Honest & Sincere Seeking? Or Specific Theological Belief?
Dean
Our friend Kevin seems to want to have it both ways; first he suggests that he could never vote for someone who considers Christ to be related as a sibling to Satan, then he suggests he'll support those who honestly and sincerely seek God's will. Well which is it? Or is it impossible to honestly and sincerely seek God's will and still think Jesus is related somehow to a fallen angel? Which, while questionable in orthodox Christian thinking, hardly suggests that Mormons don't seek to follow God's will; it would suggest they're theologically mistaken about something important according to standard Christian doctrine.
Is it agreement with someone's faith you seek, or simple honest seeking of God's will, Kevin?
By the way, there are any number of Christians who don't believe in the Holy Trinity, which after all isn't even mentioned directly in the Bible, at least not by name and is only mentioned once in one disputed verse. Also, the "Jesus as Satan's brother" belief held by Mormons (of which I am not one and never will be one) is hardly to suggest that they're morally or spiritually equal. Here is a fair look at what Mormons actually believe on the subject. (You might want to see this too.)
By the way, I'd have no trouble voting for a Mormon. Or, for that matter, a fundamentalist Christian, even though I pretty much think the theology of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Fundamentalist Christians are all equally whacky and counter-biblical. Because I know most of those who follow those faiths are basically honest and decent people who seek to do God's will as they understand it.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Honest & Sincere Seeking? Or Specific Theological Belief?
- Huckabee Asks...
Yes.
They are not as seperate as you make them seem.
I will not, for example, vote for a Mormon because they are so theologically off the mark that unless their sincere searching brings them to the truth (and out of the LDS church) thier sincere belief they are doing God's will doesn't mean a thing.
Seeking to do Adonai's will "as they understand it" isn't good enough. Should it be Yeshua's words in Matthew 7:22-23 wouldn't make sense. There is a right way and a wrong way and sincerely believing you're right isn't enough.
So, again, the answer to your question is "yes." And in answering "yes" I'm not looking to have it "both ways" as they are two questions that must both be answered "yes."
But, and you love to do this Dean, I do not look for 100% agreement with my beliefs. Especially with a politician. Agreement on core issues is enough for me.
Feel free to vote for those "basically honest and decent people who seek to do God's will as they understand it." It's your right. But when I stand before Adonai and am brought to account for my actions, and whom I voted for is brought up, I want to be able to say I voted for the person I believed best kept Adonai's Word.
Because, in the end, that's all that is going to matter. My personal feelings of who is "basically honest and decent" need not apply.
There are many passages in the New Testament where Yeshua claims to be Adonai and/or does the things only Adonai may do. I don't know what this "one disputed verse" is you speak of.
Here's a brief article on the issue.
And regardless of what "any number of Christians" may believe, your own Church doesn't believe that so I don't know why you even brought it up. If you're right, and there is a "one disputed verse" it's pretty apparant what side of the issue the Catholic Church comes down on.
All of this whos-more-devout and whos-beliefs-best-match-my-own bickering is hilarious, in a sad and frustrating way.
The important things are: Which candidate would make a better President? .. And, perhaps more importantly, Which candidate can beat HillObama in November?
Arguing about which set of imaginary friends they have is less interesting than arguing about what color tie they favor. We kind of need to focus here, people.
I am certainly sympathetic to Romney and Mormons on this issue, given that Muslims revere Jesus Christ, but do not subscribe to traditional Christian (trinitarian) doctrine on Christ's nature.
I'm happy to!
For one to call themselves a Christian means they must believe a number of core things. A triune Adonai is one of those things. That is to say, that Yeshua is Adonai. If you don't believe this you are not a Christian. And, yes, I believe that if one is not a Christian this disqualifies them from elected office. For reasons stated in my front page post. I'm not saying this Constitutionally disqualifies them. It doesn't. It simply means I cannot, in good conscience, vote for them.
I make excpetion for the Jew because they worship the same Father Christians do (yes, I know how they feel about the Trinity issue... we're not talking about that). And in keeping Torah they allow Adonai to bless them and thier lands. Simply look at the history of the nation of Israel. One needn't consider Yeshua as Adonai to get Adonai's blessings. Keeping Adonai's Torah will get you that.
An athiest can bring Adonai's blessings upon himself if He keeps Adonai's Torah. The blessings are based upon what you do, not what you believe.
