What was the reason behind Christians being called mushriks.
-
Remember Pharaoh called himself god, an evil man who took life instead of saving life as God almighty had ordered also, and he is called an enemy of God.
Is it the actions of men which make them mushrik or simply calling some one else god other then God ? which to me doesn?t change anything in the entire Universe accept in the minds of individuals.
Although I believe 100% from my understanding of the Quran it is the forbidden actions which are the culprit of it all, as they are bad for the life God has created.
confused
-
Remember Pharaoh called himself god, an evil man who took life instead of saving life as God almighty had ordered also, and he is called an enemy of God.
Is it the actions of men which make them mushrik or simply calling some one else god other then God ? which to me doesn?t change anything in the entire Universe accept in the minds of individuals.
Although I believe 100% from my understanding of the Quran it is the forbidden actions which are the culprit of it all, as they are bad for the life God has created.
confused
First lets discuss if the Quran ever called Christian mushriks.
-
First lets discuss if the Quran ever called Christian mushriks.
Okay Bigmo,
can you explain ayah's such as this;
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.
peace
-
Okay Bigmo,
can you explain ayah's such as this;
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.
peaceAnd yet we have this
"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (262, 569, and many other verses).
"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (582).
Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'r?f and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaq?n .(3113-115)
But lets look at the verse you cited.
"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (930-31).
This is the kufr among them. But not all of them.
This is actually refering to the same thing we can say about Sunnism and Shiasm. But the Quran seperates between the believers and non believers. The doctrine is one thing, how individuals actually are is another.
48To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute
(9.161-162) That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men?s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment. But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in Allah and in the Last Day To them shall We soon give a great reward.
-
"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (582).
ridiculous...why dont u write 582 only and not following 583 and 584
583 When they hear what was revealed to the messenger, you see their eyes flooding with tears as they recognize the truth therein, and they say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so count us among the witnesses.
584 "Why should we not believe in GOD, and in the truth that has come to us, and hope that our Lord may admit us with the righteous people?"
In Quran, anyone who rejects Quran is called kafir (disbeliever), and if the guy is among people of book (christian or jew) then he is called disbeliever of the people of book.
peace
-
ridiculous...why dont u write 582 only and not following 583 and 584
583 When they hear what was revealed to the messenger, you see their eyes flooding with tears as they recognize the truth therein, and they say, "Our Lord, we have believed, so count us among the witnesses.
584 "Why should we not believe in GOD, and in the truth that has come to us, and hope that our Lord may admit us with the righteous people?"
In Quran, anyone who rejects Quran is called kafir (disbeliever), and if the guy is among people of book (christian or jew) then he is called disbeliever of the people of book.
peace
You dont have to be rude please. The Quran still refered to them as Christians and Jews. Remember its believing what the Quran says the Quran is talking about. Many people died before the Quran was revealed. Many believed in the prophet before most of the verses have been revealed. Many prophets did not have scritures but people believed because they believed in their message. Moses did approach the Pharoah with any scriptures. The Quran is one of God's signs but not the only one. The Quran says the same about the previous scriptures. Those Jews who reject the Torah or Christians who reject the Gospel are also described as non believers. The Quran is not Sunni Islam where scriptures are an article of faith. Scriptures are there to be obeyed and not just to be believed in. Plus you did not comment on the other verses.
-
Those of the People of the Book who have deliberately refused to accept that which has since been sent, nor the Pagans-Idolaters desire that further blessing of Soo'rat-Aaya'at of Book is sent upon you by the Sustainer Lord of you people .
Beware that Allah the Exalted, by His own Will and Special Grace, makes him uniquely dignified selection whom He the Exalted likes.
Know it that Allah the Exalted is the possessor of Infinite Bounty.Please note it that Allah the Exalted has explicitly, and with emphasis mentioned the "People of the Book" and Pagans-Idolators as two specific, distinct entities and identities, exclusive to each other. They should never be equated, notwithstanding that they have refused to believe.
-
Peace Bigmo, how do you understand marriage to Christians and Jews as stated in 55?
(55) "Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the protected from the believing women, and the protected from the people of the Scripture before you, if you have given them their dowries, protected, chaste, and not seeking to take lovers. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers."
Alot on this forum usually say its not allowed due to them being "mushirks" however you seem to not believe that to be the case.
As well what I find interesting is how the Quran only labeled them as Kafir but never as Mushirks hmm
What is your take overall?
-
And yet we have this
"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (262, 569, and many other verses).
"...and nearest among them in love to the believers will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (582).
