Is Allah God?

netWMD - The War to Mobilize Democracy ^ | June 28, 2005 | Daniel Pipes

[Oberon]

Another Moses/ David like super prophet of flesh and blood which was the way the original Jewish Christians saw Jesus. The Son of G-d stuff was a later Greco-Roman adaptation to fit in with preexiting Hercules/Dionysis tales.

That idea would appear to be inconsistent with John 1, which dates at latest to the early second century. Specifically, the following passage:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."

The Gospel of John is canonical, and John himself was quite Jewish. How would you reconcile the notion of early Jewish Christians thinking of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood super-prophet only with John's clear indication of "Word become flesh"?

[avile]

Son of G-d is a totally alien concept to Judaism, but not to the Greco-Roman culture of the time. The original Jerusalem Church largely did not survive into the early second century. by then its members either perished in the revolt or drifted back to mainline Judaism and was suplanted by Pauline Chrisianity - which was quite different. Subsequent writings were then written or reedited for a new audience, and some original writings suppressed.

[Oberon]

So you're saying that the Gospel of John is a revised version, and not the actual writing of John the Apostle?

[Oberon]

One cannot help but also notice the passage in Matthew 1 in which Mary finds herself "pregnant by the Holy Spirit." Matthew dates to the late first century at the latest, and may predate the sack of Jerusalem in 70.

Your thesis that the first-century church didn't recognize the Christ as the "Son of G-d" (I'll use the dash as a courtesy) would also require us to toss the virgin birth onto the ash-heap of subsequent revision...because if that bit was originally in Matthew, the Jerusalem church would have known it, and not discounted it.

[AppyPappy]

How would you reconcile the notion of early Jewish Christians thinking of Jesus as a flesh-and-blood super-prophet

Then they weren't Christians. The Gnostics had weird beliefs about Christ and Paul and John preached against them.

[Free Baptist]

If Allah "has no Son" (we were informed that this is the doctrine of Islam by Muslims in the Philippines, and have seen this in their literature published in Manila and approved in Saudi Arabia), then it cannot be the same God as Jehovah, who does have His only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, and millians of adopted sons accepted in the Beloved, Jesus Christ. To any Christian who adheres to the Final Authority of the Bible, this is paramount. (If you don't, then it won't matter to you.) Jesus Christ being the Son of the Living God (Matthew 16:16; 1 John 5:1-12); that Christ is GOD MANIFEST IN THE FLESH (1 Timothy 3:16) makes all the difference in the universe. Does Allah have a son who is Allah himself, who came and took upon himself the nature and body of man (yet without the sin nature) to die as the propitiatory substitute in Allah's judgment upon sin and sins? Does Allah have a son who fulfilled what you read in Romans 3:20-26 and Romans 8:3)? No, Allah and Jehovah are not the same person. Allah is not even a person.

[avile]

from ebioinite.org
Was Yahshua "born of a virgin"?

---

Is virgin birth impossible? In the realm of spontaneous creation, and impregnation by space visitors who abduct humans, not at all. Who knows...? The idea is based on NT accounts, but...

1) The Messiah was to be of the lineage of Dawid (<Ët DÁwid), not a god's offspring. Yosef was the descendant of Dawid, not Miryam. Some ancient NT manuscripts read that Yahshua was the son of Yosef.

2) To gentile Christians coming from paganism, half-god children were featured in myths fairly regularly and were objects of worship in their own right. Such a divine coitus could provide Christianity with the new god it needed.

3) Oft heard, but true, the prooftext used by Christianity in the prophet Yesha`yahu speaks of a young girl, not necessarily (yet possibly) virgin, and certainly not virginal conception.

4) Points 2 & 3 have given rise to derogatory things claimed about the virgin birth situation. If among the pagans a bastard child was born it could be attributed to a god (perhaps with tongue in cheek). Less savory types in Judaism in the polemic, Toledot Yeshu`, seized on this to claim "Yeshu`" was the bastard child of a Roman soldier. Because of the insistence in holding on to pagan god-children ideas, Christianity finds it necessary to bring mockery of Yahshua and the holiness of Yahweh's natural order found in creation from such hateful authors.

5) It is sad that Christians will fight to uphold such mythology, but give little service to Yahshua's teachings of righteousness (Torah-observance), justice, peace, love, and forgiveness. These far outweigh any importance of magical births.

6) Virgin birth and perpetual virginity ideas are based in Gnostic dualism. In such schemes the physical world is evil, and defiled. The physical body is held to be weak, corrupted, filthy thing the Gnostic longs to shed in order to free his incorruptible soul, the divine spark, or the god part of humanity. Sex as the natural process of the physical world is seen as a reminder of the failure of man to exist in a spiritual state. Sex is the process of entry into a fallen world, perpetuating physical evils. Virgin birth allows the appearance of a god in the flesh while eliminating the evil, physical, requirement of sexual intercourse. Perpetual virginity (of Miryam) frames the mother of Yahshua as a sacred portal between the worlds, while rejecting the act that makes a mother. Such gnostic thinking is unacceptable to us.

7) Brothers (and sisters) of Yahshua must be rejected by the "Church" as competitors to its tradition and "authority". For example, the primacy of Ya`aqov the brother of Yahshua and his continuing adherence to Yahwism had to be undermined. If the very family, and brother of Yahshua, Ya`aqov leader of the Poor who followed Yahshua, observed the Torah, then how does anti-nomian Christianity have a leg to stand on? Therefore, it was necessary to "destroy" physical family ties to Yahshua. Instead, replacements were supplied from outside, who reinforced the pagan interpretation of events and effectively erased from history the successors of Yahshua. Few people realize that relatives of Yahshua did oversee his movement until intervention from the Christian Romans.

p.s. since the language of the Jerusalem Church was aramaic and Hebrew-the gospel of Mathew (as we know it today) was not their canon.

[Oberon]

avile, everything you're writing here is contrary to the faith I practice. I must assert that at least one of us is apostate. Both of us may be, but I don't see how we could both be right, because I flatly disagree with the bulk of your claims.

If I may ask, from what faith perspective are you speaking?

[avile]

since you seem to be a true believer, let us politely agree to disagree.
I might have been an Ebionite had I lived in Judaea 50 AD.

[Oberon]

I might have been an Ebionite had I lived in Judaea 50 AD.

And what does that make you today? I really would like to know. I'm not looking for ammunition against you, I'm just highly curious.

[Oberon]

since you seem to be a true believer...

You're right, but you've not told quite the whole story...which is that you're a true believer too, but of a different sort than I.

...let us politely agree to disagree.

By all means.

[avile]

Jewish as you have probably surmised, moderately orthodox and a friend of the so called Christian Right, LDS, and post Vatican 2 catholics.

[Oberon]

So...if I may ask...what scripture is canonical? I would guess you endorse the five, anyhow...and I bet your favorite NT book is James.

[sarasmom]

No.

[avile]

I ( and many others) wonder if the gospels chosen by the council of Nicea were the correct ones,however Since your faith is based on the current canon, I do not want to make an issue of it.

Perhaps though you can answer a question i have had for some time.

The Jerusalem Church headed by James , the brother of Jesus(be it blood brother, half brother or cousin) were devoted Orthodox Jews that were believers in Jesus.
They had a major disagreement with Paul on the status of gentiles(for the sake of argument I won't distinguish the Noachides from non-Noachides). The compromise the Jerusalem Council developed was that the gentiles could enter the cult without becoming Jews.(I don't know if they made an official statement that they felt it to be desirable but not needed). However the Judeaism of the Jewish Christians was affirmed. James et al still observed 613 commandments etc. This seems logical and consistant with traditional Judaisms belief that the nations need only to follow the Noachide code and that the Jewish nation play the role that the levites played in Israel.
The Jerusalem Church was largely destroyed by the revolt. Some people even theorize that they may have played a major role in the rebellion. Afterward because of the death and destruction, the gentile community became the predominant group of Christians.

