Feature Article: Begotten n̶o̶t̶ Made

The christian bible clearly says the messiah Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning, he was made of a woman and born in a stable in Bethlehem 1, as simple as that, but christendom makes it so complicated that somehow the messiah had no beginning and uncreated.

But if we read the TaNaKH (Torah Neviim ve Khetuvim) and we study things related to “begetting” and “creation” we will never find anything remotely resemble to this idea that the messiah is “begotten (but) not made” a theological term is which attempted to solve the mystery of the dual nature of the messiah (Al-lāhūt wa An-Nāsūt).

The  Qur’an asserts that Isa Al-Masih is merely a al-Kalimah 2 (الكلمة) that is “the Word” as a  singular (mufrad), not plural Kalām (كلام) , and in the Qur’ān al-Kalimah is a created being not the creator or the source of creation. The Qur’anic s designation of Isa Al-Masih as al-Kalimah or “the Word” which is a created being bears striking agreement with jewish tradition that the Messiah is God’s creation not uncreated being. We read in the Talmud:

“Three things were created on the basis of the name of the Holy One: the Righteous, the Messiah and Jerusalem.” 3.

This really is the red thread between Islam and Judaism. In the Torah, in the beginning God bara – בָּרָא  (to create, shape, form), and asah – עָשָׂה (to do, make) heaven and earth. So for heaven and earth in the beginning there was a begetting process, toledoth hashamayim ve ha’aretz – תּוֺלְדוֺת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְהָאָרֶץ  (Gen 2:4). There are two keywords employed side by side at the time of creation of the heaven and earth in Gen 2:4  with the same lexical meaning that is ילד (yeled) which literally means “to beget” dan ברא (BARA), which means. “to create”. Hence according to the Torah, begetting is an act of creation and the Talmud also makes it clear that the Messiah is created and formed. Altogether it negates the Nicene Creed’s affirmation that Messiah  was “begotten not made” (gennithénta ou poiithénta – γεννηθέντα ου ποιηθέντα or in latin genitum non factum and  in Arabic مولود غير مخلوق – mawlūd ghayru makhlūq) which is so much verbal nonsense because the Messiah was going through begetting process (תולדות – generation).

Please note that this post focuses only on the semantic range of yeled ילד dan bara’ ברא in jewish texts, but not to some other term employed in TaNaKH דעת יה (Da’at HASHEM), חכמה (Hochmah), דבר (Davar) or מימרא (Meimra) in relation to “the Word” of God.  In here I argue there is no indication we find in judaic tradition that yeled ילד ever denotes any concept of a divine attribute. Whereas bara‘ ברא denote a “creation” an attribute of created beings. When we look at the text of Genesis 2:4 it is obvious that even though God created heaven and earth by way of  “generating/begetting” it is not then a proof that heaven and earth has divine attribute in other words it refers not to their original divine “substance”.

The Talmud sealed the deal that when it comes to the Torah use of the term bara’ ילד → berativ  בראתיו (creation) which was specified to the messiah of the jewish people, there is no room for divine connotation, only for his human essence. The problem originated from the fourth century the doctrine set out at Nicaea which in order to oppose the idea that the messiah Jesus (pbuh)  was a created being. So the Jesus (pbuh) had no beginning, the Nicene declaration stated that even though the Son was “begotten not made” that there was never a time when the Son was not.

For something to be ‘begotten’ or ‘made’, there has to be a time when it came into existence, and before which it was not.  The typical christian argument is that Jesus is both God and man. As God he doesn’t have beginning. As man he was born in Bethlehem. However you can not have it both ways. It does not solve the problem how could Jesus have a one-self personality, but could remember his life as a man and also remember his divine life. No 100% human being, still less a perfect one, could have such memories.

Finally the “begotten not made”  doctrine is a blatant contradiction. The view that the Jesus was begotten as a created being on the basis of God’s name and utterance finds harmony with the Qur’an and  Jewish tradition.

Footnotes

  1. Mat 2:1; Luke 2:7;  Gal 4:4
  2. Q 4:171
  3. Talmud Bavli, masekhet Baba Bathra 75b.

Screen Shot 2019-04-01 at 07.30.30

Ve’amar ravah rav yochanan atîdî tzadîkîm shanakra’in al sh’mo shel hakav”h (hakadósh barúkh hú) shene’emar (yeshayahu 43:7)

Rabbi Yohanan said that the righteous will be called in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is written (Isaiah 43: 7)

Screen Shot 2019-04-01 at 07.33.35.png

Kal hanik’ra bish’mî v’likh’bodî berativ yetzartiv af shitiv, ve rav sh’muel bar nachmani rav yochanan gi nik’r’u al sh’mo shel hakav”h (hakadósh barúkh hú) v’elu hen tzadîkîm umashiyach ve yerushalayim

All that is called by my name and to glorify me whom I have CREATED, I have FORMED him, yea I have MADE him. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says (that) Rabbi Yochanan (says): three were called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and they are the righteous, Messiah and Jerusalem

 



Categories: Feature Article, Islam, Jesus, Tanakh

Tags: , , ,

45 replies

  1. Dear Mr Kisam

    Thank you for this very interesting article. However there are certain points i wish to make regarding it. Why do you quote from the Talmud, since Muslims have historically been critical of this accumulation of Pharisaic wisdom. This is a quotation from the website islamreligion.com :

    Rabbi Dr. Louis Finkelstein, Instructor of Talmud, and later president of the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, writes:

    “Pharisaism became Talmudism, Talmudism became Medieval Rabbinism, and Medieval Rabbinism became Modern Rabbinism. But throughout these changes of name, inevitable adaptation of custom, and adjustment of Law, the spirit of the ancient Pharisee survives unaltered. When the Jew reads his prayers, he is reciting formulae prepared by pre-Maccabean scholars; when he dons the cloak prescribed for the Day of Atonement and Passover Eve, he is wearing the festival garment of ancient Jerusalem; when he studies the Talmud, he is actually repeating the arguments used in the Palestinian academies.”[7]

    Jesus is reported to have strongly denounced this very sect of Jewish priests known as the Pharisees:

    John 8:44 “Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.”

    In addition, Jesus is reported to have said that they nullified all the Commandments of God by their Tradition, “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:13; Matt. 15:6-9, etc.). His invective, in truth, cannot be equaled. All of Matthew 23 is like a whiplash. He likened Pharisaism to a white sepulcher, indeed beautiful outwardly, but “inside full of dead men’s bones and of all uncleanness.” Christ climaxed one condemnation after another with the expletive, “Hypocrites!” He called the Pharisees children of them that killed the Prophets. He foretold they would go on killing, crucifying and persecuting until the guilt for all the righteous blood shed from Abel on down would be upon them. “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Christ asked.’

    Regarding the position of the infallible Church on the nature of Our Lord being Begotten not Made, will allow the Holy Fathers, of holy and blessed memory, to speak:

    St Ignatius of Antioch, of holy and blessed memory:
    “we ought to bear all things for the sake of God, that He also may bear with us. Be ever becoming more zealous than what thou art. Weigh carefully the times. Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes,” (Letter to Polycarp, Chapter 3).

    St Irenaeus, of holy and blessed memory:
    ‘But again, those who assert that He was simply a mere man, begotten by Joseph, remaining in the bondage of the old disobedience, are in a state of death having been not as yet joined to the Word of God the Father, nor receiving liberty through the Son, as He does Himself declare: If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. John 8:36 But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life; Romans 6:23 and not receiving the incorruptible Word, they remain in mortal flesh, and are debtors to death, not obtaining the antidote of life. To whom the Word says, mentioning His own gift of grace: I said, You are all the sons of the Highest, and gods; but you shall die like men. He speaks undoubtedly these words to those who have not received the gift of adoption, but who despise the incarnation of the pure generation of the Word of God, defraud human nature of promotion into God, and prove themselves ungrateful to the Word of God, who became flesh for them. For it was for this end that the Word of God was made man, and He who was the Son of God became the Son of man, that man, having been taken into the Word, and receiving the adoption, might become the son of God. For by no other means could we have attained to incorruptibility and immortality, unless we had been united to incorruptibility and immortality. But how could we be joined to incorruptibility and immortality, unless, first, incorruptibility and immortality had become that which we also are, so that the corruptible might be swallowed up by incorruptibility, and the mortal by immortality, that we might receive the adoption of sons?’

    St Dionysus of Alexandria, of holy and blessed memory:
    . There certainly was not a time when God was not the Father.

    2. Neither, indeed, as though He had not brought forth these things, did God afterwards beget the Son, but because the Son has existence not from Himself, but from the Father.

    (And after a few words he says of the Son Himself:—)

    3. Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. For since light is always in existence, it is manifest that its brightness also exists, because light is perceived to exist from the fact that it shines, and it is impossible that light should not shine. And let us once more come to illustrations. If the sun exists, there is also day; if nothing of this be manifest, it is impossible that the sun should be there. If then the sun were eternal, the day would never end; but now, for such is not really the state of the case, the day begins with the beginning of the sun, and ends with its ending. But God is the eternal Light, which has neither had a beginning, nor shall ever fail. Therefore the eternal brightness shines forth before Him, and co-exists with Him, in that, existing without a beginning, and always begotten, He always shines before Him; and He is that Wisdom which says, “I was that wherein He delighted, and I was daily His delight before His face at all times.”

    (And a little after he thus pursues his discourse from the same point:—)

    4. Since, therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, Light of Light. For where there is the begetter, there is also the offspring. And if there is no offspring, how and of what can He be the begetter? But both are, and always are. Since, then, God is the Light, Christ is the Brightness. And since He is a Spirit—for says He, “God is a Spirit” —fittingly again is Christ called Breath; for “He,” saith He, “is the breath of God’s power.” (And again he says:—)

    5. Moreover, the Son alone, always co-existing with the Father, and filled with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father.

    St Athanasius of Alexandria, of holy and Blessed memory:
    As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son.