Not all of them are alike; a party of the people of the Scripture stand for the right, they recite the Verses of God during the hours of the night, prostrating themselves in prayer. They believe in God and the Last Day; they enjoin Al-Ma'r?f and forbid Al-Munkar ; and they hasten in (all) good works; and they are among the righteous. And whatever good they do, nothing will be rejected of them; for God knows well those who are Al-Muttaq?n .(3113-115)
But lets look at the verse you cited.
"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (930-31).
This is the kufr among them. But not all of them.
This is actually refering to the same thing we can say about Sunnism and Shiasm. But the Quran seperates between the believers and non believers. The doctrine is one thing, how individuals actually are is another.
48To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute
(9.161-162) That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men?s substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment. But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in Allah and in the Last Day To them shall We soon give a great reward.
I didn't mean Christians are mushriks in the Quran, Though when they say ?be Christian and you will be saved? , that is shirk as labels are not what saves people but their actions and to say ?Jesus is Gods son? is also shirk for connoting an illegitimate act to God, although that isn?t what they mean.
So to say an illegitimate child is Gods begotten - is totally uncanny even through ignorance, as illegitimacy is not Godly, although all children born with or without fathers are Gods children.Lastly Shirk isn?t a label until you start to dwell in such actions.
-
Peace Bigmo, how do you understand marriage to Christians and Jews as stated in 55?
(55) "Today, the good things have been made lawful to you, and the food of those who have been given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them; and the protected from the believing women, and the protected from the people of the Scripture before you, if you have given them their dowries, protected, chaste, and not seeking to take lovers. And whoever rejects belief, then his work has fallen, and in the Hereafter he is of the losers."
Alot on this forum usually say its not allowed due to them being "mushirks" however you seem to not believe that to be the case.
As well what I find interesting is how the Quran only labeled them as Kafir but never as Mushirks hmm
What is your take overall?
Its also interesting how Sunnis try to explain this. They say Jews and Cristians are kuffar but men can marry their women. How can God order you to marry a kaffir? The reality is they are kaffirs among them and those who are not.
As far as the trinity is concerned, they are those who said Jesus is God and those who said he was human. In the end the Church decided that he was both. This is ofourse impossible so the trinity is not a realistic belief system as nobody has been able to explain that. I think the Quran makes clear that those who say he is God are kuffar anotherwords they are not worshiping God. However every Christians has his own understanding since its a theology and depends on what a person has in his mind. When you debate a Christian you can usually tell what his beleifs are.
Remember nobody has been able to explain the trinity so I guess its how fanatic he is about Jesus's ivinity we can look at.
As far as shirk, that also depends on his fanaticism. Generally speaking Christianity is a monotheist religion. Christian theology is monotheist. However its the divinity of Jesus that complicates things. Remember also Christians are closer to us that Sunnis or Shias since other than the trinity there is not much difference between us.
-
This is the kufr among them. But not all of them.
This is actually refering to the same thing we can say about Sunnism and Shiasm. But the Quran seperates between the believers and non believers. The doctrine is one thing, how individuals actually are is another.
I have to agree with this 100% calling all Christians Mushriks; is like calling all Muslims Terrorists. Each person is different. Not every Christian knows about Islam other than what they hear. And to be honest, when I was Christian and heard the things about islam I was so repulsed I never wanted to waste my time looking into such a faith. It was because of my Theology classes, that I started to change, thats because I was forced. I feel into deeper study with an open mind and a lot of prayer. My husband and others will say, they know Muhammad and the Quran. Actually, no they do not. As a Catholic, I can assure you they never mention the name Muhammad or Islam... EVER. I converted almost 4 yrs ago so even in 2008, I knew NOTHING about this faith, other than the hatred on the media.
I think for the marriage, not all Christians are the same, so many sects and beliefs. Just like us Muslims. Some are very close to Islam without knowing it. Unless you have the desire to study and seek, you will never find. I find it hard for a marriage to work. The women also has a duty to God to teach her child Jesus is God in Christianity/Catholiism. She is held accountable for baptism and communion and other rituals.
It would be there actions of rejection once the knowledge is there. IMO
-
Please note it that Allah the Exalted has explicitly, and with emphasis mentioned the "People of the Book" and Pagans-Idolators as two specific, distinct entities and identities, exclusive to each other.
Yes, true, but only for believers of the people of book.. NOT for DISbelievers of the people of book
986 Those who disbelieved among the people of the book, and the idol worshipers, have incurred the fire of Gehenna forever. They are the worst creatures.
and it is obvious from Ch.98, that DISbelievers of the people of book are those who reject Quran and Mohammad
981 Those who disbelieved among the people of the scripture, as well as the idol worshipers, insist on their ways, despite the proof given to them.
