Only Allah Is Perfect

By S M Chen, posted July 14, 2016 by D Kovacs
“…seek, and ye shall find…” – Matthew 7:7
Perfection is difficult to achieve. Rarely attained by humans (e.g. a hole in one in golf, a score of 300 in bowling, 10 in gymnastics or 1600 on the SAT; painting, writing or composing a masterpiece), those occasions are noteworthy for their infrequence. Most of us can only acknowledge our limitations when confronted with genius that has been gifted certain of our members, whether it be in athletics, science, the arts, or the like.
*
I lived for a time in a near-Middle Eastern country where the dominant religion (over 99%) is Islam. Of its various commercial exports, one of the finer was carpet. Unlike the frequent floral designs of Persian carpets, which generally possessed an even tighter weave pattern, those from this country were usually geometric. Some of the best carpet weavers were Turkomen women, who spent their best years painstakingly tying knots in cross-hatched warp and woof of up to several hundred per square inch, employing naturally dyed wool and, on occasion, camel hair.
Rug merchants had discovered that at least some buyers preferred older carpets (perhaps a mentality similar to that of certain purchasers of antiques), so one would see carpets on the floor and, rather astonishingly, even in the streets (where vehicles could and would run over them), the quicker to age them and potentially enhance their perceived value/price.
Each carpet, in its making, contained a deliberate flaw or flaws not necessarily easily discernible, consistent with the virtually universal belief that only Allah is perfect (a belief also held by the two other monotheistic Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism).
Here is an example (carpet size 80 x 100 cm):

Photo by S M Chen
This particular design/pattern is called Bukhara and incorporates the ‘gul’ (for ‘rose’ or, perhaps more broadly, ‘flower’). At first glance, the carpet is a work of wonder – and it is that. The rich red color, derived from pomegranate juice, has persisted for decades (the carpet dates to at least the 1960s) and faded only slightly with the passage of time.
This size is ideal for praying. Men would often carry their carpets aboard buses, a common method of transport. Five times a day they would stop what they were doing and, facing Mecca (in which lies Kabah, the holy mosque), do obeisance. The carpet came in handy, for prayers involve contact of various parts of the body with the ground or floor.
If one looks closely at the above carpet, there are flaws. I will point out a couple that I admit took some searching to find. I have owned this piece since the late 1970s, and only recently discovered the imperfections, although I did not seek with alacrity until now.
The top row of 4 white diamonds is unevenly spaced. Counting from the left, diamonds 1 and 2 are closer together than are diamonds 2-4. If one views the similar row of 4 white diamonds near the bottom, one can see that they are more evenly spaced. However, even this row is slightly asymmetric with regard to the carpet itself. Most easily detectable is the fact that this row is positioned slightly to the left (for reference, see horizontal band, one side of a rectangle, just above the row).
A 2nd row of 3 white diamonds (below the 1st row at the top) is minimally asymmetric, whereas the comparable row at the bottom is more skewed toward the carpet’s left.
Rather than detracting from the appeal of the carpet – simultaneously utilitarian and a thing of beauty – the intentional flaws, to me, lend a certain charm.
They constitute an acknowledgement of a Higher Power and reassurance that this small carpet was indeed made by hand, not by machine.
Time, that great equalizer, is worth something, whether it be large or small. I know it took countless hours to produce this; the weaver(s) likely made only pennies a day.
The fact that something this wondrous was almost certainly made by a shy, likely otherwise unskilled, comparatively uneducated person (or persons) living in simplicity and poverty in a third world country is a miracle. Perhaps not large, as miracles go, but a miracle nonetheless.
If one looks for miracles, one will find them. Sometimes, like the imperfections in this carpet, they are hidden and discoverable only by those who seek with diligence and perspicacity.
S M Chen lives and writes in California.
How true. It is a good thing our righteousness is not in ourselves, but in Christ.
His perfection makes up for our imperfections. We can have perfect trust in Him.
Allah of Islam has no son. The Quran does not offer or support the gospel of Jesus Christ. Stop the moral equivalence game play. Allah of Islam is not the same as God of the Bible.
Though you don’t mention anything about “equivalency” your article seems to have led readers to believe that Allah is the equivalent of the Christian God. At least that is the impression Ms Davis must have as she mentions Jesus in her reply. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Muslim god is monotheistic and both good and evil. Islam does not believe in the Son of God and Islamic salvation depends on a “works” theology. It might have been better for you not to have used the word “Allah” in the title in a basically Christian publication as it leads some to believe in an equivalency between Allah and God the Father No?