My question is that based on the practices of the original church of James the just, should not Jews stay (or become) Orthodox Jews that accept Jesus?
Should not a missionary tell a converted secular Jew " now that you believe in Jesus, put on Tefillin?" Shouldn't the Catholic Church instead of persecuting Jews for centuries , tried to get them to be Orthodox Jewish Christians? Obviously based on James' principles becoming a good Catholic is the goal of a good Jewish Christian . Instead of torturing Jews in Spain to eat pork, shouldn't the inquisitors tried to get them to believe in Jesus but also to keep kosher? Should not the watchtower missionary not only tell the assimilated Jew to accept Jesus but to also go to synagogue more often?

thank you . I have enjoyed our discussion

[avile]

I ( and many others) wonder if the gospels chosen by the council of Nicea were the correct ones,however Since your faith is based on the current canon, I do not want to make an issue of it.

Perhaps though you can answer a question i have had for some time.

The Jerusalem Church headed by James , the brother of Jesus(be it blood brother, half brother or cousin) were devoted Orthodox Jews that were believers in Jesus.
They had a major disagreement with Paul on the status of gentiles(for the sake of argument I won't distinguish the Noachides from non-Noachides). The compromise the Jerusalem Council developed was that the gentiles could enter the cult without becoming Jews.(I don't know if they made an official statement that they felt it to be desirable but not needed). However the Judeaism of the Jewish Christians was affirmed. James et al still observed 613 commandments etc. This seems logical and consistant with traditional Judaisms belief that the nations need only to follow the Noachide code and that the Jewish nation play the role that the levites played in Israel.
The Jerusalem Church was largely destroyed by the revolt. Some people even theorize that they may have played a major role in the rebellion. Afterward because of the death and destruction, the gentile community became the predominant group of Christians.

My question is that based on the practices of the original church of James the just, should not Jews stay (or become) Orthodox Jews that accept Jesus?
Should not a missionary tell a converted secular Jew " now that you believe in Jesus, put on Tefillin?" Shouldn't the Catholic Church instead of persecuting Jews for centuries , tried to get them to be Orthodox Jewish Christians? Obviously based on James' principles becoming a good Catholic is NOT the goal of a good Jewish Christian . Instead of torturing Jews in Spain to eat pork, shouldn't the inquisitors tried to get them to believe in Jesus but also to keep kosher? Should not the watchtower missionary not only tell the assimilated Jew to accept Jesus but to also go to synagogue more often?

thank you . I have enjoyed our discussion

[Oberon]

thank you . I have enjoyed our discussion.

I do believe I've been dismissed. Ah, well...wouldn't be the first time. Good day, then. =]

In parting...If one were to postulate that Jesus was indeed the Messiah but not for the purpose of atonement, then what was his purpose? Under those conditions, whole swatches of Isaiah stop making sense to me.

[sheik yerbouty]

You jest!

[avile]

no I didn't dismiss you, I was just thanking you for the continuing discussion.

But do you have an answer for my question ? and yes James is my favorite Nt book.

[avile]

My question is that based on the practices of the original church of James the just, should not Jews stay (or become) Orthodox Jews that accept Jesus?
Should not a missionary tell a converted secular Jew " now that you believe in Jesus, put on Tefillin?" Shouldn't the Catholic Church instead of persecuting Jews for centuries , tried to get them to be Orthodox Jewish Christians? Obviously based on James' principles becoming a good Catholic is NOT the goal of a good Jewish Christian . Instead of torturing Jews in Spain to eat pork, shouldn't the inquisitors tried to get them to believe in Jesus but also to keep kosher? Should not the watchtower missionary not only tell the assimilated Jew to accept Jesus but to also go to synagogue more often?