The Koran

[AndyDT]

I picked up a translation of the Koran to have a look over Xmas but haven't bought it yet. I'd like to concentrate on Hindu texts first.  It seems quite neat the way it was laid out. I've been hearing good things about it. Has anybody read it?

[hefdaddy42]

I picked up a translation of the Koran to have a look over Xmas but haven't bought it yet. I'd like to concentrate on Hindu texts first.  It seems quite neat the way it was laid out. I've been hearing good things about it. Has anybody read it?

I bought one several years ago with every intention of reading it.  Regrettably, it hasn't happened yet, as my other studies just haven't given me the time.  But I will some day.

[rumborak]

Same here, I've been meaning to read at least some of it. I think it should make a very interesting read since there is no question about the authors or possible modification of the material. The Koran was dictated to and written by scribes during the time of Muhammed.

rumborak

[Adami]

I read a bit of it. It's well written, but unless you REALLY love god, it's not very interesting.

[soundgarden]

The Koran was dictated to and written by scribes during the time of Muhammed.

Yet there exists a discussion on how literal the texts are?  If they were transcribed from Mohamed himself, wouldn't it be the literal word of the prophet and thus God?  

[rumborak]

Muhammed is not God. He is a prophet, but prophets only mediate the divine, they themselves aren't. That overlap is unique to Christianity, and in fact one of Islam's criticism of Christianity is that Christianity is not really a monotheistic religion since it ascribes divinity to separate entities. Which frankly, is a pretty good point.

rumborak

[soundgarden]

Muhammed is not God. He is a prophet, but prophets only mediate the divine, they themselves aren't. That overlap is unique to Christianity,

Yes, sorry I worded that badly.  What I meant; that as a prophet he is tasked with spreading the word of god.  And since they were all written as he himself spoke; they cannot be anything but the literal translation.  

I am asking this because there are a lot of lines from the Koran which divides Muslims deeply, as seen in our world today.  mmmm...

in fact one of Islam's criticism of Christianity is that Christianity is not really a monotheistic religion since it ascribes divinity to separate entities. Which frankly, is a pretty good point.

I've always agreed with this; but try convincing a Christian otherwise.  Both Christianity and Hinduism has a trinity (Father/Son/Holy Spirit and Vishnu, Shiva, and Bramha) and both ascribes a single BEING as the grand entity despite the existence of the trinity  (not to mention the slew of saints and angel denominations...)

Hindu's have hundreds of thousands of deities because they simply serve as representation with a story; nothing more.  There was, is, and always will be ONE single divine being (Buddha calls the presence with this being Nirvana) .  It is why my mother at home as on her altar a crucifix and why at Thanksgiving my family does the Our Father for grace.  Jesus Christ is another deity in the Hindu faith and its the most relatable since we grew up in a Christian country and many of the kids went to Catholic school.

[sonatafanica]

You just be sure to tell me and my NRA buddies if it really says in there that the mooslims want to kill god and build shrines to Osama on ground zero.

[AndyDT]

The Gita says Krishna is the one supreme God.

[Jamesman42]

in fact one of Islam's criticism of Christianity is that Christianity is not really a monotheistic religion since it ascribes divinity to separate entities. Which frankly, is a pretty good point.

lol how is that a good point?

[GuineaPig]

in fact one of Islam's criticism of Christianity is that Christianity is not really a monotheistic religion since it ascribes divinity to separate entities. Which frankly, is a pretty good point.

lol how is that a good point?

in fact one of Islam's criticism of Christianity is that Christianity is not really a monotheistic religion since it ascribes divinity to separate entities. Which frankly, is a pretty good point.

I've always agreed with this; but try convincing a Christian otherwise.

[Jamesman42]

What separate entities? That's what I'm asking.

And if you say God and Jesus Christ, then that is plainly wrong from the text.

[hefdaddy42]

What separate entities? That's what I'm asking.

And if you say God and Jesus Christ, then that is plainly wrong from the text.

It's not as clear as you seem to think.  The concept of trinity simply isn't expressed clearly anywhere in the Bible.  There always have been groups of Christians who were non-Trinitarian (including, currently, your pal Neal Morse), and frankly I border on that myself.

[Jamesman42]

OK, but their is not implication of polytheism, either. In fact, Jesus says He is a part of the Father, and He cannot do anything apart from the Father.

[yeshaberto]

even the heb term for God in scripture hints at it.  el is singular for god and elohim is plural.  the common term used  for jehovah in scripture is elohim.  it is a singular plural noun like the term herd or family.  it is a reference to one that includes many.

[hefdaddy42]

OK, but their is not implication of polytheism, either. In fact, Jesus says He is a part of the Father, and He cannot do anything apart from the Father.

Yes, according to John.  There is no such inference anywhere else in the Gospels.

The accusation of polytheism comes from regarding God as God and Jesus as God.

even the heb term for God in scripture hints at it.  el is singular for god and elohim is plural.  the common term used  for jehovah in scripture is elohim.  it is a singular plural noun like the term herd or family.  it is a reference to one that includes many.

It is not intended to be interpreted as a multiplicity of divine persons.  There is no room anywhere is Judaism for anything other than monotheism.  The use of Elohim is seen as the "plural of majesty," much as a British monarch would refer to themselves (the individual) as "we."  Elohim is not evidence of trinity.

[Adami]

Hef is indeed correct. It's also worth noting that Elokim is not the only word for god, and that most of the others aren't plural.

[rumborak]

Essentially, in my humble opinion, the argument that one can have both the cake and eat it, i.e. Jesus was separate from God and still be an integral part of God, completely rests on semantics (as is already visible with the "Elohim is plural" argument). Every time you ask somebody to explain it further, there is a lot of hand-waving and an eventual citing of lines and phrases in the hope the questioner will go away.
At least I find it difficult to marry the fact that Jesus says "God, why have you forsaken me?" with the idea that he IS God too at the same time. If Jesus is so distinctly different from the remainder of God that a) the remainder can "forsake" him and b) he does not know the reason for that forsaking, the two entities only have a tenuous connection at best.

So yes, I find Islam's criticism of Christianity's practice to worship Jesus, Mary and the saints to be polytheism not exactly far off the mark. You also barely ever hear any emphasis on the supposed monotheistic aspect of Christianity, for good reason. Whereas Judaism and Islam really stress that point.

rumborak

[soundgarden]

In fact, Jesus says He is a part of the Father, and He cannot do anything apart from the Father.

Then the notion that "God sent his only son" really has no weight to it?  The tone of the phrase suggests sacrifice; yet according to what you state in the quotes; he (meaning the one being consisting of God and Jesus) sent himself?

You can either admit that:
1) Jesus, God, Holy Spirit (and perhaps through some divine absorption mechanism, the pantheon of saints) all being ONE entity
or
2) Separate beings implying polytheism.

It is illogical to claim both.

[ack44]

Hef is indeed correct. It's also worth noting that Elokim is not the only word for god, and that most of the others aren't plural.

How do Jewish people take the passages where God refers to himself in plural, such as "let us make man in our image" and "let us go down and confuse them"? Are there different interpretations?

[Adami]

Hef is indeed correct. It's also worth noting that Elokim is not the only word for god, and that most of the others aren't plural.

How do Jewish people take the passages where God refers to himself in plural, such as "let us make man in our image" and "let us go down and confuse them"? Are there different interpretations?

I have no idea how jewish biblical scholars interpret it. But generally we don't have a problem with it. We just see god (jews, I'm agnostic by the way) as something much more emompassing than modern day christians and so forth.

[rumborak]

Hef is indeed correct. It's also worth noting that Elokim is not the only word for god, and that most of the others aren't plural.

How do Jewish people take the passages where God refers to himself in plural, such as "let us make man in our image" and "let us go down and confuse them"? Are there different interpretations?

Unless I am wrong, Judaism doesn't view its written documents as infallible. Remember, there is only one God, and the rest of the people, while maybe being "divinely inspired", are just normal people, and thus prone to personal coloring. So, whatever the reason for the plural might be (e.g. displaying superiority of God through the "royal we"), the Christian approach as seeing these single words as an indicator for the internal structure of their deity, is unwarranted.

rumborak