Submissions to the section editor of ATODAY are subject to review. It is her decision whether to post at all, and to suggest an alteration of title, if she deems the original inappropriate. It is my belief that there may be a number of devout Muslims (who have practiced love of a God of their understanding and love for their fellow man) in heaven. A number of professed Christians (who may have correct theology but who lack love) may be absent.
John 14:6
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
“They do blaspheme who say: ‘Allah is Christ the son of Mary.'”
Qur’an 5:72
The Creator of the universe has as many names as there are created people. You can never tell by the name–only by the life and attitudes of the person using it–whether this person is speaking of the true Creator or not. One of the debates about translating the Bible out of Latin and into English was that the only English word for the Deity–God–had always been used only for pagan gods. Was it okay to use that word for the true Deus? Some people believed it was not. Others believed that all people, in all languages, needed to hear the truth about the Creator, so that they could choose wisely to worship that one, not any false idea, whether plural or not. So they translated the Word into English. I am very glad they did that.
Plenty of people worship the true Creator using the word “Allah.” All Palestinian Christians, for example. It’s Arabic for God, period. You can look this up online.
Plenty worship a false god using the word “God.”
One of us is missing the point. Allah being used here was in the context of Islam which is based upon the Quran not the Bible. While it is true there are Christians that use the term Allah for God what is more important is who they call Jesus. If they speak of Jesus from the context of the Quran then that is a different Jesus and they are not Christians. If they speak of Allah from the context of the Quran and Mohammed is his prophet then that is not the God of the Bible. Can’t be both.
Most all of the Bible writers were Jews. The Old Testament manuscripts were in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek. We do not need to look to Latin for translations.
Also needs mentioned that, as a Christian, we believe that Christ is also perfect and in his finished work we are saved. Amen?
Amen!
Yes thank you Amen. Any reply to my comment above that Debbonnaire?
The concept of God in the Quran (or Koran) is similar to the concept of God iin the Old Testament of the Bible. The Koran denies that God has any sons. Humans are the servants or slaves of Allah. In the Koran, Jesus is a great prophet – Not the son of God! In the Koran, there is no equality between any other and God: He is supreme.
In the Old Testament, it is debatable whether the term “son of God” refers to Jesus. What Nebuchadnezzar saw in the fiery furnace was a “son of the gods” standing with the Hebrew boys. He was not likely to know what Jesus looked like, so he could not be speaking about Jesus.
The Old Testament does not present us with any person equal to God, and it is doubtful whether the New Testament presents us wirh any such person. Those students who quote John 10:30 to refute my claim, must explain John 14:28 to our readers and me. As far as my study of the Bible takes me, Jesus never made any claim to be God, or to be equal to God. I do not know where the doctrine of the Trinity comes from: not from my Bible.
We may not want to admit it; but the Old Testament of the Bible and the Koran are not as far apart as many may wish to impress. In fact, a careful study of the Quran, should be a must for all SDA theology students. This will help eliminate much of the misinformation they offer about Muslims.
Nathaniel, you do not know the Lord Jesus Christ and His saving grace do you?
The whole universe worships the same God. The evil one, the devil has been rather crafty in bringing so many divisions among men that there is such division. Allah, though they do not want to believe, is the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac. He is the God of Ishmael as well.
One thing we need to do is to keep praying that our God will come through in a powerful way to the Muslim world that they would come and worship God as a nation and stop calling the rest of the world infidels and thus contribute the world peace.
This is possible only by each one of us praying for the Holy Spirit to speak to each heart in the Muslim nations.
How can one God have a Son who is the only way to the Father and also be the same God who has no Son?
“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity.”
Qur’an 5:73
I think this feature is quite interesting. How the comments lurched into a discussion of the distinctions between Muslim and Christian dieties puzzles me. I have a pretty keen nose for subliminal messages and unwarranted moral equivalency, and I just don’t find it here.
My cynicism tends more in the direction of questioning whether the irregularities in the carpet sample pictured are intentional as opposed to poor workmanship. Whichever the case, the illustration potentially has multiple layers of symbolism which can lead us to reflect on our view of God influences our human striving.
