Does God beget ?

 

 

 Israfil wrote this in response to my saying someting about God's God in Psalm 45:

The above paragraph is an example of how ridiculously contradictory one can be when interpreting a confusing text. Just a basic example using one of God's attributes, let's say infinity. Since God is infinite, there is no such thing as a succession of infinities otherwise there would be a point of cessation (which otherwise would contradict the principle of infinity). Similarly, One God cannot have a god as this is merely a contradictory in terms. To say: The Person being spoken to is God and has His God. This could only be True of the incarnated Son and His Father.

   I did respond to this point. My response was the discussion of the "Us" in Genesus 1:26.

  My point was that at that time nothing of subordination to authority within the Godhead could be seen. At best we see a kind of council within God.

   The idea of a symbol of authority and submission to authority was not revealed to us in the Bible at this time. Yet that God is triune or mysteriously an "Us" Who created man in "His own image" is revealed.

   I also addressed the diffivulty of understaning the Trinity by suggesting that "eternal life" which is what God is, must be a life beyond our concepts of limits. It is, in other words, more than simply a never ending life. It is everlasting in duration. But He is also eternal in quality and capability.

  I did not evade Israfil on this post.

 

The bold sentence implies that God is subordinate to himself (which was a mistake by early Christians proposing the Trinity as a doctrine). If Jesus was and truly is God he is not subordinate to himself, meaning, God cannot have unequal properties.

  Here Israfil wants to dictate to God what He can and cannot do.

   Not only is this an error by Islamic standards but an error in Christian standards since you have implied that within God are qualities that are unequal and subordinate to other qualities. I would suggest learning the ancient language of Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek before you interpret such faulty language.

   What God is is bound up in what God does. What He is in His nature is intimately related to His purpose.

 God's purpose is to dispense Himself into man. To dispense Himself into man He is triune.

 The Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission.

  God flows out into man. He is triune for this. He apparently is eternally triune. For we are told that each of the Three is God and eternal.

  The Father is eternal - (Isaiah 9:6;) 

  The Spirit is eternal - (Hebrew 9:14)

 The Son is eternal -    (Hebrews 7:2)

   In the case of the Son Hebrews says that He is a High Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedec. This Melchisedec Hebrews says appears in the book of Genesis - "Being without father, without mother, without genealogy; having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God, abides a priest perpetually." (7:3) 

 The meaning here is that the Son of God has neither beginning of days nor end of life. Therefore as the Father always was and is eternal and as the Spirit always was and is eternal so also the Son of God always was and is eternal.

  In eternity the Son had only divinity. On the bridge of time between the past eternity and the future eternity the eternal Son who had no beginning of days and no earthly father or mother in eternity past became incarnated. He became a man.

 This incarnation was for the dispensing of God into man. It was not for the dispensing of God into one man alone. It was for the dispensing of God into man as a many as a collective - sons of God.

 The eternal Son is the Head of this corporate entity and the object of our faith as believers and worship as lovers. The many sons through Him are His expansion and encrease. They have beginning of days but live eternally.

 The Son had no beginning of days (Hebrew 7:3) in that sense until He began the days of His being incarnated and born of the human virgin Mary. In that sense the man Jesus had beginning of days.

John's gospel also declares the eternalness of the Son of God by saying that the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). Then in verse 14 "And the Word became flesh". God the Word was incarnated and began the days of His becomming flesh in the realm of human history.

  My major point here is that the Three of the Trinity are all taught to be essentially eternal as always was.

 And my point is that this Threeness of the Godhead is related to His eternal plan to dispense Himself into man. Once again, the Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission which finally reaches the inside of man. God through His triune nature dispenses Himself into man to be mingled with man.

   I don't know about eternal past submission of the Second of the Trinity to the First. I have to study that matter more. But the plan of God cannot be divorced from the nature of God in the Bible.

Edited by Jocko

Jocko,

You are totally mizing this whole situation up. I was not offended or anything so that if my fault for not rearranging my words to sound "less excited" about not having a response. However, judging from the recent posts to other members it seems since my last post you were dodging me in a way. To clarify any future miscommunication if you have no response to any things I have said then truly, all you have to say is you have no response. I'm not sure if you did earlier but I did not catch it so this is merely an FYI.

I did respond to this point. My response was the discussion of the "Us" in Genesus 1:26.

  My point was that at that time nothing of subordination to authority within the Godhead could be seen. At best we see a kind of council within God.

   The idea of a symbol of authority and submission to authority was not revealed to us in the Bible at this time. Yet that God is triune or mysteriously an "Us" Who created man in "His own image" is revealed.

   I also addressed the diffivulty of understaning the Trinity by suggesting that "eternal life" which is what God is, must be a life beyond our concepts of limits. It is, in other words, more than simply a never ending life. It is everlasting in duration. But He is also eternal in quality and capability.

