by jimwalton » Wed Apr 10, 2019 5:39 pm
> Gospel contains God's decrees and wisdom, its message overlaps with Torah and others too.
Yes it does, but this is both moot and a red herring. It is Jesus, not the book, that is sovereign. It is Jesus that is holy. (I don't think the Bible ever calls God's revelation holy.)
> I can pick any sentence of yours and turn you in to "son of god" like some people claimed for Jesus.
Nah, ya can't.
> There are plenty of son of god in Torah and Gospel, but the verses you have picked is cut in half.
There are a few, but Jesus uses the term differently, and the term is used of him differently. When I say, "I love you" to my spouse, I mean it differently than when I say "I love you" to my dog. Context matters. If I'm going to the store and I tell my wife, "I'm leaving," it has a very different meaning than if she and I have had a huge fight and I yell, "I'm leaving." Context matters.
> Jesus is a creation of God as he says and again
There is nothing true about this. Jesus is NEVER spoken of as a creation of God. NEVER. If you claim this, you have to show where the Bible says it. Reference, please.
> if God were to be like in any shape of 28K+ denominations of Christianity, there would be marks of that form in each and every revelation.
I don't know what this means.
> whoever from clergy you direct this question they cannot close the loop of
how Jesus is son of god, or how immaculate conception happened
Of course we can. It's easy. The conception of Jesus happened by a miracle of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Jesus is conceived by the Holy Spirit (the "son" of God) and born of the virgin Mary (a human being; son of humankind). By "son" we mean:
* The theological necessity of the incarnation, that Jesus would actually be born in human flesh.
* To emphasize the uniqueness of Jesus’s relationship with YHWH in personal fellowship.
* To emphasize the sending of the 2nd person of the Trinity on a mission.
* To emphasize the “one-bloodness,” so to speak, kinship relationship of YHWH and Jesus. They share a nature; they are of the same essence.
There's no loop in logic any more than there's a loop in the logic of science. There are many examples from science where two are also one.
All physical reality has a dual nature. Mass and energy are, at least in principle, inter-convertible, through nuclear fission or fusion reactions. It's part of what E = mc^2 is all about. We can, therefore, legitimately speak of the universe as a "space-light-time" universe. Light, as you know, is a paradox—exhibiting characteristics of both waves and particles, and yet it definitely behaves as a wave in some instances and as a particle in others. Scientists know this duality applies both in radiations of electro-magnetic energy as well as in the atomic structure of matter, in which the orbiting electron also likewise behaves both as a particle and as a wave.
Black holes are places in space where gravity is so strong that even light can’t escape, but no one has ever been able to say what happens inside a black hole. Stephen Hawking has theorized that rather than being stored within the "grip" of a black hole, information from "within" a black hole actually remains outside of it and is therefore theoretically accessible. So Hawking says information that is inside a black hole is outside a black hole—a paradox or a "self-contradiction"?
In quantum mechanics there is a principle called superposition, where subatomic particles are able to exist in two states simultaneously. This again may be a kind of analogy, if that helps.
For another potential scientific "validation" of such possibilities, in 2017 a group of quantum scientists (University of Science and Technology of China in Shanghai) successfully teleported a photon from earth to a satellite in orbit. It's called quantum entanglement. As far as our discussion here, quantum entanglement means that the two quantum objects share a wave function and share the same identity, even when separated. What happens to one happens to the other—wherever it exists. They are more than identical twins, the article said, "the two are one and the same." Apparently, according to the article, when they interact with matter on Earth they lose certain aspects of entanglement, but in the vacuum of space, they can extend infinitely (eternally). It's just interesting.
> Jesus is holy according to Quran as asteroid belt is.
The Qur'an teaches (Surah 3.45-46) that Isa is holy as Allah is. That's presumably different from an asteroid belt. The Bible teaches that Jesus is holy as is God the Father, meaning He is separate from all creation, distinct and "other," transcendent as well as immanent.
> Jesus known to pray regularly, fast
Jesus prayed regularly, but fasted only once that we know of. He was sometimes criticized because his disciples didn't fast (The Injil: Mk. 2.18). We don't know that Jesus fasted any time other than before His temptation in the wilderness.
> had a proper attire
We know absolutely nothing about Jesus's attire.
> Christians are the group of people who redefined their lifestyle.
Yes. Christians are not bound to a particular culture, language, or lifestyle as Muslims are. We are free.
> God is Exalted, if He were to show His face or a thing from His level, He would show Himself on the mountain to Moses. If Jesus didn't existed then it is a proof that he is created.
I don't know what you mean by this. God showed Himself at least in a partial way to Moses. Jesus showed an "emptied" part of Himself to the world (Phil. 2.7). No one can see God in His fullness and live.
> Jesus makes reverances to another entity "the God"
Yes he does, twice, I think (Mk. 15.34; Jn. 20.17). He is speaking of God the Father (same verse). Notice He never puts himself on the level of other humans. It's always "my Father" and "your Father" (never "our Father," except in the Lord's Prayer when he was teaching the people how they should pray), "my God" and "your God," (never "our God").
This kind of language does not fit with a later writer bent on creating the idea that Jesus was God. The reason for his distinction is not, of course, that there are two gods, but rather that her relationship with God was different from his. He is the eternal Son of the Father; she, as well as all the disciples, had become a member of the family by receiving Him (cf. John 1.12). Both relationships concerned only one God.