A thought that came to my mind is that, as Christians, we don’t have to worry about our best efforts risk being mistaken for divine perfection. We can marvel at human perfection and still know that it is just a taste of what is to come. Hopefully we can learn from other cultures and faith traditions – even view God through those prisms – without being accused of religious relativism or heresy.
The article is based upon Allah of the Quran. To even have such an article about the Islamic Allah in a Christian mag puzzles me.
“only Allah is perfect (a belief also held by the two other monotheistic Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism)”
The “unwarranted moral equivalency” you can’t seem to find is right there. Using “Abrahamic” as correlation is deceiving because the source for the description of these belief systems is not the same or equivalent unless you believe the Bible is equivalent to the Quran. The character of the Islamic God described in the Quran is not the same character of the God described in the Bible. Christianity is a faith in Christ and His life, death and resurrection based theology. Islam is a self works-based theology that would label that heretical. Christians do not fear disrespecting God by doing the best of their God-given ability and giving Him the glory. The concern of perfection in the flesh is only a by-product of “another gospel”.
Perhaps it puzzles you, John, because you don’t understand the point of the article. It makes no value judgment. It is not about Allah. It is a window on how another religion’s perception of its diety influences vocational activities of its adherents.
Perhaps you feel it would be better for Adventists to remain ignorant of other world religions as they seek to penetrate their culture with the Gospel.
Nathan, another religion’s perception of a deity that doesn’t include Jesus Christ is “another gospel”. What is the point of such, especially in a “Christian” publication, when it is not Christ based? Where is the lesson we are to learn when coming from a false God? That is my point and I appreciate you making it for me.
I agree with you that the God and gospel of Islam are very different from the God and gospel of Christianity. But why is it wrong to learn about other religions? That’s like saying our college science students shouldn’t learn about evolution because it is unbiblical.
How can it not be about Allah when Allah is the subject of the title?
Now you’re thinking! Who can argue with such impeccable concrete logic? (the emphasis here would be on “concrete.”)
I guess somehow that’s supposed to be condescending.
My mother used to crochet and knit. To get the work uniformed and symetrical she counted the number of chains, or stitches, or turns of the needle between emblems like the diamonds on the rug, so that they are evenly spaced. I guess the same principle obtains in the manual production of a rug. If the manufacturer could not, or did not count the number of warps or wefts between the diamonds, the patterns on the rug would be asymetrical as in the example given. The manufacturer was either a novice, or a careless worker. It often happens that with all the care a workman may employ, there may still be mistakes. It is human to err: only God is perfect! It is human to err: only Allah is perfect!
If we believe in seeking perfection through works, we see the need for God’s forgiveness and help. If we believe in perfection only through God’s grace, we see the need to ask for His grace to keep us in His favour.
If Allah of the Quran is not the same as God of the Hebrew Scriptures, either the Moslems or the Christians are in error: or perhaps both are. In the Caribbean, we call our offsprings “our children”: in the US they call them “our kids”.
Nathaniel, Jesus said He is the only way to the Father. I think that narrows it down don’t you?
John62:
Yes, My Bible teaches me about Jesus; but I have read nothing there which teaches me that He was God. Can you kindly direct me to the texts which teach that He was, or is God?
Sure, give yourself plenty of time as there are over 100.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_being_god
“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”
Isaiah 9:6
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
John 1:1
“Jesus said unto them, ‘Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.'”
John 8:58
Thanks Ted. There are actually over 100. I am amazed that we need to answer such a question. Please warn others which bible you read Nathaniel.
https://www.openbible.info/topics/jesus_being_god
John62: ” I am amazed we need to answer such a question” Why?
I confess that I have not gone to the reference you have given; but I read so many of these opinions ; and most of them are not convincing. Most of them have nothing to do with Jesus being God.
You do not need to reply to the question, so you leave a reference, and thank Ted for his effort.
Thank you, Ted. Of the texts you offered, John 1:1 seems relevant; but, to me, is contradictory. The whole of the Old Testament declares that there is ONLY one God, and He describes Himself as “I” – “I am, and there is none other”, over and over, and over: not we. Clearly, in the Old Testament, God is extremely jealous of His Oneness. How come in the New Testament some of us try to turn that “I” into “we”?
God’s Word is creative, and He speaks life into being; so He and His word are one , in this sense
The text in Isaiah could not refer to Jesus. “His name shall be called Jesus”, and He was called Jesus: notCounsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father. Jesus recognised God as His Father and His God
Enoch also was before Abraham, and we believe he is also in heaven, for God took him; but we do not claim he is god!
