Thoughts on Incarnation

The difference is I would not try to analyse the Quran without knowing about what it says.

I thought you wanted to talk about the wounds? The wounds are in the Gospel of John:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 20:24-29&version=NIV

Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”

But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”

A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas,

“Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”

Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”

(John 20:24-28)
 
muhammad_isa said:
Another hypothesis, is that it wasn't actually Jesus put on the cross. This is also found in the apocrypha.
Both suggestions can be found here..
Click to expand...
But WHY? Why go to all the trouble?
 
Jesus was basically led straight out for crucifixion. It wasn't planned over a length of time: phone calls and letters and meetings, etc? At best it was quickly patched together.

The gospel accounts are what there is. If you reject them, why talk about it at all?
 
Last edited:
The only reason to include all the complicated conspiracy theory is to make it fit the Quran?

It doesn't make sense. It's all just too complicated. Imo
 
RJM Corbet said:
Jesus was basically led straight out for crucifixion. It wasn't planned over a length of time: phone calls and letters and meetings, etc? At best it was quickly patched together.

The gospel accounts are what there is. If you reject them, why talk about it at all?
Click to expand...

I don't reject them. I only reject the Gospel of John.
 
I said:
I don't reject them. I only reject the Gospel of John.
Click to expand...

That is mainly where one gets the DEFINITE impression that Jesus is God incarnate.
..and as I have explained, that is a lot more complicated than Jesus not dying on the cross.

i.e. Jesus praying to himself as God etc.

..and if you want to say that the Son and Father are distinct, then it is a form of "apology".
 
muhammad_isa said:
That is mainly where one gets the DEFINITE impression that Jesus is God incarnate.
..and as I have explained, that is a lot more complicated than Jesus not dying on the cross.
Click to expand...
I just want a moment here: it is reasonable to accept a Jesus of virgin birth, who ascended into heaven, and will return as Messiah in the flesh -- but not to accept he died on the cross -- instead a complicated conspiracy theory to bring him down alive, or whatever, makes more sense? Because that's what the Book says?

And the other Book says different ...
 
Last edited:
It has to be linked with the historical presence of eucharistic Christians -- not Yeshuans -- in Rome by 64AD and Tacitus' recorded comment about the crucificion -- all the linked pieces -- without the trying need to constantly repeat and remind of all the discussion that has already gone down here?
 
Last edited:
RJM Corbet said:
I just want a moment here: it is reasonable to accept a Jesus of virgin birth, who ascended into heaven, and will return as Messiah in the flesh -- but not to accept he died on the cross -- instead a complicated conspiracy theory to bring him down alive, or whatever, makes more sense? Because that's what the Book says?

And the other Book says different ...
Click to expand...

No .. the Qur'an does say that but as I already explained, I and many others, are confused by the Gospel of John.
[ Jesus is God ]

I was confused BEFORE I read the Qur'an or met Muslims.
I was still in school, and remember the Divinity Master going through it, and the class discussions that followed.
[ as a teenager ]

I don't blame you. You have lived your life believing that the Bible is correct, and particularly, that the Gospel
of John is "spot on", and you therefore believe in a complicated concept of a trinity which says that
Jesus is God incarnate [ amongst other things ]
 
Last edited:
muhammad_isa said:
don't blame you. You have lived your life believing that the Bible is correct,
Click to expand...
I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I am of the Woodstock generation. I have been around the block a bit
 
RJM Corbet said:
I just want a moment here ...
Click to expand...
Always worth it.

RJM Corbet said:
... it is reasonable to accept a Jesus of virgin birth, who ascended into heaven, and will return as Messiah in the flesh -- but not to accept he died on the cross ...
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the point for me also, three miraculous events are accepted, one quite mundane one – a crucified prophet dies – is rejected. It is somewhat illogical and irrational, to my way of thinking.

For one, the acceptance of Mary's testimony (via Luke) that the Holy Spirit is the de facto father of Jesus, which the Quran accepts, but seems loathe to contemplate the implications of ... curious when it's a given that there are various ways of reading the text.

So what we have is an account drawn from various sources; elements Biblical (the nativity from Luke), elements Apocryphal (the childhood stories of Jesus, already affirmed by Christians as spurious – such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas), and mythopoeic elements original to the Quran to fill in the lacunae (such as the backstory of Joseph).

In The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, for example (c150AD), Jesus makes twelve clay sparrows (apostles), and brings them to life, sending them off into the world. Same appears in the Arabic Gospel of the Infancy of the Saviour (c400AD). The Quran repeats this myth, with the added commentary of God's "by my permission", and curious the Quran actually endorses John's Gospel, while adding its own self-affirming commentary.

The variations of narrative regarding the crucifixion reflects the different source materials: That someone was crucified in His place (in some accounts God putting His executioners under a spell and they saw Jesus when looking at the substitute), that Jesus only appeared to suffer, that Jesus was alive when taken down, etc ... all stories in circulation by the 2nd/3rd century ... hence the variation in Islam.

RJM Corbet said:
-- instead a complicated conspiracy theory to bring him down alive, or whatever, makes more sense? Because that's what the Book says?
Click to expand...
Indeed.

But the necessary 'complicated conspiracy' is a telling point.

Pilate is an unlikely sympathiser. Philo and Josephus mark his period in office as cruel and unjust. At his handling of the trial was quite clever in assuring that no blame for the execution could be laid at Rome's door for killing a local hero.

The Ethiopian Church's claim that he converted is accepted as myth, as Ethiopia became Christian quite a time later. Origen, for one, never believed him to be Christian.

THE BIG QUESTION: IF JESUS SURVIVED – WHAT DID HE DO NEXT?

As He vanished from the scene, did He suffer rendition to some 'black site'? Did He go into a relocation programme?

If He survived, He let all His followers assume He was dead, or conspired with them to found a false religion. Either way, His actions pretty much destroys His character and credibility as a "Prophet of God" so if we are wrong, at least we have ignorance and error as an excuse, Islam hasn't got a leg to stand on!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
davidsheep88 said:
Nope incarnation isn't something in the bible.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there's quite a few text references to that effect.

Gospel of John aside, and the implicit elements in the Synoptics, we have Paul

Philippians 2:7-8
"Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, 8 he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross."

Here there are four phrases that express incarnation – emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness, being found in human form.

2 Corinthians 8:9:
For you know the generous act of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty you might become rich.

Romans 8:3-4
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Galatians 4:4-6
But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, in order to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as children. And because you are children, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!”

For Paul:
1. Incarnation and cross are inseparable.
2. Both incarnation and cross are necessary for our salvation.
3. Both incarnation and cross express the self-giving love of God in Christ.
4. Both incarnation and cross should narratively shape the Christian believer and community into the image of Christ, decisively affecting Christian praxis in multiple ways and in all areas of life.
5. A Pauline theology/spirituality of theosis (becoming like God, in Christ, by the Spirit) is able to hold incarnation and cross together. And with that link, incarnation, cross, and resurrection/exaltation are all tied together in Paul.
Cross Talk – crux probat omnia
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
THE BIG QUESTION: IF JESUS SURVIVED – WHAT DID HE DO NEXT?

As He vanished from the scene, did He suffer rendition to some 'black site'? Did He go into a relocation programme?

If He survived, He let all His followers assume He was dead, or conspired with them to found a false religion. Either way, His actions pretty much destroys His character and credibility as a "Prophet of God" so if we are wrong, at least we have ignorance and error as an excuse, Islam hasn't got a leg to stand on!
Click to expand...

That is really amusing :)
Hasn't got a leg to stand on? Are we all buffoons or something?

Of course Jesus didn't lie. It is just that you believe everything that you are told by Christians / Bible, and
have faith in Roman history, that it has not been corrupted in some way.

IMAGINE THIS:- You can't speak English, but you can speak Arabic and have read Arabic history books.
What would you be believing then???

Now, clearly the history books are not written by the same people,
and most likely NEITHER of them are completely accurate.
..but you just wander blindly on in your contumacy :rolleyes:

NB It is you that choose to "rubbish" Islam in a Christian forum .. I would rather keep to the subject
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
For Paul:
1. Incarnation and cross are inseparable.
2. Both incarnation and cross are necessary for our salvation.
3. Both incarnation and cross express the self-giving love of God in Christ.
4. Both incarnation and cross should narratively shape the Christian believer and community into the image of Christ, decisively affecting Christian praxis in multiple ways and in all areas of life.
5. A Pauline theology/spirituality of theosis (becoming like God, in Christ, by the Spirit) is able to hold incarnation and cross together. And with that link, incarnation, cross, and resurrection/exaltation are all tied together in Paul.
Cross Talk – crux probat omnia
Click to expand...

Absolute total nonsense!
I shan't even bother to comment further, except as to say that citing partisan websites
does not enlighten. The internet can be educational .. it can also ruin people.
I don't know about you, but I would rather my young children and grandchildren did not have access to it !

I tell you what .. I'll stick to wikipedia to learn .. and you stay on your "Roman" sites.

Michael J. Gorman [ website owner ] says this on his About page:
My goal as a a biblical theologian is to bring every thought captive to Christ — that is, Christ crucified, resurrected, and coming, with special emphasis on the cross as the definitive self-revelation of the triune God.

..so that's his agenda then.
Almighty God knows best why we all differ :)

NB What a strange way of thinking. On the one hand saying that we believe in One God,
and then talking about "a triune God" o_O
 
Last edited:
Thomas said:
What, you rubbishing orthodox Christianity?

Sorry, but it was just asking to be said ...
Click to expand...

Yes, that is true. I argue against a triune God. I believe that Jesus is not God incarnate.

..but because of my name [ and because I believe in the prophecies of the Ishmaelites too ],
people keep attacking me from that angle.

I don't see you attacking Jews in that manner. They have the same philosophy as me
with regards to the nature of God. i.e. God cannot be a human being
 
muhammad_isa said:
I don't see you attacking Jews in that manner.
Click to expand...
I don't attack anyone, I defend my faith and its history against misrepresentation.

It's you who ridicules Christian belief.

When they do, rest assured I'll defend it with equal vigour.

muhammad_isa said:
i.e. God cannot be a human being
Click to expand...
I'm not even sure you understand our beliefs well enough to refute them.

Do you think God wrote a book, gave it to an angel and said 'show this to him'?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top