Posts by Kenneth Barnes7

@Jason Clark7, I read your post carefully. Look, this forum isn't perfect, the topics aren't perfect, and the moderation is just as far from perfect. I explained clearly what it means when a thread outgrows itself—the whole reason for starting this topic was explained long ago. Of course, all sorts of questions will pop up, but that doesn't mean they can't be answered. For instance: where in the Religion PDF were proofs provided regarding the reliability of Abu Hurairah? Where were the quotes from great Islamic scholars about his role in Hadith? Where does it discuss the greatness of Aisha r.a.? I get that many people take these things for granted, but clearly, not everyone does. That’s why we’re here—to talk about the things we might just assume. Simply put, if a discussion starts deviating from the Islam114 topic, a new thread should be opened. Just post a reply and ask a moderator to move those posts to the new thread so the discussion can continue there. I've posted a request on Islam114, which includes some guidelines on how we can keep functioning moving forward. This topic can evolve, and new ones can be started... Hajr, God willing.

Selam alejkum.

Jason Clark7 said:Shouldn't a top topic of such importance be more precisely defined? If you moderators aren't clear on why you won't define it, then perhaps there is a problem... 😕

...
The introductory post for the top topic doesn't mention anything regarding Akaid questions (or Akaid schools); rather, that has been left to those who will write, and it likely wasn't intended at the start to dive into such deep matters (as is being done today). Regarding Akaid teachings, Islam is very democratic. The opinions of Islamic scholars are respected as long as they don't infringe upon the core foundations of the Islamic faith. Furthermore, this democracy is shown by paying attention to the MAJORITY. When someone provides a clear proof that a certain matter in Akaid represents the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars, it is considered an Islamic belief. And when an opposing view emerges, that person will highlight it, and if they don't, others will do it for them, though one shouldn't be rude and attempt to push a minority stance as the official one.
...

That idea of being "democratic" is incredibly elastic... Beyond that, it is perfectly clear that the instruction was that Hanafi Akaid is Maturidi (not "very democratic"), and that is the official stance of our Islamic Community. Diluting the Akaid—which is incomparably more important than Fiqh, which is why Abu Hanifa called it the Great Fiqh—is problematic. I truly do not understand what is meant by such vague formulations; I assumed you had a better grasp of Islamic subject matter (in a well-meaning way), and I fail to see why you persistently evade answering my questions while instead choosing to hover around them... 🤷

It’s not about being flexible. I was simply saying that while we can respect different perspectives, you can still point out—using actual arguments—that those views lack a foundation or represent only a tiny minority of scholars.

Akaid is undeniably vital, but you can't compare the discussions on the Unity of God or the Return of Jesus to talks about the status of sinners before God or the origins of the Quran. There’s a nuance there—different levels of priority, foundation, and actual impact on a Muslim's daily life and faith. Sure, Muhammad mentioned the Return of Jesus in authentic hadiths, but that pulls in the whole mess of Dajjal, Jesus, and Mezuzah. It’s clear Islamic teaching isn't geared toward living our lives in constant preparation for those specific events. Honestly, in our modern lives—what does the Return of Jesus or the appearance of Dajjal actually change for us right now, assuming they even happen while we're still on this earth? Because these topics aren't considered core foundations compared to the essentials, there aren't direct verses or ambiguous hadiths driving them; they simply don't constitute the bedrock of faith. If they did, "I believe and affirm the Return of Jesus" would be the seventh article of faith, period.

Regarding the forum debate and those objections you raised in your post—I feel like I’ve answered this a thousand times in different ways. He laid out what he considers his arguments; if anyone disagrees, then step up and provide actual proof or force him to refine his points. If you have evidence, great. If you don't, then you've effectively proven that his "flawed" arguments actually hold water. The discussion regarding the Return of Jesus has branched off from the main topic of Islam, providing plenty of space for everyone to present their own claims and evidence. You don't win an argument by throwing around insults like "infidel," "ignorant," or "stupid." You win with logic. If you can't produce a real argument, you've got nothing—at least on a forum level. God knows the truth.

I'm trying to maintain some level of neutrality here for the sake of this forum—though I’ve already made my personal position clear, and I'll say it again: I agree with most scholars that Abu Hurairah was a reliable narrator, provided one acknowledges that hadiths undergo rigorous scrutiny. As for the role of Jesus, my view aligns with the majority consensus on that matter as well. Regardless, as a moderator, I have a duty to remain as objective as possible.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:So, you're telling me that was actually logical and just common sense? ... Unbelievable.

If that's how we're playing it with Fiqh questions, then why doesn't the same logic apply to Akaid? Makes zero sense...

Same question as before—if you guys always go by the Official stances from the Islamic Community of Canada when dealing with Fiqh questions on this thread, why on earth don't you do the same thing when it comes to Akaid?...

I don't see any logic in it being any other way... 🤷

They are considered relevant; it’s just that the initial premise of the thread was built on Fiqh (legal science). The topic simply outgrew its own boundaries, bleeding into Akaid and everything else. The Islamic Community of Canada isn't as monolithic regarding Akaid matters as they are with Fiqh—though, granted, when discussing peripheral issues, the foundation remains clear—so there's more debate here. Maturidi Akaid was mentioned earlier as the official doctrine of the Islamic Community of Canada, but it wasn't brought up in the very first post. In Akaid discussions, we look at what the majority holds, citing Islamic authors to reach a conclusion.

For instance, the vast majority of scholars agree that Abu Hurairah was a reliable narrator of Hadith, a distinguished companion, and that the Return of Jesus before Judgment Day is confirmed by authentic Hadith. It's true these narrations don't reach the level of *mutawatir* (that absolute certainty where so many people transmit it that doubt becomes impossible), and that is the sole reason why debate can even exist.