982 A messenger from GOD (Mohammad) is reciting to them sacred instructions (Quran).
983 In them there are valuable teachings.
984 In fact, those who received the scripture did not dispute until the proof was given to them.peace
-
Its also interesting how Sunnis try to explain this. They say Jews and Cristians are kuffar but men can marry their women. How can God order you to marry a kaffir? The reality is they are kaffirs among them and those who are not.
As far as the trinity is concerned, they are those who said Jesus is God and those who said he was human. In the end the Church decided that he was both. This is ofourse impossible so the trinity is not a realistic belief system as nobody has been able to explain that. I think the Quran makes clear that those who say he is God are kuffar anotherwords they are not worshiping God. However every Christians has his own understanding since its a theology and depends on what a person has in his mind. When you debate a Christian you can usually tell what his beleifs are.
Remember nobody has been able to explain the trinity so I guess its how fanatic he is about Jesus's ivinity we can look at.
As far as shirk, that also depends on his fanaticism. Generally speaking Christianity is a monotheist religion. Christian theology is monotheist. However its the divinity of Jesus that complicates things. Remember also Christians are closer to us that Sunnis or Shias since other than the trinity there is not much difference between us.
The Sunnis have stated that the reason is that God upon His mercy has allowed us to marry Christians and Jews regardless of flawed beliefs because down to the core they are monotheists. Christians even though they may say Jesus is God's incarnation on Earth (at least thats how I think that trinity works) they still attribute it all to one god.
While I understand that there are now Unitarians, they were pretty much non-existant at that era so to say that we can gp with them during that era would be pointles i'd think as all pretty much said Jesus is God.
Plus then we also have the issue of those who take their clergymen as gods due to how they make whats lawful into unlawful or unlawful to lawful, which if we take that to mean shirk would mean we are in the end limited to only Quran only muslims as Sunnis and shias do such a thing and Christirans and Jews do as well as stated. This would make life rather impossible on us, thus I wonder how this all works?
What do you think?
-
The Sunnis have stated that the reason is that God upon His mercy has allowed us to marry Christians and Jews regardless of flawed beliefs because down to the core they are monotheists. Christians even though they may say Jesus is God's incarnation on Earth (at least thats how I think that trinity works) they still attribute it all to one god.
While I understand that there are now Unitarians, they were pretty much non-existant at that era so to say that we can gp with them during that era would be pointles i'd think as all pretty much said Jesus is God.
Plus then we also have the issue of those who take their clergymen as gods due to how they make whats lawful into unlawful or unlawful to lawful, which if we take that to mean shirk would mean we are in the end limited to only Quran only muslims as Sunnis and shias do such a thing and Christirans and Jews do as well as stated. This would make life rather impossible on us, thus I wonder how this all works?
What do you think?
The Quran never said Christians are mushriks. Shirk is somethig different as mushriks do not believe in an all powerful God. Unitarians have a doctrine, I am talking about how individual Christians understand the trinity.
Sunnis and Shia I believe allowed such marriages to their men because they believe women are not relevant. They see them as objects of desiire. Plus many wars were fought with Christians and they wanted them as sex slaves.
-
I have to agree with this 100% calling all Christians Mushriks; is like calling all Muslims Terrorists. Each person is different. Not every Christian knows about Islam other than what they hear. And to be honest, when I was Christian and heard the things about islam I was so repulsed I never wanted to waste my time looking into such a faith. It was because of my Theology classes, that I started to change, thats because I was forced. I feel into deeper study with an open mind and a lot of prayer. My husband and others will say, they know Muhammad and the Quran. Actually, no they do not. As a Catholic, I can assure you they never mention the name Muhammad or Islam... EVER. I converted almost 4 yrs ago so even in 2008, I knew NOTHING about this faith, other than the hatred on the media.
I think for the marriage, not all Christians are the same, so many sects and beliefs. Just like us Muslims. Some are very close to Islam without knowing it. Unless you have the desire to study and seek, you will never find. I find it hard for a marriage to work. The women also has a duty to God to teach her child Jesus is God in Christianity/Catholiism. She is held accountable for baptism and communion and other rituals.
It would be there actions of rejection once the knowledge is there. IMO
Good point.
-
1988 And they said the Almighty has taken a son!
1989 You have come with a gross blasphemy.
1990 The heavens are about to shatter from it, and the earth crack open, and the mountains fall and
crumble.
