Person as a distinct god).

      «If each is a “perfect” god then each is a “fully” god.»

      But note that I did not employ the indefinite article (“a”). So too with my feline analogy, there is a difference between saying “the cat’s brain is a feline,” on the one hand, and saying “the cat’s brain is truly, authentically feline,” on the other hand.

      Like

    • “That brings us back to what I feel is the essential question: in the extraordinary case of a multipersonal being, what precludes addressing the individual persons therein by the name or titles of the being which encompasses them?”

      The only true God would be the 3 personal being in this case.

      A singular person would not be the only true God, as there were two other ones.

      Like

    • Another million dollar question: is it the being which or the being who “encompasses them” in case of the trinity?

      Like

    • A Million dollars is not worth what it used to be.

      Like

  30. Greetings Denis,

    You wrote:

    “I agree that it has an almost mysterious side to it, and is not a common, every day concept. Nonetheless, it seems to me to be the indirect teaching of the Bible itself, which has two distinct Persons bearing these titles, while still affirming a monotheistic position.”

    Response:

    In other words, you seem to be saying that you subscribe to such linguistically impossible idea because you think your Bible “indirectly” teaches it! Dogma?

    You wrote:

    “Let’s, for the sake of argument, refer to you as “the one and only Mujahid” (and yes, I know what the word means, but let’s assume you’re the only one, at least within our universe of discourse). If I touch your left hand, I will have touched the one and only Mujahid. And, likewise, if I touch your right hand, I will have touched the one and only Mujahid. Both statements are true, despite you having two distinct hands (i.e. your left hand is not your right hand).”

    Response:

    Sorry, my hands alone are not me! If you touched my hand, you touched Mujahid’s hand only. Only in a figure of speech (Synecdoche) that a part of a thing represents the whole thing. And figures of speech are speciallly for an effect. Then the passages under discussion are literal not figures of speech.

    The use of the adverb “only” in the phrase “the only true God” excludes any other person from being true God. The adverb “only” means “exclusively”. So, even in a union of persons, if one person is designated as “the ONLY true God” then this automatically excludes any other person in the union from being true God.

    Liked by 1 person

  31. When I wrote this:

    Godhood (divinity) is just a quality not an entity. Thus, to talk of two separate individuals having union in a quality is quite vague.»

    You responded:

    “But more than a mere quality, a being that actually exists.”

    My Response:

    Read what I wrote again. I am talking about the word “Godhood”/ “divinity”. It is a quality being an adjective. I am not talking about “God” which is a noun referring to Being that actually exists.

    You wrote:

    “That is to say, my position is that the one God comprises multiple Persons (and that the Persons therein can bear the Name and titles of the one God which encompasses them).”

    Response:

    It is strange many people (multiple persons) bear the name and titles of one of them! This still never makes them one god if each is Perfect god!

    You wrote:

    “Perfect in His divinity” was my attempt at translating the latter.”

    Response :

    And I say that this is the same as “full divinity” (fully god).

    And, feline can be an adjective referring to sometime relating to a cat or noun referring to cat. And only in a figure of speech dpes a part of something represents the whole of it. And the Trinity is not just figure of speech.

    Like

  32. Note: Aliyu and Mujahid are not two beings but two appellations of the same being!

    So even though both Mujahid and Aliyu responded to you, you are being responded by one being – each being “only true man”!

    Liked by 1 person

  33. That the Father is the one true God is something that only becomes true for Jesus after the incarnation, not before.

    Before the incarnation the Father does not have this relation to the Word.

    Read 17 v 3 in the context of the whole book of John.

    Like

  34. 6/. John 17:5. In John 17:5 we read the following —
    And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

    To the untrained mind it sounds as though this verse is upholding the teaching that the Messiah pre-existed before his fleshly birth. But, by comparing the Greek text to the English translation and then letting OTHER SCRIPTURES interpret this scripture for us, it becomes very obvious that this scripture was also TAMPERED WITH — TWISTED to fit prevailing pagan concepts!

    The New International Version Greek-English New Testament by Alfred Marshall, shows the Greek word for word translation of this verse:
    5. and now glorify me thou, Father, with thyself….with the glory which I had before the world to be with thee.

    The first word underlined and translated “I HAD” is the IMPERFECT FORM of the Greek word “echo” — word #2192 in Strong’s Greek Dictionary. This word means: to have to hold. However, Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament shows this word to mean: TO HAVE IN STORE! Notice —
    …. to have a thing in readiness, have at hand, have in store:

    Therefore, the word translated “I HAD” can — and should — have been translated “I AM TO HAVE.” This glory that the Messiah is said to have, is to be BEFORE the world TO COME.

    The next word underlined — translated “BEFORE” — is word #4253 in Strong’s, and means: PREVIOUSLY; that is, “PREVIOUS” to the world TO COME —
    4253. …. pro, pro; a prim. prep.; “fore,” i.e. in front of, prior (fig. Superior) to:- above, ago, before, or ever. In comp. it retains the same significations.

    The third word underlined — translated “TO BE” — is shown by A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament (by Ethelbert W. Bullinger) to mean “COME”:
    elvai (pres. infinit.) to be, 33; be, 12; to have been, 1; have been, 1; that…am (art, is, are, be), 27; that…was (were), 10; had been, 1; that…may (might, should) be, 6; to be made, 1; come, 1.

    Now let’s read this verse in the way that it should have been translated —
    And now, O Father, You glorify me beside Your own self, with the glory which I AM TO HAVE with You BEFORE the world to come.

    The Messiah was only asking YEHOVAH God to glorify him beside the Father — or at the right hand of YEHOVAH’s throne — with the glory that HE (YEHOVAH God) HAD IN STORE for him — BEFORE the Kingdom of God (YEHOVAH) and BEFORE the NEW WORLD that is to come.

    The Messiah knew full well that he was to die and be resurrected by YEHOVAH God. He also knew that he was to be allowed to take his rightful place at the right side of YEHOVAH, and that is exactly what we find in the other scriptures that interpret this scripture. Notice Hebrews 1:1-3:
    Therefore, holy brothers, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the apostle (the one sent) and High Priest of our profession, Yeshua the Messiah; who was faithful to Him: YEHOVAH, Who BEGOT HIM, just as Moses was faithful in all his house. Now this one (the Messiah) was counted worthy of more GLORY than Moses, since he who has built the House of YEHOVAH has more honor than the House of YEHOVAH.

    This GLORY was in fulfillment of Biblical prophecy — and this glory was only to BEGIN to take place in a certain time period. In the following verses we find written:

    Hebrews 1:13: But to which of the angels has He (YEHOVAH) ever said: sit at my right hand — until I make your enemies your footstool?

    Psalm 110:1: YEHOVAH said to my ruler and king: sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.

    1 Peter 1:11: Examining closely to what things, or what manner of season, which the spirit that was in them made clear to them, when it testified BEFOREHAND to the sufferings of Messiah, and the GLORY THAT WOULD FOLLOW.

    1 Peter 5:1: The elders who are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of the Messiah, and ALSO A PARTAKER of the GLORY THAT WILL BE REVEALED:

    Like

Trackbacks

  1. God and Allah are two Separate Beings: According to the words of Jesus Christ – Answering Islam Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: