Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[siam]

1) There is no mention of an apple in this account in the Bible either, it is just the fruit of a tree; the kind of fruit is not mentioned.

2) The "snake" represents Satan (Iblis).

3) Who was Adam's wife if not Eve? See verse 20:117?

4) Verse 20:120 & 121: Are you saying that the Tree of Eternity was the one that Adam and Eve should not eat of?

"original sin" would be noted in 20:121.

5) When I first read the Qur'an I though the Tree of Eternity was another name for the Tree of Life. According to both Christianity and Judaism people had access to the Tree of Life and they would live forever in the garden. Is that not true according to Islam?

6) According to Islam where is the Garden?

Genesis 2:8–14:

The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden. . . . Now a river went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted and became four riverheads. The name of the first is Pishon . . . . The name of the second river is Gihon. . . . The name of the third river is Hiddekel [Tigris]. ;. . . The fourth river is the Euphrates.

The Garden is on earth.

7) From the Qur'an:
Then did Satan make them slip from the (garden) and get out of the state of (felicity) in which they had been. We said: "Get ye down all (ye people) with enmity among yourselves; on earth will be your dwelling place, and your means of livelihood for a time." (Surah 2:36)
Felicity means the state or quality of being happy.
Enmity means hostile or ill will.

Surah 2:36 tells us that all people will be hostile toward each other from that time on. So a new human nature was born – from happiness to hostility.

I use Yusuf Ali's translation and he said the following about Surah 2:36 in his note #53
Evidently Adam is the type of all mankind and the sexes go together in all spiritual matters.
Ali is saying that Adam was the representative of mankind and when Adam fell all of his children (all of mankind) fell with him

Surah 7:172-173 indicates the same.

When God drew forth from children of Adam - from his loins - their descendants and made them testify concerning themselves (saying): "Am I not your Lord (who cherishes and sustains you)?" They said: "Yea! We do testify! (This), lest you should say on the day of judgment: 'Of this we were never mindful.' Or lest you should say: 'Our fathers before us may have taken false gods, but we are (their) descendants after them; wilt thou then destroy us because of the deeds of men who were futile?'"

Ali's comment on this verse is:

The words of the text refer to the descendants of Adam; i.e., to all humanity, born or unborn, without any limit of time. Adam's seed carries on the existence of Adam and succeeds to his spiritual heritage. Humanity as such has a corporate aspect.

It can be tedious to read other peoples sacred texts/wisdom teachings...so thankyou for making the effort...but if that is the conclusion you have arrived at, I would recommend you read carefully once more.

1) "Apple" symbolism comes from the Latin translation of the Bible---the word for "apple" and "evil" have a similar sound in Latin so this imagery/symbolism developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_(symbolism)
The classical Greek word μήλον (mēlon), or dialectal μᾶλον (mālon), now a loanword in English as melon, meant tree fruit in general,[5] but was borrowed into Latin as mālum, meaning 'apple'. The similarity of this word to Latin mălum, meaning 'evil', may also have influenced the apple's becoming interpreted as the biblical "forbidden fruit" in the commonly used Latin translation called "Vulgate".

2) Its a talking snake in the Bible. The Quran replaces it with Satan---there is no talking snake in the Quranic accounts.

3) Eve is not mentioned in the Quran---the mention of "wife"/spouse simply implies" human couple"....mostly because the intent of the story is to explain "human" nature, purpose of humanity, and the relationship between human and God.

4) Re-read all the quoted verses of the Quran regarding the story of Adam....and NOTICE.....

S2. v35)We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
S20 v120)But Satan whispered evil to him: he said, "O Adam! shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?"

In 2:35 God is speaking and only "tree" is mentioned....nothing else.
In 20:120--Satan is speaking and HE is the one claiming it is the tree of eternity.

5) Whatever the tree was---its not important (in the Quranic story) as all of creation is finite---All creation comes from God and will return to God.
One is free to speculate....

6) Don't know. Its location is not important to the message of the story.

7) I have informed you many times NOT to read the Quranic verses in isolation----seems like a broken record here....
Read 2: 30 and the context of 2:36 will become clear...

2: 30)Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."

As you can see---God created us with free-will and therefore, the potential for enmity, before the whole "fruit-eating" business....

The reason there is no "original sin" in both Judaism and Islam is because of 2 principles---1) God forgives 2) Individuals are responsible and accountable for their own actions.

The verse you quoted from surah 7---indicates the "Fitra" or inherent human nature. Because of this "covenant", Humanity is born "muslim" as in---submitting to God and with an instinctive remembrance of God.
(but then...from the Islamic perspective...all of creation is "muslim" = submitting to God's will)

[Christian3]

It can be tedious to read other peoples sacred texts/wisdom teachings...so thankyou for making the effort...but if that is the conclusion you have arrived at, I would recommend you read carefully once more.

1) "Apple" symbolism comes from the Latin translation of the Bible---the word for "apple" and "evil" have a similar sound in Latin so this imagery/symbolism developed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_(symbolism)
The classical Greek word μήλον (mēlon), or dialectal μᾶλον (mālon), now a loanword in English as melon, meant tree fruit in general,[5] but was borrowed into Latin as mālum, meaning 'apple'. The similarity of this word to Latin mălum, meaning 'evil', may also have influenced the apple's becoming interpreted as the biblical "forbidden fruit" in the commonly used Latin translation called "Vulgate".

2) Its a talking snake in the Bible. The Quran replaces it with Satan---there is no talking snake in the Quranic accounts.

3) Eve is not mentioned in the Quran---the mention of "wife"/spouse simply implies" human couple"....mostly because the intent of the story is to explain "human" nature, purpose of humanity, and the relationship between human and God.

4) Re-read all the quoted verses of the Quran regarding the story of Adam....and NOTICE.....

S2. v35)We said: "O Adam! dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden; and eat of the bountiful things therein as (where and when) ye will; but approach not this tree, or ye run into harm and transgression."
S20 v120)But Satan whispered evil to him: he said, "O Adam! shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?"

In 2:35 God is speaking and only "tree" is mentioned....nothing else.
In 20:120--Satan is speaking and HE is the one claiming it is the tree of eternity.

5) Whatever the tree was---its not important (in the Quranic story) as all of creation is finite---All creation comes from God and will return to God.
One is free to speculate....

6) Don't know. Its location is not important to the message of the story.

7) I have informed you many times NOT to read the Quranic verses in isolation----seems like a broken record here....
Read 2: 30 and the context of 2:36 will become clear...

2: 30)Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."

As you can see---God created us with free-will and therefore, the potential for enmity, before the whole "fruit-eating" business....

The reason there is no "original sin" in both Judaism and Islam is because of 2 principles---1) God forgives 2) Individuals are responsible and accountable for their own actions.

The verse you quoted from surah 7---indicates the "Fitra" or inherent human nature. Because of this "covenant", Humanity is born "muslim" as in---submitting to God and with an instinctive remembrance of God.
(but then...from the Islamic perspective...all of creation is "muslim" = submitting to God's will)

Why were the first couple thrown out of the Garden?

Both Jews and Christians submit to the will of God.

[JonathanL]

1) Sometimes---in these types of discussions, positions can become unnecessarily adversarial. But actually Islam has a lot in common with Christianity (as well as a few differences.)
Though we may see/understand "God" differently...with the Muslim position that God is One. In Islamic philosophy, the use of human language to define God/divine is exercised with caution.
The Tao te Ching expresses this idea well....
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao
the name that can be named is not the eternal name....
...and...
Tao is beyond words and beyond understanding
Words may be used to speak of it but they cannot contain it.
....and....
It is beyond "is" and "is not"
Therefore, In one sense God is easy to understand---God is one
but in another way---since God cannot be confined to definitions and language, God is also a "mystery".
that is why Muslims have the 99 "names"----the 99 being the more important concept (since the "names" can vary) the use of "99" is so as to not confine the concept of God, but leave it open-ended (to use 100 would have been too definitive)

What is the Christian understanding of "mystery" as pertaining to God.

A mystery, in Christianity, can mean several things. It can mean something of divine importance that has yet been revealed. The message of the cross (i.e the gospel) before the advent of Christianity following Jesus' death and resurrection would have been an example of a mystery of that kind.

A mystery can also be an aspect of God or Christian doctrine that cannot be apprehended by reason alone. That would include the Trinity, Virgin Birth, and Resurrection of Jesus. That doesn't mean there aren't aspects of the above doctrines that we can discuss, but the ultimate nature and workings of the Trinity, for example, is unknowable to us.

2) The Islamic position is....All of creation is finite, only God is infinite. All creation is from God and will return to God. This does not mean that creation is therefore, God. The Quran is a revelation(sign) from God as is creation.
A Muslim could say Jesus Christ (pbuh) is a revelation(sign) from God that returns to God---but that does not make him God.
Therefore a human death has no impact on God's existence nor does the finite-ness of creation. God is independent of all his creation.

But surely Islam believes in a Paradise where all Muslims will live in eternity? Even if God alone is infinite, that doesn't mean there aren't aspects of creation that won't go on forever, not by their own power, but through the sustaining power of God. Human souls/spirits would be one such example.

3) As I see it---"God" has to "die" in order for incarnation to be necessary---otherwise any human sacrifice would have worked---but if God were to "die" then God cannot be "Eternal".

As I see it, you're still operating under the erroneous assumption that "die" means "cease to exist" when you've been repeatedly corrected on this.

4) So you are saying that it was not God that dies but "Son of God" (one of a third?)

When discussing with a Christian, you need to be aware when God is used to denote a person, or when it's being used to denote the Godhood in it's totality. When a Christian says that God died on the cross, what he means is that the second Person of the Trinity, also known as the Son, the Logos/Word, Jesus, Christ, Messiah, died on the cross.

And no, the Son of God is not "one of a third" of God. The belief that the persons of the Trinity makes up a third of God each is a Trinitarian heresy called partialism. Each person of the Trinity are fully God and they all partake fully in the Divine Essence (i.e that which makes God, God).

5) Jesus offered himself to God?...So did the son of Prophet Abraham. But...God prevented it.

Well, if you really want to know, the one who prevented it was the angel of the LORD, which many Christians believe is a pre-incarnate theophany of the Son. And there is also a lesson to be learnt here of how Isaac was spared because another sacrifice was provided in his stead. Sounds a lot like a Christian teaching we've been discussing in this thread...

6) Good---we agree on something.
Islam does not have "original sin" God forgives Prophet Adam therefore there is no reason for incarnation + suffering +death by/of God.
In Islam there is a difference between Divine Justice and human Justice---but this difference is about human limitations---Humans cannot see/know the intentions of the criminal/perpetrator unless articulated by the perp/criminal or inferred/speculated by an observer. God can see/know everything. Human intentions are clear to God.

Well, what reason is there to believe the teachings of Islam regarding Adam and the state of humanity? As I see it, to believe that all humans are born perfectly pure and unmarred by sin, the only way you can do that is by lowering the standards of what constitutes "perfectly pure" to something that no longer reflects real perfection.

2) In the Quranic context Justice is an important theme because the goal of Islam is peace (salaam) and this is done through the tool of law/justice which is about protecting (God-given) rights and the discharge of (God-given) responsibilities. Oppression is therefore an injustice because it takes away the God-given right to free-will.
Oppression (definition)
op·pres·sion | \ ə-ˈpre-shən \
Definition of oppression
1a: unjust or cruel exercise of authority or power
the continuing oppression of the … underclasses
— H. A. Daniels
b: something that oppresses especially in being an unjust or excessive exercise of power
unfair taxes and other oppressions
2: a sense of being weighed down in body or mind : DEPRESSION
an oppression of spirits

Without compassion and mercy, law can become an unjust exercise of power---a tool of oppression
Islam is a religion of "law"---in particular, law based on ethical/moral principles founded on the idea that all humanity is of equivalent value. Therefore these are not "emotionally laden words" with no purpose---They serve a very important purpose in the formation of the Islamic/Quranic paradigm/world-view. The Islamic understanding of "religion" is that it is a way/path/guidance. The value of religion is not in its label but its content.

God is most Compassionate, most Merciful and most Just. Mercy and Justice are attributes of God---but do not require/need "satisfaction"....that is, God has no needs---God is independent of humanity/creation but humanity/creation is dependent on God.

What you've been describing to me does not sound like a God who is most Just, but a God who is most compromising. Christianity allows God to express both His Justice and His Mercy in full, while Islam has to sacrifice one for the other. You're left in a position where you have no choice but to mix aspects of Justice and Mercy into one mess, because if you keep them separate you're left with the problem of explaining how God can be both Just and Merciful. That problem is solved in Christianity by the cross.

Also the word "satisfaction" when applied to God by a Christian does not imply a "need" from God's side. It simply means that that aspect of God's nature is fully expressed by what is being mentioned. I.e God's Justice was fully expressed when Christ died on the cross bearing our sins.

3) In the Islamic/Quranic context God does not need to sacrifice---God has no needs. God is independent of his creation.

Christianity doesn't believe God needs any sacrifices either. Jesus didn't die on the cross to satisfy any of God's needs. He died on the cross in order to take the punishment that we deserved.

In any case, in a situation where two (or more) people are in a perilous situation and one of them have the option to only save himself, or the people who are in the situation together with him, but has to make the choice between himself and the others, I would claim that the person who chooses to save the other person(s) is morally greater than the person who chooses to save his own skin, and deserves the greater praise.
---this is an interesting point
Islamic ethico-morality is not black and white so while the taking of life is generally not permissible (haram) it can be considered under special circumstances with restrictions. In the situation above we need to consider 3 Islamic principles ---the preservation of life is a responsibility, all humanity (human lives) is of equivalent value---none superior or inferior to another, and God gives life and takes life. If a healthy person decides to donate all his organs to save the lives of others at the expense of his own, it might be a heroic decision---but not an ethical one.
If, in a group of people stranded on a cliff, one healthy person decides to allow the weak, the minors, and the injured to be rescued first, and this delay causes the cliff ledge to weaken and unexpectedly fall, leading to his death---then his decision would have been both heroic and ethical and his death the will of God.
When flying there is the announcement that the oxygen masks must be put on oneself first and then put on the child---it might seem counter-intuitive to a parent but this would be the ethical thing/right thing to do.

Let's get back to Jesus for a minute. If Jesus, knowing that He would rise again on the third day, decided to suffer the agony and death of the cross in order to save everyone who accepts the freely given offer of salvation through faith in Christ and what He accomplished would that be heroic and ethical, only heroic, only ethical, or neither?

[Same Hakeem]

God's justice requires just payment. And so basied on your argument we would all perish without hope.

Romans 6:23, ". . . For the wages of sin is death; . . ." Know that no amount of good deeds satifies the debt of death do to sin.

Revelation 20:12, ". . . and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. . . ."

[siam]

1a) A mystery, in Christianity, can mean several things. It can mean something of divine importance that has yet been revealed. The message of the cross (i.e the gospel) before the advent of Christianity following Jesus' death and resurrection would have been an example of a mystery of that kind.

1b) A mystery can also be an aspect of God or Christian doctrine that cannot be apprehended by reason alone. That would include the Trinity, Virgin Birth, and Resurrection of Jesus. That doesn't mean there aren't aspects of the above doctrines that we can discuss, but the ultimate nature and workings of the Trinity, for example, is unknowable to us.

2) But surely Islam believes in a Paradise where all Muslims will live in eternity? Even if God alone is infinite, that doesn't mean there aren't aspects of creation that won't go on forever, not by their own power, but through the sustaining power of God. Human souls/spirits would be one such example.

3) As I see it, you're still operating under the erroneous assumption that "die" means "cease to exist" when you've been repeatedly corrected on this.

4) When discussing with a Christian, you need to be aware when God is used to denote a person, or when it's being used to denote the Godhood in it's totality. When a Christian says that God died on the cross, what he means is that the second Person of the Trinity, also known as the Son, the Logos/Word, Jesus, Christ, Messiah, died on the cross.

And no, the Son of God is not "one of a third" of God. The belief that the persons of the Trinity makes up a third of God each is a Trinitarian heresy called partialism. Each person of the Trinity are fully God and they all partake fully in the Divine Essence (i.e that which makes God, God).

5) Well, if you really want to know, the one who prevented it was the angel of the LORD, which many Christians believe is a pre-incarnate theophany of the Son. And there is also a lesson to be learnt here of how Isaac was spared because another sacrifice was provided in his stead. Sounds a lot like a Christian teaching we've been discussing in this thread...

6)Well, what reason is there to believe the teachings of Islam regarding Adam and the state of humanity? As I see it, to believe that all humans are born perfectly pure and unmarred by sin, the only way you can do that is by lowering the standards of what constitutes "perfectly pure" to something that no longer reflects real perfection.

7) What you've been describing to me does not sound like a God who is most Just, but a God who is most compromising. Christianity allows God to express both His Justice and His Mercy in full, while Islam has to sacrifice one for the other. You're left in a position where you have no choice but to mix aspects of Justice and Mercy into one mess, because if you keep them separate you're left with the problem of explaining how God can be both Just and Merciful. That problem is solved in Christianity by the cross.

Also the word "satisfaction" when applied to God by a Christian does not imply a "need" from God's side. It simply means that that aspect of God's nature is fully expressed by what is being mentioned. I.e God's Justice was fully expressed when Christ died on the cross bearing our sins.
Christianity doesn't believe God needs any sacrifices either. Jesus didn't die on the cross to satisfy any of God's needs. He died on the cross in order to take the punishment that we deserved.

8) Let's get back to Jesus for a minute. If Jesus, knowing that He would rise again on the third day, decided to suffer the agony and death of the cross in order to save everyone who accepts the freely given offer of salvation through faith in Christ and what He accomplished would that be heroic and ethical, only heroic, only ethical, or neither?

1a) mystery = gradual revelation over time.
In Islam---God is one and this core message has remained unchanged throughout time and geography. It is the source of "Unity". But diversity is also important (Unity in diversity) as this facilitates the exercise of our free-will as well as human progress. Thus, while the core message of "God is one" has remained unchanged, God has given a diversity of guidance (ethics/morality/laws) as appropriate for the time and place of the various groups of humanity.
Such a concept can help to "Universalize" God and yet also promote respect/tolerance towards the differences (ehtical/moral/law) of others.
In what pragmatic way do Christians use this concept?

1b) mystery = unknowable by reason alone.
"God is One" is a simple concept understood by reason....therefore there is not much mystery there...
But the idea/concept of the 99 names that promotes the principle that God cannot be confined by "language" can help to "universalize"
God, the creator of all humanity is ONE. Therefore, simply because different peoples use different names for God does not mean that there are many Gods---There is only one God and people call him by different names.
Does Christianity have a spiritual dimension to its concept of "mystery"?

2) Islam has paradise and hell. It also has concepts of soul/spirit.

3)If God /Godhead does not die/cease to exist---what purpose is there for the incarnation/sacrifice?
This was probably debated within the Churches?...the original nicene creed of 325 does not mention crucifixion and death as part of its dogma. This was changed in creed of 381 which added to the dogma as follows:-
"he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
the later English translations further modified/clarified the dogma....
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis...e_Nicene_Creed
....it seems God has to die....right?
In any case---we will continue to go in circles on this point.......should we agree to declare it a mystery?

4) Yes, I am aware that Trinity is tricky as it can easily lead to heresy.

5) What is the Christian interpretation of the Story of Abraham and his son?

6) The Islamic view is that humanity/creation are not accidents. God created us exactly as he intended and with purpose.
There are 2 aspects of the use of "fitra" (human nature as good/potential to good) ----a) pragmatic b)spiritual
a) The Islamic understanding of human nature promotes the ethico-moral principle that a) an adult person is innocent until proven guilty, b)that minors and those that are intellectually handicapped do not bear full responsibility for their actions. c) that these principles are "universal"/applicable to all humanity, not just to one select group of people.
b)We/humanity has to trust/believe in the universal human capacity for goodness in order to promote it and encourage its spread.
Such a belief/trust in universal human goodness can also empower humanity.
Quran says we/humanity are "trustees" on earth, entrusted to do God's will = right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations.
therefore, this empowerment/awareness of agency, can bring weight to the choices we make so that we become cognizant of the consequences of the exercise of our free-will.
The power to choose comes with responsibility.

7) I cannot assent to the Christian view of division. Islam is about Unity...so, ofcourse God's attributes are viewed as a whole. There is no problem with balancing Justice with Compassion and Mercy nor with balancing Compassion/Mercy with justice.
Are you aware of the "Saviour complex" phenomenon? This is where a privileged person swoops into another country to "fix" a "problem". After proceeding to "fix the problem" they swoop out again feeling good that they have made a tremendous contribution to helping those "who could not help themselves". The issue with this "narrative" is that the "savior" disempowers or takes away the agency of the people and appropriates this right/power for himself.
Determining what is the problem as well as what solution best fits their needs is the right of the effected community. The presumption that the know-it-all savior is the only one to "save" a poor, helpless, ignorant people---is in itself toxic.
The right kind of compassion requires an awareness that all humanity is of equivalent value and have both rights and responsibilities (= Justice).

8)If Jesus, knowing that He would rise again on the third day, decided to suffer the agony and death of the cross in order to save everyone who accepts the freely given offer of salvation through faith in Christ and what He accomplished would that be heroic and ethical, only heroic, only ethical, or neither?
to know that he will die and rise again has no bearing on ethical values as that is not the basis of the principle. The principle is to value life---our own as well as of others. Numerical difference does not necessarily change the value. So, in the first example of organ donation---the number value of saving several lives and a person giving up his one life does not necessarily change the value of "life". (several vs one). That is why, it is ethical for a healthy person to choose to live, even if it means there are others who need organs who will die. In the third example, a parent puts on the oxygen mask first because by saving their life first...they are better able to help another or many others. That is why this is ethical.
in the 2nd example of a healthy person on a ledge---the reason it was ethical was because the healthy person did NOT know the ledge would break. What would have been the ethical/right action had he known for certain that the ledge would break? The right action would have been to save himself first so that he could help the rescuers rescue all the people faster.
However, there are exceptions----such as occasions when one has to take chances with life---for example, when a soldier goes into battle to defend a country/community. When doctors/nurses work to save lives during pandemics, and other such occasions. In these cases---death is not a certainty (suicide) but a risk.
Therefore, if Jesus took high risk actions without certain knowledge of death (suicide) it would be ethical....and if he died, it would be the will of God.

[JonathanL]

1a) mystery = gradual revelation over time.
In Islam---God is one and this core message has remained unchanged throughout time and geography. It is the source of "Unity". But diversity is also important (Unity in diversity) as this facilitates the exercise of our free-will as well as human progress. Thus, while the core message of "God is one" has remained unchanged, God has given a diversity of guidance (ethics/morality/laws) as appropriate for the time and place of the various groups of humanity.
Such a concept can help to "Universalize" God and yet also promote respect/tolerance towards the differences (ehtical/moral/law) of others.
In what pragmatic way do Christians use this concept?

Well, Christianity does teach that revelation has been gradual over time, but gradual revelation over time is not equivalent to a "mystery" in the first sense. The mystery is the content of what's being revealed, at a point in time when it has still not been revealed. After it has been revealed by God, it's no longer a mystery.

Asking in what pragmatic way Christians use this concept is to miss the whole point of Christianity. Christianity is all about God, and what God has done for us. While there is definitely instructions about how to live a moral life in the OT and the NT, the core message in Christianity is a message about God's actions for the benefit of mankind. Therefore, most, if not all about the mysteries in the above mentioned sense, are mysteries that speak about what God has planned, or has done for us, and it makes no sense to ask how Christians use this concept in a pragmatic way.

1b) mystery = unknowable by reason alone.
"God is One" is a simple concept understood by reason....therefore there is not much mystery there...
But the idea/concept of the 99 names that promotes the principle that God cannot be confined by "language" can help to "universalize"
God, the creator of all humanity is ONE. Therefore, simply because different peoples use different names for God does not mean that there are many Gods---There is only one God and people call him by different names.
Does Christianity have a spiritual dimension to its concept of "mystery"?

I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual dimension, but I would submit that the Christian concept of "mystery" is almost completely (if not completely) spiritual. There are certain propositional content about the Christian mysteries that help us define them somewhat (in the sense of, "if you go beyond the borders/limits of what's being spoken of here, you're no longer speaking about X"), but the true nature of these mysteries cannot be grasped intellectually.

2) Islam has paradise and hell. It also has concepts of soul/spirit.

Do any, or all of these souls continue existing for an eternity? Or are paradise and/or hell limited in time?

3)If God /Godhead does not die/cease to exist---what purpose is there for the incarnation/sacrifice?
This was probably debated within the Churches?...the original nicene creed of 325 does not mention crucifixion and death as part of its dogma. This was changed in creed of 381 which added to the dogma as follows:-
"he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed
the later English translations further modified/clarified the dogma....
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Englis...e_Nicene_Creed
....it seems God has to die....right?
In any case---we will continue to go in circles on this point.......should we agree to declare it a mystery?

It was not debated in the Churches. Or at least, nothing of what you bring up is indicative of that. Both creeds already speak about Jesus' crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, which is sufficient to establish His death. But the writings of the NT and the early church all attest to a belief in Jesus' as having died and risen again. There is not one point in the history of the church where it can be demonstrated that a belief in the death (by crucifixion) and resurrection of Christ was not present.

And yes, the Nicene creed does demand belief that the Son, who is very God of very God, died on the cross. But the Nicene creed does not define dying in the sense of ceasing to exist. In fact, the statement "and rose again on the third day" presupposes that dying does not mean "ceasing to exist", because that which has ceased to exist can no longer be resurrected.

4) Yes, I am aware that Trinity is tricky as it can easily lead to heresy.

It can indeed.

5) What is the Christian interpretation of the Story of Abraham and his son?

I'm not aware if there is one single Christian interpretation of the Story of Abraham and his son, but most Christians I've discussed with (and I agree with them) seem to take it as a type (a foreshadowing of sorts, although the majority of Christians when trying to explain the meaning of this story will probably not use the term type) of Christ's sacrifice. The story begins in Genesis 22:

Scripture Verse: Genesis 22:1-2 ESV

your only son Isaac, whom you love

© Copyright Original Source

Some Christian here find allusions to places in the NT such as John 3:16, Romans 8:32, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 12:18, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7 and Luke 3:22. The idea being that Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac in obedience to God's command, mirrors in some ways God's willingness to sacrifice His Own beloved Son, for the sake of mankind. The fact that it happened in the land of Moriah, which would have been in the area around Jerusalem that Jesus was crucified has not escaped mention either.

A bit later in the story we find the following:



Isaac carried the wood of the burnt offering, just as Jesus carried his own cross. (John 19:17) and Isaac's question about the lamb, and Abraham's answer about God providing the lamb himself, is seen as pointing to Jesus as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29 being one example)

Continuing on we read:



Based on the fact that Isaac was fit enough for the journey, and was able to carry the wood for the burnt offering himself, many have posited that he must have been a young man when all of this transpired and would have been old, and strong enough to resist, if he had wished to do so. It's therefore a common interpretation that Isaac submitted to being sacrificed willingly, just as Jesus submitted willingly to the will of the Father (Matthew 26:39)

Finally, there's Hebrews 11:17-19 in the NT, where we read:

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 11:17-19 ESV

He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, Isaac was figuratively raised from the dead by being saved by the angel of the LORD before Abraham could sacrifice him, while Jesus was physically raised from the dead after having died an actual death.

Of course there are other things that can be learned from this text, such as the fact that obedience to God, and having faith in His commands lead to great blessings (spiritual and sometimes physical), but the above are some that I believe are more uniquely Christian understandings of the OT passage.

6) The Islamic view is that humanity/creation are not accidents. God created us exactly as he intended and with purpose.
There are 2 aspects of the use of "fitra" (human nature as good/potential to good) ----a) pragmatic b)spiritual
a) The Islamic understanding of human nature promotes the ethico-moral principle that a) an adult person is innocent until proven guilty, b)that minors and those that are intellectually handicapped do not bear full responsibility for their actions. c) that these principles are "universal"/applicable to all humanity, not just to one select group of people.
b)We/humanity has to trust/believe in the universal human capacity for goodness in order to promote it and encourage its spread.
Such a belief/trust in universal human goodness can also empower humanity.
Quran says we/humanity are "trustees" on earth, entrusted to do God's will = right belief that promotes right intentions that lead to right actions for the benefit of all of God's creations.
therefore, this empowerment/awareness of agency, can bring weight to the choices we make so that we become cognizant of the consequences of the exercise of our free-will.
The power to choose comes with responsibility.

Of course, the Christian view is not that humanity or creation are accidents either. We were created exactly as God intended us to be. Initially Adam and Eve lived in relationship and harmony with God, and had a connection with God that enabled them to live in a way that was pleasing to God. By disobeying God's command this relationship, connection, with God was severed, and man, instead began living his life for the sake of himself, instead of for the sake of God. That is essentially what original sin is, namely the inclination towards man himself and living for his own sake, rather than towards God and for the sake of God. It is having lost the grace from God that enables man to truly love God over all things (and not simply pay lipservice to loving God over all things)

7) I cannot assent to the Christian view of division. Islam is about Unity...so, ofcourse God's attributes are viewed as a whole. There is no problem with balancing Justice with Compassion and Mercy nor with balancing Compassion/Mercy with justice.
Are you aware of the "Saviour complex" phenomenon? This is where a privileged person swoops into another country to "fix" a "problem". After proceeding to "fix the problem" they swoop out again feeling good that they have made a tremendous contribution to helping those "who could not help themselves". The issue with this "narrative" is that the "savior" disempowers or takes away the agency of the people and appropriates this right/power for himself.
Determining what is the problem as well as what solution best fits their needs is the right of the effected community. The presumption that the know-it-all savior is the only one to "save" a poor, helpless, ignorant people---is in itself toxic.
The right kind of compassion requires an awareness that all humanity is of equivalent value and have both rights and responsibilities (= Justice).

I would submit that there is a problem with balancing Justice with Compassion and Mercy in Islam, even if you do not acknowledge it. It seems to me that in Islam you have to lower your standards of Justice in order for it to be compatible with Compassion and Mercy, while no such problem exists in the Christian conception. This is ultimately not a question about whether God's attributes are viewed as a whole, or divided, but about the specific content of those attributes. Christians say that God's Justice and Mercy looks a certain way, while Muslims say it looks another. My view of course, is that the Christian view is closer to depicting the actual truth than the Muslim view.

And yes, I am aware of the saviour complex phenomenon. It obviously does not apply here, for the simple reason that the savior in this case quite literally is know-it-all (omnipotent) and is the only one able to save mankind. It quite literally is impossible for mankind to pay the debts of their sins, or to change their sinful inclinations towards themselves into an inclination towards living for the sake of God. Not to mention that all of mankind belongs to God, so the way He choses to save mankind is ultimately his prerogative.

And in this case "Determining what is the problem as well as what solution best fits their needs is the right of the effected community." is not true either. God, as the ultimate judge, and the one being wronged, is the one who determines what the problem is, and what solution best fits the need of the situation. Claiming that humanity or mankind has that right would be straight up rebellion against God.

8)If Jesus, knowing that He would rise again on the third day, decided to suffer the agony and death of the cross in order to save everyone who accepts the freely given offer of salvation through faith in Christ and what He accomplished would that be heroic and ethical, only heroic, only ethical, or neither?
to know that he will die and rise again has no bearing on ethical values as that is not the basis of the principle. The principle is to value life---our own as well as of others. Numerical difference does not necessarily change the value. So, in the first example of organ donation---the number value of saving several lives and a person giving up his one life does not necessarily change the value of "life". (several vs one). That is why, it is ethical for a healthy person to choose to live, even if it means there are others who need organs who will die. In the third example, a parent puts on the oxygen mask first because by saving their life first...they are better able to help another or many others. That is why this is ethical.
in the 2nd example of a healthy person on a ledge---the reason it was ethical was because the healthy person did NOT know the ledge would break. What would have been the ethical/right action had he known for certain that the ledge would break? The right action would have been to save himself first so that he could help the rescuers rescue all the people faster.
However, there are exceptions----such as occasions when one has to take chances with life---for example, when a soldier goes into battle to defend a country/community. When doctors/nurses work to save lives during pandemics, and other such occasions. In these cases---death is not a certainty (suicide) but a risk.
Therefore, if Jesus took high risk actions without certain knowledge of death (suicide) it would be ethical....and if he died, it would be the will of God.

You missed the point of my question completely, even though I bolded the relevant part. The issue is not how many people were saved by what Jesus died, the issue is whether it's ethical and/or heroic for Jesus to have done what He did, based on the fact that He knew that He would be raised up on the third day, and that his death therefore was not a permanent ordeal. You say that the principle is to value life, but if that is the case then knowing that you will rise again absolutely has bearing on the issue. There is absolutely no way that it doesn't.

Ultimately though, since Jesus is God, and acted in submission to the Father in going willingly to the Cross, the issue about valuing life that you present is in all essentiality irrelevant. The story of the cross is not a story about a mere human sacrificing his life for the sake of others, it's a story about the Godhood in complete unity, from eternity, deciding that one of the Persons should descend to earth and take on human nature, in order to bear the sins of mankind, so that we won't have to. Your considerations about what is proper, ethical or heroic deserves little consideration here.

[37818]

Ezeliel's instuctions were given under the Law of Moses, where offerings where to be made in the Temle, Levitecus, 17:11, ". . . For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. . . ." Hebrews 9:22, ". . . And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. . . ." That is, without the blood there is no forgivness under the Law.

So unless Jesus is some how also God in the flesh, John 1:14, the Prophet Jesus, Deuteronomy 18:18-19, would also be an unrighteous sinner, Romans 3:10. James 2:10, Matthew 5:19.

[Same Hakeem]

Ezeliel's instuctions were given under the Law of Moses, where offerings where to be made in the Temle, Levitecus, 17:11, ". . . For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. . . ." Hebrews 9:22, ". . . And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. . . ." That is, without the blood there is no forgivness under the Law.

So unless Jesus is some how also God in the flesh, John 1:14, the Prophet Jesus, Deuteronomy 18:18-19, would also be an unrighteous sinner, Romans 3:10. James 2:10, Matthew 5:19.

[siam]

Well, Christianity does teach that revelation has been gradual over time, but gradual revelation over time is not equivalent to a "mystery" in the first sense. The mystery is the content of what's being revealed, at a point in time when it has still not been revealed. After it has been revealed by God, it's no longer a mystery.

Asking in what pragmatic way Christians use this concept is to miss the whole point of Christianity. Christianity is all about God, and what God has done for us. While there is definitely instructions about how to live a moral life in the OT and the NT, the core message in Christianity is a message about God's actions for the benefit of mankind. Therefore, most, if not all about the mysteries in the above mentioned sense, are mysteries that speak about what God has planned, or has done for us, and it makes no sense to ask how Christians use this concept in a pragmatic way.

I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual dimension, but I would submit that the Christian concept of "mystery" is almost completely (if not completely) spiritual. There are certain propositional content about the Christian mysteries that help us define them somewhat (in the sense of, "if you go beyond the borders/limits of what's being spoken of here, you're no longer speaking about X"), but the true nature of these mysteries cannot be grasped intellectually.

Do any, or all of these souls continue existing for an eternity? Or are paradise and/or hell limited in time?

It was not debated in the Churches. Or at least, nothing of what you bring up is indicative of that. Both creeds already speak about Jesus' crucifixion under Pontius Pilate, which is sufficient to establish His death. But the writings of the NT and the early church all attest to a belief in Jesus' as having died and risen again. There is not one point in the history of the church where it can be demonstrated that a belief in the death (by crucifixion) and resurrection of Christ was not present.

And yes, the Nicene creed does demand belief that the Son, who is very God of very God, died on the cross. But the Nicene creed does not define dying in the sense of ceasing to exist. In fact, the statement "and rose again on the third day" presupposes that dying does not mean "ceasing to exist", because that which has ceased to exist can no longer be resurrected.

It can indeed.

I'm not aware if there is one single Christian interpretation of the Story of Abraham and his son, but most Christians I've discussed with (and I agree with them) seem to take it as a type (a foreshadowing of sorts, although the majority of Christians when trying to explain the meaning of this story will probably not use the term type) of Christ's sacrifice. The story begins in Genesis 22:

Scripture Verse: Genesis 22:1-2 ESV

1 After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 2 He said, “Take your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.”

© Copyright Original Source

Some Christian here find allusions to places in the NT such as John 3:16, Romans 8:32, Matthew 3:17, Matthew 12:18, Mark 1:11, Mark 9:7 and Luke 3:22. The idea being that Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac in obedience to God's command, mirrors in some ways God's willingness to sacrifice His Own beloved Son, for the sake of mankind. The fact that it happened in the land of Moriah, which would have been in the area around Jerusalem that Jesus was crucified has not escaped mention either.

A bit later in the story we find the following:

Scripture Verse: Genesis 22:4-8 ESV

4 On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place from afar. 5 Then Abraham said to his young men, “Stay here with the donkey; I and the boy will go over there and worship and come again to you.” 6 And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering and laid it on Isaac his son. And he took in his hand the fire and the knife. So they went both of them together. 7 And Isaac said to his father Abraham, “My father!” And he said, “Here I am, my son.” He said, “Behold, the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” 8 Abraham said, “God will provide for himself the lamb for a burnt offering, my son.” So they went both of them together.

© Copyright Original Source

Isaac carried the wood of the burnt offering, just as Jesus carried his own cross. (John 19:17) and Isaac's question about the lamb, and Abraham's answer about God providing the lamb himself, is seen as pointing to Jesus as the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world (John 1:29 being one example)

Continuing on we read:

Scripture Verse: Genesis 22:9-14 ESV

9 When they came to the place of which God had told him, Abraham built the altar there and laid the wood in order and bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then Abraham reached out his hand and took the knife to slaughter his son. 11 But the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, “Abraham, Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.” 12 He said, “Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me.” 13 And Abraham lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, behind him was a ram, caught in a thicket by his horns. And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up as a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 So Abraham called the name of that place, “The Lord will provide”; as it is said to this day, “On the mount of the Lord it shall be provided.”

© Copyright Original Source

Based on the fact that Isaac was fit enough for the journey, and was able to carry the wood for the burnt offering himself, many have posited that he must have been a young man when all of this transpired and would have been old, and strong enough to resist, if he had wished to do so. It's therefore a common interpretation that Isaac submitted to being sacrificed willingly, just as Jesus submitted willingly to the will of the Father (Matthew 26:39)

Finally, there's Hebrews 11:17-19 in the NT, where we read:

Scripture Verse: Hebrews 11:17-19 ESV

17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son, 18 of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.” 19 He considered that God was able even to raise him from the dead, from which, figuratively speaking, he did receive him back.

© Copyright Original Source

In other words, Isaac was figuratively raised from the dead by being saved by the angel of the LORD before Abraham could sacrifice him, while Jesus was physically raised from the dead after having died an actual death.

Of course there are other things that can be learned from this text, such as the fact that obedience to God, and having faith in His commands lead to great blessings (spiritual and sometimes physical), but the above are some that I believe are more uniquely Christian understandings of the OT passage.



Of course, the Christian view is not that humanity or creation are accidents either. We were created exactly as God intended us to be. Initially Adam and Eve lived in relationship and harmony with God, and had a connection with God that enabled them to live in a way that was pleasing to God. By disobeying God's command this relationship, connection, with God was severed, and man, instead began living his life for the sake of himself, instead of for the sake of God. That is essentially what original sin is, namely the inclination towards man himself and living for his own sake, rather than towards God and for the sake of God. It is having lost the grace from God that enables man to truly love God over all things (and not simply pay lipservice to loving God over all things)



I would submit that there is a problem with balancing Justice with Compassion and Mercy in Islam, even if you do not acknowledge it. It seems to me that in Islam you have to lower your standards of Justice in order for it to be compatible with Compassion and Mercy, while no such problem exists in the Christian conception. This is ultimately not a question about whether God's attributes are viewed as a whole, or divided, but about the specific content of those attributes. Christians say that God's Justice and Mercy looks a certain way, while Muslims say it looks another. My view of course, is that the Christian view is closer to depicting the actual truth than the Muslim view.

And yes, I am aware of the saviour complex phenomenon. It obviously does not apply here, for the simple reason that the savior in this case quite literally is know-it-all (omnipotent) and is the only one able to save mankind. It quite literally is impossible for mankind to pay the debts of their sins, or to change their sinful inclinations towards themselves into an inclination towards living for the sake of God. Not to mention that all of mankind belongs to God, so the way He choses to save mankind is ultimately his prerogative.

And in this case "Determining what is the problem as well as what solution best fits their needs is the right of the effected community." is not true either. God, as the ultimate judge, and the one being wronged, is the one who determines what the problem is, and what solution best fits the need of the situation. Claiming that humanity or mankind has that right would be straight up rebellion against God.



You missed the point of my question completely, even though I bolded the relevant part. The issue is not how many people were saved by what Jesus died, the issue is whether it's ethical and/or heroic for Jesus to have done what He did, based on the fact that He knew that He would be raised up on the third day, and that his death therefore was not a permanent ordeal. You say that the principle is to value life, but if that is the case then knowing that you will rise again absolutely has bearing on the issue. There is absolutely no way that it doesn't.

Ultimately though, since Jesus is God, and acted in submission to the Father in going willingly to the Cross, the issue about valuing life that you present is in all essentiality irrelevant. The story of the cross is not a story about a mere human sacrificing his life for the sake of others, it's a story about the Godhood in complete unity, from eternity, deciding that one of the Persons should descend to earth and take on human nature, in order to bear the sins of mankind, so that we won't have to. Your considerations about what is proper, ethical or heroic deserves little consideration here.

Defining "revelation"---Revealed (as opposed to hidden) over time. In Islam, this understanding would be more appropriate for knowledge---such as physics/science...etc That is, knowledge exists---but it can be" hidden" until God wills it to be "revealed"/known. The term used for the Quran/creation is "sign" (ayah)...and if we were to use Buddhist terminology---it would be "a sign pointing towards God" which is more compatible with the notion of "guidance" (wisdom).

What God has done for us/humanity---I would agree that Christianity is focused on this aspect. Islam would be focused on the question---what can humanity do for God? The answer would be to "do God's will" which would be why the pragmatic aspect (ethics/morals/law) is as important as the spiritual aspect.(right belief that promotes right intentions).

mystery---Muslims believe Jesus Christ (pbuh) was a highly spiritual person...particularly the Sufis---but then, I am not a Sufi, I prefer the pragmatic, the reasoned, and applicable side of religio-philosophy.
What function or purpose (if any) does "mystery" have in the Christian paradigm?

Time-space---God is independent of "time/space". Material creation is bound by "time/space" (birth/death, beginning/end). IMO, the soul in the material human body is therefore bound by time/space. The soul in heaven/hell are not. My understanding is that heaven and hell are "a long period as God wills."...after which we fold (destruct?) into God. A Sufi might explain that we/creation were thought/knowledge in God which he "created" into form, which he will destruct/end and thus will become memory/knowledge in God again. (except the concept of past, present, future does not apply as God is independent of time and is only used here as a grammatical limitation of language)

Abraham---interesting interpretation.
...but, ....if God sent an angel to stop Abraham and substitutes a ram instead....it could also "foreshadow" what the Quran is implying---that God "substituted" so that Jesus did not have to die?
or....another perspective could also be that by substituting a ram, God shows that homicide (intent and action to kill another) and suicide (intent and action to kill oneself) are both "wrong" to God....?

Original sin---yr understanding of the concept is interesting. so...you do not agree fully with the "total depravity" idea?

Justice tempered with compassion and mercy---How would a Christian know? As we discussed above---Christianity is not a pragmatic religio-philosophy. It has no systemic ethico-moral frameworks upon which to base and develop any wholistic structures applicable to realistic human progress.

Savior complex/only one able to save humanity----but does this not deprive humanity of agency? God creates the problem---and because he is a know-it-all---swoops in with a solution and "fixes" it---meanwhile humanity are helpless, ignorant recipients with no role to play in this story.
Another perspective could be---The human intellect, human free-will and our time on earth are God-given blessings in order that we might determine our own destination. Such a perspective would give agency, meaning and purpose to human existence on earth.

[37818]

Yes, Jesus did teach forgiveness under the Law. James 2:10, Deuteronomomy 27:26, Leviticus 17:11 would still apply.

[Christian3]

Jesus claimed He could forgive sins.

[Christian3]

Jesus did not say He was not good; after all Jesus called Himself the GOOD Shepherd; therefore, if only God is Good and Jesus is good, it means Jesus is God.

[Same Hakeem]

Jesus claimed He could forgive sins.

Please quote me chapter and verse where "Jesus claimed He could forgive sins"

[37818]

Please quote me chapter and verse where "Jesus claimed He could forgive sins"

Matthew 9:2-7, ". . . be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee. . . ."

[Same Hakeem]