376190585-ISLAMIC-GOD-IS-KNOWABLE-BUT-NOT-COMPREHENSIBLE-BY-FINITE-KNOWLEDGES-OF-FINITE-SUPPOSITA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Page 20 of 36 Ousia] then the sentence means “Logos is the Only Godhead [Divine Ousia]. If the word God is used in the meaning Divine Being or Supreme Being then the sentence means “Logos is the only Divine Being or Logos is the Only Supreme Being”. But again these meaning is not in harmony with the Dogma of Athanasian Trinity. In Dogma of Trinitarians Logos is a Hypostasis and not a Being. So the only meaning is that the word God is used in the meaning of “A Hypostasis in Godhead”. I may agree that this meaning of the word God can be taken in some other translation of this verse but this especially liked Translation cannot accept this meaning. In the Dogma of Athanasian Trinity [as it developed through ages] Plurality of Hypostases does not Imply the Plurality of Godhead of God. As the number of God depends upon the Godhead and not on the Hypostasis in Godhead, then according to the Dogma it can be said “ Father is God, Son is God and Holy Ghost is God yet God is One” But it cannot be said that Father is the Only God or Son/Logos is the Only God. If the Sentence Father is God means Father is a Hypostasis in the Godhead , Son is God means that Son is a Hypostasis in Godhead etc. then Father is the Only God means that Father is the Only Hypostasis in Godhead. So even Trinitarians have to interpret this verse somehow. But the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker is not Loyal to the Dogma of Trinity as well. [2] ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER SAYS In fact, He made it clear that those who do not know Him lack knowledge expressly because they rejected such knowledge (Hosea 4:1-6). The Bible is THE story about the Father and the Son and exists so that we can know Him and we can come to believe and serve Him forever. ANSWER:= If the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker uses the word Bible in the meaning of the Holy Tanakh of Judaism then no scholar of Judaism ever took this meaning from any verse of Holy Tanakh. So this is what the auther implicitly say that for ages Judaism was unable to understand its own Holy Book and then a New Religion was founded which understood it in some meanings totally unknown to the Original Religion of the book. Is this rational claim? We leave this to the readers. Tanakh . Tanakh is the Story of Yahuvah who is not a Hypostasis in the Godhead but the Supreme Being and the Divine Being. To reduce Yahuvah from Sureme Being to a Hypostasis in the Godhead of Supreme Being is not the Yahuvah of Tanakh of Judaism. Page 20 of 36
Page 21 of 36 Had Hosea slightest implication of Plurality of Hypostases in Godhead of Yahuvah, Scholars of Judaism would have detected it even before the birth of the Founder of Christianity. If the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker uses the word Bible for the NT then NT can be treated differently. So one cannot accept unless each and every disputed prooftexts of the Dogma Of Trinity is discussed one by one. [3] ANTI ISLAMIC OBJECTION MAKER SAYS On the other hand, the god of Islam is unknowable and his (unholy) book proves that as well! ANSWER:= The Learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker has used the word Unholy for Holy Qur’a:n. This does shew how much he dislikes Holy Qur’a:n. In just a single word he has exposed his dislikeness and hatred towards the Holy “Arabic Scripture . Any how let his personal sensibilities be left and let the original discussion be continued. The claim that God of Islam is not Knowable is a false claim. If theword Knowable is used in the meaning that Human Knowledge can Comprehend God and Divine Essence/Ousia then it is certainly true. Since only Divine Omniscience Comprehendeth God and Divine Ousia/Essence. If by Unknowable the learned Anti Islamic Objection Maker means God is totally unknown then Holy Qur’a:n informeth many things about God so that He may be Known but without being Comprehended by Created Knowledges. If the learned Author means to be not known as an Incarnated God then this is certainly true but not to be incarnated does not mean God is not known. Such a claim is neither correct nor right. Even from the standard of Athanasian Trinity the second Hypostases Logos was incarnated as Iesous. But before the conception there was no incarnation even on the standard of Trinitarian Trinity. So it means that the Entire Tanakh could not make Yahuvah the God Of Tanakh as Known. Even Iesous did not claim that He is the second Hypostasis in Godhead of God. So even Iesous was unable to make God known. It was due to the Athanasius and latter devekopments in Athanasianism made God Known. Hese are the irrefutable consequences of what the learned Author means. I have seen many Trinitarians who only say that Incarnation, Page 21 of 36
Page 1 and 2: ISLAMIC GOD IS KNOWABLE BUT CANNOT
Page 3 and 4: Page 3 of 36 . Not only IT IS Absol
Page 5 and 6: Page 5 of 36 presented by the Anti
Page 7 and 8: Page 7 of 36 Nature which is the Di
Page 9 and 10: Page 9 of 36 As this discussion req
Page 11 and 12: Page 11 of 36 Note 2: There are Pot
Page 13 and 14: Page 13 of 36 If it is assumed that
Page 15 and 16: Page 15 of 36 As it is beyond the s
Page 17 and 18: Page 17 of 36 Not only Judaism but
Page 19: Page 19 of 36 If God reveals himsel
Page 23 and 24: Page 23 of 36 Either a Thing is Abs
Page 25 and 26: Page 25 of 36 “There is only one
Page 27 and 28: Page 27 of 36 God/Deity /Divine Ess
Page 29 and 30: Page 29 of 36 gate and the broad wa
Page 31 and 32: Page 31 of 36 Dogma of Incarnation.
Page 33 and 34: Page 33 of 36 Confront them with th
Page 35 and 36: Page 35 of 36 Since the verse is no

376190585-ISLAMIC-GOD-IS-KNOWABLE-BUT-NOT-COMPREHENSIBLE-BY-FINITE-KNOWLEDGES-OF-FINITE-SUPPOSITA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?