However, there's a distinct difference between how one personally conducts themselves and what that same person may bring upon a nation should they be made leader.
I hope this help a little.
That seems like a qualified endorsement of the Founders. Yet you just stated that
To be consistent, then, you should believe that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (not to mention John Adams and John Quincy Adams) should not have been president because their Unitarian beliefs excluded them from the Christian religion. I am confused over how to reconcile this with your qualified endorsement of the Founders (quoted above). Perhaps you meant the Founders other than the principal authors of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
I wasn't seeking to do so.
And, as Mark Shaw demonstrates, there are people out there that can't even begin to try to understand where you're coming from on religious matters so to engage them on religious issues is a waste of time.
If people wish to talk to me directly feel free to e-mail me. I'd be happy to talk.
Have a good morning.
If you wish me to answer, please e-mail me.
For example: Mormons believe Jesus is in fact Adonai, God Himself, as well as the Messiah and the Savior of Mankind. Belief that Jesus is God (which the Mormons do believe) is not the definition of trinitarianism. Trinitarianism is the belief that there is one God with three equally important, well, "aspects" as you will: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
As it happens, the word "trinity" appears nowhere in Scripture, and, the formulation "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" appears only in Matthew 28:19--a verse which is disputed because it can't be found in any copy of the book of Matthew prior to the 4th century, and according to some scholars appears to have been inserted by later translators who thought it should be there. Furthermore, the Catholic Church's position on this is: it is a matter of individual opinion whether standard versions of Matthew 28:19 contain a later insertion or not. The Church's position is that it's basically irrelevant, because the Trinity is a correct part of Holy Tradition (of which Scripture is merely one part) and it's not relevant to the faith whether that verse was inserted later or not because it's still the truth as God preserved it.
You of course have a right to vote for anyone for any reason you want. But you shouldn't expect people not to point to flaws in your reasoning. Personally, I could never vote for someone who requires someone to be a member of their religion, or who believes whacky things like the idea that America was founded on Fundamentalist Christian dogma, which it never was, or that you can't question the Trinity and be a good or responsible politician. Whether I believe in the Trinity or not is not relevant, because I recognize that people of good character and conscience can dismiss the Trinity, as grave an error as that might be.
Anyway, in short: you need to educate yourself better on theological systems you don't understand before you start criticizing them.
I'm confused by your statement that "it's almost entirely fundamentalist, Bible-centric Christians... who dispute the trinity." Where do you place Unitarians in all of this? Granted, the modern movement was a result of Protestant Christianity, but there have been people essentially Unitarian in belief (such as the Arians) since the early days of Christian theological speculation.
The Trinity is a doctrine that Christ's Church has held to from the beginning. A mistake many, many Muslims (and other non-Christians) make is to somehow equate the Christian view of the Bible with the Muslim view of the Koran. This is false, and has been from the beginning. Christian teaching, until recent centuries, has always and universally been held to be both an oral and written tradition going back to the days of the Apostles and even well before it; the scriptures are only part of the tradition, and the scriptures often make reference to the orally transmitted teachings if you know where to look for them (indeed, some Bible verses are very hard to explain if you dismiss the orally-transmitted teachings).
A modern innovation in Christian thought, which seems to have happened as an extremist result of the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura (which appeared only a few centuries ago and only in the West), is the belief that all Christian teaching is to be found in the Bible. Oddly enough, there is no direct Biblical support for this viewpoint, and it's not a view that any Christians believed prior to the invention of the printing press a few centuries ago. For a good view on how the vast majority of the world's Christians view this and have throughout all of history, see ORAL APOSTOLIC TRADITION, which accurately reflects how the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and even traditionalist Episcopalians and Lutherans view it (i.e. the vast majority of Christians worldwide).
Only a tiny minority of Christians view the Bible as the only source of God's word that we have today. Although such Christians are probably roughly half of those found in the United States, they are a distinct minority worldwide and throughout history.
So, anyway, to get more directly to your question: Christian teaching has always included the Trinity, the belief that Jesus is part of the Triune God of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It is only people who took up the (in my view heretical) view that the Bible alone is God's Word to Man who deny the Trinity, and in so doing they are forced to repudiate at least one troublesome verse.
Since Muslims deny the divinity of Christ, even though they do believe in the Virgin Birth and that he was a prophet and that the Bible contains many truths, they aren't Christians. Although I wouldn't object to Islam as being characterized as "part of the Judeo-Christian tradition," since it so clearly is part of that tradition.