John62,
I read all versions of the Bible I put my hands upon; but my favourite version is the Revised Standard Version. Enjoy your Sabbath!
John 10:30 Revised Standard Version (RSV)
30 “I and the Father are one.”
Any questions?
John62,
I went through the list of One Hundred texts; and most of them are irrelevant and many are misleading. When Bible texts are lumped together in this indiscriminate fashion, it sets the stage for confusion and disbelief. In my view , this is misuse of the Scriptures, and mischief to truth and godliness!
Nathaniel – I don’t think Trinitarianism can conclusively be proven from Scripture. But it certainly has strong support in the Bible, no matter what translation you use. But that doctrine is central to Christian faith, and I think it offers a beautiful, though rationally incoherent, picture of God.
If Christians worship the same God as Muslims, then Christians should view Jesus the way Muslims view Him – at best, a great prophet; at worst, a fraudulent imposter. If the God who appeared to Abraham is the God who died on the cross, then how can it be said that Christians and Muslims worship the same God?
The Islamic diety worshipped by the tapestry weavers who dare not create a perfect work, because only Allah is perfect, strike me as the humans of Greek and Roman mythology, who got into trouble and were struck down when their aspirations and achievements threatened the power and authority of the pagan gods.
To the contrary Nathaniel mischief to the truth would be trying to dissuade from the true meaning of scripture. I provided a link because there is not enough room for all of these verses. Granted some of them might need further study in context but they do apply. Otherwise Nathan did a great job of replying to you.
Why did Jesus never call himself “God”, but always the “Son of God.”
Can you show one NT text that says the apostles and early Christians, both Jews and Gentiles, believed that Jesus was God and equal to God?
This belief of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit (which was not mentioned in the above discussions) was debated for more than 200 years before the Christian church adopted the belief and creed of the Trinity where all three parts of the Godhead (also a word never mentioned in Scripture) are equal and became an affirmation by the church. It cannot be found in Scripture but like many other accepted beliefs was adopted by the church after the canon was closed.
John 10:30 Elaine.
Next question.
Why do you bother, Elaine? You are the master of eisegesis. If you believe it, you can find support for it in scripture. If you don’t believe it, you will prove that it is not scripture. And then, in the end, it doesn’t even matter, because you don’t really believe the Bible is the Word of God. So is it surprising that you don’t believe the assertions and actions attributed to Jesus were His?
Is it really the case that the plurality of Adventists don’t believe that Jesus is God?
God is referred to in plural in the Old Testament indeed:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Genesis 1:26
“And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Genesis 3:22
The text in Isaiah is widely regarded throughout Christendom for centuries to be a Messianic prophecy pointing toward Christ. So I’m unsure who you may think it does refer to. Who else could be the Prince of Peace and also be the Mighty God and also be a son born? And surely, Jesus has more names and titles than just Jesus. The disciples called Him Master. The common people called Him Rabbi. In Revelation He is referred to as the Lamb, the Lion of Judah, and King of Kings among other names. Why cannot a prophecy about His first advent also give Him appropriate names and titles?
John 1 further states that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.” (verse 14). So putting this together with verse 1, the Word made flesh that dwelt with us was God.
After Jesus uttered that He was I AM, the Pharisees took up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, because they perceived that He had declared that He was God. Later on, in another attempt to stone Him, the Jews said, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” (John 10:33)
Certainly, Jesus’ contemporary critics were convinced that He had declared Himself to be God.
Well, Nathan,
It may eventually boil down to how we interpret what we read in the Bible. Although we talk about the unity of the Bible, it must be understood that the Book is a compilation of the writings of scores of people from varied walks of life,with different experiences, and over long periods of time. The New Testament writers make a clear distinction between God and Jesus – God,the Father and Jesus Christ, our Lord.
Paul is outstanding in this respect. In almost all his letters, he makes a distinction between God, the Father, and the Lord, Jesus Christ. He did not treat them as equal, just as Jesus did not consider Himself equal with His Father. Paul is unmistakenly clear in his first letter to Timothy, chapter 2, verse 5. I quote: “or there is ONE God, and there is ONE mediator between God and man, the MAN, Christ Jesus… “. He makes it lucidly clear that Jesus is only the mediator between God and man. Paul did not regard Jesus as God!