Simply reducing your analysis of the Trinity is not an acceptable answer especially if you are indicating that the Trinity implies truth. In terms of relating this to the subject God begetting Jesus is not an equal relationship. If the quality of God is Fatherness and the quality of the Son is Son-ness" then how can these two aspects be equal? If, as you say the Trinity is mysterious therefore we cannot create an explanation suitable to explain this much less the explanation of God begetting humans then why ascribe anything? Why begin to say Jesus is thus and so or God is thus and so if we cannot fully explain their relationship?

Why define things if our answer to criticism is "its mysterious" it is a total waste of time even defining things. The biggest mistake made by Christians are making definitions upon which we don't understand. This is why I've stopped ascribing to God attributes since, those attributes themselves are limiting-even the word infinite is limiting because infinite is subjective and can be defined differently.

I did not evade Israfil on this post.

You may not have intentionally but it seemed like it earlier-anyway, its water under the bridge as they say.

Here Israfil wants to dictate to God what He can and cannot do.

I'm only going off by what you have stated.

What God is is bound up in what God does. What He is in His nature is intimately related to His purpose.

 God's purpose is to dispense Himself into man. To dispense Himself into man He is triune.

 The Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission.

  God flows out into man. He is triune for this. He apparently is eternally triune. For we are told that each of the Three is God and eternal.

  The Father is eternal - (Isaiah 9:6;) 

  The Spirit is eternal - (Hebrew 9:14)

 The Son is eternal -    (Hebrews 7:2)

Would you agree that God is "not bound by anything?" If so how is it possible God is such and such? When you say God is something you are binding him to a word [in this case an attribute such as eternal]. I know you are basing your answers to doctrine but do you see the problem with words here?

This incarnation was for the dispensing of God into man. It was not for the dispensing of God into one man alone. It was for the dispensing of God into man as a many as a collective - sons of God.

 The eternal Son is the Head of this corporate entity and the object of our faith as believers and worship as lovers. The many sons through Him are His expansion and encrease. They have beginning of days but live eternally.

 The Son had no beginning of days (Hebrew 7:3) in that sense until He began the days of His being incarnated and born of the human virgin Mary. In that sense the man Jesus had beginning of days.

John's gospel also declares the eternalness of the Son of God by saying that the Word was with God and the Word was God (John 1:1). Then in verse 14 "And the Word became flesh". God the Word was incarnated and began the days of His becomming flesh in the realm of human history.

  My major point here is that the Three of the Trinity are all taught to be essentially eternal as always was.

 And my point is that this Threeness of the Godhead is related to His eternal plan to dispense Himself into man. Once again, the Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Holy Spirit is the flow, the transmission which finally reaches the inside of man. God through His triune nature dispenses Himself into man to be mingled with man.

   I don't know about eternal past submission of the Second of the Trinity to the First. I have to study that matter more. But the plan of God cannot be divorced from the nature of God in the Bible.

Regardless of your explanation, according to the Bible there was a time Jesus did not exist at least physically. So I don't know how the authors of the Bible can explain how the Son was eternal. Perhpas they would say the Son was eternal spiritually or somehow. Regardless, in matters of daletics you cannot answer the criticism on how unequal the relationship between Father[God] and Son[Jesus] is. The Father begets and the Son is begotten how is the son eternal when part of the Son's attribute is to be the begotten?

 

 

 Excuse me Israfil. But BMZ has something that I want to respond to right now.

 BMZ,

  Trinity is something which Jesus never hinted about, never taught and never preached.

  Jesus, of course we never see using the term Trinity. It is nowhere in the New Testament. It was coined in responsed to attacks against the Person of Christ which came hundreds of years latter.

  However Jesus spoke of the fact of the three-one Divine Being. Especially in John's gospel the foundation for this revelation is firmly laid. But also in Matthew's gospel.

 In Matthew 28:19 Jesus says "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ..."

 Notice that the Lord Jesus did not say to baptize them into the NAMES (plural). He said baptize them into the NAME (singular). The name of the Father and to the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

 What then is the NAME of this God? You might say that His name is Father - Son - Holy Spirit.  God wants to plunge people, immerse people, engulf people into the one living NAME of the Father - Son - Holy Spirit Divine Being.

I hope that you will see that this verse is not about a religious formula for putting people into water and what to say when you do. It is a charge that the disciples place people into the reality of God - the one God Who is Father - Son - and Holy Spirit.

 It was thought of long after Jesus was gone. Trinity is something which even very learned Chrsitians can neither understand themselves nor can they explain. Finall it becaomes a matter of Post-Jesus faith.

 That is true that we Christians have a very hard time explaining HOW God could be three-one. However, we can experience God in Christ. We can experience and enjoy the divine "We" coming to make an abode with us:

 "Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word, and My Father will love him. And We will come to him and make an abode with him" (John 14:23).

 The Son and the Father have come as the Holy Spirit and made an abode with me ... with me and with millions of others.  I know this. I cannot fully explain this but the Word of God is true when it tells me:

 "And in this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit whom He gave to us." (1 John 3:24b)

And again - "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are the children of God." (Rom. 8:16)

Paul tells the Corinthian Christians to examine themselves and remember that Jesus Christ is within them:

"Test yourslves whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves. Or do you not realize about yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you, unless you are disapproved?" (2 Cor. 13:6)

 I wish you could make this strong association in your mind, that whenever you think about "Trinity" you would think - "God getting into people. God operating to get into me."