My own view of anti-trinitarianism is fairly liberal: I grant that people who deny the trinity deserve the appellation of "Christians" so long as they believe in the divnity of Christ, even though they're gravely in error since trinitarianism is a fundamental Christian teaching and has been for 2,000 years. I thus think Mormons are Christians, just weird ones following a spurious set of texts (i.e. the Book of Mormon).
Muslims don't qualify as Christian, because "follower of Jesus Christ" is too broad an appellation, and even includes some people who consider themselves atheists or unitarians. More to the point, "Christ" is a title not a name, and means "anointed one," as in anointed Son of God. If you believe in Jesus as merely a prophet, then you probably shouldn't even call him Jesus Christ, since that's not his name--you should just call him Jesus, or Jesus of Nazareth, or whatever.
As you know, I consider Muslims to be theologically in error. That doesn't mean I consider them bad people or bad Americans. Heresy's common, and it's not my duty to run around stamping it out everywhere it appears. I can only bear witness to what I have learned and what I think.
Like all of us, Kevin is entitled to his own opinion. And politically speaking, that opinion is worth exactly the same as mine and everyone else's on here - one vote on election day.
Also, if he defines the Trinity wrongly (which he does), then he should also expect to be corrected.
He can vote for whoever he wants for whatever reason he wants, but he shouldn't expect to say false things and not be corrected. No one should. And this isn't a matter of debate: Mormons believe Jesus is God. Period.
By beginning, we mean at least the Nicean council when it was formally codified. Before that, their were certainly differences in opinion on the matter, and both sides used scripture and oral tradition to support their views.
Dan, this is off the subject, and I don't really know what kind of Muslim you are (although I know what the Sufis I know will say), but do Muslims believe in the Virgin birth?
The reason I ask is not to start an argument, but I'm curious, though I already know the answer from Muslims I most often receive.
But, I don't wanna get involved in a long dissertation, or diatribe, as it's not my intention to argue with you. I'm just curious.
Do they believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, or not?
________________________________________________
As for the more general matter of discussion, here is my opinion, and it's just an opinion, like everyone else. It is not possible for men to fully understand the Truth. the human mind has too many limitations, reason and theological debate (as interesting to me as it is) and doctrine will never get you to the Absolute Truth. If men were capable of reaching the Real Truth, and knowing what that meant and what kind of responsibilities it entailed, they would be God. If corporate groups of men were capable of fully understanding God, be they Jews, Muslims, the Church, Hindu, or whatever, then they would be God. They would know God perfectly. And to know God perfectly that's all you'd wanna be, the only way you'd wanna behave, and exist.
As the history of the Jews, of Islam, and of the Church and all her various shades can easily historically testify, it's never happened. It's never gonna happen as long as men are men. Men are too limited, our senses too small, our minds too fragile and weak, our souls too often trapped in minutiae and mundane matters (one of which is, who should be president? - which is a very important mundane matter for this world, but no theological discourse or dictate is gonna reach the absolute truth of that anymore than any theological debate is gonna settle the Absolute Truth of the Absolute Truth.)
Get over yourselves men and women, you're just not capable of such a thing, even when it is spoon fed to you. God has been talking to men since the beginning of men, and we still haven't gotten it right. Or there would be some kinda real evidence somewhere. Oh, I'm sure individuals have made good stabs at it, and this or that culture or group has done a good job for awhile, but if they had gotten it perfectly and consistently, from then on, then they'd be perfect - and they haven't and they aren't and they won't. In other words being God is about a lot more than just knowing the right things, the right people, attending the right parties. It's consistency. You don't get a vacation from being God, now ask yourselves how many vacations you've taken from being God-like?
So if the ultimate fate of men's souls depends entirely on what we know (gnosis) and what we do about what we know, my opinion is we're all screwed. You, me, the whole lot. Cause we're just not that great, not that perfect, not that brilliant, not that wonderful, not that Godly. If we were we would be, but we're so obviously not, and that's just the way it is folks.
Prove me wrong by being perfect, prove me wrong by knowing everything, prove me wrong by being God awhile.
I'm kinda betting, that like me, you're kinda underqualified. Maybe vastly.
Now, that doesn't mean men shouldn't seek God, shouldn't do the best we can, shouldn't struggle, try, find if they can, and hold on to when their limitations allow. Doesn't mean men shouldn't ague over the Truth and try to discern it. That is only as it should be.