Only claims from *mutawatir* narrations are treated as fundamental pillars of Akaid; other areas have differing views. Since @rowdyhawk10 was presenting views contrary to the vast majority of scholars, others responded with the Hadith they believe support their own convictions. Anyone with half a brain could see from the arguments presented that @rowdyhawk10's opinion wasn't the consensus of Islamic scholars, but rather a minority view. That doesn't diminish, in my opinion, his right to hold that view. The point is that this tested the conviction and knowledge of the forum members; they had a chance to see how grounded their own views were and how much they actually knew—and then we move on.

I get that this creates a feeling that sacred things are being violated, but Islam values truth above all, and Truth is one of God's names.

Sandra Gonzalez3 said:Then why is it considered Hanafi in Fiqh too?

How did we even end up with this idea of an "official" forum-style Hanafi legal school anyway?

History doesn't even matter right now because the topic already has an official madhhab assigned to it, so all those historical disagreements are totally irrelevant at this point...

As far as I know and understand—that top thread is there to serve as a quick info resource in two ways: a brief introduction to Islam for non-Muslims, and theological plus practical-religious answers for Muslims... For instance, questions about when Eid is, how to congratulate someone, how to act during prayer in certain cases, what is allowed and what isn't while fasting, what Muslims believe, what they don't believe, etc., etc., etc...

Well, if you were to categorize these questions, things falling under Fiqh would basically be: how to perform prayer, what is permitted or prohibited while fasting, and questions regarding Eid. And Aqidah questions would include what Muslims believe and what they do not believe...

Regarding Fiqh questions, in our region (under the jurisdiction of the Islamic Community of Canada) which covers Canada, the US, Mexico, and Canada, the Hanafi madhhab applies (the Hanafi madhhab is most prominent in Turkey, the northern part of the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Indian subcontinent), and such legal answers are given in accordance with the Hanafi madhhab to preserve unity. You can find more about what a madhhab is at this LINK.

The opinion of another (non-Hanafi) madhhab would be, for example, in the way of performing prayer and raising hands (not to get too deep into details, it's about how often and in what manner hands are raised). The Hanafi madhhab says hands are raised only at the very beginning, while the Hanbali madhhab states this is done at every change of position in prayer. So, that is a madhhab in Fiqh.

The introductory post of the top thread didn't mention anything about Aqidah issues (about Aqidah madhhabs); instead, it was left to those who would write, and it probably wasn't intended to dive into such deep questions initially (as people are doing today). As for Aqidah teachings, Islam is very democratic. The opinions of Islamic scholars are respected as long as they don't encroach upon the very core of the Islamic faith. Also, this democracy is expressed by focusing on the MAJORITY. When someone states (and provides clear proof for it) that something in Aqidah is the opinion of the majority of Islamic scholars—that is considered Islamic belief. And when an opposing opinion appears, that person will highlight it; if they don't, someone else will do it for them, though one shouldn't be rude and try to push their own minority view as the official one.
People jump into judging certain opinions and even the evidence for those opinions far too easily. Things are dismissed lightly, and people are insulted easily—such behavior comes solely from a clear and genuine ignorance of the process used to reach a formulated opinion. You can't debunk an opinion based on dozens of high-quality books just using some brochure. You can't attack or insult someone's historical role without looking from multiple angles and having a detailed understanding of why they are valued... Basically, attacking an opinion requires a massive amount of intellectual honesty, and here lies the problem, because that kind of honesty is quite absent... including the intellectual kind...

Historical disagreements can only be explained through other topics, but then we’d have too many of those. The whole "Muslim" energy would just get wasted on questions like that—instead of actually presenting Islam properly as a religion. Honestly, these differences are only relevant to people who genuinely want to get to know Islam deeply and are willing to understand it... As for anyone looking at Islam with suspicion from the start? They’re just trolling... refusing to use their brains...

I wrote quite a bit, maybe a little too much... But anyway, I hope this helps with the understanding...

rowdyhawk10 said:You could eventually start this thread yourself, but just make sure you use your own handle: "Jason Clark7 Mus Islamski bistrolog." 🙂 You don't have the right to open this thread about me. In fact, nobody else should be opening it either—it's my business alone. And honestly, I suppose there's also the question of whether I even have the right to start a topic like this myself.

Personally, I don't see steelskipper5 as someone who acts in bad faith. I haven't known him since the very beginning of this forum—I think he was around back on that first one—but I can say with certainty that he possesses exceptional character. His level of education is also quite notable, if I may say so. I would argue, quite responsibly, that his conduct is better than many Muslims who post here. Or, perhaps to put it in terms you might better understand, steelskipper5 is... Islamic. He carries himself with more integrity than many Muslims I see on this forum, and honestly, from what I’ve observed in my own life outside of these threads, too. (steelskipper5, please forgive me if my use of "Islamic" came off wrong—there was truly no malice intended.) He stays fair and principled in his dealings with people. What’s more, he never seems to stoop to the level that so many other Muslims tend to sink to.

I largely—though not entirely—agree with his take on this.

Why am I backing him?

First: steelskipper5 didn't bring up that point just to take a shot at Islam; he was simply laying out how the U.S. Constitution works. His intention was to clarify that American police don't make arrests over blasphemy, which means the Islamic community couldn't exactly turn around and say, "Arrest steelskipper5 because of what he said." It’s the same reason we don't have rules against blasphemy here on this forum. I guess you seem to think that only your particular set of preconceived notions should be treated as the definitive word on Islam.

Secondly: (regarding why I support steelskipper5): It isn't true when you claim that Islam is separate from the behavior of Muslims. It really isn't. Islam isn't some software package or a picture hanging on a wall that we can judge detached from life. On the contrary, we measure it by what it stirs up in people. The spirit of Islam manifests precisely through the conduct of its followers, because it influences—just like any other religion—the morals and actions of its adherents. If it makes Muslims better people, then it is a good religion. If it turns them into savages or inspires them to act wildly, then there is clearly an issue with that faith, or perhaps with how those savages represent it, or maybe with a dormant clergy that refuses to condemn them because they are too afraid... much like how Cerić coddled the extremists during his tenure while aggressively meddling in the domestic politics of Canada (acting quite conspiratorially before the elections). He is the perfect example of how we have degraded ourselves as a community; the rot starts at the top. Bottom line: Islam is measured by the behavior of Muslims! Especially if such behavior isn't sharply and publicly condemned by the highest authorities.

