ECT A question from a Muslim

[Nihilo]

Asked:

God is omniscient.
Jesus told his disciples He did not know the day and hour of His return.
Jesus is not God.

How can Jesus be God if He didn't know what God knew?

This is what this man believes.

What is the best answer to this?

Our Lord didn't live in a vacuum. He had Apostles, whom He chose and sent, to administer His Church (Mt16:18) and teach to the world everything that He wants us all to know, especially about our Maker and about His plans for us.

One of the very earliest things that His Apostles taught was about the nature of our Maker, and part of that is that our Maker became a human being, born of a virgin.

The details of the Trinity doctrine have been revealed gradually and more and more deeply through time, as the Apostles' successors the Church's bishops have seen fit to reveal, as circumstances and controversies arose.

 

[theophilus]

I pray God puts the right words in your mouth, sister. :cheers:

Thank you.



:cheers:

 

[HisServant]

Our Lord didn't live in a vacuum. He had Apostles, whom He chose and sent, to administer His Church (Mt16:18) and teach to the world everything that He wants us all to know, especially about our Maker and about His plans for us.

One of the very earliest things that His Apostles taught was about the nature of our Maker, and part of that is that our Maker became a human being, born of a virgin.

The details of the Trinity doctrine have been revealed gradually and more and more deeply through time, as the Apostles' successors the Church's bishops have seen fit to reveal, as circumstances and controversies arose.

So the Holy Spirit has no part in your beliefs?... or do only members of your magisterium and Pope have access to him?

FYI, the trinity doctrine goes far beyond what the Holy Spirit taught us.... its become a God in and of itself to some people, like the Roman Church.

To me, the 3 persons are the 3 ways that God has chosen to reveal and interact with mankind through. One doesn't proceed from the other and all the other nonsense. We are only to believe what has been revealed and not go one step further... not even a millimeter.

God has his reasons, and we must respect him.

 

[fzappa13]

Yep. Psalm 82.

That is a key in that it spans both old and new testament and was reference by Jesus Himself. So here you have a word "Elohiym" that is used to reference Jehovah, Jesus, angels and men and translated into English as "god" or "sons of god". Little wonder there is such confusion.

 

[fzappa13]

I have many things marked in my copy...guess I'll need to mark those as well.

The Qu'ran is a tough read. I doesn't flow, doesn't hold together from one verse to the next, many times just doesn't make sense.

And because I read it in english my version is "corrupted."

I found it to be more repetitious the further you got into it. I also noted that there is no prophecy in it.

 

[Nihilo]

So the Holy Spirit has no part in your beliefs?... or do only members of your magisterium and Pope have access to him?

Inasmuch as He leads people into all truth, those people are His Church's (His the Holy Spirit) bishops, correct.

FYI, the trinity doctrine goes far beyond what the Holy Spirit taught us.... its become a God in and of itself to some people, like the Roman Church.

I completely disagree. Unless, what you mean is, that some people make it a requirement for salvation to believe in the Trinity.

To me, the 3 persons are the 3 ways that God has chosen to reveal and interact with mankind through. One doesn't proceed from the other and all the other nonsense. We are only to believe what has been revealed and not go one step further... not even a millimeter.

God has his reasons, and we must respect him.

Well, I agree with your sentiment, just that I believe what the Magisterium teaches is "revealed."

 

[fzappa13]

Yep. Psalm 82.

I've wondered several times whether enough years have passed to have another go at the term "Elohiym" in a thread ... but then I remember the last time. :shocked:

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Asked:

God is omniscient.
Jesus told his disciples He did not know the day and hour of His return.
Jesus is not God.

How can Jesus be God if He didn't know what God knew?

This is what this man believes.

What is the best answer to this?

It helps to first disabuse the Muslim of their notion that God took a wife and bore a son.

Then this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1540916#post1540916

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

It helps to first disabuse the Muslim of their notion that God took a wife and bore a son.

Then this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1540916#post1540916

AMR

 

[fzappa13]

It helps to first disabuse the Muslim of their notion that God took a wife and bore a son.

Well, that's kind of a tough sell when that is the implication. Actually the mechanics of what is implied by modern Christian theology has God siring Himself through Mary. Can you not understand why most folks might experience a little confusion when presented with this notion?

 

[Interplanner]

It helps to first disabuse the Muslim of their notion that God took a wife and bore a son.

Then this:

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1540916#post1540916

AMR

As for the 'not even the Son knows', this can be read on the emotional level, cp. "He was grieved that he had made mankind" Gen 6. Ie, can it not simply mean that it is such a horrible thought (to end the world) that he just doesn't know when he's going to?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

As for the 'not even the Son knows', this can be read on the emotional level, cp. "He was grieved that he had made mankind" Gen 6. Ie, can it not simply mean that it is such a horrible thought (to end the world) that he just doesn't know when he's going to?

No.

God's plans are infallible for He ordained all that has, is, and will happen. That is why God knows what has, is, and will happen.

God is not caught by surprise, nor given over to the fickle human emotions we possess. That God "repented" is an accommodation to our finitude in understanding God, He stooping downward to reveal himself to us in terms we can grasp. Rightfully understood, the repentance here is a signal in a change in how God will deal with man. Yet, even that change was ordained by God in eternity, for there no change of his purpose and unrevealed decree, which is immutable.

Yes, God changes his administrations towards men in time but it does not follow that His decree itself is changed or is decided only in time, for this very change was decreed from eternity. Rather these things, said in accommodation to men, ought to be understood in a manner becoming our ineffable God: not with respect to a change in God, but with respect to a change in his works so ordained from eternity.

AMR

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well, that's kind of a tough sell when that is the implication. Actually the mechanics of what is implied by modern Christian theology has God siring Himself through Mary. Can you not understand why most folks might experience a little confusion when presented with this notion?

If by "most folks" you mean non-believers, I can see how that might be possible. Hence, my use of the word "disabuse" to signal a radical correction to their entrenched notions.

AMR

 

[fzappa13]

If by "most folks" you mean non-believers, I can see how that might be possible. Hence, my use of the word "disabuse" to signal a radical correction to their entrenched notions.

AMR

Both believers and non believers alike struggle with man's attempts to reconcile English and Hebrew/Aramaic.

 

[theophilus]

So...

...do I need a couple of language courses?

:shocked:

 

[Cross Reference]

No.

God's plans are infallible for He ordained all that has, is, and will happen. That is why God knows what has, is, and will happen.


AMR

Ordained and/or acquiesced to much of it?

Think about it.

 

[fzappa13]

So...

...do I need a couple of language courses?

:shocked:

Not really. But it is helpful to familiarize yourself with the words used in the Bible in its languages of origin as many of the words have no direct equivalent in English ... Elohiym being a case in point. It is also important to remember that the Bible was written by Jews. Having a knowledge of the idioms peculiar to their culture at that time is helpful as well. Reverse engineering doctrine using English for Hebrew and Greek terms that have no English equivalent has the tail wagging the dog I suspect.

 

[theophilus]

Just sayin'...

...I have the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, a parsing guide, commentaries, a Liddell-Scott lexicon, a Strong's concordance...

They help but I'm still on my knees praying for wisdom and discernment.

It's the best I can do.

"Study to show thyself "a dummy in my case.

 

[fzappa13]

Just sayin'...

...I have the Nestle-Aland Greek NT, a parsing guide, commentaries, a Liddell-Scott lexicon, a Strong's concordance...

They help but I'm still on my knees praying for wisdom and discernment.

It's the best I can do.

"Study to show thyself "a dummy in my case.

The Strong's is a wonderful resource. Look up the term "Elohiym" and then take the number associated with it and look up every instance it is used in the O.T.. Then let the combined testimony of these passages bear witness of it's meaning. Armed with this knowledge you are then better equipped to tackle the N.T. which, though written by Jews, is largely translated from the Koine Greek which has no direct equivalent for the term "Elohiym" either.


... and then there is "sheol" ... :chuckle:

 

[theophilus]

Thank you, friend.

Will do.