    This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father’s Word and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks of ‘Son,’ in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence; and, on the other hand, that none may think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His essence, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance; to teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of God. What affection then, or what part of the Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance? So much may be impressed even on these men of folly; for as they asked women concerning God’s Son, so let them inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that the word which they put forth is neither an affection of them nor a part of their mind.

    But if such be the word of men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from God is not an affection; and now it has been shewn in particular that the Word is not begotten according to affection. The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not as man; nor must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoso partake are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not a passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good that He be Father, but has not ever been Father, then good has not ever been in Him.’

    God Love you and thank you again

    Like

    • Hi Tobias, thank you for your comment.

      Why the Talmud? as a muslim I surely can give you a great length of why christians concept of God is false from my religious tradition but understandably christians will never accept that,  but you surely accept the authority of  jewish bible right? and noone know the hebrew bible more than the jews dont they?..and the Talmud was always part of jewish ancient chain of tradition in their study of their scripture, for them the Talmud was Oral Torah revealed to Moses in written form. Of course as a muslim I study the Talmud with critical care, to us it is no God-protected documents, we always anticipate human intervention for many centuries have creeped into their copies.

      And as for Jesus seemingly antipathy toward the pharisees in the gospels, I understand it in the way that Jesus dislike the Pharisees not as a religion itself but only some their leaders who  had deviated from the true path of Judaism, the religion of Jesus himself, by way of  political party and a social movement. This sentiment has also been echoed in the holy Qur’an as the very mission of Jesus the Prophet of God for the jewish people.

      With regard of you long citation from Church fathers in the defence of eternal begetting, forgive if Im wrong but If I can catch your point is that the generation of Jesus from God is not an act of affection? I have no problem with that but with this you still have problem of a supreme God (‘Yhwh’) and a secondary being called ‘Son’ who is less than and existed before Yhwh ie. he has a beginning because without Yhwh Jesus was never begotten. 

      Liked by 2 people

      • Dear Mr Kisam

        Thank you very much for your insightful reply. I fear sir that I have not explained myself very well. Firstly no Orthodox Christian believes that Our Lord was a ‘secondary god’ since this was the belief of Arius, the
        accursed of God, as found in the creed of Ulfilias the priest who was himself ordained by Eusebius of Nicomedia, the accursed of God. Even this most pernicious heresy believed that there existed a divine Trinity, but not equal in essence and nature. This can be found in the blasphemous creed of Sirmium.

        Regarding the quotations I gave from the Church fathers, of holy and blessed memory, they serve to display the falsity of the Arian belief that the Son was begotten in the sense of being created, and existed as a second, lesser divine being existing prior to the creation of the cosmos. By transforming the Son into a lesser, created divine being, the Holy Fathers saw the Arian attempt at paganising the Church, by transforming the Son into a lesser God comparable to the divinised Emperor Augustus.

        There was never a time when he was not. Indeed St Irenaeus, if holy and blessed memory, stated that the first vision of Ezekiel the prophet, of righteous memory, of the enthroned figure above the living creatures was a theophany of the pre incarnate Son, meaning that there was never a time when he was not. Christ himself said that no one knoweth the Son but the Father and know one knoweth the Father but the Son, and those to whom the Son chooses to reveals him to.

        All creatures a essentially compressible, for example I know that you and I have comparable hopes, needs and desires, as do all mere mortals. But Christ is saying that his nature, thought and being is utterly unknowable to all save the Father. He is completly alien to all save the Father. Secondly he says that he knows the Father utterly and completely, as no one else in all of the cosmos has. In this he is higher than all the prophet including Moses, of righteous memory, since all of the prophets constantly say that God is above the human ability to completely understand. If the Son were a lesser created being, there would be elements of the Fathers nature that would be alien and unknown to him. Yet he says that he knows the Father, in all of his divine complexity, perfectly, and that he is in his nature is above all and unknown by all save the Father. Even the mightiest of the heavenly host could not lay claim to such an exalted state. As such the Sonship of Christ is completely different from any metaphorical interpretation.

        Christ did not come for the Jews alone, but for all of creation, since at the end of time all nations shall be gathered before him in judgment, Jews, Gentiles and Arabs. Judgment implies complete authority. Christ says the ‘ gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a testimony to all nations’. Even books of biblical apocrypha such as the Book of Enoch the prophet, of righteous memory, state that the Messiah would have authority over all peoples : ‘ And he shall be the light of the Gentiles, and the hope of those who are troubled of heart, all those who dwell on earth shall fall down and worship before him’

        Lastly it is through the Son, and only through the Son, that the Heavenly Father has eternally revealed himself. It is Christ’s choice to reveal his Father in himself, choice implies equality since no slave can choose whether or not to do his masters will. In addition to this Christ describes the Father as the Lord of heaven and earth, yet later describes himself as the one who has all authority in heaven and on earth. Does this mean that the Father ceased be the Lord of heaven and earth, since the Son has all authority over both, certainly not. The only true interpretation of this is the eternal divine nature of the Son of God, one in essence with the Father.

        Christ says that his authority over heaven and earth is complete, unassailable and utter. He has authority over all things in heaven, the turning of all universes past present and future, the majestic terror of stars collapsing, thereby creating black holes, the mouvemts of all celestial angels and the choirs of the holy saints, of holy and blessed memory. He has authority over all things on earth is equally complete, unassailable and utter, with every living human soul and all species of animal, every city, town and people, including Mecca and Medina, under his kingship as he rules from the throne of his Father in Heaven. How can this be the rule of a merely created being, or a merely metaphorical Son of God ?

        Regarding the Talmud and Judaism, no I do not believe that that the biblical knowledge of the Jews is greater than all, since the One Divine Church is the true expositor of scripture. Both you and I believe Jesus is the Christ, and that the Jews were mistaken in not seeing their king. As such their earlier dignity as the true people of God was removed, and given to the one Church against which the forces of Hell shall never prevail. In addition to this the majority of Jews deny the existence of Hell, the existence of which as a place of torment for the evil ones is constantly affirmed in the Quran.

        Yet even in their texts regarding the coming of the Messiah are decidedly un Islamic in nature. For example in the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uziel, a disciple of Hillel, interprets the ninth chapter of Isaiah the prophet, of righteous memory, as so: ‘
        For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and he has the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity,the mighty God who liveth to eternity, the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days’ This was the interpretation given by the students of one of the greatest Jewish sages in the history of heir faith.
        And in a text from the later Talmud, specifically Sanhedrin 98, states ‘ Rabbi Alexandri says:
        “ Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. ‘It is written “there came with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” Daniel 7 13 14. And it is written “behold your king will come to you; he is just and victorious, lowly and riding upon a donkey, and upon a colt, the goal of a donkey” Zechariah 9 9. Rabbi Alexandri explains “if the Jewish people merit redemption, the messiah shall come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven, if they do not merit redemption the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey” Christ came upon a donkey.

        To summarise my dear sir, Christ by his own words is to be honoured and worshipped as True God “that all may honour the Son even as they honour the Father” how is the Father to be honoured according to the biblical text ? To be worshipped as the True God and Lord of heaven and earth. I am aware that I ramble and pontificate in a rather silly way but I hope I have explained my position reasonably well.

        God love you and thank you again.

        Like

      • Hi Tobias, thanks for your comment.

        My quick response:

        If I can understand it correctly, you are saying that Christ is uncreated because:

        1. He is no lesser than  Yhwh himself
        2. No one know the him but God and no one know God but him
        3. He had authority over all peoples
        4. He has all authority in heaven and on earth.

        My comment is

        1. But how could a co-equal of ‘God’ never identify himself as Yhwh the God of Israel? In fact no NT writers think that Jesus and Yhwh as the same identity?
        2. Of course as the great messenger of God Jesus knew his God better than anyone else. This is also Islamic position. We also dont any issue believing that only the God of Jesus know about him than anyone else
        3. It could be Jesus authority was given by his God. If something is given to someone it does not mean that someone “owns” it
        4. Again his authority was given, the truth is that Jesus was always a man, there was never a time when he was not… he was always subject to all the constraints and rules that all humans are subject to. At all times in his life, he had to regard his God as other than himself, pray to his God, and give all glory to his God.

         

         

        TB// For example in the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uziel, a disciple of Hillel, interprets the ninth chapter of Isaiah the prophet, of righteous memory, as so: ‘
        For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and he has the law upon himself to keep it. His name is called from eternity,the mighty God who liveth to eternity, the Messiah whose peace shall be great upon us in his days’ This was the interpretation given by the students of one of the greatest Jewish sages in the history of heir faith.//

         

        Im afraid that is not a correct translation of the text, “wonderful, the mighty God who liveth to eternity”  are not part of the messiah name but are descriptions of God himself.

        So the correct rendering should be:

        “The Prophet said to the House of David, For a Child was born to us, to us a son was given; and he will accept the Torah upon himself to observe it, and his name shall be called before the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, who exists forever, “The messiah in who’s days peace will increase upon us.”

         

        TB//And in a text from the later Talmud, specifically Sanhedrin 98, states ‘ Rabbi Alexandri says:
        “ Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. ‘It is written “there came with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” Daniel 7 13 14//

        But nowhere it proves that the Messiah is God, anyone who was given does not mean that he is the owner. The messiah who will come with clouds (or as a poor man riding on a donkey like in Zechariah 9:9)  is hardly a proof it is God himself who do such a thing . What is the need for God to display such a thing? Any of his creation by God permission can also perform such display.

        Like

    • Great material Tobias!

      Can you give the exact reference for the Irenaeus quote and also the Athanasius quote?

      in either:
      the newadvent website of early church fathers
      or

      the ccel collection of early church fathers

      Like

  2. Greetings

    The article opens with this sentence…

      «The christian bible clearly says the messiah Jesus (pbuh) had a beginning»

    ..and then it has an endnote referencing two verses which explicitly refer to Jesus’ birth (Matthew 2:1 & Luke 2:7) and another which can be interpreted as referring to His birth (Galatians 4:4). However, birth is not the beginning of existence.

    Before turning to Jesus specifically, consider an easy general demonstration of this: imagine a woman who is in her ninth month of pregnancy, with a perfectly healthy fetus, which was conceived in a consensual act, wants to get an abortion. I imagine many Muslims would consider specifically that kind of abortion to constitute murder, but imagine someone telling them that murder cannot possibly occur, as no person is being killed illicitly, as the person they have in mind has not been born yet, and therefore does not exist yet. To say that such an abortion would constitute murder is to say the relevant person exists before they are even born, which would mean birth is not the beginning of existence.

    Now, turning back to the Christian Bible and Jesus specifically, while, yes, the Christian Bible does affirm Jesus’ birth on multiple occasions, it also affirms that He existed before His birth (and even before His conception in His mother’s womb, in case one wants to push the argument back to conception). We see this alluded to in John 1:1, which has the Logos already existing at the very beginning (side note: which I interpret to mean there was no point before His existence); so too, John 17:5 has Him alluding to Himself existing before the cosmos was created. This is also explicit in John 8:58, where He states He existed before Abraham existed (which would clearly entail His existence before both His birth and His conception in Mary’s womb). Beyond that, the Bible also has Christ participating in the creation of all things (John 1:1, Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:10). In order for Him to participate in creation, He Himself would have to exist (and this would include things created presumably billions of years before His birth). Ergo, according to the Christian Bible, the birth (or even conception) of Jesus was not the beginning of His existence.

    ***

    That said, I nonetheless appreciate the article attempting to demonstrate an overlap between creation and “begetting”. I would not say that every act of “begetting” entails that the thing which was “begotten” was created or began to exist at the point of that begetting, but I would nonetheless agree that the verbs behind our English word “beget” can refer to acts of creation which are not simply sexually, biologically procreative. For example, I have long maintained that Psalm 90:2 referring to when harīm yuladū (mountains were “begotten”) refers to God creating mountains. Forgive me if this segue is a bit off topic, but is of interest to me because, if we can agree to that (i.e. that a verb from the YLD root typically treated as meaning “beget” can refer to creative acts of God), then I see that as having relevance to Christian-Muslim dialogue on the subject sūrat al-IkhlāS.

    As I have argued elsewhere (e.g. here and here), while many Muslims treat the 112th chapter of the Qur’ān as a polemic against Christian doctrine, and many Christians accept that view, a Christian with a careful eye might notice that there is nothing therein which is obviously or necessarily at odds with Christian doctrine (that is to say, the problem is not necessarily with the text itself but rather how people interpret the text). However, the one verse which seems to provide the most potential difficulty for reconciling the chapter with Christianity is the third verse, which says of God lam yalid wa-lam yūlad (He does not beget and He is not begotten). If we are charitable enough with the text to assume the author could have been aware that the semantic range of constructions from the Semitic root YLD can include acts of creation by God, then that opens the door to the verse only referring to certain kinds of “begetting,” not all kinds of “begetting”.

    ***

    [Fun side note: we are having this correspondence in a week in which the parshah (i.e. weekly Rabbinic Torah portion) is Tazrī`a, which gets its name from a verse which apparently distinguishes between conception and birth. It is also one week since the feast of the Annunciation, which marks when Gabriel told Mary she would have a child, and is presumed to line up with Christ’s conception in her womb.]

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hi Dennis, thank you for commenting here, always a pleasure..

      As I understand it with your analogy we could say that we are all a pre-existent being if our creation do not literally began with our birth.  We all existed before we were born as our soul had been existence long before our birth

      ***

      As for your appeal to Johanine prologue, I must deter however there is no ‘Jesus’ described as being in the beginning with a ‘God the Father’. It is the Word (Logos – Λόγος) that is in the beginning with God himself. “Logos” is not synonymous with Jesus, or even “the Messiah.” surely muslims have no qualm with the word logos in John 1:1 as it refers to God’s creative command Be! by which Christ  was created in Mary’s womb. Even all created beings are brought into existence through God’s Word.

      ***

      As for your remark on sūrat al-Ikhlās, to my knowledge in Qur’anic dictum, the root (و – ل – د)  must refer to bring forth or beget offspring in a parents – child relationship ; (1) to beget (male) (2) to give birth, bear (female) 

      Liked by 1 person

      • Greetings Eric, and thank you for your reply.

          Eric wrote:
          with your analogy we could say that we are all a pre-existent being if our creation do not literally began with our birth. We all existed before we were born as our soul had been existence long before our birth

        I would be careful with the word pre-existent, but, that aside, I think it is an uncontroversial fact that we existed before our births (i.e. that we at least existed in our mothers’ wombs). I’m of the view that, for us mere humans, life typically starts at conception. You may not hold that view, but even if you don’t, I imagine you at least believe that life typically starts at some point within the pregnancy (e.g. after the muDgha stage, or after muscle begins to form on or with cartilage, et cetera). Otherwise, if you believe a person does not exist until they are born, is it your position that abortion (no matter at what stage, no matter the health of the fetus) can never be considered murder?

          Eric wrote:
          As for your appeal to Johanine prologue, I must deter however there is no ‘Jesus’ described as being in the beginning with a ‘God the Father’.

        Perhaps if we read John 1:1 in a vacuum, it remains open to question, but when read it together with the rest of the Bible, I think it becomes clear that the Son is the Logos. For example, one of Christ’s names is Logos (Revelation 19:13). The Logos taking on flesh (John 1:14) would correspond to Christ taking on human likeness (Philippians 2:7, 1 Timothy 3:16). The Logos having a role in the creation of all things (John 1:3) lines up with Christ participating in the creation of all things (Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 8:6). Moreover, the aforementioned point about Christ existing long before His conception in Mary’s womb is also relevant, as that too would entail that the Logos becoming flesh does not mean the Logos gave rise to the creation of a person who did not previously exist; rather it refers to the Son taking on flesh (as was just mentioned), as the Son already existed.

        [And for one other detail which might be more Catholic or Orthodox in perspective (insofar that it appeals to a text not recognized as Scripture by most of our Protestants friends), Christ walking the earth can be seen as corresponding to the all powerful Logos leaping from the throne, and standing on earth while still touching Heaven (Wisdom 18:15-16).]

          Eric wrote:
          As for your remark on sūrat al-Ikhlās, to my knowledge in Qur’anic dictum, the root (و – ل – د) must refer to bring forth or beget offspring in a parents – child relationship ; (1) to beget (male) (2) to give birth, bear (female)

        My point is that verbs arising from the WLD/YLD root(s) can have a wide semantic range across the Semitic languages, but sūrat al-Ikhlās 112:3 may be using the relevant verbs within a limited scope (your own reply immediately above seems to allude to such). So, for example, an affirmation of sūrat al-Ikhlās 112:3 need not entail rejecting the idea of interpreting harīm yuladū in Psalm 90:2 as referring to God’s creation of mountains. Therefore, if the phrase lam yalid wa-lam yūlad has a narrower scope (i.e. if it works within a limited universe of discourse), then it does not necessarily apply to the orthodox Christian notion of a sort of supracosmic begetting of the Son. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan creed describes it as happening “προ παντων των αιωνων” (before all eons, ages, worlds), which I would take to mean it occurred before the creation of the cosmos (hence why I called it supracosmic), and thus outside of time and space. Sūrat al-Ikhlās 112:3 may be rejecting certain kinds of begetting (e.g. biologically, sexually procreative acts of begetting) without rejecting that sort of profoundly unique, difficult to understand, and even perhaps mystical supracosmic “begetting”.

        I feel the realization that sūrat al-Ikhlās need not be seen as contradicting Christian doctrine can be a fruitful one in Christian-Muslim dialogue.

        Like

      • Hi Dennis,

        DG//I would be careful with the word pre-existent, but, that aside, I think it is an uncontroversial fact that we existed before our births (i.e. that we at least existed in our mothers’ wombs). I’m of the view that, for us mere humans, life typically starts at conception. You may not hold that view, but even if you don’t, I imagine you at least believe that life typically starts at some point within the pregnancy (e.g. after the muDgha stage,//

        In Islam, human life starts in the state of nuthfah when the sperm fertilize the ovum (it is prior to mudhghah) .. but their soul (Ar-rūḥ) had been pre existent before that, the soul was always with God (Q 15:29). So we are all a pre-existent beings using your argumentation.

         

        DG//Perhaps if we read John 1:1 in a vacuum, it remains open to question, but when read it together with the rest of the Bible, I think it becomes clear that the Son is the Logos. For example, one of Christ’s names is Logos (Revelation 19:13). The Logos taking on flesh (John 1:14) would correspond to Christ taking on human likeness (Philippians 2:7, 1 Timothy 3:16). The Logos having a role in the creation of all things (John 1:3) lines up with Christ participating in the creation of all things (Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 8:6). //

         

        Well yes, but was “the Word” synonymous with a God the “the Messiah”?  I hardly see it. In Islamic worldview, God’s creates the human being with his His Spirit who then “became flesh”   (فَإِذَا سَوَّيْتُهُ وَنَفَخْتُ فِيهِ مِنْ رُوحِي Q 15:29). All God’s messengers who carry the purpose of bringing salvation are “God’s word in flesh” but we don’t fell into trap by establishing a doctrine of “God become men” contrary to all prophetic expectations, nor a teaching of pre-existence for the messengers of God.

        DG//My point is that verbs arising from the WLD/YLD root(s) can have a wide semantic range across the Semitic languages, but sūrat al-Ikhlās 112:3 may be using the relevant verbs within a limited scope (your own reply immediately above seems to allude to such). So, for example, an affirmation of sūrat al-Ikhlās 112:3 need not entail rejecting the idea of interpreting harīm yuladū in Psalm 90:2 as referring to God’s creation of mountains. Therefore, if the phrase lam yalid wa-lam yūlad has a narrower scope (i.e. if it works within a limited universe of discourse), then it does not necessarily apply to the orthodox Christian notion of a sort of supracosmic begetting of the Son//

         

        As I said (ولد) in the Qur’an is everything pertaining to Parent child relationship although it does not necessarily entail biological act but a “generation” in general in case of supranatural situation , however even if we allow such possibility,  Sūrah al-ihlȃs is a reverse echo of the Nicene creed; it rejects the emphatic affirmation of Christ’s Godship by generation (begotten, not made; gennêthenta, ou poiêthenta) He did not beget nor is he begotten”; lam yalid wa-lam yūlad.  Together with the proceeding verse “And there is none like Him”; wa-lam yakun lahu kufuwan aḥad, with this a Qur’ānic hapax legomenon, kufuwun means: “equal in rank,” as an antidote to the core concept of homoousios, not only inverts the Nicene formula of Christ’s being of one substance with God—homoousios to patri—but also forbids thinking of any being as equal in substance with God, let alone a “son”.

        Like

    • I want to further strengthen Denis’ point by showing that even the Hebrew or Greek word for create does not necessarily entail creating someone with no prior existence, i.e. ex nihilo. Take, for instance, what Sirach says (which is considered canonical, inspired Scripture by both Catholics and Orthodox Christians):

      Wisdom sings her own praises,[a]
      among her own people she proclaims her glory.
      2 In the assembly of the Most High she opens her mouth,
      in the presence of his host she tells of her glory:

      3 FROM THE MOUTH OF THE MOST HIGH I CAME FORTH,(A)
      and covered the earth like a mist.
      4 In the heights of heaven I dwelt,
      and my throne was in a pillar of cloud.
      5 The vault of heaven I compassed alone,
      and walked through the deep abyss.
      6 Over waves of the sea, over all the land,
      over every people and nation I held sway.
      7 Among all these I sought a resting place.
      In whose inheritance should I abide?

      8 “Then the Creator of all gave me his command,
      and my Creator chose the spot for my tent.
      He said, ‘In Jacob make your dwelling,
      in Israel your inheritance.’
      9 BEFORE ALL AGES, from the beginning, he created me,
      and through all ages I shall not cease to be.

      Footnotes:
      24:1–29 Wisdom speaks in the first person, describing her origin, her dwelling place in Israel, and the reward she gives her followers. As in Proverbs 8, Wisdom is personified AS COMING FROM GOD, yet distinct from him. This description is reflected in the Johannine logos, or Word (Jn 1:1–14). It is used extensively in the Roman liturgy. Sirach 24:1-9 NABRE

      Here we see that Wisdom speaks of herself and plainly states that her creator created her, using the Greek word ktidzo to denote this point. However, as verse 3 shows, Wisdom wasn’t produced from/out of nothing, or from created matter, but sprung forth from the very eternal Being of God. Pay close attention to verses 3 and 9 once again, this time from another version”

      “I CAME FORTH FROM THE MOUTH OF THE MOST HIGH,
      and covered the earth like a mist…
      and in Israel receive your inheritance.’
      9 FROM ETERNITY, in the beginning, he created me,
      and for eternity I shall not cease to exist. RSV

      We, thus, have a depiction of Wisdom eternally residing within God himself and springing forth from within his own eternal Being, which is described as an act of creation, e.g., God creating Wisdom. However, the verb cannot mean that Wisdom did not have a prior existence before it was created, since the context shows that Wisdom, unlike the created order, i.e. the cosmos, was already existing within God himself, and therefore is not part of creation, but an eternal, intrinsic aspect of God’s very own Being. If I didn’t know any better, this sure sounds similar (though not identical) to the early Church’s view of Jesus being the eternal Word/Wisdom of God who was begotten, but NOT MADE/CREATED. I hope this helps.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Just in case Eric and co. want to argue that this isn’t inspired Scripture for Jews or Protestants (which would be a grossly inconsistent position to take seeing that he just got done citing non-inspired Jewish sources), I will quote from Proverbs to show that Sirach is basically reiterating what is already found in the former:

        “For the Lord gives wisdom; FROM HIS MOUTH come knowledge and understanding;” Proverbs 2:6

        The wisdom that God gives is the knowledge and understanding that comes forth from his mouth. This shows where Sirach got its depiction of Wisdom springing forth from the mouth God. Hope this helps.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Denis
      //and many Christians accept that view, a Christian with a careful eye might notice that there is nothing therein which is obviously or necessarily at odds with Christian doctrine (that is to say, the problem is not necessarily with the text itself but rather how people interpret the text)//
      No Denis! Surat 112 is against your belief 100%. You just cannot avoid that by providing an interpretive corruption upon the text.

      Also, as far as I know that christians say the Jesus is the (begotten) son from eternity!, so we have the right to ask what this means because apparently it’s an absurd language! If Jesus got begotten, then you have to say there’s a beginning for his existence. You have to, and that’s why it’s impossible for christians to say that the Father got begotten.

      As I see you appealed to the John’s gospel, but why did you neglect the fact that there are gospels which don’t share this view with John’s gospel. That gospel tried to re write the first words of the Torah, and this by itself is a corruption, especially we know that there;s no reason for God to hide this from jews more than 1000 years ago!
      Moreover, christians cannot really say that John’s gospel presents Jesus with no beginning! I mean with a careful eye might notice that there is nothing therein which obviously states this belief. The max theology can be drawn from that gospel is that Jesus is a very exalted being who did exist before the rest other creations. It’s like “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” Colossians 1:15.
      Finally, I think christians in purpose neglect the milieu in which that gospel was written in. We know how the Greco-Roman culture was about sonship with deities! We know that even jewish people got infected by the culture so that’s why they wrote kind of bridging writings between both cultures such as Philo! Philo talked about the concept of logos who existed before the creation, yet nonetheless he’s not God himself.

      Like

  3. Now, turning back to the Christian Bible and Jesus specifically, while, yes, the Christian Bible does affirm Jesus’ birth on multiple occasions, it also affirms that He existed before His birth (and even before His conception in His mother’s womb, in case one wants to push the argument back to conception). We see this alluded to in John 1:1, which has the Logos already existing at the very beginning (side note: which I interpret to mean there was no point before His existence); so too, John 17:5 has Him alluding to Himself existing before the cosmos was created. This is also explicit in John 8:58, where He states He existed before Abraham existed (which would clearly entail His existence before both His birth and His conception in Mary’s womb). Beyond that, the Bible also has Christ participating in the creation of all things (John 1:1, Colossians 1:16, 1 Corinthians 8:6, Hebrews 1:10). In order for Him to participate in creation, He Himself would have to exist (and this would include things created presumably billions of years before His birth). Ergo, according to the Christian Bible, the birth (or even conception) of Jesus was not the beginning of His existence.

    Excellent! Exactly!

    Good job Denis!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Also, the Islamic mind automatically thinks, “Father” and “Son” and begetting, and begotten, necessarily implies sex, marriage, a wife, a mother, and well . . . they associate “begotten” with the sex act.

      With Surah 6:101 and 19:88-92, they assume Surah 112 is talking about how awful it is to think that Allah had a wife and sex and pro-created Jesus.

      “eternally generated” is better – the Logos / Son was the nature of God from all eternity as “mind communicating” – the Son and Father are relational terms of a spiritual being from eternity past.

      Like

      • Nothing in Surah 112 is talking about God had a wife and sex. You must be reading different Qur’an.

        It warns people the great danger of comitting the greatest sin of all ie. shirk which is associating God, that is believing there is another god besides the almighty God, ie. a god who was generating another “god” ..or ..a god who was generated by another god…

        Liked by 1 person

      • But that is what Muslims think of by the terms “begetting and begotten” and along with 6:101 and 19:88-92; it is clear. I have met many Muslims that say, with this discussion (when witnessing to them about the Father and the Son Jesus, His Sonship, etc.), “Allah does not have sex” and “Allah does not have a wife”. One Muslim man turned to me and even said, “Why do you call Allah “he” ? He does not have a penis!!!” “Allah is an it!” (true story)

        Even the English pronoun “he” makes many of them think of “male” with a penis.

        Like

  4. Also, the over-emphasis on Mary in the 5th and 6th and 7th centuries and icons and statues and saying “the Mother of God”, and praying to her in front of icons and statues, etc. also gave the Muslims that impression; and Surah 5:116 and 5:72-75 and 4:171 are reactions to that also.

    Like

    • 6:101 – “Allah does not have a wife” – “how can Allah have a son when there is no wife for Him?”

      Automatically, the phrase “Son of God” makes Muslims think of sex.

      Like

      • The concept that God has a son through a relationship with the earthly created beings was already known among Greco – Roman culture! Also, I think there’re some of the church fathers used to tell pagans that they have similar belief regarding this relationship
        Justin Martyr, for example, used to tell pagans that as they (i.e. the pagans) just believe that Jupiter is a god and there’re sons of Jupiter, christians believe that Father is god and Jesus his son!
        In addition, the terminology of christians are very telling! Jesus and the Father are not called brothers! It’s obvious that the pagan culture got its way through the christian terms!
        More important, that verse is actually talking about the pagan Arabs who believed that there’s a relationship between God and the Jinn! Just read the previous verse! Surah 6:100! However,even if it’s about christians, that would not be a problem!
        Here’s dr Ally, wipping the floor with your man! ( 2:23′)

        It’s very wrong for christians to look to the Quran through the lens of their ignorance of history and the language.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Surah 6:100
        But they have attributed to Allah partners – the jinn, while He has created them – and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters. Exalted is He and high above what they describe”

        The “and have fabricated for Him sons and daughters” seems to be a new phrase that is not connected to the previous phrase about Jinn. it is naming different ways in which the Qur’an views partners with Allah as shirk, etc.

        Like

      • //seems to be a new phrase that is not connected to the previous phrase about Jinn.//
        I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Don’t take it personally, James White himself wrote a whole a book about Qur’an while has no proper knowledge about Qur’an.

        Like

      • Surah 19:88-92 indicates the shock over thinking God can have a son – seems to be implying that God had a wife and had sex, a most monstrous and atrocious and inappropriate thing!!

        Like

  5. @ Ken
    Was not going to get involved in this as its pretentious philosophy but once people start twisting Quranic text I gotta say something. To begin as Abdullah noted these ayat aren’t even about Christians (again lack of reading comprehension but one can apply the same thing as its all paganistic as Abdullah noted).

    Next whoever told you God is not a male nor a female is correct. Huwa(He) is used simply because of Arabic grammar not to denote a God’s gender. Other names of God (like the next most famous ones) like Ar Rahman and Ar Raheem are feminine.

    Like

    • Next whoever told you God is not a male nor a female is correct. Huwa(He) is used simply because of Arabic grammar not to denote a God’s gender.

      Agreed; but the guy (a Turkish Muslim) went beyond just “gender” and related it to physical sex organs. He could not think of “he” without thinking of the male sex organ.

      What a crass, literalistic mind.

      Like

  6. Here is the same citation from Baba Bathra 75b that Eric bin Kasim quoted:

    R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Johanan: Three were CALLED by the name of the Holy
    One; blessed be He, and they are the following: The righteous, the Messiah and Jerusalem. [This
    may be inferred as regards] the righteous [from] what has just been said. [As regards] the Messiah —
    it is written: And this is the name whereby he shall be called, The Lord is our righteousness.5 [As
    regards] Jerusalem — it is written: It6 shall be eighteen thousand reeds round about; and the name of
    the city from that day shall be ‘the Lord is there.’7 Do not read, ‘there’ but ‘its name’.8

    This translation done by Jews, not Christians, do not render the verb as created but as called. Now I don’t have access to the Aramaic text, and therefore would like either Denis or Eric to be so kind as to provide the actual Aramaic verb employed in this reference so we can examine whether the translation created is correct or not.

    However, he does quote the following;

    “All that is called by my name and to glorify me whom I have CREATED, I have FORMED him, yea I have MADE him. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says (that) Rabbi Yochanan (says): three were called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and they are the righteous, Messiah and Jerusalem.”

    Even this text confirms that the Messiah was CALLED, not created, by the name of the Holy One, which leads me to suspect he has misinterpreted the reference by misapplying the verbs for created, formed and made to the calling of the Messiah. However, as anyone reading the quotation can see, this says nothing about God creating the Messiah by his name. The reference is mentioning those that have been called by God’s name, not those whom God created, formed, and/or made.

    With that said, I find it ironic that Eric thinks that the Jewish concept of the Messiah is compatible with the Quran seeing that the rabbinic sources all affirm the prehuman existence of the Messiah, e.g., God named the Messiah before the world came into being, and that the Messiah himself personally existed as a conscious living being even before the creation of the world. Note the following citations:

    Yet was the fire of the Gehenna created on the eve of the Sabbath? Surely it was taught: Seven things were created before the world was created, and these are they: The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Torah, for it is written, The Lord made me [sc. the Torah] as the beginning of his way. Repentance, for it is written, Before the mountains were brought forth, and it is written, Thou turnest man to contrition, and sayest, Repent, ye children of men.27 The Garden of Eden, as it is written, And the Lord planted a garden in Eden from aforetime.28 The Gehenna, for it is written, For Tophet [i.e., Gehenna] is ordered of old. The Throne of Glory and the Temple, for it is written, Thou throne of glory, on high from the beginning, Thou place of our sanctuary. The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His [sc. the Messiah’s] name shall endure for ever, and has exited before the sun! — I will tell you: only its cavity was created before the world was created, but its fire [was created] on the eve of the Sabbath. Pesahim 54a

    Finally:

    Resh Lakish said: Where is visiting the sick indicated in the Torah? In the verse, If these men die the common death of all men, or if they be visited after the visitation of all men etc. How is it implied? — Raba answered: [The verse means this:] If these men die the common death of all men, who lie sick a-bed and men come in and visit them, what will people say? The Lord hath not sent me for this [task]. Raba expounded: But if the Lord make a new thing: if the Gehenna is already created, ‘tis well: if not, let the Lord create it. But that is not so, for it was taught: Seven things were created before the world, viz., The Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the Throne of Glory, the Temple, and the name of the Messiah. The Torah, for it is written, The Lord possessed me [sc. the Torah] in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.6 Repentance, for it is written, Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world . . . Thou turnest man to destruction, and sayest, Repent, ye sons of men. The Garden of Eden, as it is written, And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from aforetime. Gehenna, as it is written, For Tophet is ordained of old. The Throne of Glory, as it is written, Thy Throne is established from of old. The Temple, as it is written, A glorious high throne from the beginning is the place of our sanctuary. The name of the Messiah, as it is written, His name [sc. of Messiah] shall endure for ever, and [has existed] before the sun! — But Moses said thus: If a mouth has already been created for it [sc. Gehenna], ‘tis well; if not, let the Lord create one. But is it not written, There is no new thing under the sun? — He said thus: If the mouth is not near to this spot, let it draw near. Nedarim 39b

    And pay close attention to what the following scholar explains:

    “Jewish authors and sages had a very specific way of emphasizing the great importance they attached to certain central values in Jewish life and thought: they made statements to the effect that the features in question were preexistent in the sense that they were either actually created in the six days of Genesis or their idea came up before God at that seminal time. Among them they mentioned the Tora, Repentance, the Garden of Eden and Gehenna, God’s throne of Glory, the Fathers, Israel, the Temple–and the Messiah. Of these various entities to which preexistence was ascribed, the Messiah is mentioned in a much earlier literary source than the others. He first appears as preexistent in the apocryphal First Book of Enoch, which was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic about 150 B.C.E. From that period on, the concept of the Messiah who was created in the six days of Creation, or even prior to them, or who was born at variously stated subsequent dates (see chapter 3) and was then hidden to await his time, became a standard feature of Jewish Messianic eschatology. In one version it is the name of the Messiah which was created in the Beginning, in another, his spirit or his soul; in a third, he himself was actually born and even his celestial throne was fashioned.

    “The concept of the preexistence of the Messiah accords with the general Talmudic view which holds that ‘The Holy One, blessed be He, prepares the remedy before the wound’ (B. Meg. 13b). By this token, of course, the preexistence of the Messiah means that the exile of Israel (the wound) was predetermined by God in the very six days of Creation. Only if this was so did the creation of the Messiah, the ultimate healer of the great national disaster of Israel, at the early date make sense, and more than that, become a mythical necessity.” (Raphael Patai, The Messiah Texts: Jewish Legends of Three Thousand Years [Wayne State University Press, Detroit, MI 1979], 2. Preexistence and Names of the Messiah, pp. 16-17)

    Patai then cites a few examples illustrating this, some of which include:

    R. Shim‘on ben Laqish explained: “and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the water (Gen. 1:2)–this is the spirit of King Messiah, as it is written, And the spirit of the Lord will rest upon him (Isa. 11:2). By what merit will it [the spirit of the Messiah] come? … By the merit of repentance.” (Gen. Rab. 2:4)

    You find that at the beginning of the creation of the world King Messiah was born [and] that he emerged in the thought [of God] even before the world was created…. (Pes. Rab. Ed. Friedman, p. 152b)

    (Ibid, p. 19)

    Here we see that some of the rabbis actually believed that it was the Spirit of the Messiah that was hovering over the water of the earth at the start of creation!

    Finally:

    R. Hosha‘ya said: “In the future Jerusalem will be a lantern for the nations of the world, and they will walk in her light….”

    In Thy light do we see light (Ps. 36:10). This is the light of the Messiah, as it is written, And God saw the light that it was good (Gen. 1:4). This teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, saw the generation of the Messiah and its deeds prior to the creation of the world. And He hid the light for the Messiah and his generation under His Throne of Glory.

    Satan said before the Holy One, blessed be He: “Master of the World! The light which is hidden under Your Throne of Glory, for whom is it [destined]?” He said to him: “For him who will turn you back and disgrace you, and shame your face.” He said to him: “Master of the world! Show him to me!” He said to him: “Come and see him!” When Satan saw the Messiah, he trembled and fell upon his face and said: “Surely this is the Messiah who in the future will cast me and all the princes of the nations of the world into Gehenna….”

    In that hour the nations became awestruck and said before him: “Master of the World! Who is he into whose hand we shall fall, what is his name and what is his nature?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to them: “His name is Ephraim, My True Messiah. He will raise his stature and the stature of his generation, and will light up the eyes of Israel, and will save his people, and no nation and language shall be able to stand up against him…. All his enemies and adversaries will be affrighted and will flee from him… and even the rivers will cease to flow into the sea….”

    [When He created the Messiah], the Holy One, blessed be He, began to tell him the conditions [of his future mission], and said to him: “Those who are hidden with you [your generation], their sins will in the future force you into an iron yoke, and they will render you like unto a calf whose eyes have grown dim, and they will choke your spirit with the yoke, and because of their sins your tongue will cleave to the roof of your mouth. Do you accept this?”

    The Messiah said before the Holy One, blessed be He, “Master of the World! Will that suffering last many years?” The Holy One, blessed be He, said to him: “By your life and the life of my head, it is a septenary of it that I decreed upon you. But if your soul is troubled, I shall banish them as from this moment.”

    He said before Him: “Master of the Worlds! With gladness in my soul and with joy in my heart I accept it, so that not a single one of Israel should perish; and not only those who will be alive should be saved in my days, but even the dead who have died from the days of Adam the first man until now. And not only they, but even the stillborn should be saved in my days; and not only the stillborn, but even those to whose creation You gave thought but who were not created. This is what I want, this is what I accept!” (Pes. Rab. pp. 161a-b)

    They said: In the septenary in which the Son of David comes they will bring iron beams and put them upon his neck until his body bends and he cries and weeps, and his voice rise up into the Heights, and he says before Him: “Master of the World! How much can my strength suffer? How much my spirit? How much my soul? And how much my limbs? Am I not but flesh and blood?…”

    In that hour the Holy One, blessed be He, says to him: “Ephraim, My True Messiah, you have already accepted [this suffering] from the six days of creation. Now your suffering shall be like My suffering. For ever since the day on which wicked Nebuchadnezzar came up and destroyed My Temple and burnt My sanctuary, and I exiled My children among the nations of the world, by your life and the life of your head, I have not sat on My Throne. And if you do not believe me, see the dew that is upon My head….”

    In that hour he says before Him: “Master of the World! Now my mind is at rest, for it is sufficient for the servant to be like his Master!” (Pes. Rab. pp. 162a) (Ibid, 12. The Suffering Messiah, pp. 111-113)

    In these examples, we not only have a preexistent Messiah who dwells and speaks with God in heaven, but one who also voluntary takes on the sins of his people in order to save them!

    Finally, here is what a noted medieval Jewish Rabbi named David Qimhi (also spelled Kimchi) had to say concerning Micah 5:2:

    “It will be said in the Messianic age that his ‘origins are from old, from ancient time;’ ‘from Bethlehem’ means that he will be of the house of David, because there is a long period of time between David and the Messiah-King; and he is El (God), which is how he is ‘from old, from ancient times’.” (Risto Santala, The Messiah in the Old Testament in the Light of Rabbinical Writings [Keren Ahvah Meshihit, Jerusalem 1992], p. 115)

    The Rabbi correctly reasoned that in order for the Messiah to be from of old, from ancient times, he must be God!

    Therefore, unless Eric wants to argue that the Quran agrees that the Messiah personally, consciously existed with God from before the creation of the world, and was there with God besides his throne, then I do not see how the rabbinic view is at all compatible with the Muslim position. You can argue that the rabbinic view comports better with the Arian view, the belief of Arius and those who followed him that the Messiah was the first creature that God made before all other creatures, and therefore conflicts with BOTH the historic orthodox Trinitarian view and the Islamic perspective.

    Like

    • FYI, here’s the link to the online version of Baba Bathra 75b, which I quoted from: https://halakhah.com/pdf/nezikin/Baba_Bathra.pdf

      Like

    • //This translation done by Jews, not Christians, do not render the verb as created but as called. Now I don’t have access to the Aramaic text, and therefore would like either Denis or Eric to be so kind as to provide the actual Aramaic verb employed in this reference so we can examine whether the translation created is correct or not.//

      I rely on the hebrew translation and I did provide the hebrew text with the verb highlighted in red in the footnotes.

      Screen Shot 2019-04-02 at 20.55.24

      The pa’al form is bara’ בָּרָא

      בְּרָאתִ֑יו  berativ, is  inflected as perfect tense first person singular with the prepositional object marker the vav וֹ  – I CREATED it/him

      As the Talmud reference Isa 43:7 I will be very surprised if they are not actually translating exactly as the original hebrew text

      The point is, paraphrasing it:

      Three were called by the name of the Holy One, they are: The righteous, and the Messiah, and Jerusalem and every one of them (whom is called by His name), He (the Holy One) has been created, formed and made by Him for His glory.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The problem is that berative in the citation you provided doesn’t refer to the calling of the Messiah, or even Jerusalem, but to the people he created for his glory. Here is your own transliteration and translation:

        Kal hanik’ra bish’mî v’likh’bodî berativ yetzartiv af shitiv, ve rav sh’muel bar nachmani rav yochanan gi nik’r’u al sh’mo shel hakav”h (hakadósh barúkh hú) v’elu hen tzadîkîm umashiyach ve yerushalayim

        All that is called by my name and to glorify me whom I have CREATED, I have FORMED him, yea I have MADE him. And Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says (that) Rabbi Yochanan (says): three were called by the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and they are the righteous, Messiah and Jerusalem.

        So berative IS NOT employed in respect to the Messiah or Jerusalem. You even butchered the text by your misinterpretation since you now made the text say that God created himself, or was created by some other. Note what you did here:

        Three were called by the name of the Holy One, they are: The righteous, and the Messiah, and Jerusalem and every one of them (whom is called by His name), HE (the Holy One) HAS BEEN CREATED, formed and made by Him for His glory.

        You have God being part of that which was created, thanks to your “paraphrase.”

        Like

      • I was in a rush when wrote my previous reply, I should write:

        Three were called by the name of the Holy One, they are: The righteous, and the Messiah, and Jerusalem and every one of them (whom is called by His name), they (those three) has been created, formed and made by Him (the Holy One) for His glory.

        Thanks for pointing this out.

        So clearly בְּרָאתִ֑יו berativ, IS employed in respect to the righteous, the Messiah and Jerusalem. There is no other way to understand it

        Liked by 2 people

      • On the contrary, it clearly is NOT applied to the Messiah or Jerusalem in this particular text. the text simply speaks to God calling the Messiah and Jerusalem by his name. Moreover, as my reply demonstrated, and the citations I provided affirm, the fact that rabbinic Judaism teaches that the Messiah personally, consciously existed from before creation of the cosmos, and that it was the Messiah’s Spirit in Genesis 1:2 that was hovering over the waters, is incompatible with the Quran. Even if we take the fact of the Messiah’s having been created before the cosmos, this still contradicts the Quran and therefore proves that Muhammad was a false prophet.

        However, that the rabbis identified the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 as the Spirit of Messiah actually refutes your whole entire argument, and proves that being born is not the same as being created, since no the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 is not a part of creation, but separate and distinct from it. This in turn means that the Messiah is being identified as God, and therefore separate from the whole creation, since God’s Spirit is Messiah’s Spirit, which means that the Messiah is in some sense connected with/to God himself.

        Since none of this is compatible with Islam, I have to therefore assume this is another case of you either misreading your sources or misinterpreting them, in order to make them fit with your Islamic beliefs.

        Like

      • You are mumbling here,

        The talmudic text is clear in explainng that God created in His world, He did not create but for His glory as is stated (Isaiah 43:7) and there are three,  whom God created, is called by His name

        … and Rabbah says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In the future, the righteous will be called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He; as it is stated: “Every one that is called by My name, and whom I have created for My glory, I have formed him, yea, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7). This indicates that one who was created by God and causes Him glory is called by His name. …

        It  then goes on to explain who is called (thus created) by His name…

        And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Three were called by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, and they are: The righteous, and the Messiah, and Jerusalem.

        I dont think it is difficult to understand this simple text..

        Liked by 1 person

      • Here is the text where the Spirit of God in Genesis 1:2 is identified as the very Spirit of the Messiah:

        G. “‘And the spirit of God hovers’ refers to THE SPIRIT OF THE MESSIAH, in line with the following verse of Scripture: ‘And the spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him’ (Is. 11:2).”

        2. A. On account of what merit will the Messiah come? [It will be on account of the merit represented by the verse:] “…over the face of the water” (Gen. 1:2).

        B. It is, specifically, on account of the merit of repentance, which is compared to water: “Pour out your heart like water” (Lam. 2:19).

        The same point registers once more, now with reference to the four monarchies, Babylonia, Media, Greece, Rome, the coming of the Messiah by reason of Israel’s repentance. (Jacob Neusner, A Theological Commentary to the Midrash: Genesis Rabbah (Studies in Ancient Judaism) [University Press of America, Inc., Lanham, New York, Oxford, 2001], Volume Two, p. 8; capital emphasis ours)

        This puts you in a major dilemma. Since the rabbis believed God’s Spirit in Genesis 1:2, which is separate and distinct from creation, is Messiah’s Spirit, this ends up associating the Messiah with God, making him somehow identical with, and distinct from God himself. None of this agrees with the Quran or Islam, unless you care to admit that the Quran in Q. 4:171 does affirm that Jesus is the preexistent Word of Allah who existed alongside of him before he was sent down to take flesh from the blessed body of his blessed and holy mother.

        Like

      • If anyone is mumbling it’s actually you. There is no explicit connection between those called by God’s name and those whom he created for his glory. I agree this can be inferred, but your entire post hinged on their being an explicit connection between the calling by the Lord’s name and the act of creating. You then used this to affirm that creating and begetting are one and the same. This is simply a less than honest way of handling your sources. Besides, I already proved that creating doesn’t necessarily equate to no prior existence, since I gave an example of something that is said to be created even though it actually existed prior to it’s having been created, i.e., Wisdom in Sirach 24:1-9. So you need to be more carefully how you handle your sources.

        Like

      • How can I infer the meaning of this plain statement? it is in one short paragraph nothing inexplicit about it..
        Im afraid to speak of something created as somehow ‘uncreated’ is contrary to language and logic, . . . it is your call if you want to believe it that way, I guess our conversation is never going anywhere

        Liked by 1 person

  7. @ Ken
    6:100 and 19:88 is about the pagan Arabs. They (like the Christians) said God had children and claimed the angels were His daughters. This is a polemic several times in the Qur’an. God counters with basically:

    “So you’re giving Me daughters when you kill yours and hate the idea of it?”

    You will see this several times in the Qur’an:

    Now ask them: “Is your Lord supposed to have daughters while you all want sons?” Or did I create female angels while they were watching? This a lie that they say: “God has begotten.” No doubt they’re liars. He would choose daughters instead of sons? What’s wrong with you? How do you decide these things? Will you not just remember? Or perhaps they have some sort of clear authority? Bring your Scriptures then, if you’re telling the truth. They claim that He has kinship with demons, but the demons themselves know well that they’ll be brought before Him. God is far above what they say, ˹with˺ the exemption of the sincere, chosen servants of God. So neither you nor what you worship, can lead anyone astray, except those who are destined to burn in Hell. The angels have spoken: “Every single one of us has a chosen position, we stand in rows, and we are those who glorify…” (37:149-166)

    They give daughters to God, may He be glorified! While they are to have what they prefer. When one of them is given the good news of the birth of a baby girl, his face darkens and he swallows his sadness. In his shame, he hides himself away from his community because of what he has been congratulated with. Should he keep the baby and suffer embarrassment or bury her in the dirt? No! What a horrible decision they’re making! (16:57-59)

    Yet knowing this, they take some of My servants and said they were a part of Me, or equated them with Me. Humanity is truly forgetful and obvious ingrates. Have I taken daughters from what I’ve created and preferred for you to have sons? But whenever one of you is congratulated with having the same thing they connected with the Most Merciful, their face becomes dark and gloomy, and they swallow their rage, desperately holding it in. Is it that God has chosen as His children something that has grown up adorned with ornaments and cannot argue or express itself in a debate clearly? They made the angels females who themselves are servants of the Most Merciful. Did they see their creation? Their testimony is being recorded and they will be asked about it. (43:15-19)

    Finally, it is not only ascribing the act of procreating to God that is disgusting God HATES when people say He has children and that is what the verses are about.

    Like

  8. Dear Mr Kisam

    Thank you very much for your reply, you always keep me on my toes. However i see that i have once again rambled and have not explained myself very well. I shall, in the following passage, attempt to remedy this.

    1. Firstly you said “But how could a co-equal of ‘God’ never identify himself as Yhwh the God of Israel? In fact no NT writers think that Jesus and Yhwh as the same identity?”

    At this, sir, I am afraid i must voice a polite disagreement. According to the Holy Evangelists, of blessed memory, Christ is most definitely described as being both Lord and God.
    St John the Baptist, of holy and blessed memory, known to you as Yahya ibn Zakariya, was the forerunner of Christ, yet the both the Holy Prophet Isaiah, of righteous memory, and the blessed evangelists referred to him as “A voice of one calling: “Prepare the way for the LORD in the wilderness; make a straight highway for our God in the desert”, for whom was St John the forerunner ?

    St John the Baptist,of holy and blessed memory, was the ultimate prophet since he preceded the fulfilment and perfection of the biblical message, namely the Incarnation of the Son of God, who is perfect in his immaculate humanity and perfect in his awesome divinity.
    Secondly even a scholar who is staunchly antithetical to Orthodox Christianity, namely Bart Ehrman, says:
    ” So yes, now I agree that Jesus is portrayed as a divine being, a God-man, in all the Gospels. But in very different ways, depending on which Gospel you read.”
    In the passage I mentioned earlier Christ himself says:
    “All things have been entrusted to Me by My Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him”
    Christ has authority over all things. This would by necessity ascribe unto Christ a power that is almighty in nature. Only God is by his nature almighty, and will not give his glory to another, temporarily or otherwise. Yet Christ says the he has all power in heaven and on earth.

    In the Gospel of John, Our Lord says:
    “The Father loves the Son and has placed all things in His hands”
    all things in existence are under the care and authority of the Son of God. All planets, universes, nations and peoples. Regarding your statement that we view the Father and the Son as the same identity, I fear that you may be confusing our views with those of Sabellius, the accursed of God. The Father is eternally Unbegotten, the Son eternally Only Begotten and the Holy Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit. One in eternal divinity and essence, as in the words of St Theodoret of Cyrrhus, of holy and blessed memory:

    “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. These are not three gods, but one God in Trinity. The names are separate, but the divinity one. The Father was never incarnate; the Son incarnate, but not created; the Holy Ghost neither incarnate nor created, but issued from the Godhead: three in a single divinity. Divinity is one force and has one honour. They receive on obeisance from all creation, both angels and people.”

    Even the ultra Arian heretics, the accursed of God, at the Blasphemous Council of Sirmium, profess belief in the Holy Trinity:

    “And the whole faith is summed up, and secured in this, that a Trinity should ever be preserved, as we read in the Gospel, ‘Go and baptise all the nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (Matthew 28:19). And entire and perfect is the number of the Trinity; but the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, sent forth through the Son, came according to the promise, that He might teach and sanctify the Apostles and all believers”.

    2.”Of course as the great messenger of God Jesus knew his God better than anyone else. This is also Islamic position. We also don’t any issue believing that only the God of Jesus know about him than anyone else”

    However sir, the concept of a mere man, however high, exalted or holy, knowing God completely and utterly is a message antithetical to the biblical text. The Holy Prophet Isaiah, of Righteous memory, states:
    “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so My ways are higher than your ways and My thoughts than your thoughts”
    in addition to this he says:
    “Who has directed the Spirit of the LORD, or informed Him as His counsellor?”
    the Holy Prophet Job, of righteous memory, states:
    “Can anyone teach knowledge to God, since He judges those on high?”
    In the Holy Gospel Christ not only says that he has complete and perfect knowledge of his Heavenly Father, but has also directed the Holy Spirit of the Lord upon his holy Church, where it remain to this very day, unchanged for more than two thousand years. The bible clearly states that the mind of God is utterly unknowable to created beings, regardless of whether they are angels, men or beasts. How could a created being understand God in all of his complexity and Glorious wonder.
    As such our Lord Christ is making a twofold expression of his perfect divinity, the fact that he alone completely understands the nature of his Father can only be explained if he himself possessed all of the attributes of the Father, namely divinity, eternity and lordship. No merely created being can make such claims for himself, yet Jesus Christ openly and with majesty. This eternal fact is expounded very well by both the St Mathetes, of holy and blessed memory, in his letter to Diognetus:

    “For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, nor is it a mere human system of opinion, which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things — by whom He made the heavens — by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds — whose ordinances all the stars faithfully observe — from whom the sun has received the measure of his daily course to be observed — whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subject — the heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are therein — fire, air, and the abyss — the things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between. This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing? Malachi 3:2”

    And St Athanagoras of Athens, of holy and Blessed memory, in his plea for the Christians:

    “Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union and their distinction in order, called atheists? Nor is our teaching in what relates to the divine nature confined to these points; but we recognise also a multitude of angels and ministers, whom God the Maker and Framer of the world distributed and at pointed to their several posts by His Logos, to occupy themselves about the elements, and the heavens, and the world, and the things in it, and the goodly ordering of them all”.

    We see both in the biblical texts and the writings of the Holy and infallible Fathers, of holy and blessed memory, the the knowledge the Father has uniquely of the Son, and the Son uniquely has for the Father , reaches far beyond the relationship between God and the Holy Prophets. While the Holy Prophets, of holy and righteous memory, openly stated their own humble ignorance in the presence of God, admitting that did not come even close to understanding him. The Son alone fully knows the Father in all of his glory, and the Father alone understands the Son in his.

    3.’It could be Jesus authority was given by his God. If something is given to someone it does not mean that someone “owns” it’
    However sir, as i said before, how could a created being claim Lordship over the entire universe and all that exists therein ? In the Islamic context this must surely qualify as the most base of blasphemy. Christ himself says:
    “all must honour the Son even as they honour the Father”
    The Son confesses the Father the True God, yet say quite emphatically the he must be honoured in precisely the same way as the Father is honoured. How is the Father to be honoured ? To be glorified by all created beings as Lord and God. This sentiment is expounded particularly well be St Augustine, of holy and blessed memory, in his ‘Tractates on the Gospel of John’:

    “For Christ’s kingship over Israel was not for the purpose of exacting tribute, of putting swords into His soldiers’ hands, of subduing His enemies by open warfare; but He was King of Israel in exercising kingly authority over their inward natures, in consulting for their eternal interests, in bringing into His heavenly kingdom those whose faith, and hope, and love were centred in Himself. Accordingly, for the Son of God, the Father’s equal, the Word by whom all things were made, in His good pleasure to be King of Israel, was an act of condescension and not of promotion; a token of compassion, and not any increase of power. For He who was called on earth the King of the Jews, is in the heavens the Lord of angels.”

    The Holy Archangel Gabriel, when communication of the Annunciation to the Holy, True, and ever Blessed Virgin Maryam, may he prayers be with all of us, states that the Kingdom of the Immaculate Son would know no end. The prophets all foretold that when the Kingdom of God came, it would be eternal in nature, knowing no beginning, middle or end. This eternal Kingdom of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost was foretold by the Holy Prophet Daniel, of Righteous memory:
    “In the days of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, and this kingdom will not be left to another people. It will shatter all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, but will itself stand forever”.

    The Father is confessed as the Lord of All, as expressed very well by the blessed monk Rufinus:
    “GOD is therefore truly the Father, inasmuch as He if Father of truth; He does not create the Son from outside Himself, but generates Him from His own substance. That is to say, being wise, He generates Wisdom, being just, Justice, be eternal, the Eternal, being immortal, the Immortal, being invisible, the Invisible. Because He is Light, He generates Brightness, and because He is Mind, the Word.”

    The Son is confessed as the Lord of All, which would be impossible and indeed blasphemous, were he merely created being, as shown by St Irenaeus of Lyon, of holy and blessed memory, in his Adversus Haereses:
    ” Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who for his surpassing love towards his creation underwent birth from a virgin, uniting man through himself to God, and who suffered under Pontius Pilate and rose again and was received up in splendor, and who shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved and the Judge of those who are judged, to send into eternal fire those who pervert the truth and despise his Father and his coming”

    As such, Mr Kisam, we must come to the conclusion from both the Biblical text and the testimony of the Blessed Fathers of the Church, that the rule of Christ, being eternal, must by necessity be beyond time. The Kingdom of God belongs to the Father, the unbegotten maker of all creation, and tho the Son, the only begotten framer of all creation, and to the Holy Spirit, the eternally proceeding sanctifyer of all creation.

    4. “Again his authority was given, the truth is that Jesus was always a man, there was never a time when he was not… he was always subject to all the constraints and rules that all humans are subject to. At all times in his life, he had to regard his God as other than himself, pray to his God, and give all glory to his God.”