But everything you know, everything you'll ever know, everything you've ever known has been washed through the sieve of yourselves, and that kinda filter just isn't meant to catch and hold God. Anymore than your eyes are. The universe is a big place, you're a small creature. A being in the body of a man. But just one being, nothing more, nothing less. God loves you, but it sure ain't because of how brilliant and how wise you think you are. Because in comparison you're not really either. As a matter of fact, in comparison, you're not really a lot of things.
So don't kid yourselves kids, in your small, puny, human hubris.
Even when God gives it to ya straight, you're gonna screw it up somehow, and that's okay, you're only human after all.
Only a little lower than the angels, but that's still one helluvah long ways from God.
Keep trying to get there, by all means and for God's sake, not to mention your own, but don't ever confuse the fact that you're on the way with the fact that you've really arrived.
But if you do happen to get there then send me a postcard.
I'm dying (and really aren't we all) to see what I can finally look forwards to.
I'm with Flash on this one Jack.
I like Big Blue, he's my kinda guy, but even he has his limitations.
Yes. I am well aware of the history of the Unitarian Universalists: they formed of a merger of a Unitarian and a Universalist church, both of which started as specifically Christian movements, but evolved more broadly. Some more traditional UUs define themselves as Christians, but some don't. Yes, I specifically meant Christian Unitarians, whether within the UU org or not.
At least according to your belief of what was and what was not "Christ's Church." There were many followers of Jesus who held non-trinitarian views, even from the beginning. But maybe they were not part of Christ's Church because they were "heretics" like the Arians.
Well, I don't hink it is a mistake I've ever made.
Muslims have oral traditions too, of course. Some have been subsequently written down (hadith literature), while some are preserved orally by various Sufi (and Shia) lineages. So it is also true that many Christians mistake the place of the Qur'an in the Muslim tradition. The doctrine of the "uncreated Qur'an," (which refers to a divine model, not in any human language, on which all revelations, including the Gospel given to Jesus, were formed), for instance, has been almost uniniversally misrepresented in the mainstream media.
I think you make the mistake of thinking that, since your traditions teach trinitarianism, that the only way non-trinitarian conclusions could have been reached by others was by ignoring traditions and reasoning by scripture alone. I don't think this conclusion follows. First of all, there is the possibility that a unitarian position could be reached by reference to a competing tradition (yes it is possible that more than one tradition was passed down by followers of Jesus - such as that of James the Just). Secondly, unitarian positions could have been reached through reason, i.e. by reference to neither oral tradition nor written scripture.
I don't necessarily disagree.
What about Arians and Nestorians? They were large movements at one time, and the latter still exist in the East. And I'm not sure that Unitarianism arose purely due to biblical literalism, but I could be wrong.
Thanks.
Fair enough.
I agree. Also, Muslims do not normally call themselves Christians, so your use of Christian is in keeping with Muslim usage.
Well, it does mean "annointed one," a fact of which I am well aware. However, it is the Christian interpretation that "annointed one" = "Son of God," but not the only possible interpretation of the word "Christ." "Christ" is, after all, just the Greek term for Messiah. To Jews, the Messiah (i.e. the annointed one) refers to a man (not Son of God) whom God choses to lead a rebirth of the Jewish state of Israel (or something like that). Similarly, Muslims believe that Jesus was the Messiah, but not the Son of God (yes that is orthodox Muslim teaching: Jesus is called Messiah in the Qur'an, but his Sonship is denied as well.) Here are three translations of Qur'an 3:45:
YUSUFALI: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah;
PICKTHAL: (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).
SHAKIR: When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the '. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).
Not merely a prophet, but also the Messiah. Also, like Christians, Muslims believe Jesus will return (again, that is orthodox Muslim teaching). Interestingly, the Qur'an also refers to Jesus as a "word" and a "spirit" from God. Here is Qur'an 4:171 (trans. Yusuf Ali):
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.
Thanks. I agree with you on that (not on the error of Muslims, but on the point of not stamping out heresy everywhere).
What bothers me is when otherwise (apparently) intelligent people say (or very clearly imply) things like "if X gets the nomination I will stay home on election day" - which is, in effect, a vote for whoever X is running against. This happens every election cycle, and it's just wack.