1991 That they claimed that the Almighty had a son!
1992 And what need does the Almighty have to take a son?
1993 When all there is in the heavens and the earth will come to the Almighty as servants.
1994 He has encompassed them, and counted them one by one.
1995 And all of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection, all alone.Peace all,
These verses are not directed to any one group in particular but as a blanket rule to all who say God has taken a son and as per Quran, Its a big/gross blasphemy, period.
Now, we human have no business to pin point others for that blasphemy as the Almighty have and is counting them all one by one.we only need to mind our own business i.e
19 96 Those who believe and do good works, the Almighty will make for them affection.PS Good work also includes doing dawah, so we should all do our part to the best of our God giving abilities and hope for affection from the Almighty. Inshallah
Regards,
-
1988 And they said the Almighty has taken a son!
1989 You have come with a gross blasphemy.
1990 The heavens are about to shatter from it, and the earth crack open, and the mountains fall and
crumble.
1991 That they claimed that the Almighty had a son!
1992 And what need does the Almighty have to take a son?
1993 When all there is in the heavens and the earth will come to the Almighty as servants.
1994 He has encompassed them, and counted them one by one.
1995 And all of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection, all alone.Peace all,
These verses are not directed to any one group in particular but as a blanket rule to all who say God has taken a son and as per Quran, Its a big/gross blasphemy, period.
Now, we human have no business to pin point others for that blasphemy as the Almighty have and is counting them all one by one.we only need to mind our own business i.e
19 96 Those who believe and do good works, the Almighty will make for them affection.PS Good work also includes doing dawah, so we should all do our part to the best of our God giving abilities and hope for affection from the Almighty. Inshallah
Regards,
the problem is not ''son of god'' itself as it is a term used for centuries by the jews to refer to god fearing kings (Son of god is someone choosen by God). The problem began, when roman and greek inspired people who had no understanding of the methaphoric use of the term began to take the term literraly, hence making a direct connection between God and Jesus.
It is the understanding and misuse of the word ''son of god'' which is pointed out in the verse and ordered to stop. Comparing God to a messenger is shirk, but I personally believe, mainstream muslims do the same, they have just replaced ''jesus'' with ''mohammed'' and ''son of god'' with ''habeeb-ullah'' and/or ''noor-allah''.Peace
-
Peace Maha,
It is the understanding and misuse of the word ''son of god'' which is pointed out in the verse and ordered to stop.
Kindly explain, In the light of 1988, Waqaloo ittakhatha alrrahmanu waladan, how you came to this conclusion ??
FYI The key words are ittakhatha & waladan )
Regards,
-
Peace Maha,
Kindly explain, In the light of 1988, Waqaloo ittakhatha alrrahmanu waladan, how you came to this conclusion ??
FYI The key words are ittakhatha & waladan )
Regards,
Read the whole verse brother. God corrects them that god doesn't have a SON. So it's very clear that some took "son of god" to the literal meaning as there was no need to correct them if they already knew that god doesnt have any son. In other verses god also corrects people who claimed that he has daughters.
Peace
-
The trinity as a concept was made a Christian theology in the 3rd century as a compromise between those who said Jesus was human and those who said he was divine. The Church decided he was both. This is impossible so we are left with how an individual understands it. No doubt the Koran made it clear which view it supported.
The first of the early church fathers recorded as using the word Trinity was Theophilus of Antioch writing in the late second century. He defines the Trinity as God, His Word (Logos) and His Wisdom (Sophia) in the context of a discussion of the first three days of creation. The first defence of the doctrine of the Trinity was in the early third century by the early church father Tertullian. He explicitly defined the Trinity as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and defended the Trinitarian theology against the "Praxean" heresy.
Although there is much debate as to whether the beliefs of the Apostles were merely articulated and explained in the Trinitarian Creeds, or were corrupted and replaced with new beliefs, all scholars recognize that the Creeds themselves were created in reaction to disagreements over the nature of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These controversies, however, were great and many, and took some centuries to be resolved.
Of these controversies, the most significant developments were articulated in the first four centuries by the Church Fathers in reaction to Adoptionism, Sabellianism, and Arianism. Adoptionism was the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary, who became the Christ and Son of God at his baptism. In 269, the Synods of Antioch condemned Paul of Samosata for his Adoptionist theology, and also condemned the term "homoousios" in the sense he used it.
Sabellianism taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are aspects of how humanity has interacted with or experienced God. In the role of the Father, God is the provider and creator of all. In the role of the Son, God is manifested in the flesh as a human to bring about the salvation of mankind. In the role of the Holy Spirit, God manifests himself from heaven through his actions on the earth and within the lives of Christians. This view was rejected as heresy by the Ecumenical Councils.
Arianism, which was coming into prominence during the 4th century along with Trinitarianism, taught that the Father came before the Son, and that the Son was a distinct being from the Holy Spirit. In 325, the Council of Nicaea adopted a term for the relationship between the Father and the Son that from then on was seen as the hallmark of orthodoxy; it declared that the Son is "of the same being" (ς as the Father. This was further developed into the formula "three persons, one being".
Saint Athanasius, who was a participant in the Council, stated that the bishops were forced to use this terminology, which is not found in Scripture, because the Biblical phrases that they would have preferred to use were claimed by the Arians to be capable of being interpreted in what the bishops considered to be a heretical sense. They therefore "commandeered the non-scriptural term homoousios ('of the same being' to safeguard the essential relation of the Son to the Father that had been denied by Arius."
Moreover, the meanings of "ousia" and "hypostasis" overlapped then, so that the latter term for some meant essence and for others person. Athanasius of Alexandria (293?373) helped to clarify the terms.
The Confession of the Council of Nicaea said little about the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the divinity and personality of the Holy Spirit was developed by Athanasius in the last decades of his life. He defended and refined the Nicene formula. By the end of the 4th century, under the leadership of Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers), the doctrine had reached substantially its current form.
The Ante-Nicene Fathers, although likely foreign to the specifics of Trinitarian theology because they were not defined until the 4th century, nevertheless affirmed Christ's deity and referenced "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". Trinitarians view these as elements of the codified doctrine.
By the end of the 4th century, as a result of controversies concerning the proper sense in which to apply to God, Christ and the Holy Spirit terms such as "person", "nature", "essence", and "substance", the doctrine of the Trinity took the form that has since been maintained in all the historic confessions of Christianity
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
Jesus does admit, grudgingly, to being the Son of God, but were it not for the theological dogma of God as three-in-one (a doctrine likewise absent from the Gospels), this would naturally be taken as counting against, not for, the claim that Jesus is God. If I claimed to be the son of Pericles, who would infer that I was Pericles?
Jesus is reported to have said ?he that hath seen me hath seen the Father? and ?I am in the Father, and the Father in me? (John 149-10); but in the same passage he shortly goes on to add ?At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.? (John 1420) Again, while Jesus does proclaim ?I and my Father are one? (John 1030), he also prays for his followers, ?that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.? (John 1721) Whatever the nature of the ?oneness? Jesus is claiming exists between God and himself, it is apparently something that is supposed to hold between God and all Christians ? in which case it can hardly be the relation of numerical identity.
Likewise, in the two New Testament passages where Jesus is said to have regarded himself as ?equal with God? ? John 518 and Philippians 26 ? the Greek word translated ?equal? is isos, which means ?on the same level? or ?of the same rank,? never ?identical.? The claim that Jesus was God did not become Christian orthodoxy until the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. The orthodox reading of these passages seems natural today only because they are read through the lens of what ?everybody knows? about Jesus? claims to divinity; few would find incarnationism in the texts unless they first brought it there.
An objector may point to the opening lines of the Gospel of John, which apparently identify the ?Logos? with God (John 11) and the ?Logos made flesh? with Jesus (John 114). Of course these lines were not spoken by Jesus, and so do not show that Jesus himself claimed to be God; but in any case, what exactly are they saying? The relation between God and the Logos seems to fall short of strict identity; the Greek, literally translated, says something like ?the Logos was with the God, and God is what the Logos was? ? an awkward construction clearly trying to express a subtler relation than identity. The term ?Logos? is borrowed from Greek philosophy, where it means a thing?s abstract rational nature; the Logos that is ?with? God and is what God is, is not God but God?s nature. To say that Jesus is the Logos made flesh, then, is simply to say that he is a physical embodiment of God?s nature. This hardly makes him identical with God, since all human beings are supposed to be created from God?s spirit (Genesis 27) and in God?s image and likeness (Genesis 126-27).
Indeed the New Testament authors clearly understand Jesus as offering everyone the opportunity to be sons (and daughters) of God and to partake of God?s nature
?But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.? (John 112-13)
?For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. ... And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.? (Romans 814-17)
?Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him.? (1 John 32)
As the New Testament authors understand Jesus? message, being the ?Son of God? is evidently not a status that Jesus claims for himself alone, but one that is open to all Christians;
http//praxeology.net/unblog02-04.htm