 God is triune because He takes these "steps" to accomplish His plan to dispense God into man. The Father is the Source. The Son is the Course. And the Spirit is the flow - the transmission.

We need really to open up and receive this Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ into our hearts.

What kind of a God Almighty would have swindled Noah, Abraham and all the Jews over a period of 6,000 years?

 I don't know what you mean. But God did progressively unveil Himself in His nature and plan to the world. He manifested Himself in stages. He is too profound for us to have taken Him in.

 So the Gospel of John does not immediatly follow Genesis. Much ground work had to be accomplished by God to teach the world. His faithfulness to Abraham, His choosing and elect people to hold up His law, His people  to build Him a house to dwell in, a people from whom a Messiah would come.

 These were not God's swindles. Abraham will rejoice with the sanctified Christians and Jews in the kingdom. And all the saved nations will rejoice. God will build up the New Jerusalem and dwell with man for eternity. There is no swindle.

 There is a gradual and progressive revelation of the most profound God and the eternal life that He desires to impart into the saved.

The Jews had the Scriptures for 1,500 years with them and never knew about this triune god and some blokes discovered a triune god over the first 100-325 years.

 Their reward for belief and obediance is in accordance to the level of revelation that they did have. Why do you feel God is foolish?

 He is very good at being God. And He takes into account the level of revelation that was available to the past generations.

If you just read John 17 and specially the ones after  that I have emboldened, you will realise that trinity fails and flops. My comments are in blue fonts for an easy perusal:

   Thanks for your comments on John 17. I will have to add some of my own latter.

   

Edited by Jocko

"On page 2 of this thread, I asked:  "Who do you think the child is that Isaiah mentions?"

You responded: According to the Jewish interpretation, the passage is referring to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah. 

There is nothing in the Haddiths which suggests that Hezekiah would be known by such titles, either."

Very true.  In fact, NO ONE would be known by such titles as far as Islam is concerned.  I was pointing out that in the HEBREW BIBLE, it was customary to give names and titles to men which normally would be reserved for God alone.  I never I said I supported it!  I was only pointing out that the Bible does follow such a practice.  I was also pointing out that the passages that Jocko was wrongly quoting as being applied to the Messiah were actually applied to contemporary individuals, not a future individual.  Did you read my refutations of Jocko's claims?

"Yes, it is relevant. If Jewish interpretation can be used to disprove that child was Jesus, then Jewish interpretation can be used to disprove that Jesus was the Messiah."

No, because that verse has nothing to do with the Messiah, as I showed.  Whether Jesus is the Messiah or not according to Jews is dependent upon other verses, which the Jews believe refer to the Messiah, but since they don't believe that the verses from Isaiah refer to the Messiah, it is irrelevant what they think of Jesus.  If you were to refer to some other verse which would clearly be mentioning the Messiah, then it would be relevant, but since the verses from Isaiah clearly do not talk about the Messiah, it is irrelevant what the Jews think of Jesus.

"Yes, if that is all you consider.  Doesn�t it make even more sense, though, to apply the title to the one which dies but whom you expect to return thousands of years later?"

No, because in Islam we don't follow such a custom.  No human is deserving of that title in Islam, including Jesus and Hezekiah.  Also, according to Islam, Jesus did not die on the cross.  Instead, he was raised to Heaven.  When he does return, he will eventually die, as all humans must die at least once. 

"Okay.  So, how can you apply it to Hezekiah?  What conditions did he fulfill?  When did he refer to himself with such titles?"

I already discussed this with Jocko.  Read my responses to him concerning those particular verses.  Let me make myself clear.  I don't regard what is written in the Old Testament as being 100% true, along with the New Testament.  But, I did show that the passages from Isaiah were referring to figures in Isaiah's time.  Whether they were true prophecies or just some story written 100s of years later by Jewish priests, I do not know.  I also did not say that I agreed with the Biblical custom of ascribing names and titles to people which normally are reserved for God.  Perhaps, it was a Jewish custom.  What is important is that it is not an Islamic custom. 

"So, you don�t really reject the interpretation that the child is Jesus.  And, you don�t really accept the interpretation that the child is Hezekiah.  Either you simply reject any divinity of man or you object to others recognizing and addressing the God in man."

No, I feel that it does apply to Hezekiah.  I was simply noting that even if you could prove that Isaiah was referring to Jesus (which has not been proven), it would not prove that he was referring to a divine Messiah, given the Biblical custom of giving names, which if taken literally, denote a divine status to their holders but whose meanings are simply allegorical.  Whoever wrote the Book of Isaiah was referring to King Hezekiah, not the Messiah.  One thing is clear, though.  The Old Testament does point to a human Messiah, not one that is God in flesh. 


By the way, Jocko, I have not forgotten about you.  I am working on a response and will have it ready in a few days.  Ciao until then.


Edited by islamispeace