I said it myself, I must admit, early in the election season. I made a big show about being unable to vote for Giuliani in the general election, because there's no way I could ever cast a vote for an advocate of gun "control." Then I wised up - I'm now actually conflicted between Giuliani and Thompson in the Primaries (the latter because I like him, and the former because I believe he has the best chance of taking NY in a race against Hillary).
Staying home in disgust because you don't like your party's nominee - for whatever reason - can be an acceptable form of private protest if you live in a solidly red (or blue, if you're a Democrat) state. If you live in a battleground state, however, it's probably one of the most morally ridiculous things you can do in the context of representational democracy.
Yes, Muslims (nearly all as far as I know), believe Jesus was born of a virgin. See, for instance, Qur'an 19:17-22 (trans. Yusuf Ali):
She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: "I seek refuge from thee to (Allah) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah." He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son. She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us':It is a matter (so) decreed." So she conceived him, and she retired with him to a remote place.
By the way, in terms of my kind of Islam, I am a Sunni, with both Sufi and rationalist influences.
Indeed, I often laugh at people who try to say things like "We have no creed but the Bible." Which is ridiculous, because that's a creed in and of itself, and furthermore, it's not to be found anywhere in the Bible! Yet still you have these folks running around with an incredibly anti-intellectual, self-centered "I can read it myself and know the truth" mentality, pretending they've got special divine revelations of their own. Ridiculous.
Agreed. That is the Sola Scriptura the reformers were talking about, and the one that I subscribe to. People take things to extremes and in doing so make a mess of things.
Self constructed standards of holiness are one of my pet peeves. 'No Creed but the Bible' is one of those things. One feels inclined to ask 'Why?' 'Do you have no desire to learn from the giants of the faith who have trod down the very path you are headed right now and found it lacking?'
Honestly it is usually a deep seated pride. They can take the bible and interpret it to mean a certain thing outside of what normal traditional understanding and church history has said it means, and create their own version of 'God' essentially.
While Huckabee seems to talk the right 'talk' I have a reticence that he is just another Bush 'conservative'. I am not sure I'd vote for romney either, and I have to admit my reticence there is because of his faith, to a small extent. However for people to state that mormans are 'absolutely' not christians is beyond the pale, IMO.
There is, IMO, no perfect understanding of Christ or God on this earth. 'We see through a glass darkly', as it is said. That's not to say that the Mormon church, IMO doesn't have significant theological issues. But that's also not to say that someone who is a Mormon is not redeemed. I'm simply not a big enough 'man' to fill the shoes of the one who can make that proclamation.
Would I elect one president? I'm undecided. I suspect many, many others are too. Convince me, Mr. Romney that you aren't a Massachusetts tax and spend Republican in disguise. For indeed, I fear that more than I do the specifics of his version of 'Christian Faith'. In that lies the essense of his character. Would he steal from others to help the poor? Do the ends, there, justify the means?
Also, Nestorius was born around 386 and died around 451. And, to the best of my knowledge, the only people in the East who say anything nice about Nestorius are the Assyrian Church of the East, but they too teach that Christ was the uniquely begotten direct Son of God, and they claim that Nestorius was misunderstood and that there is no conflict between what they believe and the concept of the Trinity.
Thus I don't think you can make the case that Nestorianism is as you portray it.
Arianism is a little harder to argue about, since it was once a very widespread branch of Christianity, and Arius was born around the year 250, closer to the beginnings of Christianity but still more than 200 years after Christ. It was probably the biggest argument Christians had with each other in the early church's history. Yet it must still be said, of the roughly 300 Bishops in attendance of the Council of Nicea, only three refused to sign the Nicene Creed. Most sources I've read suggest that Arianism died in most of the world by the 5th century, although pockets of it remained until the 8th, then it disappeared.
You could also I suppose bring in the Gnostics if you want to string this argument along long enough, but the fact remains that the mainstream of Christian thought has, to the best evidence we have available, always been Trinitarian. I can understand why a Muslim would be somewhat sympathetic to non-Trinitarian Christians since that's closer to the teachings of Islam, but the Christian religion as it is understood and practiced by the vast majority of Christians around the world and throughout history has always been thoroughly Trinitarian.
As for Christian Unitarians: it's fairly clear to me that their roots are solidly in the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century, and that they're an outgrowth of the folks who think you can read the Bible and come to your own conclusions about anything you read in it, a view rejected by people like Martin Luther and John Calvin but undeniably a direct result of the wheels they set in motion. Mormonism to me is pretty clearly a weird offshoot of this entire viewpoint, which is why it's written in the weird semi King James-ish language and style, because that's the roots Joseph Smith grew up with, much like the Quakers, the Baptists, the Mennonites, the Hutterites, etc.