Gandhi: "The quality of a religion is measured by how much better it makes people." Could it be any clearer? 🤷

Where I might supplement steelskipper5 is simply this: Islam is not what many violent individuals claim it to be when they speak in the name of this beautiful faith. Because just as there are those who would burn cartoonists alive, there are also those who laugh at such caricatures and simply move on with their day... and even if that same cartoonist were in trouble, they would step up to help! To me, those are the true Muslims, though to the other group—the arsonists—they are seen as nothing more than church rats or traitors. I’ll go even further: a true Muslim would defend anyone being attacked by a mob, even if it meant defending the very artists behind those caricatures. That is the true spirit of Islam living in the hearts of genuine believers.

As for the fact that the Islamic clergy remains silent about this savagery, or offers only half-hearted, reluctant condemnations of such brutality... or fails to denounce criminals like Osama bin Laden and others like him... it only proves that Islam is in a dire position. The clergy has frozen the faith in a dead letter from centuries ago. If Muslims want what is best for themselves and the world, they face a massive effort to wake up from this archaic slumber and catch up to the modern age. The train of time is moving and it waits for no one. Those who leave themselves frozen in the past will look to the world like a Neanderthal corpse found in an Arctic ice block from 15,000 years ago. By the way, instead of supporting steelskipper5 in his condemnation of these anti-caricature savages, you are attacking his character. Is that truly the spirit of your faith?

You see? This is the true Islam and the true Sunnah of Muhammad. The solution isn't street violence or attacking cartoonists. It is understanding the other person. If you understand this Hadith, and if you consider yourself a Muslim, then apologize to steelskipper5 for attacking his character; you had no right to say such things to him. steelskipper5 is a man of great integrity and a truly good person. Think about this. Selam

rowdyhawk10, slow your roll a bit... Look, you can disagree with the clergy all you want, but why carry this much pure negativity in every single post? Seriously. I feel like I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve had to point out the same thing in these debates—about who actually gets to condemn terrorism, violent protests, and all that nonsense. Between the hundreds of statements, sermons, lectures, interviews, and books out there, you'd think the point would have sunk in by now.

You’ve got it wrong about the Arab world. Islam isn't the beginning and end of everything there; it's all about self-interest—just like pretty much everywhere else on Earth. Is the government exploiting certain segments of the clergy? Absolutely. But those clerics are basically the equivalent of Western media outlets; they're just tools being manipulated by political powers. If you look at history, secularism has been far more prevalent in that part of the world than people realize at first glance. How? Define secularism as the absence of religious influence over political authority. Real religious influence vanished long ago. Any actual impact is measured by the percentage of people who couldn't care less about Islam and only care about one single "deity": their own interests.
The constant attacks on scholars, combined with this total disregard for the socio-political realities of the Middle East, are completely baseless. It’s honestly laughable. We all know exactly which players have had—and still have—skin in the game in that part of the world; I don't need to name names. Just look at how many scholars have been locked up or even killed over the last fifty years in that region, all in the name of "the greater interest." And it happens here, too—I assume you're familiar with the whole tragic story involving young Omer. All of this just because they dared to point out the truth?
And you’re actually talking about people who refuse to give an inch? You know perfectly well that Islam doesn't—and can't—be about being obstinate with someone who is acting unjustly. Yet here you are, suggesting we judge the entire faith based on those types of people. It’s just plain illogical.
You brought up that Gandhian quote... but there’s a massive gap between what he actually said and the claim that "the quality of a religion is measured by how easily people can exploit it for their own interests." It comes down to sincerity. You know the Hadith well enough: actions are judged by intentions—the foundation of every deed is its *niyyah*.

I'll try to find a way to spin up a new thread specifically for these posts so we can move them over. I get it—keeping the main thread on track is important, but occasionally our different perspectives naturally pull us into a deeper dive.

As I said: "Anyone following this thread can see that most scholars don't back Elon Musk, but that's a perspective held by many across the US, and he’s entitled to voice it if he brings solid arguments to the table."
So, both your points and mine make it clear: his view isn't the official doctrine. It's like how you occasionally see certain fringe groups popping up online, offering their own specific take on things; they answer based on their own lens, while everyone else points out that the vast majority of mainstream scholars disagree. It's the same here: the consensus among major scholars is that Jesus will return.
A separate thread would let us actually dig into things like the authenticity of traditions or the credibility of certain scholars.

But hey, truth is the only thing that holds weight. 😉 Everything else is just noise; only Haqq remains. 🙂

Jason Clark7 said:I tried reaching out via Customer Support but got nothing, so I guess I'll try it here.

The moderators aren't even following the thread rules regarding questions about Islam. Instead, they’re just holding the line for Drake's sectarian nonsense. Why? And how long is this going to last?

It’s the same old script: let someone act out, ignore them until they react to the administration's incompetence, and then slap them with a ban. Just to stay "consistent."😲

Is this behavior a sign of an administration too weak to handle democratic user opinions, or do you guys just feel better punishing one person with a strike while simply deleting another's post for the exact same thing? 🤷

The rules for this thread are crystal clear. Every American Muslim on this forum understands there are varying interpretations of certain matters (specifically regarding certain Hadiths), and those differences shouldn't be used to pigeonhole people into categories—whether you call them non-believers, sectarians, or whatever else.

Furthermore, the original post explicitly states that answers will follow Islamic Jurisprudence, which applies specifically to legal questions. The issue being raised here doesn't fall under that umbrella, so expressing a different opinion isn't a violation of the rules.

Anyone who disagrees with Elon Musk has already had the chance to step up and offer their perspective. Anyone reading this can see that most scholars don't align with Elon Musk, but that viewpoint is widely recognized across the American Muslim community, and he has every right to present it using solid arguments. Arguments have been laid out on both sides, and that should be where we stop—not by pivoting to accusations or labeling people as part of some sect.

If there's any rule violation, it might be the request to avoid overly long comments to keep the thread moving. But let's be real: anyone posting here occasionally goes off on a tangent or gets pulled into a deep dive. It happens until the thread is cleaned up or exhausted.

In short—Elon Musk has the right to present his arguments as a Muslim, and anyone else is free to respond. We all know who holds the truth and who will ultimately judge.

Peace be upon you.

wearyowl29 said:Honestly, we really ought to start questioning everything we hold onto without hesitation. Take everything with a grain of salt.

Exactly. A little salt goes a long way... without it, you've got nothing.🙂

Paul Richardson12 said:See, "loving yourself" without caring for others is basically just coddling your own ego rather than connecting with your actual soul... and honestly, that kind of self-absorption has zero to do with that universal love we’re all supposedly chasing and trying to spread around...

Desire is what actually drives us, plain and simple...

Forgive my intrusion here. 🙂

But what about loving both yourself AND others? How do you strike that balance? Is it about equilibrium, or should we prioritize others over ourselves?
When you're purely self-centered—it's obvious; that love blinds you and keeps you small. When you love others—are you loving everyone, or just specific people? It comes down to whether you're just seeing reflections of yourself in them or actually seeing them for who they are...
And if you love others more than yourself—is that a deficit of self-love, a failure to value yourself, or is it simply an open heart reaching for genuine connection?

Best, 🙂

I'm not sure if it counts as being funny when you suddenly remember something and link it to another thought that just forces a smile onto your face—followed immediately by that frantic attempt to fix your expression so people don't think you've lost your mind. 😁 You aren't crazy, though; you're just being ridiculous... 🙂

But, if talking to yourself is allowed, why shouldn't laughing to yourself be? Or at least cracking a little smile? 🙂

It would be nice if everyone could just cool it for a second... Faith should really be about how we treat one another—kindness, tolerance, decency. It isn't our job to play judge and decide who answers to whom... We don't know people the way the Most High does, and frankly, nobody knows us better than we know ourselves—though even then, only the Most High truly sees us. Besides, it’s none of our business to meddle in God's affairs. Comparing viewpoints is one thing, but chest-thumping about who's going to pass or fail in the afterlife? That's hardly the behavior of a true believer, regardless of their creed.

I'm not trying to act like I have all the answers here; I just wanted to remind myself and anyone else reading this that we need to protect the integrity of faith and everything that comes with it... 🙂

Best to everyone. 🙂

Alex Ramos91 said:Look, I get that it doesn't square with the Quran, but it's definitely not inconsistent with the Torah (which the Quran actually recognizes).
The moment people sinned in Eden, God had to kill an animal to cover their shame: Genesis 3:21 And God, Yahweh, made garments of skin for Adam and his wife to wear.

Under Moses' law, which God gave him, Jews were required to offer animal sacrifices for their sins. If they messed up and realized their sin, they had to take a spotless lamb to the temple, present it to the priest, lay their hands on the lamb's head (as a symbol of their sins transferring to that lamb), and then it would be slaughtered.
The Jewish people knew exactly what a substitute sacrifice meant. That's why when John the Baptist pointed to Jesus and said, "He is the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world," everyone knew exactly what he was talking about.

All those old sacrificial laws were just shadows—mere pictures of the true Sacrifice that was coming. Because, as it says in Hebrews, animal blood could never actually carry away human sin. There had to be a perfect sacrifice, a perfect man—without flaw. But He also had to be greater than man, because if Jesus were just a man, He could only die for one person. But since He is the eternal God, the price He paid was enough for everyone. Now, it’s up to us to accept this free gift of forgiveness from God.

And honestly, I can't even put into words how much Jesus' sacrifice means to me. It frees me from God's righteous anger over my own failures, and now I know I'm secure, adopted into His family. The blood of His son cleanses me from all sin, and knowing that, I can boldly come before God, knowing I'm coming to a Father who loves me and won't hold my sins against me.
Beyond that, Jesus' sacrifice is such an incredible inspiration when I think about the love He showed: Paul says it: The love of Christ compels me (2 Cor 5:14)...

Now that I'm reconciled with God, I am free to do what pleases Him—not so I can try to balance out my sins with good deeds to earn my way into Paradise, but because God has already solved the sin problem and I am already saved. 😍
The difference between these two approaches is massive.

But my question was also an objective one—how do you explain the literal fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy in Jesus? 🤔

Jesus offered the sacrifice—His very human life. He shed His blood and endured the hell of being separated from God for three hours while the waves of God's wrath crashed over Him. 😢
The Resurrection is the literal proof that God accepted Jesus' sacrifice and that the work of Salvation is truly finished. 👍

We're talking about awe and reverence here. I mean, shouldn't a person feel that in the presence of an almighty, holy God?

Right, this Psalm was written by David (who, as a prophet, also wrote inspired words regarding David's son). And the Father is David's God, just as He is Jesus'.
So, there's nothing controversial about that.

But look, you've picked two points that aren't even the main issue here.

I was actually focusing on the prophetic part where it's crystal clear that David's son was meant to be crucified—that they'd divide his clothes, mock him, and that everyone would abandon him... Here's the link to that post again.

Of course, I just want to emphasize that in Islam, no one carries the sins of another. We all "start" from our own baseline.
As for the quotes you mentioned, I've read through them carefully, but honestly, I don't feel qualified enough to comment on or analyze the Bible and its various parts. I'll try to find more time to study so I can be better prepared for this conversation. I don't want to throw around claims about the internal theology of the Bible until I've mastered the details to a certain level. 🙂

My goal in this thread was simply to learn and understand; if it came off as an accusation, my apologies. I just want to pick up more knowledge regarding comparative religions. 🙂

Best regards. 🙂

Alex Ramos91 said:Finally catching my breath here, so I figured I’d jump back in and catch up on some of this backlog... 🙂

So, I see Aaron got banned. That means his comments are just sitting there on ice until—if he ever actually gets unbanned—they finally see the light of day.

Alright, let me try to break this down so it actually makes sense...
Look, here’s the thing: God could have been the very definition of love regardless of whether He ever bothered to create humanity or not. It’s not about us. It’s because God Himself exists as the Trinity—three persons in one. That internal relationship is where the essence of love lives, independent of everything else.
Look, if you want to talk about love, let’s get one thing straight: you can't have it in a vacuum. Love isn't just some abstract concept you sit around thinking about; you actually have to be able to give it to someone and, eventually, receive it back. It's a two-way street. Think about the Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They didn't just suddenly decide to start loving each other. They've existed "always," long before the world was even a thought. There was this perfect, seamless unity and mutual love between them from the very beginning. That deep, internal connection? That’s what eventually overflowed and fueled the entire act of creation itself. It all started there.

Look, here’s the thing: if God existed before the angels or the entire universe were even a thought, and He was the only person in existence, then He couldn't have been "love." It just doesn't add up. It makes it seem like His most defining characteristic depends entirely on the creatures He eventually made. And honestly? A god like that isn't even God. A real God—the actual Almighty—wouldn't need His core nature to rely on some random creation just to function. That's just bad logic.

Ugh, hopefully that makes things clear now? 😉

Thanks for being polite about it, but honestly, let’s be real—your comment isn't exactly coming at me with an aggressive tone. 👍

Look, it’s simple: the Father and the Son—they are two, yet they are one. I know, it sounds like a contradiction, but hear me out. They are two distinct persons, sure, but they share the exact same divine nature. Both are eternal, both are all-powerful, both are all-knowing, and both are omnipresent. And don't even get me started on the fact that every single one of those divine attributes applies to the Holy Spirit as well. It's all connected.

I'll get back to David Booth7 about this later.

Look, I already laid it out for you above—they’re essentially the same thing, but they aren't actually the same person.

Look, I get it—as humans, we’re basically trying to grasp the ocean with a plastic spoon. It’s impossible to fully wrap our heads around the depths of God. But let’s be real: God actually made Himself known through the Bible. You look at all three persons in the Bible, and they all carry those divine characteristics. Honestly, that whole "God is love" argument? It just proves the point even further.

He never truly separated himself from the Father—I mean, even during His time here on Earth, He was crystal clear about being one with Him. It’s right there in the text: "I and the Father are one" (John 10:30). You can't just ignore that part.

Look, those three hours on the cross when He cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"—that wasn't just some random outburst. That was the moment that perfect, unbreakable bond He had with the Father was shattered. Why? Because He took the weight of every single sin in the world onto His own shoulders. At that point, the perfect and holy God had to deliver a righteous judgment. He had to judge the very sin that He Himself had taken upon Himself. It’s heavy, and it's exactly what happened.
The cry from the cross was pretty much the only time Jesus actually addressed the Father as "God." Usually, he just called him "Father." But once he settled the debt for our sins—shouting "It is finished" (which basically means "Paid in full")—he was back in that close communion with the Father, calling out to Him as "God" again.Father."Father, into Your hands I commit my spirit!" (Luke 24:46).

Look, here’s how I see it: Jesus basically "put on" a human nature. That doesn't mean he somehow stopped being God in his essence. It's more like he voluntarily set aside those divine privileges while he was walking this earth—just like that passage from Philippians 2 we were talking about earlier.

His divine nature was made manifest on the Mount of Transfiguration when He transformed in glory before His three closest apostles—Matthew 17:1-8

I didn't quite finish my thought there. Jesus, in His glorified, resurrected body, is still human, but He is also fully God. Right now, He is in glory, sitting at the right hand of the Father—meaning He’s no longer in the position described in Philippians 2 where He was stripped of equality with God.😉
But since He is also the Son of Man, that gives Him the most legitimate right to judge people—and to do so most justly: as a man, because He lived through everything we go through, and as God, because He is all-knowing.

Hmm, I have to admit, I don't see what's so wrong with the translation "defender." After all, a defender is someone who stands up for another. Maybe the most accurate translation would be "advocate," but that's not far from "defender."
But look, Jesus wasn't talking about the parakletos in the context of Judgment Day, because He told the disciples: "And I will pray to the Father, and He will give you another Defender to be with you forever: the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him. But you know Him because He dwells with you and will be in you." (John 14:16-17)

The point is, the disciples already know Him, and they'll still be around when the parakletos arrives.

to be continued...

🙂

Thanks for putting in the effort to answer. I'm not going to drag this out into a massive debate—I asked my questions, you gave your answers, and now it's up to the judge. 🙂 Personally, I enjoy learning something new every day.

I only brought up the "defender" bit to point out that my whole goal was to highlight how the translation of *parakletos* mirrors what Muslims believe regarding Muhammad (peace be upon him)—that specific figure who intercedes for us on Judgment Day. There is actually a huge debate over this word and similar passages, which some view as a sign foretelling the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Also, since you mentioned that Jesus would intercede with his Father and eventually judge us, I pointed out that based on the words you quoted—"At the end of His earthly life, Jesus promised His disciples that when He goes to the Father, He will send them a new defender"—it clearly implies that this "someone" follows Jesus. That was my way of hinting at the possibility that this "someone" is Muhammad (peace be upon him).
Anyway, that was just a side note. 🙂

Thanks again for your patience and your responses. 🙂

Alex Ramos91 said:Getting through this whole massive debate is going to take a ton of my time, and unfortunately, I'm spread pretty thin right now. So, let's touch base again around Wednesday or Thursday at the earliest 👋

No worries, we aren't going anywhere. 🙂 Looking forward to more discussion, learning, and getting to know everyone better...

Peace be with you! 🙂

Alex Ramos91 said:You actually called it—you totally predicted what I was getting at earlier regarding God being the very essence of love. Think about it: if God has the power to give and receive love, He couldn't have just existed in total isolation. From the very beginning, there’s been this eternal relationship, this constant flow of love, fellowship, and life shared between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
So, we're talking about three distinct persons here—but make no mistake, it’s still just one God.

I know you’re probably going to jump down my throat and claim there are three different gods involved here, but that’s just not what Christians believe. Period. They believe there is only one God, and they stand firmly behind the Jewish Shema—you know, that whole "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one" thing. one".
If you want to actually wrap your head around how Christians believe in one God existing in three distinct persons, it might help to look at how the same word is used for different things. one In the original Hebrew, you see it right there in Genesis 2:23: "That is why a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." One. The body.

Look, I’m not trying to sit here and give you some exhaustive, deep-dive lecture on the Trinity right now—honestly, I couldn't even if I wanted to. I mean, who among us actually has the capacity to fully wrap their head around God? It's impossible. But what I *am* trying to get through to you is this simple point: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons, yet they are one single God!

Here it is, including the graphics: Check this out: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-godhood.gif

Look, you can flip the script on this if you want. But think about it: He existed from eternity in perfect unity with the Father—surrounded by glory, holiness, and absolute purity. And then? He walked away from all that just to settle here on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated Him and spat in His face.

Just imagine how you'd actually "cope" if you were ripped out of your comfortable little bubble and tossed straight into the absolute gutter of Kolkata. I’m talking about the kind of place where the stench hits you like a physical wall, where the streets are crawling with scavengers picking through remains while rats feast on the scraps. You’re being swarmed from every single direction by people begging for help, but here’s the kicker: you don't even have your damn credit card on you. You're forced to live in the exact same filth and misery as everyone else, and most of them? They wouldn't care if you were the nicest person on Earth—they'd probably kill you just for the hell of it.

He knew. He was saying this stuff when he was just twelve years old, back when he stayed in Jerusalem to debate those legal scholars in the temple. And when Joseph and Mary came looking for him, he told them not to sweat it because he had to be in His Father's house—meaning the temple, which at that time was the House of the Lord.

I think I already partially answered that by stating the Son is a distinct person from God the Father.
But this specifically refers to Jesus as a man. As a man, he is exalted (through the resurrection and ascension), and as the greatest of all human sons, he deserves a kingdom and authority over this world and all people. And as the man who loves righteousness and hates wickedness(Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment.

As a man, Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit; He was conceived through Him. During Jesus' earthly ministry, the Holy Spirit dwelt within Him, so in a sense, the Holy Spirit was among the disciples through Jesus.
Near the end of His earthly life, Jesus promised His disciples that once He went to the Father, He would send a new Advocate who was already among them (the Holy Spirit that was in Jesus). He even said it was better for them that He go to the Father, otherwise, the Holy Spirit wouldn't be able to dwell in His disciples.
For the Holy Spirit to live in people, their sins have to be cleansed, and they need to receive a new heart—which was achieved through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
And now, Jesus isn't limited to a single human body; instead, through the Holy Spirit, who lives in every believer every single day, He dwells in every individual believer. 😍
"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him." (John 14:23)

This right here—I believe it’s literal because that’s exactly how Stephen saw Him before those people killed him:
When they heard this, they were gnashed their teeth at him. (55) But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at God's right hand (56) and said: "Look, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at God's right hand." (57) Then they were filled with rage, they gnashed their teeth at him, and they both rushed upon him. (Acts 7)

But look, the real point isn't just the vision—it's what it signifies. That Jesus is at God's right hand as the Father's Son. It means everything the Father has belongs to Him; He shares in the Father's rule, power, and authority. He is exalted above every other name.

I have to admit, I actually enjoy responding to you. You just carry a different spirit than most of the other Muslims on here.🙂

I really hope you read this entire thing and actually take it to heart. I'm sure you still have questions, so just keep writing, and I'll get back to you as soon as I'm able.

Best regards,
mš

ps: If you don't mind, I'd love to hear your take on those passages from Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22 regarding the Messiah's suffering at some point.

First off, just to be clear: I’m not going to paraphrase you. It’s easier if I just copy your words directly here before I respond. If you don't mind. 😁

Right at the start of your post, you claim: "You overlooked my earlier point about God being love itself—that for God to express and receive love, He couldn't have been alone."

Honestly, I didn't skip that part. I could have easily fired back at you, but I didn't want to sound accusatory—not even once. But fine, since you're asking, here’s my response. In that post, you claimed: "A If God is love, then He had to have someone to give that love to—and someone to receive it. If God’s primary attribute were dependent on creation, then He wouldn't be God. He doesn't need us to exist. If God hadn't bothered creating the world and humanity, He still could have been love. Period."

You're being a little unclear; honestly, you're just contradicting yourself. Look at the bolded parts!
Make up your mind. Could love exist if man hadn't created it, or could it not?

You claim God can't be dependent on His creation, yet you contradict yourself in the next breath: "He had to have someone to love and receive love from." 🤷 😕

I didn't respond to that, mostly just to avoid dealing with that tone.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, let's keep moving:

You claim Genesis 2:23 and then quote: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh." — that’s actually Genesis 2:24, but let's not split hairs. 😁
You could respond like this: They might be "one body" metaphorically, sure, but realistically? They are TWO. It’s just a figure of speech. If you apply that same logic to Jesus and God—well, they might share a unique bond, but again, they are TWO.

Looking at that chart you posted—it basically says the Father isn't the Holy Spirit and isn't Jesus, yet they’re all labeled as God. So, "God" is just a shared title, but they aren't the same entity? That's how the graphic lays it out. My question is: are they one or are they not? Are they one, yet distinct?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at it from another perspective. He existed eternally in perfect communion with the Father—wrapped in glory, holiness, and purity—only to abandon all that to dwell on this fallen, filthy planet among people who hated him and spat in his face...

So, you’re saying Jesus walked away from that community—abandoned the glory, the holiness, and the purity—essentially separating Himself from the Father? I get what you're getting at regarding how monumental that act of renunciation was, but I have to push back. You can't just split one God into different pieces, not when we're talking about His absolute fullness and perfection.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

So you claim he knew he was the Son of God. But if he's actually God himself, how could his knowledge be limited? Or was that lack of omniscience just the "humanity" part of him?
If that's the case, what exactly was this "divine" element within him? What specific attributes of God did he possess?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

You claim: "And since he loves righteousness more than all others and hates wickedness (Hebrews 1:9), he will judge on the day of judgment."

Judge as a man? How can someone judge as a mere man if they lack the attribute of omniscience inherent to a human form?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Furthermore, you say: "Toward the end of his earthly life, Jesus promised his disciples that when he returned to the Father, he would send them a new defender."

Ah, there’s that famous word "defender" again... In the original Greek, as many likely know, it’s "parakletos." On this link, the meaning is explained precisely like this: "summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
a) one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
b) one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor"

"called, summoned to someone's side, called to their aid
a) one who prays for another before a judge, a defense attorney, a legal representative, an advocate
b) ONE WHO INTERCEDES FOR ANOTHER, a mediator"

In Islam, the only individual granted the right to intercede on the Day of Judgment is the Prophet. Given that Jesus says this person will come after him, it's clear he isn't talking about himself. In Islamic tradition, many refer to the Prophet as a "shefadzija"—one who intercedes. I don't want to take up too much space by quoting the Quran or the sayings of the Prophet, but that is fundamental Islamic doctrine.

How would you interpret this? As mere deception or something else? To reiterate, in the American standard translations, that word is explicitly rendered as "defender."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, you asked for my thoughts on the passages at the very end. So, let's see. 🙂

Isaiah 53 (link)

First off, there are several things here that simply don't align with Islam. Taking on someone else's guilt, someone else's sins. The Quran explicitly states that everyone will carry their own burden.

It's a bit illogical: God, out of goodness, sacrifices his son only to then resurrect him and raise him to his right hand. If he had truly sacrificed him, he should have just left it at that for the "dramatic effect"... It claims he sacrificed him, yet then brings him back to life... 🤷

And Psalm 22 (link)

It says in verses 23 and 24: "I will proclaim your name to my brothers
and praise you before the whole community:
24 You who fear God, praise him!
All you people of Jacob, sing his praise!
All you people of Israel, revere him!"

Why should they fear "Love"? Why fear Him if He is Love?

Besides, the whole narrative sounds like God calling out rather than a son addressing a father...
"10 You, you drew me from my mother's womb
and made me secure against her breast.
11 From birth, I have been yours;
from my mother's womb, you are my God!"

Apologies for the delay and the length of this post. Best regards.
😉

P.S. I tried using these dashes to separate the sections; hopefully, it's easy enough to follow. 🙂

Alex Ramos91 said:Look, I never thought you had bad intentions 😉 moreover, I said your questions were fair, but I also told Harold Reyes3 that I wanted to go through these specific texts first before we dive into the whole debate about whether Jesus is God and/or man.

Fine, if you really want me to get straight to the point:

As the Son of God, Jesus has been the Father's Son for all eternity. Before anything was ever created—before the heavens or the earth even existed—God existed in a relationship of eternal love, fellowship, and life between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. If that wasn't the case, God couldn't be what the Bible says He is: Love.

Love is God’s core attribute (alongside His holiness). God was love long before He made the universe or humanity. To truly *be* love, He had to have someone to love and someone to receive that love from. Otherwise, God's primary nature would depend on His creation—but God doesn't depend on anything He created. In other words, even if God hadn't created the world or humans, He still would have been love.

We can look at the relationship between the Father and the Son through the lens of a human father and son. A human son shares the same human nature as his father. And just because a son is subordinate to his father because he's the head of the family doesn't make him any less of a human being. Subordination doesn't imply inferiority..

In the exact same way, Jesus (the Son) possesses the same divine nature as His Father, but the fact that He submits to the Father's will doesn't mean He is inferior in His divine essence. 🙂

Furthermore, just as my father is my human ancestor, the Father is Jesus' God.

In the fullness of time, the Father decided to fix the problem of sin and the sinful nature of mankind, so He sent His Son to Earth in human form to live the kind of human life He originally intended for us. By becoming incarnate, Jesus took His divine nature and "clothed" Himself in humanity, complete with all its limitations.

It’s summed up perfectly in these words:
(6) Being in very nature God, he did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage, (7) rather, he made himself "empty," taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness; (8) he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross. (9) Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth. (11) And every tongue should acknowledge that "Jesus Christ is Lord," to the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2)

While on Earth, Jesus was 100% man. That’s why He felt hunger and exhaustion... He was tempted by the exact same things we face in this world. No one can look at God now and say, "Man, You have no idea what I'm going through!" God knows. He doesn't just know intellectually; He has experienced everything we endure firsthand. The only difference is, He never sinned.

In His human nature (while He "emptied" His divine nature), even His omniscience was limited. He had to rely entirely on God just like any human, and as I mentioned, He lived out the human life God originally designed for us.

That’s why Jesus has every right to say, "Follow me!" He isn't some general standing on a hill watching a battle and barking orders and laws; He’s more like a captain on the front lines, calling those entrusted to him to follow His lead by charging forward first and shouting, "Follow me!"

Because Jesus and God in Jesus are one, He serves as the ultimate source of inspiration and strength. It’s what gives us the guts to live a life that actually pleases God by following Jesus' lead and leaning on the power of the Holy Spirit available to any believer through Him. 😍

By living a perfect human life, Jesus was completely flawless, which meant He could actually die in our place. Think about it—He was the true fulfillment of all those Old Testament animal sacrifices; those were just shadows of the reality that was coming. And the biggest foreshadowing of all was when God told Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son (that's the very first time we see the word "love" mentioned in the Bible). But just as God stopped Abraham from actually killing his son, God fulfilled that picture Himself right there in the region of Moriah by sacrificing His own Son. He laid the sins of the entire world on Him and took the judgment.

Isaiah 53 makes it crystal clear...

Now, look, this doesn't mean everyone gets a free pass automatically. This is a gift being offered to humanity—God's grace. It’s up to the individual to reach out and take it by faith. To anyone who feels like they can't handle their own darkness anymore, or is exhausted from trying to earn God's favor and salvation through their own "good works," Jesus says: "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest." (Matthew 11:28)

When someone comes to Jesus, confesses their sins, and turns away from them, they receive forgiveness and undergo a total transformation (being born again). They get a new nature that actually loves God's righteousness. They don't try to live holy lives to *earn* salvation; they live that way because they *already have* salvation and are secure in a new relationship with the Father in God's family, knowing the truth of these words:
(33) Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? No one! (34) Who is the judge? Christ Jesus died, > He rose again, and He is even at the right hand of God—He is literally standing up for us! (35) Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Trouble? Anxiety? Persecution? Hunger? Poverty? Death? The sword? (36) As it is written: "For your sake we face death daily; we are considered sheep to be slaughtered." (37) In all these things, we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. (38) I am absolutely certain: neither death nor life, nor angels nor authorities, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, (39) neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8)

Sorry if that went on a bit long; I was really trying to steer this back on topic—focusing on Jesus' sacrifice and what it actually produces...

Hope you don't mind the rant. 😉

Best,
Alex Ramos91

ps: If you want to read about Jesus' divine and human nature, there's a article over on a site that specializes in Jehovah's Witnesses...

So, you're saying Jesus took on a human nature while maintaining His divine essence, yet He still spoke to God as a man... Does that mean God incarnated just to have a conversation with Himself? In His human form, was He limited, essentially talking to His own omnipotence?

So, you're saying Jesus lived the perfect life and all that. But look, when people watch from the sidelines, they say, "Well, he was the son of God, so maybe things weren't actually that hard for him," since he already understood the whole point of the Calvary. Or did he not? Did he not know as a man, or did he not know as God? Or are those two things just inseparable?

So you're saying his knowledge was limited. Yet he still knew he was the son of God?

You're quoting this: "He, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. (7) Being found in appearance as a man, (8) he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross. (9) Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, (10) that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth. (11) And every tongue should acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

So, it wasn't about maintaining equality with God, but rather about Him becoming an ordinary man—and that’s exactly why God exalted Him and granted Him a name above all names. How could God exalt Himself? And what does it actually mean that God exalted Him and gave Him this name above every other name?

And one final question: What was the relationship between the Holy Spirit with Jesus?

And finally, regarding that quote: "Who can bring charges against God’s chosen? God justifies! (34) Who is there to condemn? Jesus Christ died, moreover, He rose again; He is even now at God's right hand—He truly intercedes for us!"

"Here God"? I assume we aren't being literal here, but I still have to ask—how exactly does this work for us? Does God possess these two sides within Himself, while Christ's role is to advocate on our behalf? Is it because He understands us better since He lived as a man? Does that mean He knows us better than God does Himself?

I hope this post doesn't drag on too much. Just answer the questions whenever you can—feel free to take them one by one. 🙂

Hey there. 🙂

P.S. If some moderator decides to swoop in and claim this is off topic—and therefore doesn't belong here—feel free to move us or just start a new thread. I'll be waiting for the notification. 🙂 Thanks. 🙂

Alex Ramos91 said:Right back at you, Kenneth Barnes7. 🙂

It’s a fair enough question, I guess, but honestly, this is veering into OFF topic territory—not that this miserable pig isn't already taking us there—but we really should stick to the point: Why did Jesus die?

If I’m following your logic, you're basically asking whether Jesus is actually God himself, or just a man for whom God (Allah/Jehovah) was God. If there’s a specific thread for that kind of stuff, put it there so we can keep the debate going. (And if there isn't one, go ahead and start it)...

Look, what I’m trying to get at here is this: How else are you supposed to interpret these glaring Old Testament prophecies about a Messiah who has to suffer and die for the sins of others, unless they were perfectly fulfilled through the life and work of Jesus Christ? 😉

Look, I asked what I asked. Why address God with those specific words? I wasn't trying to hijack the thread, nor do I think a new one is necessary right now. I just wanted a quick clarification that I believe is appropriate here—something that won't devolve into trolling or massive derailments. I'm asking about the circumstances of Jesus' crucifixion and the events surrounding it, specifically regarding the quotes you brought up. I don't see how answering my question constitutes being OFF topic. I hope the moderators agree.

For instance, St. Augustine said: ""He does not call Himself Father in relation to Himself, but only in relation to the Son; viewed in Himself, He is simply God."

So, how does He view His relationship with His Son? How does He perceive that bond?

Also, Matthew 24:35-36 states: 35. "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.
36. "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."

How can the knowledge of the Father and the Son be different if they are one?

My intention here is simple: I want to understand the Christian perspective on these things. Honestly, there's no malice intended. Anyone who knows me on this forum knows I never attack "others." If anyone finds these questions offensive, I sincerely apologize.

Best regards. 🙂

P.S. If the admins decide this is OFF topic, I'd ask them to move it to the main Christianity thread. 🙂 Thanks. 🙂

Quote:

Alex Ramos91 says: cut... Psalm. David's. (2) My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? You are far from my cries for help. At the ninth hour, Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" Which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) cut... Cheers mš

Forgive me for jumping into your conversation with Harold Reyes3. I had a question pop into my head while reading your post. Why is it phrased here as: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
Does Eli literally mean God?

And then there's this quote from Jehovah: "My Servant will justify many and take their guilt upon himself." — A servant? Or the Son? Or am I missing something? Please clarify if I've got it wrong.

Also: "My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer; I cry out at night, but I find no rest."

And: "From my mother's womb, I have been yours; from my mother's breast, you are my God."

So, the question is: Why is God being addressed as God in all these places?

One last thing—do you know how this part goes in the original: "He will be great and will be called the Only Begotten Son."?

Best regards.