The Sharing Group Discussion on Jesus (a.s.) Qua Divine

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ 

The following was posted by me, on The Sharing Group, on the 11^th March 2016: “Something to consider: From a Muslim theological perspective, the heresy of Trinitarianism is not the belief that Jesus (a.s.) is God since that can be understood through the doctrinal instruments of the tajalli and wahdat al-wujud; but that God is Jesus (a.s.) since God is Mukhalafatuhu lil Hawadits, Distinct from and without resemblance to Creation.” 

Brother Abdul Karim Majid: Spot on and exactly what I have been taught to understand. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Shaykh Muhyi ad-Din Abu ‘Abdullah Muhammad ibn ‘Ali ibn ‘Arabi (q.s.) was, perhaps, the one who articulated this best.  Imam Ahmad al-Faruqi ibn ‘Abd al-Ahad as-Sirhindi (q.s.) also had a similar position. 

Brother Sri Nahar: Regarding “God is Jesus”; if by “Jesus”, we refer to the human nature of the Son of Mary, then God is not Jesus. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: God is not Jesus (a.s.) in any nature. 

Brother Sri Nahar: The reason given for the statement that God is not Jesus is that the Creator is distinct from His Creation.  From the reason provided, it would seem that by “Jesus”, one is referring to the human nature of the person who is identified as the Son of Mary.  Trinitarians would agree that the Divine Nature is not human and never was and will never be.  This is a truism, and is like saying that the soul is not the body. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I refer you to the Nicene Creed: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.” 

And the Athanasian Creed: “That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence.  For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost.  But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal.  Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost.  The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated.  The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited.  The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal.” 

Brother Sri Nahar: I do not see the problem with the Nicene Creed.  It does not conflate the Divine nature with the human nature of Christ.  What is affirmed is that the person Who is called Jesus Christ is the same person Who is the Logos.  But it does not follow from this that because Jesus and the Logos are one person, the human and Divine natures are not differentiated.  To put it very simply, nature does not equate with person. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The Nicene Creed is actually the Creed of the Council of Constantinople, where they edited it to further reject Arianism.  The Athanasian Creed came into the form we know at the Council of Chalcedon. 

In essence, the two creeds were formulated to reject the Arian theology that Jesus (a.s.) was not Divine, created, limited and an intercessor for the First Cause.  Both creeds state that Jesus (a.s.) shares the Attribute of God, and rejects the Monophysite position that he is of human nature. Catholicism, and by extension, Pauline Christianity, states that Jesus (a.s.) is perfect god and perfect man.  There is no distinctiveness in his dual natures since they are, in reality, one nature.  Coming back to a Muslim perspective, Jesus (a.s.) is not and never was “God”. 

Brother Sri Nahar: If by Jesus, you mean the human nature of the Son of Mary, that is not and was never God, that is something we can agree with.  But the point I am making is that the person Who was called Jesus is the same person Who is the Logos.  The identity is one of personality, not natures. 

You wrote, “Catholicism, and by extension, Pauline Christianity, states that Jesus (a.s.) is perfect god and perfect man.  There is no distinctiveness in his dual natures since they are, in reality, one nature.”  I cannot comment about Catholicism, but in Eastern Orthodoxy, it is stressed emphatically that the there are two natures in Christ and that these two are quite distinct - even to the point of saying that Christ has two wills. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: That is a different contention than what you have above, then.  Now, the question we have to consider is what exactly is the Logos.  Even John 1:1 is quite unclear: 

John 1:1

¹ At the beginning of time the Word already was; and God had the Word Abiding with Him, and the Word was God. 

¹ Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 

¹ In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. 

Some assume it to be Jesus (a.s.).  The Samosatenes, the Arians, the Exucontians, and others assume otherwise.  You are confusing the Nestorian belief with all of Eastern Orthodoxy here.  They are distinct.  The Nestorian position is a via media between Pauline Christianity and Arianism.  Nestorianism was refuted and made anathema at Chalcedon and Ephesus. 

Brother Sri Nahar: I am not confusing Nestorianism with Eastern Orthodoxy at all.  I am simply stating what Eastern Orthodoxy teaches.  Eastern Orthodoxy explicitly teaches dyophysitism, that there are two natures in Christ; and also, dyotheletism, that there are two wills in Christ. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the Nicene and Athanasian creeds, although the latter is not in common use.  The official position of the Eastern Orthodox is not dyophysite - that is Nestorian.  In Christology, they are miaphysites.  The hypostasis was established at Chalcedon. 

Brother Sri Nahar: Miaphysitism is the position of the Oriental Orthodox, not of Eastern Orthodoxy as a whole.  From the Orthodox Wiki: Miaphysitism, sometimes called henophysitism, is the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.  Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and humanity are united in one “physis”, “nature”, the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. 

Also, from the Orthodox Wiki: “The Council of Chalcedon is often seen as a watershed for Christology, as it adopted dyophysitism.  However, as large portions of the Church in Syria and Egypt, who held to miaphysitism, rejected the decision, the controversy became a major socio-political problem for the Byzantine Empire.  There were numerous attempts at reunion between the two camps, including the Henoticon in 482 CE, and the balance of power shifted several times.  However, the decision at Chalcedon remains the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and traditional Protestants.  The non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches are usually grouped together as Oriental Orthodox.  Over recent decades, leaders of the various branches of the Church have spoken about the differences between their respective Christologies as not being as extreme as was traditionally held.” 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I checked, and I stand corrected.  The Oriental Orthodox rejected Chalcedon, not the Eastern Orthodox. 

In any case, going back to the original contention, it would be unbecoming for a monotheist to believe that God, the Unlimited, may become limited; in this case, the person of Jesus (a.s.).  Breaking it down, it becomes theologically problematic since it supposes that Jesus (a.s.) shares the Attribute of Existing, instead of reflecting it. 

Brother Sri Nahar: There is no Orthodox Trinitarian who believes that the Divine Nature changes into something which is limited. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I agree that no Trinitarian says so, but that does not make it so, does it?  How is this theologically possible unless there is a variant understanding of Divine Nature. 

Brother Sri Nahar: How is what not theologically possible?  The participation of a human nature in the energies of the Divine Nature in the maximum possible way? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: How does an Unlimited God becoming limited to a particular vessel of Creation?  He does not, so the Christians say that Jesus (a.s.) is uncreated, begotten not made, sharing the Substance and the Essence of God.  But consider this, God is Omniscient and Omnipresent because He is Unlimited and beyond limits. He is Absolute.  How can any vessel be absolute?  Can a thimble hold the ocean ten thousand times over? 

Christian theology on the Divine Nature is not well-thought-out, and has been reactive for two thousand years.  They had, at least, eleven major councils to address this, and they still have not.  God is not in need of anything in Creation. 

Brother Sri Nahar: Where is there a limitation?  Rather, there is a participation of a human nature in the energies of the Divine nature.  A human nature is supernaturally elevated, but in doing so, the Divine nature is by no means diminished. 

Jesus qua His Divine nature as the Logos is begotten, homo ousios, not qua human nature.  The vessel you refer to is the human nature of Jesus, and that vessel is by no means absolute. 

Can a thimble hold the ocean ten thousand times over?  No, but that thimble can swim in the ocean in a way greater than all other thimbles. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The limitation in the first is human belief that God in His Absoluteness can be limited to a vessel.  This supposes that the vessel shares in the Divine Attributes, particularly the attribute of existence.  Only God Exists, and Creation is Reflection of the Divine.  Creation does not exist alongside God.  That would be duality.  So, how does Jesus (a.s.) then become perfect god and perfect man?  Does perfection require food and drink, to sleep and defecate? 

Brother Sri Nahar: Again, we do not believe that the Divine nature is limited by the Incarnation.  Your analogy of the thimble holding the ocean is flawed, and I think I would make myself clearer if I turned it on its head - it is not the case that the thimble contains the ocean, but that the thimble swims in the ocean in a way no other thimble can. 

You said, “Creation does not exist alongside God.”  You mean it does not exist in the way God does?  I agree, for God is Pure Act, but Creation is a mixture of potency and act. 

Jesus qua human nature is the perfect man - as is, He is everything a human should be.  Jesus qua Divine Nature has all the infinite perfections of God. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: This is the problem here: “Jesus qua Divine Nature has all the infinite perfections of God.”  Infinite Perfection means to be unlimited. God is Omnipotent; Jesus (a.s.) is not. God is Omniscient; Jesus (a.s.) is not. God is Omnipresent; Jesus (a.s.) is not. 

Brother Sri Nahar: If you mean the human nature of Jesus is not omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent; that, I concede. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The divine nature of Jesus (a.s.) cannot be Omnipresent either; he has a body. 

Brother Sri Nahar: Being a body is predicated of the human nature of Jesus.  The Divine nature is non-local. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: How does that work rationally, brother? 

Brother Sri Nahar: The commonly given analogy is that of how the human soul, which is immaterial, and non-local, is united to the human body, which is material, and therefore local.  Similarly, the Divine nature is united to the human nature. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The human soul, not the entirety of the Divine.  For Jesus (a.s.) to be “Perfect God”, he must have the entirety of Perfection.  Partial “perfection” is imperfection. 

Brother Sri Nahar: Jesus qua His Divine nature has all perfections. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Perfection also means Absoluteness.  God is neither tall nor short, fat nor thin, male nor female.  God is Omnipresent; Jesus (a.s.) is not.  So, no, he cannot be perfect. 

Brother Sri Nahar: Again, what you refer to as “Jesus”, we refer to as the human nature of Jesus. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: That is a false dichotomy.  Are we implying that Jesus (a.s.) is possessed by God?  If Jesus (a.s.) is Perfect God, what makes him perfect?  We know from the Gospels that He refers to the Father in the third person, and is shown to explicitly seek the Father’s Approval or Permission.  Does that mean God is schizophrenic?  That cannot be. 

Brother Sri Nahar: No, just as we do not imply that the body is possessed by the soul. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: This is becoming circular.  The soul is not all of God.  Now, if Jesus (a.s.) is perfect man, does he have a soul?  Because is man a soul or a body, or both from a Christian theological perspective, both?  So, if Jesus (a.s.) has a soul, does He have two souls, or does God replace that soul with Him, so, in effect, God is a soul.  That means God is somehow definable from a human experience, and by extension, limited. 

Brother Sri Nahar: No.  What I was saying is that the relation between the Divine and human natures of Christ is analogous to that of the relation between the body and the soul.  Man is a person.  He has a soul, and he has a body.  Similarly, Jesus is a person, and has the Divine nature and a human nature and in His human nature has a human soul. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: In Islam and Judaism, we understand that a person is the soul, and the body is for this temporal reality.  It lives and it dies, and is discarded.  The soul lives on and is Resurrected.  If man is a person, is that person a sum of the body and soul, or is that person a soul?  If we accept that fallacy of a Perfect God and Perfect Man, it gets all tangled up and not only is it theologically unsound, it is also rationally impossible.  And that is why they call it part of that Divine Mystery. 

Brother Sri Nahar: If you accept a Cartesian metaphysics, then yes.  But Christianity need not accept that metaphysics.  Is that person a sum of the body and soul?  Yes, there is nothing rationally impossible in this.  The Divine Mystery is regarding the nature of God, for God can never be understood in terms of His Essence, but only in terms of His Energies. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: I do not accept Cartesian thought.  As pointed out previously, cogito ergo sum is inadequate and makes leaps of logic.  Just because we think, does not mean we exist.  We can only surmise that thoughts exist. 

God is not understood in terms of His Essence, since that is beyond our conception.  We agree.  He is understood in terms of His Attributes.  I do not what you mean by His “Energies”. 

Brother Sri Nahar: If by Attributes, you mean predicates such as Infinite Knowledge, Infinite Love, Infinite Power, Immutability, Self-Existence et al, then I agree, but I would also emphasise that these predicates are applied only analogically to God.  God’s Energies are His Activities, to be specific, the Exercise of His Powers within the Created realm. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: You mean His Will, then.  An understanding of the exercise of Divine Will requires knowledge, since the Divine Intent is not always apparent.  That is because our vision is limited to the extent that we pay attention and the limits of being Created, whereas He is Unlimited. 

Brother Sri Nahar: Specifically, the exercise of the Will of God, yes. 

Brother David W Roesler: Your interpretation puts limits to a Limitless Bing.  If God is Infinite and All Powerful, He could Do anything, including Manifesting as a mortal human being. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Your interpretation means that a limitless being can be limited.  This means that God is not limitless in the first place. 

Brother David W Roesler: No, it does not; it just means that an All-Powerful, Limitless Being could intentionally divest Itself of Its Infinite Nature to experience limits, and interact with mortal beings.  Any creature can, if it wants, limit itself.  Take a person who wants to abandon the hustle and bustle of urban life and go back to nature, living off the power grid to experience life as people did before modern conveniences.  A person has the choice to return to civilisation at any time, but he prefers the simplicity of life in the wild, at least for the moment.  God could do the same, inhabiting a mortal body to experience limitations with the proviso that at any moment he could discard and reclaim His Infinite Nature. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Your similitude is inadequate.  It presupposes that Creation has an independent existence from God, that it can be god in a limited sense.  That is mushkil, impossible.  Your example also presupposes that Creation sustains itself. 

A better similitude would be to consider the mirror and person.  The image in the mirror that seems to have all the attributes of the person, the object of interest; it is alive, it moves, it sees, it speaks, it hears and so forth.  But the image has no independent reality.  So too, Creation is the mirror of Divine Attributes. It has no independent reality.  So, how can something that has no independent reality contain al-Haqq, the Reality? 

And if God “lives off the grid”, then what happens to Creation?  That is one of the problems with the Crucifixion.  If Jesus (a.s.) is God, and Jesus (a.s.) died, did 'God' die?  If God died, the Who Sustained Creation? 

Brother David W Roesler: A limitless being could and by necessity be a multiplicity of natures and identities.  It could for example be in two places at once, do two or more things at once or be a multiplicity of beings at once.  Just like a computer can solve an enormous amount of problems at the same time, so can God, an Infinite Being, do and be more than one thing at a time.  Does God need to Maintain Creation after it has been Created?  We create a car that we can inhabit and drive in, so why can God not do the same?  A car does need maintenance, but not all the time, so why can Creation not be the same, needing a tune up once in a while but not constant supervision? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: You still do not understand: the car, the world, the universe, all Creation, does not exist.  Please refer to my similitude of the mirror above. 

Brother David W Roesler: By your definition of Creation, and, by inference, Islamic definition of Creation.  A philosophical definition I once heard was I think, therefore I exist.  The problem is our different concept of the relationship between the Created and its Creator.  Are we a sub-programme of an infinite computer which created a programme like some ultra-elaborate video game?  If so, the operator can interact with the game by activating its avatar in the game, just as we do in virtual reality programmes.  Or, is Creation a separate reality with its own existence that can be entered and experienced by its Creator, just as we can build a house and move in and inhabit it.  Either way, the infinite computer or the infinite being can enter its own Creation.  Even your mirror example allows the interaction of the real subject through his reflection with in the mirror world.  His reflected image is his avatar in the mirror world, and moves and interacts in that world as he wishes. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: René Descartes said, “Cogito ergo sum”, which has been translated into the pithy statement, “I think, therefore I am.”  However, there are many issues with this.  I like Dr. Soren Aabye Kierkegaard’s refutation: “X” thinks; I am that “x”.  Therefore, I think.  Therefore, I am. 

In summary, “I think; therefore, thoughts exist,” and this “I” is a vessel of those thoughts.  If we break down your contentions, then it becomes clear that they are based on certain suppositions that are alien to monotheism.  If God is all, there can be nothing but God, laa ilaha illa Allah.  If God were a circle, then nothing exists outside this absolute circle.  Creation cannot have its own “circle”. 

Brother David W Roesler: I could understand Jesus as being a kind of probe or extension of God’s Perception into mortality.  Like, mankind sends extensions of its perceptions to explore other planets or the deep sea.  He could also be considered the tip of an octopus’ tentacle.  In this way, we could accept that the man Jesus is mortal but the motivating force behind the man is Infinite.  God perceives the limited nature of man through its probe but does not subject himself to its limited nature. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: That would imply that God does not know something, precluding Him from being Omniscient. 

Brother David W Roesler: It would allow God to Interact with Creation on a direct level, like scientists manipulating bacteria on a slide through a microscope and mechanical probe.  By assuming human form, in a probe, it allows God to interact with Creation in an intimate non-intrusive manner with its subjects.  It can use subtle methods of influencing human behaviour, such as examples of kindness, mercy and benevolence instead of wrath and judgement. 

Additionally, God appears to men a number of times in the Old Testament as a man.  Does Islam disregard these interactions and consider them false? 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: Islam considers any form of an anthropomorphic “god” as false.  In the Old Testament, it was not God Who appeared, but His Manifestation, such as the burning bush, or His emissaries, such as the apocryphal story of Metatron. 

God is not in need of “manipulation” since that would infer that our will contends with His Will.  His Iradat, His Will, is Manifest, and He does as He Wills. His Decree is Paramount.  Anything other than that would mean a God Who is not Omnipotent. 

Brother Sri Nahar: What Brother David is describing is called a Theophany.  The visible appearance of the glory of God in a form that humans can perceive is just that - an appearance, and is not reality. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: The technical term for theophany, in Islamic theology, is “tajalli”; I prefer to translate it as “Manifestation”. 

Brother David W Roesler: Since God has Given man free will, He must, by necessity, use dialogue with mankind to Guide us.  While prophets are invaluable, direct interaction is even better.  Like a politician who endears himself by interacting with his followers by kissing babies and shaking hands, nothing works better than direct interaction with your constituency. 

Brother Terence Helikaon Nunis: That is far too anthropomorphic an understanding for my taste.