In short, to accept anti-Trinitarianism as Christian thought, you basically have to look for minority views that have been in the minority from the beginning, still are a very small minority, and that didn't exist at all for anywhere from 800 to a thousand years anywhere in Christendom. That's a pretty tall order if you ask me, but what do I know?
Well said! Hear hear!
Amen.
"Christ" does mean "anointed one" though, not "Messiah." Messiah is merely implied by it, to my understanding.
Any language scholars hanging around?
The traditional Christian concept of the Bible is that it is part of the Traditions of the Church, and is the Word of God co-equal to the oral teachings of the Apostles--and indeed, there are references all over the Bible that directly talk about those oral teachings, even uphold them. And, the traditional Christian teaching on the Bible may be that it's the inspired and infallible and complete Word of God, it is understood that this was done through human hands and with human interpretations.
Now, this is the standing view of the vast majority of the world's Christians, although once you hit Western Protestantism it starts getting more and more dicey as you move closer and closer to the "we have no creed but the Bible" people. The doctrine of Sola Scriptura leads Protestants to put the scriptures above tradition, and the extremist manifestations of it even throw out tradition almost completely--and in doing so, in my view, they turn the Bible into a conception much closer to how Muslims view the Koran, if I understand properly, for Muslims may accept the Hadith, but they recognize different Hadiths depending on which authority you ask, and most hold that the Hadith are secondary to the Koran and not co-equal to it. But Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and many Episcopalians and Lutherans hold that Scripture is PART OF tradition and co-equal to the oral teachings passed down by the Bishops.
Christianity is also traditionally hierarchical with a formal ordination process for the clergy, although some "Bible only" Christians also make themselves more like Muslims by repudiating those ancient doctrines.
Which is kinda all what I was trying to say: that, paradoxically, "Bible-only" Christians basically are more like Muslims than they are like the vast majority of Christians throughout all of history.
The Hebrew word for Christ is מָשִׁיחַ (Mašíaḥ, usually transliterated Messiah).
Republican debates about religious issues allow democrat to win presidency, Iran resumes nuclear weapons program. New president outlines plans for domestic agenda.
Dean, I am not saying you are "wrong," but it seems like what you presented is a simplification of Islamic doctrine. The Muslim doctrine that I know is that the "uncreated Qur'an" is the pre-eternal Word of God, perfect, and not in any himan tongue. When God sends messengers to Earth they are given teachings from this "uncreated Qur'an" by angels, but in human languages (the Qur'an relates that each nation was sent a prophet, and the prophets always spoke in the language of the people). Therefore, the message is limited by the medium. For this and other reasons, the "practices" (Sunnah) and "sayings" (ahadith) of the prophets are invaluable in trying to understand how to interpret the Divine Word rendered in imperfect human language.
Now, many Muslims do not believe in "Sola Sriptura" at least as defined by Wikipedia: "Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the assertion that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear (perspicuous) to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine." For instance, al-Ghazali (the great Sunni thinker) taught that numerous passages in the Qur'an can be interpreted in numerous ways, and that they therefore must be clarified by sayings (ahadith) of the prophet. Further, al-Ghazali taught that if reason contradicts the literal meaning of the Qur'an, then the passage must be understood metaphorically. Al-Ghazali also taught that God uses metaphors and allegories purposefully as a way of conveying divine (and thus unlimited) truths through the human (and thus limited) medium of language.
So my point is that the way Muslims view the Qur'an is complex, and cannot be easily used as anti-Christian Fundamentalist hammer (though I'd agree that Islamic fundamentalists and Christian fundamentalists tend toward similar attitudes toward scripture).
Now, when you say that
I agree. Most Muslims (at least Sunnis) do not believe in formal, rigid hierarchies in religion.
Exactly.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
If you are interested in reading more about the doctrine of the uncreated Qur'an, take a look at this excerpt from Sa'd al-Din al-Taftazani's commentary on the creed of Najm al-Din al-Nasafi. It is a classic statement on the subject from the late medieval period. Nafasi was a Maturidi (a more rationalist branch of theology popular in central Asia), while Taftazani was a later Ashari (Asharis became more rationalist over the years, beginning with al-Ghazali).