In the New Testament John 1:1-3 is exceptional in his treatment of Jesus. Indeed, the Bible is the Word of God; but bright people must not manipulate it, and twist it to mislead simple minds. The Bible must be read with common sense and discretion, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, to get the truth out of it.
There is a reason that John is not listed with the other three synoptic Gospels which were the writers attempt to describe Jesus’ life and teachings while here. They are written as history; John offers a theological interpretation. He states his purpose “written that you say believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, something the synoptics never write. Even the chronology is quite different from the previous three; there are even three (not one) Passover in John’s Gospel.
John’s Gospel emphasizes the Incarnation of Christ and shows the special importance of the Jewish liturgical feasts which were arranged to correlate his acts with them in fulfilling the Jewish liturgy. The whole of John’s thought is dominated by the end of time, judgment working here and now and eternal life.
Much of the signs in John were seen as signs with deeper meaning not perceived at the time.
That is not what the Bible says Nathaniel. The apostle Paul called Jesus “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13) and points out that, prior to His incarnation, Jesus existed in the “form of God” (Philippians 2:5–8). God the Father says regarding Jesus, “Your throne, O God will last forever and ever” (Hebrews 1:8). The apostle John says that “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word [Jesus] was God” (John 1:1). Other passages identify Jesus as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16–17; Hebrews 1:2). Jesus receives worship several times in the Gospels (Matthew 2:11; 28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; 20:28). Jesus is never said to reject such adoration. Rather, He accepts such worship as well placed. So, Nathaniel, does the Bible portray Jesus as full deity? Yes, it clearly does!
Ted,
The “let us”, and the “We”, in Genesis, do not necessarily indicate that the characters involved were all Gods.
My father was a painter, and I was not; but when he told me, “Let us go to paint a house today”
I would fetch him water to drink; I would stir the paint in the container; I would wash the brushes at the end of the job; but he was the painter, and he was the one who painted, not I; but we went to paint.
Well now Nathaniel, what if I you were a painter also? Your analogy falls flat. SMH
The use of plural pronouns to describe God in the Old Testament is also found in Genesis 11:7 where speaking of the Tower of Babel, God says, “Let us go down, and there confound their language.” As these pronouns are derived from the underlying Hebrew, they cannot be an anomaly of the Royal We as pertains to certain uses of the English language.
Daniel 7 has further descriptions of a cohabitation and co-dominion of the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man in Heaven.
In fact, Paul does equate Jesus with the Father in the Godhead in such places as:
1 Corinthians 8:6 — “to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”
Colossians 1:16-17 — “by him were all things created … he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
Hebrews 1:2 — “by whom also he made the worlds.”
Hebrews 1:8 — “unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever.”
In that last verse, the Father Himself is calling the Son God.
It would seem that taking the totality of what Paul is saying (including the verses pointed out by a previous poster) we can see the construct of the belief that Jesus is 100% Divine and 100% human.
John62 and Ted: my friends,
John62, in my illustration( you said analogy), I clearly stated that I was not a painter. Your supposing I was a painter does not annul my analogy.. I worked with the painter; but I was not a painter. Physicians, surveyors, writers, etc, make use of assistants in their work.
The word “oxymoron” is used fairly often in this forum. Is this statement one? Quote: “Jesus is 100% Divine and 100% human”. Is being Divine the same as being God? I find myself with a problem sometimes, because I do not really know the exact definition for the word “God”. But I am bewildered by the expression: “Jesus was perfect God and perfect man”
Both of you directed to a number of Bible texts which are supposed to indicate that Jesus was God. Part of my problem with Col. 1:15-16 comes from translation. The King James’Version says that all things were created by Him. The RSV says that all things were created in Him, for Him and through Him. Considering the context, I prefer the translation of the RSV.
When I considered Heb. 1:8-10, it is a host of quotations from thePsalms, Deuteronomy and 2Samuel 7, and most of them have nothing to do with Jesus, and more to do with David and God himself. I find it is a careless way to use quotations; and I want you to take some time off to study the texts from which these quotes were taken. Continued…
Continued from 7:01pm.
Phillipians 2:5-11 is most interesting, because it says the very opposite of what you are trying to convince me about. Paul is saying that though Jesus was in the “form” of God, He did not think equality with God a thing to be grasped. Paul is implying here that Jesus did not claim equality with God. I do not understand what is meant by “form of God” in this passage. We are all in the image of God.
Permit me to stress again that the Bible was written by a host of different people, over a long period of time, and under varied circumstances. Much of the material circulated in oral form before it was comitted to writing. Then there are the problems associated with transcription, editing and translation. We have to add to these the many interpretations, passing as versions today. We have to read with care and prayer!
I smile, Nathaniel, when I read that you are bewildered by the ironies, paradoxes and inconsistencies of God’s revelation. I certainly hope we all are. Why would expect God to fit within our rational boxes?
I don’t know that I e ever heard it said that Jesus was a perfect human. He was fully human, and he was sinless. But He appears to have been subject to all the human frailties and vulnerabilities that flowed from sin.
You said earlier that “it may eventually boil down to how we interpret what we read in the Bible.” Maybe…but I don’t just interpret the Bible on my own. Vital to how I view scripture is the insights and perspectives of those who have laid the foundations and built the infrastructure of my faith traditions. You convey the impression that the problems and questions you raise are new to Christianity – that the church fathers just overlooked these issues. You want to reinvent the Christian wheel. That’s your prerogative. I prefer to rediscover the richness of the metaphors and theological models that have sustained and enriched the gospel for over 2,000 years. I am confident that human language cannot begin to contain or convey the complexity of who God is. But there is abundant support in scripture for the doctrine of the Trinity. If you are only prepared to embrace the aspects of scripture that make sense to you, well…give yourself a big bear hug.
Chew on this: Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, I said, ‘Ye are gods?'”
Jesus is quoting the Psalms ; I said, “You are gods, And all of you are sons of the Most High.” Analyze that!
Previously, the question was raised to supply Bible texts that support the Divinity of Christ. Quite a number were supplied. In fact, these texts are much of the basis for the Christian religion’s belief in the Divinity of Christ as well as the Trinity. That you will not accept them is your own issue. Who am I to convince you otherwise?
The concept of the Trinity was not a uniform belief in Christianity; for several hundred years there was little communication between the various churches and they had different beliefs. While texts today can be shown to support the Trinity, once it was accepted by the church, there were at least two distinct beliefs which disagreed rather violently. Even when it became a creed adopted by the church in Nicea (325 B.C.) the Greek bishops interpreted it as an experiential belief, not materialistic. After all, God is not material: we do not even understand His nature, only what has been written about Him by hundreds of writers over thousands of years, many which cannot be harmonized.
Originally, the SdA founders did not accept the Trinity, but later in their history. Once a position was taken, many texts are given in support. They have adopted many doctrines throughout the years before finally making them official creed of Adventists. The Incarnation is supported only by John who wrote to foster the equality of Jesus and God. No other NT writer believed in the Incarnation.
As for the “virgin shall conceive” texts in the OT, they were referring to a local situation which was fulfilled about nine months later. The Gospels reinterpreted this prophecy as pointing to Jesus’ birth, hundreds of years after it was fulfilled.
So Mary was not a virgin?
Ted,
Thank you for the Bible texts you supplied. I asked for them for study, so I could get more information on the subject, to widen my perspective. Idid not want you to convince me. The texts speak for themselves. What I would appreciate, is for you to read these quotations in Hebrews within the contexts from which they were taken, and tell me how they fit into the discussion under review. I supply the texts in no particular order.
Psalm 2:7
Psalm 45: 6-7
Psalm 97:7
Psalm 110:1
Psalm 102: 25-27
Psalm 104:4
Deuteronomy 32:43
2 Samuel 7:14
If you do not have the time, or you don’t think it necessary, I wink.
Nathan, permit me to quote from your comment of yesterday, at 8;26pm.
“You convey the impression that the problems and questions you raise are new to Christianity – that the church fathers just overlooked these issues. You want to re-invent the Christian wheel”
I should like to know how I conveyed that impression: an impression that I do not have.
Then, “If you are only prepared to embrace the aspects of Scripture that make sense to you, well… give yourself a big bear hug”.
If what makes sense to you, makes sense to me, I embrace it. These suggestions of yours seem to be taking the emphasis away from the subject under discussion to me; and I will not follow you in that direction. I see too much of that type of digression in this forum. This is an invitation to you,to stick to the topic, and leave the conduct and character of the participants severly alone! Thanks for your co-operation.