Ezra

[Radunzel]

asalam walaykum

ehhh hey guys (and ladys) erm was just wondering if when the quran says

(sorry paraphrasing @work sorry)
that ezra is the son of allah..

the general consensus is that the noble quran is wrong..

yet i think it refers to the reformationist judiac and christian opinion (ezra 4) that the pentateuch was writen by ezra.. there fore accepting ezras word as the word of god.. making him the son of allah.. (in a spiritual sense) as oposed to the literal christian sense

just wondering your opinion cos there seems a lot of people arguing about it..

x allah arvis

 

[c0de]

Harsh words:

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]
​

The greatest blasphemy against God in Islam is to attribute partners to Him. In this case, the concept of a "son".

 

[Nick_A]

Harsh words:

The Jews call `Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is the saying from their mouth; (In this) they are intimate; what the Unbelievers of the old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the truth. [Qur'an 9:30]

​

The greatest blasphemy against God in Islam is to attribute partners to Him. In this case, the concept of a "son".

Hi cOde

I know of your belief in Islam and also that you are willing to think outside the box so to speak. I know that Islam denies the Trinity but are you open to the possibility that it may be a reality though not as usually expressed in Christendom for example. Is it possible for you that something could be simultaneously one and three?

 

[c0de]

Hi cOde

I know of your belief in Islam and also that you are willing to think outside the box so to speak. I know that Islam denies the Trinity but are you open to the possibility that it may be a reality though not as usually expressed in Christendom for example. Is it possible for you that something could be simultaneously one and three?

Well Nick, to be perfectly honest, I do not understand how Christians themselves can accept the concept of "trinity", or how and why they accept the Bible as the literal word of God, knowing full well the history of the politics involved in the writing of it. I mean, as far as I know, it is known today that even the early Christians did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, nor the Trinity... that these concepts were introduced centuries after... And this is not even considering the logical aspect of the whole "Trinity" concept...

By the way, just today in my History and Philosophy of Science class I learned that Newton did not believe the Trinity either, that he was an "Aryan heretic"... just a relevant fact I thought interesting.

 

[Nick_A]

Well Nick, to be perfectly honest, I do not understand how Christians themselves can accept the concept of "trinity", or how and why they accept the Bible as the literal word of God, knowing full well the history of the politics involved in the writing of it. I mean, as far as I know, it is known today that even the early Christians did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, nor the Trinity... that these concepts were introduced centuries after... And this is not even considering the logical aspect of the whole "Trinity" concept...

By the way, just today in my History and Philosophy of Science class I learned that Newton did not believe the Trinity either, that he was an "Aryan heretic"... just a relevant fact I thought interesting.

Normally it isn't done but I distinguish between Christianity and Christendom. So when you are using the word Christian in a particular context, It may be Christendom for me.

This is why I asked you if regardless of your current beliefs, you would be open to the idea of the Trinity, three in one simultaneously, rather than denying it without thought in accordance with what you've learned. I'm not asking you to accept it but rather if you would be open to pondering how it could be even at the expense of the doubts it may raise.

This isn't a gotcha type of question. It has been normal for me to appreciate pondering rather than denying ideas of belief systems not my own. It requires a type of impartiality that is distasteful for many. It has always been more important for me to understand rather then dogmatically defend. It is not the norm so I was curious if you are also this way.
.

 

[c0de]

This isn't a gotcha type of question. It has been normal for me to appreciate pondering rather than denying ideas of belief systems not my own. It requires a type of impartiality that is distasteful for many. It has always been more important for me to understand rather then dogmatically defend. It is not the norm so I was curious if you are also this way.
.

I understand that you are not trying to trap me Nick, obviously. However, the reason why my answer may seem so direct and immediate (as if maybe I did not take my time and ponder on it) is because I already went over these questions years ago and came to the conclusions which I stated above.

 

[Nick_A]

I understand that you are not trying to trap me Nick, obviously. However, the reason why my answer may seem so direct and immediate (as if maybe I did not take my time and ponder on it) is because I already went over these questions years ago and came to the conclusions which I stated above.

Does this mean your mind is closed or open? I've learned from chess that an opening variation seems to be mistake free. All of a sudden I learn a new wrinkle which changes my perspective. I've lost enough games to realize that it is good to be open minded to new wrinkles. It could be the same way with these profound questions of universal structure in that we have to approach them without our normal preconceptions if we truly need to understand.

"When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door. ..." Simone Weil

Perhaps instead of avoiding contradictions, it is worthwhile trying to intentionally invite them.

 

[farhan]

asalam walaykum

ehhh hey guys (and ladys) erm was just wondering if when the quran says

(sorry paraphrasing @work sorry)
that ezra is the son of allah..

the general consensus is that the noble quran is wrong..

yet i think it refers to the reformationist judiac and christian opinion (ezra 4) that the pentateuch was writen by ezra.. there fore accepting ezras word as the word of god.. making him the son of allah.. (in a spiritual sense) as oposed to the literal christian sense

just wondering your opinion cos there seems a lot of people arguing about it..

x allah arvis

Quran says, "They call Uzair the son of God". Who is Uzair? May be Ezra, may be Osiris, or somebody else. And then who jews? It isnt obviously talking about Ashkenazim/Sephardim or the Indo-Iranian ones, that are currently in majority.

I know that Islam denies the Trinity but are you open to the possibility that it may be a reality though not as usually expressed in Christendom for example. Is it possible for you that something could be simultaneously one and three?

Well metaphysical musings....it has to be one consciousness, not three. Bodies dont matter that much.It can be in the form of distributed consciousness, or distributed consciousness with a central dominant server. The Over-soul concept is also something to think about. Three separate & independent consciousnesses don't work with one another, it will be a chaos.

Bigger question is, who told you that? In Islamic definition, God is uncomprehendible. If one comprehends him, he doesn't remain God. He didn't tell about his son (or 3 in 1 concept) to Muslims or Jews. Neither did he tell it to Christians. And I think there are some differences between Orthodox & Catholic beliefs too, about the divine nature.

There is a Chinese riddle."A tree came down in the forest, nobody heard any noise, did the tree come down"? Well if it did, who told you? Its all conjectures.

Well Nick, to be perfectly honest, I do not understand how Christians themselves can accept the concept of "trinity", or how and why they accept the Bible as the literal word of God, knowing full well the history of the politics involved in the writing of it. I mean, as far as I know, it is known today that even the early Christians did not believe in the Divinity of Christ, nor the Trinity... that these concepts were introduced centuries after... And this is not even considering the logical aspect of the whole "Trinity" concept...

All Christians dont believe that. Catholics accept bible as the inspired word of God. So ideas are divine, but words are human. Its Protestants I guess who believe it to be literal word of God.

 

[c0de]

@ Nick + Farhan

I've learned from chess that an opening variation seems to be mistake free. All of a sudden I learn a new wrinkle which changes my perspective. I've lost enough games to realize that it is good to be open minded to new wrinkles. It could be the same way with these profound questions of universal structure in that we have to approach them without our normal preconceptions if we truly need to understand.

How ironic is it that so many people consider Chess as representing the same concept in promoting an open ended thought process... while Chess is a game played literally within little boxes, all combining to make one big box, trapping all the pieces in its world of negative possibilities. The way Chess is played is very telling as well, unlike its Chinese equivalent, the board is usually empty near the end, most of the pieces are captured. Even the victory is Pyrrhic, without bringing any real benefit to the victorious King... but then again in Chess "even the king is just a playing piece." Just one more asset trapped in another box.

Perhaps instead of avoiding contradictions, it is worthwhile trying to intentionally invite them.

Sure... but the contradiction has to be effective, or at least valid. It has to have some weight and power to offset your beliefs.





Farhan


Thank you for adding to the point about Ezra. I was worried my initial description might be too direct and simplistic. As for the discussion about the Bible, you are also right.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi cOde

Sure... but the contradiction has to be effective, or at least valid. It has to have some weight and power to offset your beliefs.

You seem to be putting yourself into a position to judge. Your mind then is made up. Yet I could have posed this same question to Prof. Abdus Salam when he was alive and gotten a different response.

http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/TheScientistWithASufiTouch.pdf

The three forces known also as Yin, yang, and Qi and their interactions could also be traced back beyond time and space where they exist as one. He would have the open mind to do it. He would grasp what Simone Weil said:

For her part, Simone Weil, in one of her last essays, wrote:
"Toujours le même infiniment petit, qui est infiniment plus que tout."
[Always the same infinitely small, which is infinitely more than all.]

How can the infinitely small be more than all? A contradiction. I believe
Prof. Salam would have understood

We are entering a time where it will be essential for our survival to unify science and religion. A lot of this unification IMO will come from appreciating how something can be simultaneously one and three and how this understanding connects the infinitely large with the infinitely small.

 

[c0de]

Hi Nick

Hi cOde



You seem to be putting yourself into a position to judge. Your mind then is made up. Yet I could have posed this same question to Prof. Abdus Salam when he was alive and gotten a different response.

http://tenets.zoroastrianism.com/TheScientistWithASufiTouch.pdf

The three forces known also as Yin, yang, and Qi and their interactions could also be traced back beyond time and space where they exist as one. He would have the open mind to do it. He would grasp what Simone Weil said:



How can the infinitely small be more than all? A contradiction. I believe
Prof. Salam would have understood

We are entering a time where it will be essential for our survival to unify science and religion. A lot of this unification IMO will come from appreciating how something can be simultaneously one and three and how this understanding connects the infinitely large with the infinitely small.

I am convinced that such a synthesis will never happen. The science of the small, will always contradict the science of the huge. Similarly, the idea of the trinity is unacceptable to me. So yes, I know I am very close minded. I should have admitted this initially. Anything which goes against the principles outlined in the Quran, I dismiss out rightly, unless of course there is a way to reconcile the two in the favor of the Quran, evolution for example. I believe evolution did happen, but that God was guiding it. Also, since the proccess of evolution also, I believe unlike many Muslims does not contradict the verses of the Quran, I have no problem with it. But the trinity.... as far as I am concerned, it does contradict the Quran in whatever form you present it. Besides, like I said, we already know the concept was introduced after the death of Christ, centuries after in fact.

 

[Nick_A]

Hi cOde

I know that the Bible has both literal and a psychological meanings. Its conscious value is in the psychological. Dr. Salam is a member of the Ahmedia sect. The article describes the psychological meaning of Jehad, the inner struggle with oneself, which is different from the literal meaning associated with societal wars

The bottom line is that I've experienced that the Bible can be appreciated on different levels. Perhaps it is so with the Quran. If so, don't we have the human obligation to raise our ability for understanding for the sake of acquiring a psychological understanding as with the concept of Jehad for example?

What do you mean by Christianity? I believe St. Augustine to be correct:

To conclude, the great Christian theologian, Saint Augustine in his Retractiones, wrote “The very thing which is now called the Christian religion existed among the ancients also, nor was it wanting from the inception of the human race until the coming of Christ in the flesh, at which point the true religion, which was already in existence, began to be called Christian.”

The Trinity is alive and well in Hinduism as it always has been in the Christian teachings before Jesus actualized its purpose.

Hinduism traditions and Christianity, the Trinity in Hinduism

The Christian Holy Trinity... and the Hindu Trimurti:
It impressed me to know that the 3 manifestations of Brahman, have some similarities with the Christian "Holy Trinity", in Hinduism called the "Trimurti".
- Brahma is like the Father, the creator, the cosmic mind. As God the Father has few temples dedicated to him, in fact only one in all India.
- Vishnu, like the Son, Jesus Christ, the preserver, the cosmic lord... with 9 reincarnations, ten avatar manifestations... and the one to come, Kalkin... however, Jesus is the only one incarnation of God. Vishnu had already 9 incarnations ("avatars") and he is shown as one them, as fish, tortoise, a boar... the last 3 were Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, who are very popular
- Shiva like the Holy Spirit, destroyer of the bad things to renew the universe, the transcendent Godhead
... so, Hinduism in some way it is a "monotheistic" religion... however the Bible condemns any kind of polytheism, the adoration of anything or anybody besides the only God, because the gods that are not God, are idols or devils (Psalm 96:5).
The Vedas pantheon mythology, include the Cosmic Trinity of Agni (god of fire), Vayu, (god of air), and Surya (god of energy or life).​

I've come to admit that any person including me really has to grow in their personal psychology to begin to appreciate the incredible depth of what is hidden within sacred text having a conscious origin. I haven't read the Quran but suspect it to be the same since all sacred text has this in common. I refuse to pull the Bible down to my level but instead try to acquire the impartiality to raise myself psychology up to its level. Can it not be the same for some regarding the Quran rather than just defending an acquired literal understanding?.​

 

[c0de]

@ Nick

I haven't read the Quran but suspect it to be the same since all sacred text has this in common.

It is said that the entire thesis of the Quran is contained in this verse:

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.
​

​

Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.

- Chapter 112
​

This is the entire Chapter. It is one of the earliest revelations.
The heart of all Islam, is contained within these 4 lines.
Can any form of trinity be considered compatible with these words?

 

[Nick_A]

@ Nick


It is said that the entire thesis of the Quran is contained in this verse:

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful. ​

Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begets not, nor is He begotten.
And there is none like unto Him.

- Chapter 112 ​

This is the entire Chapter. It is one of the earliest revelations.
The heart of all Islam, is contained within these 4 lines.
Can any form of trinity be considered compatible with these words?

IMO yes it can but you would first have to tell me if you are at all open to the following:

Sufi Cosmology

 

[c0de]

IMO yes it can but you would first have to tell me if you are at all open to the following:

Sufi Cosmology

In my opinion, neoplatonism in any form is a violation of the following principle:
"And there is none like unto Him."
The separation between the created, and the Creator.

There is a reason why this separation is made explicit,
because any attempt to unify the two would invariably
result in the deification of the created. This is what
happened in Hinduism, for example.

p.s. These beliefs do not fit within mainstream sufi thought,
as far as I am aware of it.

 

[Radunzel]

Wow i got thread jacked..

to accept trinity you must accept gods creation and gods prescence as eqaul to god.. simple as..

nice use of oneof the 4 quls

 

[c0de]

Wow i got thread jacked..

LoL .......

 

[Nick_A]

In my opinion, neoplatonism in any form is a violation of the following principle:
"And there is none like unto Him."
The separation between the created, and the Creator.

There is a reason why this separation is made explicit,
because any attempt to unify the two would invariably
result in the deification of the created. This is what
happened in Hinduism, for example.

p.s. These beliefs do not fit within mainstream sufi thought,
as far as I am aware of it.

Well as they say: "no harm no foul." I never was one for "mainstream" which is why secular Christendom has no appeal for me. There is something appealing about "the pearl of great price" as spoken of in the Bible. Does the Quran mention a similar idea in relation to "quality" within human psychological striving to experience objective human meaning and purpose.

 

[farhan]

I guess we should start a new thread with this.

 

[Nick_A]

Wow i got thread jacked..

to accept trinity you must accept gods creation and gods prescence as eqaul to god.. simple as..

nice use of oneof the 4 quls

No, not at all. God is "I AM." Is AM equal to I or an eternal lawfully degenerating expression of I? I is ONE while AM is cosmologically devolving expressions of THREE interacting and producing lawful fractions of ONE.