I should note that not all Sunnis agree with the view of the Qur'an I described here and above. For instance, I'm sure almost all Hanbalis (such as Wahhabis), many Salafis, and even some Asharis would disagree.
Perhaps, Daniel, one might ask a question.
Is it within the realm of Islam that a function of Divine Grace can enter the mind of an individual human independent of having had a prophet or archangel intercede on behalf of a nation ?
You kinda sounded like one.
By the way, since you gave me the answer about the Virgin birth I kinda figured you would, I have one last question for ya.
Who is the father?
If God, according to the Koran, sent an angel to announce to Mary that she was gonna have a child, and if Mary replied how, and God said by messenger, "that's easy for me," but no man was involved, then who exactly is the father? And what does that imply precisely, since Jesus is the only person, as far as I know, who is claimed to have been actually born by virgin in either religion?
No matter the how, who is the father? Who caused it? Who is the agent responsible for her pregnancy? And for Christ to be born?
Do you see what I'm driving at?
Even if you don't believe in the Trinity, wouldn't Christ, according to Islamic tradition, if the implication of the Koran is correct, actually be the Son of God, even if he ain't God himself?
If a virgin pregnancy is easy for God, and if as implied, God caused it, wouldn't it be a more or less accurate statement if Christ claimed God was his Father? Theologically speaking.
I see no reason why not. God works in mysterious ways, not least with regards to His grace.
Jack,
I did indeed expect that question. I suppose it is a bit semantic. If efficient cause equals father, then I suppose you have an argument that Muslims should call God the father of Jesus. Yet God created Adam, right? (Or at least that's what everyone thought before Darwin came along.) So how could Jesus be God's ONLY begotten Son to Christians if Adam was also his son? I think the answer is that fatherhood implies more than just efficient causation -- it also implies passing on of the father's nature to the son. This is what Muslims deny with respect to Jesus and what Christians deny with respect to Adam. And indeed Muslims compare God's relationship to Jesus with His relationship to Adam.
None of the above implies endorsement of these ideas. Just my understanding of the theology, which is imperfect of course.
If you think that God's creation of people/spirits automatically makes God their father, then that would imply you believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers! ;)
It is my understanding that Nestorians believe Christ to be the divine logos, the Word of God, begotten but pre-eternal, but distinct from the man Jesus in whom He came to dwell. I was not trying to imply that their beliefs were exactly those of Unitarians, but just that there were some similarities. For one, Nestorians believe(d), like Unitarians and like Muslims, that the man Jesus was not divine.
You know, a fella can have a bad brother.
I wrote a play one time in which Christ and Satan are implied brothers, Satan being he prodigal who refuses to return home, Christ being the faithful son who decides to become the New Prodigal, not for his own sake, but to lead Men back to God. Anyhwo that's neither here nor there.
As to whether they are really brothers, that's way above my pay-grade.
they might be, in one sense, half-brothers, of the same Father, different mothers (though that's a more metaphysical than pragmatic rumination.) However it works out, I'll be satisfied.
But then again I don't necessarily reality has to conform to my beliefs. As a matter of fact, I'd be awful disappointed if reality were anywhere near that small.
As to whether someone is automatically a child of God, I guess that all depends too. A man can have a bad son, God apparently had one if Christian and Jewish and Islamic tradition is true. Is a child your child through genetic descent, or spiritual ascent? Does our genesis make our ends, or do our ends assure our natures? But I reckon in time we'll all find out. And there will be time enough for that in eternity.
Still, I will say this. It is my suspicion that men are possessed of Spiritual Genetic Codes, indeed anything with a spirit probably is, of which our physical genetic codes are corporal expressions. As to what all that implies your guess is as good as mine.
Well, begotten as in "run through the Womb," as in, it took both God and Man (as Woman) to create Jesus. Or to incorporate him, as in in-corporal-ate him, to make a little pun, or set of em. He gestated. Adam may have had a womb, of a kind, but it wasn't the regular kind. I guess though if you really think about it, a Virgin Womb isn't either. Just all depends on how you look at it I reckon.
But you know there are quite a few more mystically oriented Christians, and a few Sufis too, who consider Christ the New Adam, Adam the first Adam. So, maybe an Adam here, an Adam there, and pretty soon you're talking real munni.
Let's just say if Satan has a brother in the computing field, it's Microsoft grammar.
Just its grammar?
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.