    My dear Sir, you seem to neglect the fact that for much of its early history, the Holy and Infallible Church fought against certain heretics who denied that Christ was truly an perfectly Man. we fully and completely uphold the perfect manhood of Christ and always have done so. He is the second Adam, man as he truly should be without the stain of sin or of darkness. He is the Ur- Mensch, or perfect primordial man returned, to make our spiritual desolation into Eden once more by his Glorious Resurrection.
    Just as how the First Adam fell due to a tree and dragged humanity down to the pit of sin with him, so the Second Adam, raised up upon a tree, raises all humanity to the Kingdom of God. Christ willingly submitted himself to all of the constraints and rules that all humans are subject to, he was alike to us in all things but sinfulness, for he was human perfection returned and divine perfection imminent. It was his choice to reveal the glory of the heavenly Father in his own humble perfection, while remaining the eternal Lord of Glory. As St Paul, of holy and blessed memory, said in his Letter to the Philippians:

    “Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God (hos en morphe theou hyperchon), did not consider equality with God (to einai isa theou) something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant (morphen doulou), being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!”

    Christ took upon himself perfect flesh from the nature of his Holy and Immaculate Mother, our Lady St Mary, the form of the ultimate man, the ultimate servant. Upon his Resurrection, Christ sat at the right hand of his Father on the Heavenly Throne and all of creation bows at his name:

    “At the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father”

    This is the same sentiment that is perfectly expresses by St Gregory of Nazianzus, of holy and blessed memory in his ‘Orations’:
    .”BELIEVE that the Son of God, the Eternal Word, Who was begotten of the Father before all time and without body, was in these latter days for your sake made also Son of Man, born of the Virgin Mary ineffably and stainlessly (for nothing can be stained where God is, and by which salvation comes), in His own Person at once entire Man and perfect God.”

    And St Irenaeus of Lyon, of holy and blessed memory, in his ‘Against all Heresies’ :
    “His only-begotten Word, who is always present with the human race, united to and mingled with His own creation, according to the Father’s pleasure, and who became flesh, is Himself Jesus Christ our Lord, who did also suffer for us, and rose again on our behalf, and who will come again in the glory of His Father, to raise up all flesh, and for the manifestation of salvation, and to apply the rule of just judgement to all who were made by Him.”

    Christ in his perfect humanity naturally prays to the Father, for he is the eternal high priest, yet whereas the ancient Israelite priests offered lambs and heifers on the alter of God, Christ offered himself, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world, upon the alter of the cross of Golgotha. As such all glory, not simply a small element of glory, the entirety of it is given to him in his Glorious Resurrection, as St John Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople, of holy and blessed memory, says in this homily:
    “O Death, where is your sting? O Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen, and you are overthrown. Christ is risen, and the demons are fallen. Christ is risen, and the angels rejoice. Christ is risen, and life reigns. Christ is risen, and not one dead remains in the grave. For Christ, being risen from the dead, is become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep”

    Finally sir, regarding my foray into Hebraism, my quotation from the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uziel is, I assure you, quite legitimate. It stems from the website ‘Sefaria’, a highly respected Traditionalist Jewish website designed to preserve the wisdom of their ancient sages. I would highly recommend it.

    Secondly the Old Testament is filled with depictions of God riding upon the clouds of heaven. Moses,the Man of God, of holy and righteous memory, wrote:
    ” There is none like the God of Jeshurun, who rides the heavens to your aid, and the clouds in His majesty”
    King David the Psalmist, of holy and righteous memory, wrote concerning God:
    “making the clouds His chariot, walking on the wings of the wind.”
    Isaiah the Holy Prophet, of holy and righteous memory, stated the coming of the Lord would be as so:
    “This is an oracle concerning Egypt: Behold, the LORD rides on a swift cloud; He is coming to Egypt. The idols of Egypt will tremble before Him, and the hearts of the Egyptians will melt within them”
    The Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven is fulfilling a divine prerogative

    Even in certain apocryphal books, the Christ is said to come on the clouds off heaven, claim the divine throne and judge all nations, as shown in the Book of Enoch, of Righteous memory:

    “the Elect One shall arise,

    2 And he shall choose the righteous and holy from among them:

    For the day has drawn nigh that they should be saved.

    3 And the Elect One shall in those days sit on My throne,

    And his mouth shall pour forth all the secrets of wisdom and counsel:

    For the Lord of Spirits hath given (them) to him and hath glorified him

    This perfectly Mirrors the words of Christ in the Gospel of Matthew:

    “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.’” Matthew 25:31-34

    The heavenly host is under the authority of Christ the King and all nations are subject to his judgement.

    Once again please forgive me, i must sound terribly pretentious and silly, but there is no more important subject. May God be with you and I wish you a very happy evening. This is the definition of a Christian my St Augustine of Hippo, of holy and blessed memory:

    “”He is a Christian who follows the way of Christ, who imitates Christ in all things, as is written: “He who says that he abides in Christ ought himself to walk just as He walked.” He is a Christian who shows mercy to all, who is not disturbed by any injury, who does not permit the poor to be oppressed in his presence, who assists the needy and helps those in want, who sympathizes with the sorrowful and feels the grief of another as his own, whose goods all share and no one feels slighted, who serves God day and night, who reflects and meditates on His precepts at all times, who makes himself poor in this world to become rich in the eyes of God, who suffers himself to be despised among men that he may please God and the angels, who is seen to hold nothing concealed in his heart, whose soul is simple and spotless, whose conscience is faithful and pure, whose whole thought is directed to God, and whose whole hope is in Christ, who desires heavenly rather than earthly possessions, who contemns earthly goods in order to acquire divine. As for those who love this world and who are content and well pleased with this life, hear what the Scripture says to them: “Do you not know that the friendship of this world is enmity with God?” Therefore, whoever wishes to be a friend of this world becomes an enemy of God.”

    God love you.

    Like

    • Hi Tobias

      TB//At this, sir, I am afraid i must voice a polite disagreement. According to the Holy Evangelists, of blessed memory, Christ is most definitely described as being both Lord and God.//

      Of course we may have disagreement, May God Almightyy Give us proper understanding. …

      Calling someone Lord does not always mean as God, even Moses (pbuh) is called “lord” by Yhwh in Ps 110:1.  The fact of the matter is NT writers always distinguish the identity of Yhwh aka the Father and Jesus, they are alwals two selves and two beings.  The distinction takes some notable factors that makes Jesus unqualified as God, that is Jesus is never described as “true God” which invalidates the claim that Yhwh and Jesus  are one ousia, and the description of Jesus  as “begotten,” which imply that he’s another being than the one who “beget” him.

      TB//We see both in the biblical texts and the writings of the Holy and infallible Fathers, of holy and blessed memory, the the knowledge the Father has uniquely of the Son, and the Son uniquely has for the Father//

      I beg to differ, Jesus is inferior to God, he even acknowledge that he did not what his God know things like the end time for example when these things will happen, noone know not even the angels in heaven or  himself. Only his God knows.

      However as he was a prophet (meaning he received direct communication from God), he is then no ordinary men, he, like many other great prophets of God knew God better than a mere men.

      Me:// ’It could be Jesus authority was given by his God. If something is given to someone it does not mean that someone “owns” it’
      TB//However sir, as i said before, how could a created being claim Lordship over the entire universe and all that exists therein ? In the Islamic context this must surely qualify as the most base of blasphemy. Christ himself says:
      “all must honour the Son even as they honour the Father”
      The Son confesses the Father the True God, yet say quite emphatically the he must be honoured in precisely the same way as the Father is honoured.//

      Honoring the prophet of God is not a blasphemy because by honoring them it is honoring the One who sends them, Prophet Muhammad once said: man kânAllahu wa rosûluHu ‘Ahabba ilayHi mimmâ siwâ humâ – Love God and His Messenger both than to anyone else. And in the holy Qur’an we are told to honour the Prophet alongside God – Litu minû billâhi wa Rasûlihî wa tu’azzirûhu watuwaqqirûhu watusabbiûhu – That you [people] may believe in Allah and His Messenger and honor and respect him.

      The most blasphemy of all is associating God in Islam. I believe this must be true in biblical teaching as well (I am Yhwh, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God!) again and again Jesus is no Yhwh, we read in the bible that they are always two different selves and two different beings.

      TB//Once again please forgive me, i must sound terribly pretentious and silly, but there is no more important subject. May God be with you and I wish you a very happy evening. //

      Likewise, I also ask forgiveness if I sound unpleasant, Im sorry also if I cant entertain long replies as I have routine in life.. we may have disagreement, in the end we all here to learn and ultimately seek pleasure from God Almighty .

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Dear Mr Kisam

    Should you like Orthodox Christian jokes, here is one that always makes me chuckle

    Question “How can you tell an Orthodox wedding, a Roman Catholic wedding, and an Anglican wedding apart ?”

    Answear “At the Orthodox wedding, the mother in law is pregnant, at a Roman Catholic wedding the bride is pregnant and at an Anglican wedding the Priest is pregnant”

    I know it is a stupid jest, but it does make me giggle

    God love you

    Liked by 1 person

    • //Question “How can you tell an Orthodox wedding, a Roman Catholic wedding, and an Anglican wedding apart ?”

      Answear “At the Orthodox wedding, the mother in law is pregnant, at a Roman Catholic wedding the bride is pregnant and at an Anglican wedding the Priest is pregnant”//

      lol this makes my day

      Liked by 1 person

  10. “The Qur’an asserts that Isa Al-Masih is merely a al-Kalimah 2 (الكلمة) that is “the Word” as a singular (mufrad), not plural Kalām (كلام) , and in the Qur’ān al-Kalimah is a created being not the creator or the source of creation. The Qur’anic s designation of Isa Al-Masih as al-Kalimah or “the Word” which is a created being bears striking agreement with jewish tradition that the Messiah is God’s creation not uncreated being.”

    The unitarian word of Muslims and Unitarians is reduced to being the object of a single thought and act of God and nothing more.

    The trinitarian Word is the light that lights every man. That is multiple acts of an intelligent being, which must be God to do this work, or more likely a continuous act as long as men exist and are coming in to existence.

    One belief does justice to the text of the prologue to John , the other doesn’t.

    Like

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: