Muslims and God

[Lukaris]

These opinions that say this group or that group somehow worships the same God: The Father, Son, & Holy Spirit; the God of Abraham, Isaac, & Jacob when they do not are troubling. Our Lord has called us to preach His Gospel even if just in prayer for it to be proclaimed (Matthew 9:36-38). The commands to love God & neighbor & to treat others as we would want to be within the Gospel provide us also with understanding that while sinning humanity is condemned, we are to realize that any individual can also be virtuous & blessed in the eyes of the Lord (hence, the Beatitudes in Matthew 5:1-12). From this we are told to not judge our neighbor; there is no acceptance of errant belief systems although any evident virtues they display should be discerned (Philippians 4:8).

As far as the "religion of peace", there is formal rejection of God in Whom we worship:

Gross Blasphemy

[5:17] Pagans indeed are those who say that GOD is the Messiah, the son of Mary. Say, "Who could oppose GOD if He willed to annihilate the Messiah, son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?" To GOD belongs the sovereignty of the heavens and the earth, and everything between them. He creates whatever He wills. GOD is Omnipotent.



http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch5.html


Blasphemies

[9:30] The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.

http://www.masjidtucson.org/quran/noframes/ch9.html


Truly, many virtuous people are within the"religion o peace" but it formally denies God Whom we worship. I do not know of another faith that formally declares this. It is interesting that in his work: The Abolition of Man, C.S. Lewis mentions a common moral code within religions & philosophies of some polytheists, Hindus, Confucius, pagan Greek & Roman philosophers, Judaism, Christianity etc. but no mention of the "religion of peace".

 

[Kristos]

Excuse me, but i feel like I have to ask: 'Do you know any muslims?' or 'Have you studied Islam?' If not, than how can you make these statements?
(Anyways, studying Islam is a better reference, because as we know, unfortunately some muslims misinterpret the Qu'ran and the Sunnah)

Yes and Yes.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

except that Jesus was not a mere Prophet, He is God. God dictated His will as He is.

Indeed. And interesting to see how Jesus, even as God, was still the fulfillment of what the Prophets had said and seen as the Last Great Prophet - it's why they compared him to Elijah and he replicated the same miracles (i.e. mass feedings, transforming water, raising the dead, etc.) when seeing him work not realizing he was more than just another prophet.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Indeed. And interesting to see how Jesus, even as God, was still the fulfillment of what the Prophets had said and seen as the Last Great Prophet - it's why they compared him to Elijah and he replicated the same miracles (i.e. mass feedings, transforming water, raising the dead, etc.) when seeing him work not realizing he was more than just another prophet.

yes, He is the Prophet like unto Moses that Moses predicted

 

[E.C.]

Do Muslims worship God? Or do they worship a man made God?

Need citations and sources.

The RCC says they are the same God, but I'm of the opposite opinion.

We can only say that they worship God because of simple linguistics. Allah is Arabic for God (note the big G) regardless if the Arab in question is Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Druze, Manichaein, Alawite, or, Yazidi.

But, they do not worship the same God as Christians. We worship God the Holy Trinity. God the Father is known in the Old Testament as being the God of Isaac, the God of Moses, etc etc. Muslims will claim their lineage from Ishmael. The God of Ishmael is not the same God as the God of Isaac or else they'd say they worship the God of Isaac and Ishmael; not just the God of Ishmael. If they were worshipping the wrong God back then then how could they worship the correct God now without knowing Him through Christ?

 

[Cappadocious]

The Jews worship God and they don't accept the Trinity either.

Only Christians worship him in Spirit and Truth.

This innovation of declaring that muslims and jews worship a different God, interesting recent innovation it is. The teat of the Turkokratia sustains us even today.

 

[Wgw]

The Koran has absolutely no knowledge of the doctrine of the Trinity or even the New Testament. The Koran believes Christians hold God the Father as a third subordinate God and hold to Jesus and Mary as two other deities.
Even St John of Damascus got it wrong as he believed the reference to "a holy spirit from him" ( referenced in the koran) refered to the Holy Spirit, in reality it's just a description of the angel Gabriel whom God sends to reveal his message to the prophets.

It's still baffling as to how the Koran came to believe Christians thought of Mary as a god. They try to pin it on an obscure statement by St Epiphanius on some heretical custom where some women baked a bread in honor of the Virgin Mary. First off this group was not a sect, no evidence that they worshipped Mary, we're a small group of christian wonen, and they didn't exist in Saudi arabia.

The Collyridians, I assume?

 

[Wgw]

Excuse me, but i feel like I have to ask: 'Do you know any muslims?' or 'Have you studied Islam?' If not, than how can you make these statements?
(Anyways, studying Islam is a better reference, because as we know, unfortunately some muslims misinterpret the Qu'ran and the Sunnah)

On this point, as a simple reference, I know Muslims, have Muslim friends and indeed was best man at an Islamic wedding; I have studied Islam, and I can say that what Kristos said is quite accurate.

I have no beef with Muslims, by the way; I obkect to aspects of their religion, although I enjoy studying it, and am sympathetic to much of it.

Do Muslims worship God? Or do they worship a man made God?

Need citations and sources.

The RCC says they are the same God, but I'm of the opposite opinion.

I myself regard the Islamic conception of God as ontologically different from the Orthodox Christian conception of God. Muslims intend to worship one God, however, I believe, at the risk of sounding extremely harsh indeed, that they understand God in such a distorted way that many, for example, the members of the Daesh death cult and their sympathizers, have unwittingly been deceived into engaging in what amounts to diabolatry or kaikodaimonolatry. This it should be noted is a private theologoumenon, or if you prefer, heresiologoumenon, although I have frequently encountered this view in Orthodox circles.

Now, there is a long history of EO and OO Patristic critiques of Islam. St. John of Damascus wrote one of the most poignant in his Fountain of Knowledge (subsection Concerning Heresies). You can find the specific section easily enough on Orthodoxinfo; however, I suggest downloading the entire work from archive,org as the Orthodox typology of heresy we see first articulated by St. Epiphanius of Salamis in the Panarion, and then restated by the august Damascene saint, is very helpful in grasping the specific heresiological critique.

Also St. John is by no means an unenjoyable author to read; a friend of mine from an Orthodox forum likes to say "There is nothing St. John of Damascus can't answer."

 

[buzuxi02]

Ye Collyridians. From what I remember of the text, The saint had "heard" of a custom where some women from Thrace to Arabia( the roman part of arabia) would gather for some feast day and bake a bread for the Theotokos invoke some prayers over it and partake of it.
He never implied this was a sect or widespread. Said he heard of the practise from second hand source and never even condemned the piety behind it. He condemned the fact that the women took on the role of an ordained priest by invoking the prayers. And explained that from the OT to the (NT) church women were never ordained to act in the liturgical functions. It was simply a rare primitive artoklasia of some women of the church (not a sect) who baked a cake in honor of the theotokos.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The Jews worship God and they don't accept the Trinity either.

Only Christians worship him in Spirit and Truth.

This innovation of declaring that muslims and jews worship a different God, interesting recent innovation it is. The teat of the Turkokratia sustains us even today.

True...

 

[Gxg (G²)]

yes, He is the Prophet like unto Moses that Moses predicted

Indeed. I think this is indeed something MANY Muslims have understood well, although that aspect of Muslim culture (as it concerns Muslims noting directly Jesus is both the Messiah and SINLESS/GOD) is not well known to the West or easy to believe with so many variations). Some of this was discussed more in-depth elsewhere, as seen in Professor at Evangelical College suspended for saying Muslims and Christians have connection in God

For reference...
f

What I've seen is that the full understanding of who the Lord is (When it comes to the Trinune nature of the Lord which is simultaneously expressed in perfect unison/oneness) is that that Isa/Jesus will get His Word across. Here's one story of a believer in Christ in how he came to know the Lord:

That said, it is beautiful when seeing the ways that the Lord has worked through both Muslims and Christians to do amazing things in God's Kingdom.

​

On the issue, I was discussing this recently with another one of my good friends (who is Antiochian Orthodox and lives in PA) and found it fascinating to consider the work they have done/were doing there, prior to the war in Syria before Father Paolo Dall'Oglio was kidnapped years ago and is now considered dead. For most of its history it belonged to the Syrian Orthodox Church but was eventually deserted until Fr. Paolo came and was able to see it rebuilt/got permission to make it into a place of prayer again. Amazing that both Muslims and Christians come to this place seeking refuge and place of prayer - and the Lord works amazing miracles/grace regardless.

As said best elsewhere:

-"Mar Moussa el-Habashi is actually three different buildings. The central monastery is the oldest structure and parts of it date to the 6th Century, although the bulk is 14th Century. The two buildings to either side of the monastery, a nunnery and a visitors’ lodge respectively, are more obviously modern and were built in the years since the monastery was resurrected.

Abandoned sometime after 1830, when it changed from Syrian Orthodox to Syrian Catholic hands, Mar Moussa owes its current existence to Father Paolo Dall’Oglio, an Italian Jesuit, who first began visiting in the 1980’s when it was little more than a shell.

Determined to revive its fortunes, the Father began rebuilding in 1984, working on the site each summer until 1990, when he felt able to move in with a small community of monks, nuns and lay-helpers.

Work has continued ever since, most notably on the 14th century church murals, which were painstakingly restored over the course of 12 years by a joint Syrian-Italian team. Basking in their rich colours, it is hard to imagine that only a few years ago, the frescoes were on the verge of disappearing completely, badly damaged by the elements and overly zealous visitors, who felt compelled to scratch out the eyes or the faces of the saints in the name of religious ‘propriety’." ( http://www.singhbartlett.com/news/2014/10/14/deir-mar-musa )​

Outside of that, there's another book I am reminded of that actually covered some of the things done ....it is by William Dalrymple

​

This is really an issue about if we worship the same God or not (clearly Wheaton thinks we do not) and there are a few other current threads going right now with a similar topic. To me this is an issue of the heart rather than a theological issue. Theologically speaking God and Allah are different if we are to look at their characteristics that are revealed to us through the Bible/Quran. Soteriologically speaking we are different and salvation cannot be obtain by following the teachings of Islam/Quran but instead it is only through Christ.

That part is clear yet there are many Muslims worshiping and following Christ in countries that persecute them for this that continue to call themselves Muslim and continue to worship Allah and continue to answer the call to prayer. They are not on the fence on who they worship but rather to them they have always worshiped the one true God with all their heart, soul and mind they just now do it in truth rather than blindly. When I see a true follower of Jesus say these things I have no right to argue.

God is faithful....and for Muslims who follow Isa Al-Masih, it is always a matter of God's faithfulness being the center issue.

Bektashi Muslims praying at Saint Nicholas Orthodox Church in Brod, Macedonia....with Bektashi Muslims having a very interesting relationship with Orthodox Christians (specifically with the Macedonian Orthodox Church and how it operates in many of the unique ways that it does)



L-R: Coptic Orthodox priests prostrating. Muslim men prostrating.

​

Indeed. For Muslims worshiping Isa/Christ and seeking the Lord, it is significant that they worship in fullness what they were seeking out previously in blindness - although I'd also say that God will never be dishonored by any Muslim doing righteousness in their living and that is always a part of the path of salvation even before becoming aware of Christ.

And as I've said before elsewhere, people sitting back merely critiquing anyone in Islam with "They don't serve the same God as I do!!!!" actually fall into the category of failing to understand the IMMENSE Mercy and LOVE of God when it comes to seeing what the Lord felt on the lost and the ways he has ALWAYS acknowledged others coming to Him. God said he was honored by people just as he was by the Christians who knew him fully) or we make the scriptures/God's Word false - and just as the Lord worked with Cornelius and others, he can work fully with Muslims. It is what it is and I'm glad for others coming to Christ and sharing why

Cornelius was a faithful follower of God based on what he had learned from his exposure to Judaism - and based on what he did know of God, he was faithful to obey and follow that and the Lord took care of the rest. And indeed, there are Pious Muslims whom God hears in their prayers and this is something we have to address:

• Understanding and Using the Bible: - Page 112
• Israel's Gone Global: Exploring Salvation
• A History of Christian-Muslim Relations
• Borderless Blogging: On Muslims Coming to Christ
• Borderless Blogging: Hare Jesus, Hare Jesus: Answering a Critic
• Encountering Theology of Mission: Biblical Foundations

​

Acts 10
Cornelius Sends a Delegation
10 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of what was called the Italian Regiment, 2 a devout man and one who feared God with all his household, who gave alms generously to the people, and prayed to God always. 3 About the ninth hour of the day he saw clearly in a vision an angel of God coming in and saying to him, “Cornelius!”

4 And when he observed him, he was afraid, and said, “What is it, lord?”

So he said to him, “Your prayers and your alms have come up for a memorial before God. 5 Now send men to Joppa, and send for Simon whose surname is Peter. 6 He is lodging with Simon, a tanner, whose house is by the sea. He will tell you what you must do.”
​

For more info, Islamic tradition - as it concerns what's often seen today in many places - does deny Christ was crucified. Although the time period makes a difference in light of how tradition will vary based on the age one lives in.....and what's understood based on a tradition will vary as well. How others understood a majority view to be in the times of the Early Body of Christ when Islam was developing (as in the time of St. John of Damascus) is different than how many in the majority understand a text/concept to be - and in the time of the Early Church, it was never the case that Islamic tradition was understood in the majority to mean that Christ was never crucified. They knew what the language of the Quran was about and didn't respond as many camps today do...

And there's a difference between Qu'ranic Islam vs Cultural Islam, just as there's a difference between Biblical/Textual Christianity and Cultural Christianity. Others are often unaware of the difference and thus they ignore what others have already said.

There was an excellent article on the issue I'd highly recommend entitled The Crucifixion in Shi'a Isma'ili Islam - The Matheson Trust | For and Antioch Believer!: What does the Quran say about Jesus death?

Islam is indeed Monotheist - as is Judaism - although I'd note that it really is best to understand what it holds to as Radical Monotheism. But it does not preclude from trusting in Christ alone (as it concerns His Divinity and Salvation) to be for Him. ..and it's always a blessing dealing with what other Muslims have lived out...and continue to live out daily in regards to worship of Isa Al Masih. There are other places to keep in mind as well.

And there are already plenty of Muslims (or Muslim Background Believers) who've spoken on the issue in the community with regards to trusting Isa for salvation. In example, One of the most prominent voices I've seen on the issue is Professor Faouzi Arzouni’ , who grew up within Islam and has noted repeatedly what his experiences were like coming to see Isa Al Masih (more shared in Faouzi Arzouni - Qur'an-Bible Comparison )

....................................

We can start with St. John of Damascus, Griffith, S.H, Abdul Saleeb, Tafsir Ibn 'Abbas, Brother Andrew & Al Janssen / Revell , Abd al-Masih, Paul-Gordan Chandler, Farhan Qureshi

We can also address Abdullah Saeed (as it concerns comparing the modern trend of Muslim followers of Isa to the first-century Jews who also put their trust in the Messiah) from “The Charge of Distortion of Jewish and Christian Scriptures.” (The Muslim World, vol. 92:3-4 Fall, 419-436)...or *Arberry A.J. of The Koran Interpreted – A Translation. New York: Touchstone –....as well as Fouad Elias Accad of Building Bridges – Christianity and Islam.

“First-Century Jews and Twentieth-Century Muslims.” (International Journal of Frontier Missions, vol. 17:1 Spring, 33-39)...as well as Keith E. Swartley (of the book "Building Bridges").....and, of course,
Kenneth Cragg of "Jesus & the Muslim—An Exploration" ( investigation of the relationship between Islam and Christianity as seen through the examples of the life of Syrian novelist Mazhar Mallouhi, a self-described “Sufi Muslim follower of Christ.” )....and Nabeel Qureshi (who has worked with other scholars such as Ravi Zacharias and others who grew up in the Muslim world in the Orthodox camps of Islam) - and "The Moslem Christ – An Essay on the Life, Character, and Teachings of Jesus Christ According to the Koran and Orthodox Traditions" by Samuel M. Zwemer (made in 1912)

At the end of the day, we have to always keep God's Mercy in mind when it comes to how He interacts with others.

As it is, the claim that Muslims do not believe in the Divinity of Christ always seems to come up from many and it's something that I think shows GREAT ignorance of what is actually said in Islam.

In regards to the diversity of Muslims as it concerns worship/who is the focus, I think it's worth noting how there are and have always been many Muslims/Muslim camps that have actually advocated this concept when it comes to seeing what is stated directly within the Quran with the Divinity of Christ and others who worship Him - some of this discussed more in the thread entitled Trinitarian Monotheism?

There's actually one camp of Muslims that many are not aware of called the Isawa Isa al-Masih (ee-sah ahl-mah-seeh) – Jesus the Messiah. ... (disciples of Isa) – a sect of Islam in northern Nigeria which exalts Jesus (Isa)...also called the Hausa Muslims - more discussed on them by scholar Mallam Ibrahim in the Encyclopedia of Islamic Civilization and Religion (by Ian Richard Netton ) and My Neighbour's Faith: Islam Explained for African Christians .

..............................

There are many others besides this - with the issue of Christ as Divine not being something they have any issue with seeing within the text of the Quran itself. A lot of folks encounter Islam on a very surface level alone, not even aware of how others such as St. John of Damascus and other great Christian scholars of the Early Church interacted with Islam (when Islam in its beginning stages was called “the heresy of the Ishmaelites ).

As it concerns Muslims and Salvation, how one walks makes a difference and the Lord always spoke highly of those who love justice, walking in mercy and walk rightly. As C.S Lewis noted best, "Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him. But in the meantime, if you are worried about the people outside, the most unreasonable thing you can do is remain outside yourself. Christians are Christ’s body, the organism through which He works. Every addition to that body enables Him to do more. If you want to help those outside you must add your little cell to the body of Christ who alone can help them. Cutting off a man’s fingers would be an odd way of getting him to do more. (pg. 64)

I agree...

But again, there are many variations of Islam and we need to understand it from the perspective of what the Qu'ran actually says - and be honorable rather than looking at extremes. Some of this has been noted before more in-depth,

One, it may be unintentional. But saying "current, recognized Muslim scholars" tends to assume a scholar must note something in order for it to true - although there are limits to that since that dynamic also occurred in other points of history when the scholarship claimed the Bible/Scriptures promoted the ideology that kidnapping/trafficking of slaves was perfectly acceptable according to the NT while the people in chains (or the abolitionists) were the ones actually reading the text radically different for centuries. There's a dynamic that's always necessary to consider with regards to not advocating on any theological front theologians in ivory towers" since that goes counter to the dynamic of actually addressing Muslim communities (the grassroots/Indigenous) when it comes to what they've noted on the Qu'ran. If serious on seeing what other Muslims have said, I always go with what I've seen others do locally when it comes to reading the Qu'ran/easily seeing the Trinity within it since there's always politics with scholarship and "who has the mic", so to speak, when it comes to certain schools of thought within the Islamic world that get more promotion than others. And on what other Muslims/others from Muslim communities have said when advocating for the Trinity (when also noting how Christians can appreciate the Qur’an namely, as an indirect and incomplete affirmation of the divinity of Christ), this has been brought up before here:

• Wednesday at 1:23 PM#6
• Wednesday at 7:05 PM#21
• Wednesday at 7:42 PM#26
• Wednesday at 8:06 PM#27
• Wednesday at 9:23 PM#33
• Yesterday at 2:51 PM#41
• Yesterday at 3:17 PM#42

Thankful for others noting that reading of the passages within the Qu'ran passages (Surah 2 :254, 19 :20-21, 5:10, 3:43 and 5:110, 3:49 and 5:110, 3:45 and 4:171, 4:171 and 4:158 ) as an embryonic witness to the power and divinity of Christ. According to Giulio Basetti-Sani, the Qur’an contains “the germs of the Christian teaching on the divinity of Christ” which “could not have been understood in their full meaning either by Mohammed or by his audience.” What is proposed is a Christian reading of the Qur’an which can disclose certain signs that point to the mystery of Christ. Just as Christians have read the Old Testament in the light of Christ, so also can the Qur’an be read in the light of Christ. Christians can understand the Qur’an as a revelation given to the polytheistic Arabs of Muhammad’s day to move them towards acceptance of God’s unity, transcendence and moral guidance

Two, as it concerns the scholarship, there are several scholars who have spoken on the issue.

Before going further on that one, it should be noted how even those outright resisting the Trinitarian concept have a nuance and this needs to be understood. While some clearly rejects the traditional orthodox understanding of the Trinity, they are willing to speculate that Islam could accept an interpretation of the Trinity “which would consider the persons of the Trinity to be “aspects” or “Names” of God standing below His Essence which, being the Absolute, must be One without condition and above all relations" (as was the case with Seyyed Hossein Nasr, of the work “The Islamic View of Christianity,” in Christianity through Non-Christian Eyes ... who was educated in the United States and has served as Professor of Islamic Studies at George Washington University). Essentially, what was advocated was that others in Islam had no issue with various Trinitarian formulations advocated if they were of the kind that actually came to be understood as inadequate(such as Sabellian modalism and Subordinationism).

Of course, for those Muslims in the Mystical side of Islam, the concept of the Trinity is definitely less of a problem. In example, as it concerns Sufi Islam/the esoteric Sufi traditions of Islam, it has been the case that a trinity is often evoked if only to proclaim its underlying unity. This can be seen in an early form expressed by the saint Bastami within two centuries of the beginnings of Islam:

"I am the wine-drinker and the wine and the cup-bearer. I came forth from Bayazid-ness as a snake from its skin. Then I looked and saw that lover, beloved, and love are one, for in the world of Unity all can be one." Sayings of Bayazid Bastami​

Others have pointed out often how the experiential tri-unity of Sufism comes so close to the Christian doctrine of the ontological Transcendetnal Trintiy in its economical aspect t..(and not surprising since Sufism is directly influenced by CHristian Monasticism). More can be said on the Trinune nature of the Divine and the analysis of Sufi Islam on the matter in books such as The Depth of the Riches: A Trinitarian Theology of Religious Ends by y S. Mark Heim

As it concerns further scholarship for today in the Muslim world, one of the best scholars around in Qu'ranic Studies would be Mun'im Sirry in Scriptural Polemics: The Qur'an and Other Religions. when it comes to reading the Qu'ran and understanding from the text who was being criticized since many read it without knowing the cultural or historical context (As it concerns, for example, knowing what was being condemned in the Qu'ran with regards to the Trinity since there were already version of the Trinity within Christianity that were condemned like claiming Mary was God/to be worshiped alongside God & Jesus or other versions....and this was exactly what Muhammad condemned as well when others fleeing the Byzantine Empire came bringing those views into Saudi Arabia).

....................

I'd highly recommend going through the work since Mun'im Sirry (from Indonesia) did an excellent job going through several other Muslim scholars who argued for how the concept of the Trinity can easily be seen as Monotheism within the Islamic framework. Edward Hulmes is another scholar noting the dynamics within the Muslim world...as he pointed out (as shared earlier) that the idea of Trinity attacked in the Qu'ran was the one claiming the Trinity was God, Jesus, and Mary...something that is NOT descriptive of Orthodox Christian ideology (as the third part of the Trinity is the Holy Spirit) and thus making it a false argument whenever Muslims from specific camps claim "Islam HATES Trinity thinking!!!" (ignorant sentiments not based on the actual text) or Christians claiming "Muslims HATE the Trinity!!!! (ignorant reactions based on not knowing what all Muslims have even said or acknowledging how there were already forms of Trinitarianism that the Early Christians condemned just as Muhammad did).

Besides him, One can also consider the work of Islamic scholar William Montgomery Watt (Emeritus Professor in Arabic and Islamic studies at the University of Edinburgh. Watt was one of the foremost non-Muslim interpreters of Islam in the West and HIGHLY revered by Muslims around the world), who has argued that the references addressing Trinitarian thinking as seen in verses 4:171, 5:73, and 5:116 they refer specifically to an "unorthodox notion of physical sonship". More specifically, he noted in Muhammad at Medina that "indeed, it is true that the doctrines refuted by the Qur'an, namely those of tritheism and of thephysical sonship of Jesus, are aberrations and not Christian orthodoxy." Also, As he noted:

"The rejection of the doctrne that 'God is one of three' (5.73/7) is usually taken to be a denial of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, yet strictly speaking what is rejected is a doctrine of tritheism which orthodox Christianity also rejects. Similarly, the rejection of the fatherhood of God the Father and the sonship of God the Son, is strictly speaking a rejection of fatherhood and sonship in a physical sense; and this Christianity would also reject."​

There's also Sidney H. Griffith's Christians and Christianity...(as well as The Church in the Shadow of the Mosque: Christians and Muslims in the World of Islam ) he notes in his work how Sura 5:73 has been seen as a potential criticism of Syriac literature describing Christ as "the third of three" - consequently meaning it was an attack on the idea that Christ was divine (which would go opposite of what Muhammad already said on Christ being the Spirit/Word of God and exalting the Messiah) and thus meaning that Sura 5:72–75 was really criticizing the idea that Jesus and God are the same rather than distinct.


Other books one could investigate on the issue would be works such as Bell's introduction to the Qurʼān - Page 158

More could be said on the issue. However, if going through what has been made available here, that's a good start. You may also appreciate the work of scholars such as Miroslav Volf in what he has noted whenever it comes to Islam.

.........................................

​

I appreciated what another noted when addressing the text of the Qu'ran and showing what it says - as they pointed out (for brief excerpt):

The Christian response takes on three dimensions: 1) the Qur’an does not reject the orthodox formulation of the Incarnation but only heterodox formulations which Christians also reject; 2) the Qur’an reflects the cultural understanding of the seventh century Semitic mind which found the doctrine of the Incarnation not only difficult to grasp but also offensive to a believer in monotheism; and 3) the Qur’an, in its own way, recognizes the special status and primacy of Christ, and in an ambiguous ways points to Jesus’ divinity.The first aspect of this response looks to see if in the Qur’an there is any evidence of the Christological formulations of the councils. After a careful study of the texts of the Qur’an that deal with the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Italian Islamicist Giulio Basetti-Sani concludes that the Qur’an condemns a tritheism that “has nothing to do with the formulation of the dogma of the Trinity.”Likewise, the Qur’an does not condemn “the doctrine of Chalcedon, but Monophysite and Nestorian formulations of the doctrine ... nowhere in the Koran is there a formulation of the orthodox doctrine (of Chalcedon and Constantinople) regarding the Incarnation.”

Beyond the absence of any orthodox formulations of the doctrine of the Incarnation, there are also passages in the Qur’an which reflect a culture-bound understanding of what is meant by being the Son of God. For example, when the Qur’an asks “How can He (God) have a son when He hath no consort?” (6:101), the implication is that God must beget a son by carnal relations. This, of course, is not how Christians understand either the eternal generation of the Son from the Father or the incarnation of the Word in the womb of the Virgin Mary. Such a statement, though, does make sense when understood within the context of pagan Arabia in which there was a belief in the three daughters of Allah: al-Lat, Manat, and al-Uzza.[89]

There are also various anthropomorphisms in the Qur’an that reflect the image of God as a princely figure sitting on a throne (7:54) who creates with two hands (38:75). There are likewise passages which have God swearing by the sky (surah 52), the dawn (surah 89) and the sun (surah 91). Awareness of these anthropomorphisms is employed by Paul of Antioch in his defense of the Incarnation and the Trinity. If Muslims accept the passages in the Qur’an that say God has “two eyes and hands, a face, a side, members and organs” and yet still hold to the unity and transcendence of God, so also can Christians acknowledge God as Father, Son and Spirit because these terms are found in the New Testament. Moreover, Christians interpret these terms in such a way that God is not conceived of as “composite persons with parts and divisions.” Likewise, “the Father and Son are not the fatherhood and sonship of marriage and begetting, of sexual union and intercourse.”

Christians of today can accept the warnings of the Qur’an as legitimate admonitions against tritheism and carnal conceptions of divine filiation. The great affirmation of God’s unity found in Surah 112 can he spoken of with equal faith by Christians as well as Muslims: “Say: He is God, the One and Only” (112:1). Likewise, Christians could appreciate the passage: “He begetteth not, nor is He begotten” (112:2) as referring to the eternal and undivided unity of the divine essence within the Trinity. Indeed, the concern of Surah 112 :2 is repeated almost verbatim by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) when it says: “essentia seu natura divina…non est generans, neque genita, nec procedeus” (the divine essence or nature is not generating, nor generated, nor proceeding) .

In the Qur’an 6:50 and 7:188, Muhammad confesses that he knows not “the Unseen” or the “Mystery” of God. From a Christian point of view, such an admission is significant because a mystery is understood to be something unknowable without divine revelation. A Christian, therefore, can accept the prophetic role of Muhammad as one who witnessed to the truth of monotheism and the day of judgment. The condemnations of the Trinity and the Incarnation can be appreciated by Christians as condemnations of deviant expressions of those doctrines....


There is still another way in which Christians can appreciate the Qur’an: namely, as an indirect and incomplete affirmation of the divinity of Christ. The French scholar Georges Tatar[92] has pointed to Surah 2 :254 (2 :253 in Yusef Ali’s translation) as an affirmation that God has endowed some apostles with gifts above others. This passage goes on to say that “to Jesus, the son of Mary, We gave clear signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit.” What are these gifts? Here we see that the Qur’an clearly affirms that Jesus was endowed with special qualities: the conception and birth to a virgin (19 :20-21) who is said to be exalted above all women (3 :42); the gift of speech from infancy (5 :110;19 :29); the ability to work miracles through God’s permission like curing the blind and leprous (5:10) and raising the dead (3:43 and 5:110). Only Jesus is given the privilege of participating in the uniquely divine activity of the insufflation of life (3:49 and 5:110). Jesus is also given the exalted titles of “Word of God” (3:45; 4:171) and “Spirit of God” (4:171), and Jesus is the only prophet who is explicitly declared to be “confirmed by the Holy Spirit” (2:87). Moreover, the Qur’an also states that Jesus was mysteriously raised up to God (4:158) and given special intimacy with God (3 :45 and 55).

There is a Christian way of reading of these passages as an embryonic witness to the power and divinity of Christ. According to Giulio Basetti-Sani, the Qur’an contains “the germs of the Christian teaching on the divinity of Christ” which “could not have been understood in their full meaning either by Mohammed or by his audience.” What is proposed is a Christian reading of the Qur’an which can disclose certain signs that point to the mystery of Christ. Just as Christians have read the Old Testament in the light of Christ, so also can the Qur’an be read in the light of Christ. Christians can understand the Qur’an as a revelation given to the polytheistic Arabs of Muhammad’s day to move them towards acceptance of God’s unity, transcendence and moral guidance.[95] Thus, in the Qur’an, Christians discern what Nicholas of Cusa called the radius lucidissimi Evangelii (a ray of the most luminous Gospel).
​

Additionally, as another said best in greater depth (for brief excerpt):

In the Arabic language, two terms are used to express the concept, “son of.” The first iswalad,35 which is used to describe offspring resulting from the sexual union of a male and female. The second word, ibn, can be used metaphorically. It is utilized to describe a close relationship between persons, or persons to things, without necessarily implying a physical paternal connection.36 For example, a traveler “… s spoken of as a son of the road” (ibnussabil).37 Yet, such a statement does not imply that a sexual relationship, resulting in a child, has occurred between a human being and the road.

Nearly every passage in the Qur’an that denies the sonship of Jesus Christ utilizes walad. The single reference that employs ibn to describe Christ‘s sonship is Surah 9:30; however, when taken in the context of the entire Surah, it is clear that the reference actually refers to physical sonship.38 Orthodox Christianity would only use the term ibn, in its metaphorical sense, to explain Christ’s relationship to the Father. Therefore, in Arabic the Scriptures call Christ ibnu’llah, not waladu’llah.

Some older english translations of the Bible utilized the most unhelpful formulation “only begotten.”39 The phrase translated in the King James Version as “only begotten Son” ismonogenes huios (μονογενης υιος). However, one should not take this in a literal, physically paternal sense. For instance, huios (son) has been used metaphorically throughout the New Testament. In Mark 3:17, James and John are referred to as “Sons (huios) of Thunder.” Furthermore, in Galatians 3:26 Paul writes that all believers are “Sons (huios) of God.” These references are clearly intended to be figurative. The translation of monogenes as “only begotten” is a result of the King James translators retaining Jerome’s Latin translation of the term, unigenitus, meaning “only begotten.” However, the Latin text existing prior to Jerome’s translation did not use the Latinunigenitus when describing God the Son; instead, it utilized the term unicus, meaning “only.”40

In order for the Greek manuscript to warrant the translation “only begotten,” the Greek term being translated would need to be monogennetos. To translate monogenes as “only begotten” is, without question, incorrect. Commenting on this mistranslation, James White noted that;

The key element to remember in deriving the meaning of monogenes is this: it is a compound term, combining monos, meaning only, with a second term. Often it is assumed that the second term is gennasthai/gennao, to give birth, to beget. But note that this family of terms has two nu’s, νν, rather than a single nu, ν, found inmonogenes. This indicates that the second term is not gennasthai butgignesthai/ginomai, and the noun form, genos.41

The term genos means “kind,” or “race.”42 When the two terms monos and genos are combined, the reference is intended to convey that Christ is “unique, the only one of his kind.”43 Additionally, William Mounce explains that monogenes can only be understood as stressing the unique nature of Christ; it cannot and should not be understood to imply any type of biological siring.44

This metaphorical understanding of sonship is demonstrated in the book of Hebrews. The author of Hebrews refers to Isaac as Abraham‘s “only begotten son.”45 Making use of the same term found in John 3:16 to describe the father-to-son relationship (monogenes), the author of Hebrews notes the unique nature of Isaac as the promised child from God. The Muslim reader will readily admit that Abraham had multiple children; therefore, the intent of the text is to stress that Isaac is Abraham’s unique son, not his only son.46 Craig Keener believes the use of the term monogenes in John 3:16 is intended to call to mind the traditional Hebrew understanding of Isaac. Just as Abraham gave Isaac, God the Father has not given merely a son but the unique, beloved Son with whom there is no comparison.47 In the same manner, Christ should be understood as the unique, one-of-a-kind, “Son of God.” Christ’s Hebrew contemporaries understood His claim to be the Son of God as an equation with God rather than a statement of biological origin. When Jesus was before Pilate the Jewish authorities charged, “We have a law, and by that law He ought to die because He made Himself out to be the Son of God.”48 Thus, His sonship declared His full deity, not a biological origination.

The text of Scripture further demonstrates that the Muslim notion of the New Testament portraying Christ as the biological Son of God is in error. The birth narrative in Luke’s Gospel makes no mention of natural conception resulting from a sexual union. After Gabriel informed Mary that she would carry a Son, she asked, “How can this be, since I am a virgin?”49 Gabriel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.”50 The narrative is completely devoid of any sexual interaction between God the Father and Mary; rather, the reader is informed that it is through the working of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived. Commenting on this fact, Wayne Grudem states, “Scripture clearly asserts that Jesus was conceived by a miraculous work of the Holy Spirit…”51 Thus, the text of both John’s and Luke’s Gospels depict Christ as uniquely, rather than biologically, the Son of God. Further, Christ is the Son of God not because of conception, but because of His economic relationship to the Father. Therefore, the Qur’an is not rebutting the text of Christian Scripture but is reacting against a misunderstanding of orthodox Christianity at best and more directly Arab paganism.
Does Allah have a Son?

Without question, the Qur’an denounces the idea of Allah fathering a son in the genetic sense. Interestingly, the Qur’an addresses Muhammad’s course of action pending the figurative establishment of Allah having a son. According to Surah 43:81, “Say: If the All-merciful [God] had a son, I would be the very first to worship [him].” Some Islamic commentators believe that in this passage Muhammad was stating that, if it could be proven that Allah had a son, he would be the very first to submit unto and worship him.52Commenting on Surah 43:81, Yusuf Ali states that, “The prophet of Allah does not object to true worship in any form. But it must be true: it must not superstitiously attribute derogatory things to Allah, or foster false ideas.”53 If one takes the Surah in its context, it would appear that Muhammad made this statement because of his conviction that Allah has no son; yet, if Allah’s “fatherhood” could be established he would be willing to accept the son of Allah as God.54 Arab Christian Chawkat Moucarry notes that famed Muslim commentator Fakhr-ul-Din Razi believes that, of all the possible interpretations of this Surah, the preceding is the most viable.55 For Moucarry, Fakhr-ul-Din’s interpretation raises a few questions. He asks, “Is there really evidence that God has no son? If so, where is this evidence? What if the case for God having a son is made? Are Muslims prepared, like the Prophet, to worship and to serve him?”56

In continuation, the most famous Surah to reject the idea of Allah having a son was not historically used as a refutation of the Christian doctrine of incarnation, but was instead a criticism of Arab polytheism.57 Surah 112:1-4 reads, “Say: He is God, the One and Only; God, the Eternal, Absolute; He begets not, nor is He begotten; And there is none like unto Him.” Moucarry proposes that the use of this Surah as a condemnation of the Christian understanding of the Son of God comes long after it was used against its intended targets, pagan Arabs. It is only after the expansion of Islam that this Surah was understood as a repudiation of Christian Trinitarianism.58 Moucarry believes that if the Muslim interpreter intends to remain literally and historically grounded in the text of the Qur’an, he must acknowledge this fact.59
...Muhammad’s knowledge of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (which was well established by the sixth century A.D.) is questionable at best. The Qur’an clearly misrepresents what Christians actually believed and still do believe about the triunity of God. However, the Qur’an rightly and accurately condemns the pre-Islam polytheism that permeated the Arabian Peninsula. What Muhammad denied then was the pagan deities of his native peoples, yet he mistook the Christian doctrine of the true Trinity as being nothing more than a Christianized version of pagan belief. With Muhammad’s primary denial of the Trinity being aimed at the doctrine as it relates to the Sonship of Jesus Christ, and with that notion being corrected above, what then can be said in denial of what Christians actually believe regarding the Trinity and the incarnation of Jesus? Simply put, Muhammad denied the very same doctrines that Christians have denied for over two-thousand years. The difference being that for over fourteen-hundred years Muslims, as prescribed by the Qur’an, have attributed to Christians a belief that no orthodox Christian has ever held to. So, did Muhammad deny the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to the incarnation of Jesus Christ? No!​

​

Most Jewish Christians in the Early Church had the same mindset when it came to them noting plainly that Jews who do not have full awareness of who God is are not automatically lost or at odds with God's working in the world. There was an excellent work on the issue I was thankful for called In the Shadow of the Temple: Jewish Influences on Early Christianity....... an excellent work in regards to explaining what it was like for Jews in the Diaspora and what they did when it came to how they related to the Messiah.

​

There's also the amazing work by Oskar Skarsaune called Jewish Believers in Jesus: The Early Centuries

Additionally, there are other good scholars to consider such as Mark S. Kinzer and Philip F. Esler. ..as well as Daniel Boyarin in Justin Martyr Invents Judaism - Church History, Vol. 70, No. 3 (Sep., 2001), pp. 427-461 when it comes to noting the ways that Justin of Martyr did many things similar to reinventing practices in Judaism as other Jewish leaders did.

That said, there are some dynamics which are a bit difficult to navigate since what can happen (if others are not careful) is that they end up advocating what's known as Dual Covenant Theology - the idea that others do not need to know of the revelation of Christ Jesus and that's a dangerous road to take. Happened a lot throughout the Evangelical world (especially with others like John Hagee) whenever you'd hear claims for people to "Support Israel!!!!" at any costs or any price - while simultaneously ignoring what the Lord said in regards to what it took to connect with the Lord and find true peace in Him alone....although this is in large part a reaction to Replacement theology ideas saying the Jewish people are all cursed automatically rather than addressing how many things done were and are STILL being done in ignorance - and yet Christ is the salvation.

An Incomplete Religion? w/ Dr. Michael Brown 1/2 - YouTube
An Incomplete Religion? w/ Dr. Michael Brown 2/2​

Everyone has to go through Yeshua, as He is the Gate--and although not all roads lead to God, the Lord can meet others on any road (As He often does) .....for the Lord has met others/brought them to faith in Yeshua for salvation when they previously denounced Him - whereas others who did know about Him actively rejected him anyhow...to their detriment. But God's Mercy is truly powerful....and in the midst of that, many things occurred to help others see Him better.

Mark Kinzer (Who has done extensive work in the Catholic world when it comes to Jews in Liturgical circles) did an excellent review on the matter in his academic paper entitled Finding our Way Through nicaea: The Deity of Yeshua, bilateral Ecclesiology, and Redemptive Encounter with the Living God - as it concerns the reality of some of the struggles that were present behind the council.....the battles over defining what Biblical Monotheism is and how to practice Christocentric Monotheism. For many Jews, to hear of "God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit" was akin to promoting polytheism - even though other Jewish Christians had no issue with the concept of Yeshua being God just as God the Father. And for many, it's a BIG deal to say "Yeshua" more than "Jesus" during the prayer.

People are people - and they're human, prone to make mistakes sadly. But the Lord can still work through it..

As Mark Kinzer said best in his paper, we cannot think about Yeshua apart from the creeds, because none of us can or even should isolate ourselves from the traditions that inform our thought. Granted, the councils that devised the creeds were anti-Judaic and that the creeds themselves lack reference to much of the biblical story (such as Israel’s history and role), meaning that the creeds are missing a major portion of the biblical message. But rather than rejecting it as many do, there are some practical ways to address it.

• The Divine Council
• Divine Plurality in the Dead Sea Scrolls
• Trinitarian Jewish Thinking Before Jesus

• Understanding Israelite Monotheism - The Divine Council.

• Did the Religion of the Biblical Writers Evolve from Polytheism to Monotheism? A Paper and Response to Thom Stark

• /'Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism: Toward an Assestment of Divine Plurality in the Hebrew Bible - The Divine Council

And unfortunately, as much as it seems people try to denounce anything the Vatican does (generally reflective of people for Hyper Protestant thought), it is interesting whenever people seem to speak about what Islam does or does not say. For it's often the case people do NOT actually deal with what is in a text. Anyone claiming the Qu'ran claims Christ is not God (according to Islam) has little clue about Islam when dealing with the text alone and what others who grew up Muslim have often pointed out. For it is the case that many within Muslim culture believe/accept Jesus as God and have been pointing it out despite all of the repeated claims that all Muslims universally reject Christ as God (or that it has ever been the case that there is substantial amounts of communities where Muslims have proclaimed Christ to be God/Messiah). Talking with others who grew up in Islam/worked with others in it, it is interesting when seeing the ways that many in Islam have noted that Isa is greater than Muhammad...and that Jesus is the Prophet while Muhammad is simply the Messenger...as Muhammad is called rasul Allah, i.e., the "messenger of God." Muhammad is not the last prophet nor is he the one who seals up the prophethood as if no one is greater than him - for according to Islamic narrations, Jesus is the last prophet who will eradicate unbelief and usher in the final hour. ..thus meaning Jesus seals up prophecy and vision, not Muhammad (more at Is Muhammad the Last Prophet? - Answering Islam ).

As one resource noted best (for brief excerpt) :

In the Qur’an, Jesus is twice referred to as the “Word of God,” a title that many consider to be the highest title given to any person in the book. While describing Jesus’ miraculous conception, the Qur’an states: “The angels said, “Mary, God gives you good news of a word from him [God]…’” (Surah 3:45). The second passage brings this truth to greater light: “People of the book, don’t exaggerate in your religion, and only say the truth about God. Truly the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is God’s messenger and his word which he sent down on Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it. It is better for you. God is one God. Far be it from him to have a boy. He owns what is in the heavens and the earth. God is a sufficient trustee.” (4:171). There’s quite a bit in this verse, and we should spend some time unpacking it. First, notice the titles given to Jesus. Each echoes biblical truth regarding his identity. He is the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-6), the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3), God’s Messenger/Prophet (Mt. 13:57, Heb. 3:1), the Word of God, and a spirit from God (1 Co. 15:45).​

It is safe to say that a large majority of Muslims agree that Jesus (Prophet Isa) is going to return, which automatically contradicts the idea that Allah will not send mankind another messenger. The one verse in the Quran that many Islamic leaders cling to is that Muhammad( pbuh) is the "Seal of the Prophets."(33:40) - though many have thankfully sought to address what it means to be the "Seal of the Prophets?" ...and noted that it means many things but one thing it does not mean is that Allah will never send guidance for a long time afterward.

There was no general agreement among early Muslims that the phrase 'Seal of the Prophets' meant that there would be no prophets after Muhammad - for it is thought that the doctrine of Muhammad being the final prophet was adopted as official Islamic doctrine in the early years of the 4th Islamic century(late 10th century AD) mainly as a counter to the numerous revolts that had occurred and were still occurring against the caliphate in the name of various persons claiming to be prophets.

Technically, the word 'Seal'(khatam) can mean ornament, signet ring or a seal ring which is worn (like to seal a document) - and as many Muslims have noted, the phrase 'Seal of the Prophets' means Allah giving Muhammad his seal of approval or regarding Muhammad as an ornament among the prophets of Allah. Additionally, some commentators also state that khatam an-nabiyyin means the 'Sealer of the Prophets' in the sense that Muhammad is the one who gives the seal of approval to the proceeding prophets.......something that directly goes in support of Isa (Jesus) being the Messiah since even Muhammad - exposed to it when seeing Christianity in His time - noted others needed to follow Him. For others trying to argue Muhammad was saying he was the final prophet, He did not say at any point he is the Final Messenger, which the Quran makes a clear distinction between (nabi and rasul).

The reality of partial truth being revealed even if/when the Quran is inconsistent on various parts because of incomplete information...

Many Muslims/others from Muslim background have noted this when sharing plainly on the ways Isa was always meant to be superior to Muhammad - with many noting that others need to follow what Christians have noted when it comes to acknowledging that the Messiah is truly the Son of God sent to redeem mankind....even though their brothers/sisters may've not had the best understanding on all points. For them, During the daily salat, they refrain from saying the shahadah unless they omit the second phrase, "and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" and instead insert "and Isa (Jesus) is the Eternal Word of Allah" or "and Isa (Jesus) is the Sovereign Lord." They acknowledge that only the Bible is the Word of God and that the Qur'an, while containing beautiful Arabic and important insights into Arab culture, has no authority over the Bible.

Additionally, they note how in the Qur'an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad...evidenced by how Jesus' titles in the Qur'an are greater - noting several honorary titles such as titles of Messiah, the Word of God, the Spirit of God (Sura 4:169-71), the Speech of Truth (Sura 19:34-35), a Sign unto Men, and Mercy from God (Sura 19:21). For even in the Qur'an, Jesus lived a life that is much more extraordinary than Muhammad. Jesus' miracles in the Qur'an are greater, for the Qur'an affirms several miraculous aspects of Christ's life....such as the virgin birth of Christ (Sura 19:16-21; 3:37-45)....that Christ performed miracles (Sura 3:37-45; 43: 63-65)....the prophethood of Christ (19:29-31)...and it also affirms that Christ did not die but was raised up to heaven by God (4:158; 19:33) - for that which is LIFE ITSELF cannot be conquered by death - while in contrast, according to the Qur'an, there is very little, if anything, supernatural regarding the life of Muhammad. .

And since this is evident in the Qur'an, it is wise for all Muslims to study the life of Jesus in the Bible. For not only is the Bible an accurate historical record, but it is a text that Muhammad encouraged Muslims to study (Sura 10:94; 2:136; 4:163; 5:56; 5:68; 35:31). Muhammad believed the Bible in the sixth century AD was accurate - but we have many ancient New Testaments that predate the sixth century.

And again, as it concerns what the Qu'ran says about Christ:

And here's a list of explaining that Jesus is God from the Quran:

1) Qur'an states only Allah can speak in parables (Surah 24:35; Surah 14:25). Jesus speaks in parables in the Bible that no other prophet ever told (Matthew 13:34, 35; Psalms 78:2; Isaiah 6:9, 10).

2) Qur'an says that only Allah will return on the clouds on the Last Day (Surah 2:210). The Bible says that Jesus will return on the clouds quite often (Revelation 1:7; Mark 13:26; Acts 1:9-11; Daniel 7:13).

3) Qur'an says that only Allah will judge mankind (Surah 6:57; Surah 7:87). El-Bokhary explained that he heard from Ibn Abbas, who had heard the Prophet Mohammed saying about Christ, "The Last Day will not come until the son of Mary comes back as a fair Judge to administer justice and wipe out injustice." The Bible also says that Jesus will judge mankind (John 5:22; Romans 2:16; Jude 1:14, 15; 1 Samuel 2:10; Psalm 7:6-8; Psalm 94:1-2; Isaiah 9:6).

4) Qur'an says that only Allah can create (Surah 6:102; Surah 15:86; Surah 22:73). But the Qur'an also teaches that Jesus creates as well (Surah 3:49; Surah 5:110).

5) Qur'an says that only Allah can heal (Surah 26:80). Mohammed said in an authentic Hadith, "Oh, Allah, there is no healing but yours." Meanwhile, in the Qur'an we find Christ saying about Himself, "I heal those born blind, and the lepers" (Surah 3:49). The Bible also discusses that Messiah will heal (Matthew 9:35; Matthew 8:5-17; Mark 5:34; Exodus 15:26; Psalm 107:19-21; Isaiah 53:4-5).

6) Qur'an says that only Allah has the power over life and death (Surah 15:23; Surah 36:12; Surah 50:43). In his book Beginning and End, Ibn Kathir tells a verified story of Islam that proves Christ had the authority to give death as well as life. It is told that Christ saw a woman crying over her daughter, who had died long ago. He asked her, "What makes you cry, woman?" She said, "My daughter died and I have no more children." Christ asked her, "Would you like Me to raise her from the dead?" She said, "Yes, O Spirit of God!" So, Christ stood by the grave and called the girl three times. On the third time, the little girl came out and talked with her mother. Then the girl asked Christ to let her return. He told her, "Go back!" The grave closed and she was dead. (Beginning and End by Ibn Kathir, part 2, page 84). The Bible teaches that Jesus has power over life and death (Luke 7:13-15; Matthew 9:25; John 11:43-44; Matthew 27:52-53; Matthew 28:5-7; Revelation 1:18).

7) Qur'an teaches that only Allah is Omniscient and therefore can be Judge (Surah 27:65; Surah 6:59). But Qur'an teaches that Messiah is all-knowing (Surah 3:49). The Bible confirms this (Matthew 9:3-4; Hebrews 4:12, 13; Job 42:1, 2; Psalms 94:11).​

There are a lot of other areas where it often seems that Muslims and Christians have A LOT of misunderstanding....but as the Catholic Church and others have noted, that does not mean there is NOT commonality or that one has any bearing even trying to claim both are not worshiping God. Some may worship him with more ignorance than other, but worship is still occurring....

As another noted wisely IN A Muslim Who Loves Jesus (for brief excerpt):

Anyone who cannot value a tradition that shares with Christianity not only an emphasis on one God, Jesus, prophecy, accountability before God, resurrection, God’s concern for the poor and for social justice, mercy, and forgiveness both divine and human, must have an artificially either/or view of the universe. Obviously this does not mean I agree with everything I find in Islam, and I suspect that from their own standpoint many Muslims would object to certain views that I hold and opinions that I have expressed. Another (seemingly fair) criticism of pluralism is that it regards as unimportant precisely the distinctive features of various religious traditions. But this doesn’t help in practice, any more than it helps mutual understanding between different cultures to make a sweeping assertion that all such cultural differences are unimportant.

The differences are important. But so are the similarities. How would an exclusivist make sense of the fact that other traditions exist that share so much in common with Christianity? How would an exclusivist relate to such traditions, and what if anything suggests those particular ways of relating to these other religious are required by the Biblical witness? Let us not return to the example of Paul calling people to reject the worship of idols and sexual immorality and experience salvation in Jesus. We know he did that. But what is the relevant evidence when considering how he related (or might have related) to an individual or a tradition that emphasized one God, righteous and merciful, who demands our submission and will hold us accountable for our actions?

We know the answer to this question.

We know the answer to this question. Once again, I find myself drawn back to Romans 2, where Paul claims that those who have received divine revelation through Scripture and are part of the people of God, but do not follow its teachings, are further from God than those who have only God’s general revelation and respond to it positively. Paul states this as clearly as one could hope.
To turn around and claim that people who bear the moniker “Christians” (and perhaps even assent to the historic creeds) and fill the world with hate have an advantage over those who bear other labels but stand for love for God and neighbor is to betray what Paul stood for, and more importantly, what Jesus himself taught.

I think now we’ve found the crux of the matter. Is it what one believes about God and Jesus that saves a person, or their attitude towards God and Jesus, and putting into practice of what they have understood about right and wrong, good and evil? On the one hand, other religious traditions have different views of Jesus. On the other hand, some Christians twist the words attributed to Jesus in the New Testament to mean something other than they do. For instance, conservative Evangelicals teach kids that the story of the wise and foolish builders is about “building your life on the Lord Jesus Christ“, whereas in Matthew 7:21-27 the point is about hearing Jesus’ words and putting them into practice. He even says that there will be individuals who call him Lord who will be cast out as evildoers.​

God already said (John 4) the same dynamic was present with the Samaritans when they were worshiping what they did not know (meaning they worshiped without having full understanding of what was present/what their faith was pointing to and hoping for in light of the coming of the Messiah) while the Jews worshiped what they knew/were aware of (even though they needed more awareness given to them of how what they knew they were given by God was going to be needing update) - yet the Lord needed worshipers who'd worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. It really is not difficult in the slightest to examine the documentation from the Bible and the Quran that Jesus Christ is God ..

 

[Wgw]

@Tallguy88, I posted the contents of St. John Damascene's critique of Islam for you and others to read and comment on in Debate Non-Christian Religions. One apocryphal sura aside, I believe that our Islamic members will be hardpressed to challenge the views of the august saint in question.

 

[Kristos]

The Jews worship God and they don't accept the Trinity either.

Only Christians worship him in Spirit and Truth.

This innovation of declaring that muslims and jews worship a different God, interesting recent innovation it is. The teat of the Turkokratia sustains us even today.

I don't know about that. Islam certainly "borrowed" parts of the OT narrative, but there is no doubt that it's conception was completely outside the Judeo-Christian school. I know there are apocryphal stories about Mohamed meeting an Arian monk, but I don't see much evidence for that in the Quran. Apart from the superficial borrowing of names and events, there is no theological connection - at least that I have discovered. Islam is categorically different enough that it doesn't even amount to a "Christian heresy". It is something else entirely. Therefore I have no problem saying that what they call God and whom l worship and experience as God are not the same.

 

[Cappadocious]

Islam certainly "borrowed" parts of the OT narrative, but there is no doubt that it's conception was completely outside the Judeo-Christian school.

I don't know how someone familiar with Islam could say something like this.

Therefore I have no problem saying that what they call God and whom l worship and experience as God are not the same.

Then you put yourself outside of the mainstream traditional Jewish an Christian position, but whatever.

 

[Wgw]

I don't know about that. Islam certainly "borrowed" parts of the OT narrative, but there is no doubt that it's conception was completely outside the Judeo-Christian school. I know there are apocryphal stories about Mohamed meeting an Arian monk, but I don't see much evidence for that in the Quran.

This was reported by no less a man than St. John of Damascus. And other accounts suggest that Mohammed did meet with a Nestorian monk. It eould be fairly easy to degenerate from Nestorianism into non-Trinitarianism for the uninitiated given the week coupling of the two qname of the Lord in Nestorian Christology, particularly if the monk was not particularly competent in theological exposition.

Apart from the superficial borrowing of names and events, there is no theological connection - at least that I have discovered. Islam is categorically different enough that it doesn't even amount to a "Christian heresy". It is something else entirely. Therefore I have no problem saying that what they call God and whom l worship and experience as God are not the same.

Islam is actually as close to Orthodoxy, closer even, than some of the more extreme Gnostic heresies, which rejected the OT and had alternative NTs. Islamic accounts of the passion of our Lord, or rather, in their view, the lack thereof, resemble to a degree thr account found, if memory serves, in the Gospel of Philip.

The view that Islam is a heretical, degenerate form of Christianity is not recent; St. John of Damascus classified it as such.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

And other accounts suggest that Mohammed did meet with a Nestorian monk. It eould be fairly easy to degenerate from Nestorianism into non-Trinitarianism for the uninitiated given the week coupling of the two qname of the Lord in Nestorian Christology, particularly if the monk was not particularly competent in theological exposition.

Good thoughts...

Although I have heard of and researched the link between Nestorian Monk encounters with Mohammed (which would make sense since Nestorius himself was reacting to Marian cults in his era claiming Mary was herself a part of the Trinity/God and influencing his stance of saying Mary was the Mother of Christ), I have actually seen it where it was said Mohammed encountered Ebionite theologians. That actually makes more sense when seeing the cultures/traditions of the group, as explained more in-depth here:

The Trinity as radical monotheism has always been a present factor for many Muslims just as it has been for Jews in Judaism when it comes to believing in Christ and yet noting their not being against the concept of the Holy Spirit or Yeshua being the same and yet seperate from the Father. And again, there's context - as it concerns how Muslim culture believe/accept the concept of a Trinity .

And to be clear, it should be noted that Muhammad's mentor and distant blood relative Waraka ibn Nawfal was a Nestorian Christian and that is the key reason behind the denouncement of the specific idea of the Trinity that Muhammad denied in 4:171 as this was a common belief among Nestorians. Of course, others say that Muhammad's uncle also had Ebionite influence and this was present in the references of Christ as a prophet (more shared here and here/here and here).

As another noted best on the matter when it comes to historical background:

In an article well worth reading about the religious practices of the Ebionites found here, author Stephen Tomkins notes, "... it sounds not unlike Islam in all those respects."

There is a reason for that. The Ebionites followed a text known as the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews. Although most scholars would say it was lost to history, it is possible that its precepts can be found today in the early suras of a text far more famous known as the Quran.

If true, this could be a fascinating study. Two of the major controversies in the early Christian church were the nature of the divinity of Jesus (how could he be both a man and God?), and the extent to which Christians were to follow Jewish practices and traditions. Although the Apostle Paul's conviction that Jesus was both fully God and fully man and that being Christian meant leaving everything Jewish behind eventually won the day, many groups disagreed. As they and their gospels were declared heretical by early Church councils, they were forced away from the Christian geographical centers of power and some of them ended up in Arabia and Yemen. Two of these were the Nestorians and the Ebionites. Although they are sometimes lumped together, they are distinct in that the Nestorians believed in the divinity of Jesus whereas the Ebionites saw him merely as a Prophet.

One difference between those declared heretics and the orthodox church was that the former often followed only one text, or gospel, rather than all the books that became the New Testament. The Ebionites followed The Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews (called by some scholars simply the Gospel of the Ebionites). It is probably a second-century compilation including passages from Matthew, Mark, and Luke that emphasizes the compassion and humanity of Jesus while denying his divinity. The Ebionites believed that Jesus was a man, not God, and that a presence called the Holy Spirit descended upon him at his baptism and remained with him until just before his crucifixion. They followed the dietary and health practices of the Jews and placed much emphasis on rituals such as ablution, fasting, and circumcision.

Available online studies of the Ebionites found here and here seem unaware of their continued history after persecution possibly forced them from the Levant into Arabia in the early centuries of the Christian era. There are several reasons for this historical lack of knowledge. One is the fact that the Ebionites were less significant and less known than the Nestorians, the larger Christian sect in Arabia at the time that did accept the divinity of Jesus. Another is that Christian historians typically had little access to ancient Islamic history, until recently only available in Arabic, that made scattered references to theNusraniyah (taken from the town of Nazareth, this is the Quranic word used to describe the non-orthodox Christians in Mecca at the time of Muhammad).

There is another and more significant reason. After Muhammad, Muslims paid little or no attention to the beliefs of Christians and Jews in the Arabian Peninsula other than to compare them critically to Islam. Muslims believe the Quran was revealed directly to Muhammad from Allah via the angel Gabriel. They historically had little interest in the beliefs of others, and even less interest in the possibility that their religious texts and practices influenced Muhammad and the formation of the Quran.

Muslims have placed much emphasis in creating an imaginary genealogy for Muhammad that passes through Abraham all the way back to Adam. Of more historical relevance is that Muslim scholars emphasize his lineage from his ancestor Qusay to Muhammad's grandfather Abdel Mutallib, but ignore that same lineage from Qusay to grandson Assad who was the grandfather of Khadijah, Muhammad's first wife, and Waraqa bin Naufal, the Prophet's distant uncle. The reason Muslims have deliberately ignored that side of the family is that it included relatives including Waraqa and possibly Khadijah herself who were members of the Nusraniyah.

Ancient historian Abu Faraj Al Isfahani noted in his Kitab Al Aghani that Waraqa bin Naufal converted to Nusraniyah, and biographer Ibn Ishaq describes him as a Hanif, one who believed in only one God.

Hadith compilers Bukhari and Sahih Muslim both state that Waraqa bin Naufal translated the Book of the Hebrews and the Gospel into Arabic. It is possible the book they meant was the Gospel of Matthew to the Hebrews.....Among the characteristics of the Ebionites was compassion for the poor and the orphaned. Waraqa bin Naufal, who was both a scholar and the leader of the Ebionites in Mecca, took a special interest in his young relative the orphaned Muhammad. He saw in him qualities of leadership, spent much time with him, and over the years taught Muhammad the Gospel of the Ebionites as well as the contents of the Torah. Waraqa bin Naufal performed Muhammad's marriage to Khadijah, and groomed Muhammad to replace him as the Ebionite spiritual leader in Mecca....The influence of Waraqi bin Naufal upon Muhammad and his revelations continued until Waraqa died. It is not accidental that the Hadith writers note that "revelations ceased for some time" following the death of Waraqa. The reason, of course, is that Muhammad was no longer learning from his Ebionite uncle.

The presence of the Gospel of the Ebionites in the short, poetic Meccan suras with their vivid descriptions of hell and Muhammad's repeated claim that he is a Prophet just like Abraham, Moses, and Jesus is something most Muslims are not allowed to even think about, at least publicly. It's much easier, and safer, to just toe the party line. I would encourage Muslims to be a little more open in their thinking and scholarship.​

Some may be surprised by the impact of Nestorian Christians on Islam, although as they traveled far, it's not surprising. They (Nestorian Christians) were very influential in Islam in the Far East with the Mongols as well as other religions, this has been shared before here:

​

But with that said, many Muslims have come to faith in Yeshua due to others presenting the Gospel via the Quran when it comes to examining how the Quran itself already had partial revelation within it showing that Isa was always seen as greater than Muhammad - that He was the Spirit of God, Eternal and the one who was the greatest revelation. Again, according to what many Imans say, they actually don't speak based on what the Quran actually says and thus they have cultural Islam rather than Quranic Islam - in the same way that others have cultural Christianity rather than Biblical Christianity. And it's very effective..

In the Qur’an, Jesus is twice referred to as the “Word of God,” a title that many consider to be the highest title given to any person in the book. While describing Jesus’ miraculous conception, the Qur’an states: “The angels said, “Mary, God gives you good news of a word from him [God]…’” (Surah 3:45). The second passage brings this truth to greater light: “People of the book, don’t exaggerate in your religion, and only say the truth about God. Truly the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is God’s messenger and his word which he sent down on Mary, and a spirit from him. So believe in God and his messengers and do not say three. Stop it. It is better for you. God is one God. Far be it from him to have a boy. He owns what is in the heavens and the earth. God is a sufficient trustee.” (4:171).

One can notice the titles given to Jesus. Each echoes biblical truth regarding his identity. He is the Messiah (Jn. 4:25-6), the Son of Mary (Mk. 6:3), God’s Messenger/Prophet (Mt. 13:57, Heb. 3:1), the Word of God, and a spirit from God (1 Co. 15:45). Many Muslims/others from Muslim background have noted this when sharing plainly on the ways Isa was always meant to be superior to Muhammad - with many noting that others need to follow what Christians have noted when it comes to acknowledging that the Messiah is truly the Son of God sent to redeem mankind....even though their brothers/sisters may've not had the best understanding on all points. For them, During the daily salat, they refrain from saying the shahadah unless they omit the second phrase, "and Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah" and instead insert "and Isa (Jesus) is the Eternal Word of Allah" or "and Isa (Jesus) is the Sovereign Lord." They acknowledge that only the Bible is the Word of God and that the Qur'an, while containing beautiful Arabic and important insights into Arab culture, has no authority over the Bible.

Additionally, they note how in the Qur'an, Jesus is greater than Muhammad...evidenced by how Jesus' titles in the Qur'an are greater - noting several honorary titles such as titles of Messiah, the Word of God, the Spirit of God (Sura 4:169-71), the Speech of Truth (Sura 19:34-35), a Sign unto Men, and Mercy from God (Sura 19:21). For even in the Qur'an, Jesus lived a life that is much more extraordinary than Muhammad. Jesus' miracles in the Qur'an are greater, for the Qur'an affirms several miraculous aspects of Christ's life....such as the virgin birth of Christ (Sura 19:16-21; 3:37-45)....that Christ performed miracles (Sura 3:37-45; 43: 63-65)....the prophethood of Christ (19:29-31)...and it also affirms that Christ did not die but was raised up to heaven by God (4:158; 19:33) - for that which is LIFE ITSELF cannot be conquered by death - while in contrast, according to the Qur'an, there is very little, if anything, supernatural regarding the life of Muhammad. .

But again, it all goes back to how one is trained growing up seeing the Lord - and if explaining it the right way, it makes more than enough sense..

​

 

[Kristos]

I don't know how someone familiar with Islam could say something like this.


Then you put yourself outside of the mainstream traditional Jewish an Christian position, but whatever.

Because anyone familiar with Islam should think the same as you?

Whatever right back at ya

 

[Wgw]

Although I have heard of and researched the link between Nestorian Monk encounters with Mohammed (which would make sense since Nestorius himself was reacting to Marian cults in his era claiming Mary was herself a part of the Trinity/God and influencing his stance of saying Mary was the Mother of Christ), I have actually seen it where it was said Mohammed encountered Ebionite theologians. That actually makes more sense when seeing the cultures/traditions of the group, as explained more in-depth here:

I find this unlikely, in that we have no hard evidence to suggest there remained any living Ebionites in the seventh century; there is much reason to suppose theynwere extinct by that time.

I would also point out that Nestorius was not reacting against mariolatrous cults, like the Collyridians; rather, he objected to the word "Theotokos" which had historically been used in the church of Constantinople. His main opponent was St. Cyril.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I find this unlikely, in that we have no hard evidence to suggest there remained any living Ebionites in the seventh century; there is much reason to suppose theynwere extinct by that time.

I would also point out that Nestorius was not reacting against mariolatrous cults, like the Collyridians; rather, he objected to the word "Theotokos" which had historically been used in the church of Constantinople.

Depends on the scholar one deals with since there are a number noting the Ebionite impact experienced cultural diffusion where remnants of the theology remained and theological stances can resurface even if a group no longer has an official group in existence or goes by the same name. Happens all the time and we see this even with the resurgence of Marcionism in our own present time with how many claim Christ and yet say they are "New Testament Only Christians" or claim the OT is of no importance to believers today....still pitting the OT against the NT.

Also, it'd be inconsistent claiming Nestorius was not dealing with Marian cults since that does not even go with his published works on what he actually stated repeatedly. We don't live in the same kind of era that Nestorious did and it's hard to really understand what Nestorius was about if we don't know the background - unlike the timeframe Nestorius lived in, there are no cults of Mary (which were supported by Plucheria in the Imperial Court) that are being fought against to influence like it was when Nestorius was seeking to combat them since devotion to the Virgin Mary was a big, driving force and all around the Roman Empire, people believed in venerating or worshiping the Virgin Mary as Mother of God. It makes sense with what occurred when seeing how many people believed that it made Mary sound like the mother of one of the great pagan god and made her a great pagan goddess, at the time when the pagan temples were still standing and there was a worrisome idea of syncretism that tainted the term “Mother of God” for many. And again, others have often noted that it remains open to debate whether Nestorius did in fact hold the views attributed to him - and it's interesting that “Just five days after his ordination, he was busily destroying an Arian chapel, inciting a riot and an outbreak of arson in the process. Within months, he was striking out generally at deviant Christians, against Novations, Quartodecimans, Macedonians, any and all remnants of long-defeated heresies and schisms, as he ordered the seizure of churches and the suppression of services" (more in The Image of the Virgin Mary in the Akathistos Hymn - Leena Mari Peltomaa - Google Books and The Cult of the Virgin in the Fourth Century: A Fresh Look at Some Old and New Sources | Stephen Shoemaker - Academia.edu )


There are many excellent resources on the issue that help to place Nestorious into his proper context - for One of the best scholars around on Syrian culture and the Syriac Orthodox Tradition - Dr.Sebastian Brock - did some good reviews on the issue as it concerns the ways that some things are not as easily understood when considering how terminology can get lost in translations. For more, one can go here or online/check out the book entitled Fire from Heaven: Studies in Syriac Theology And Liturgy. Also, there is a great blog about Church of the East theology by an Antiochan Orthodox presbyter who used to be a member of the Church of the East - called "East meets East". The Dialogue with the Assyrian Chruch of the East that has been going on with the Oriential Orthodox Church has been interesting to follow whenever it comes to seeing miscommunications - and properly understanding Assyrian religion and the culture which Jonah himself was sent to... ...or the many ways that others in the East (including those in Islam) have understood the Nestorian model more so than others (as noted in Trinitarian Monotheism? and Nestorian Christians - Non-Traditional Chinese Religions)

• Socotra: The Mysterious Island of the Assyrian Church

• The Jesus Sutras (Part 1): Introduction | The Jesus Question

• The Jesus Sutras (Part 10): ?He is the scaling ladder? | The Jesus Question

• Mar Thoma: The Apostolic Foundation of the Assyrian Church and the Christians of St. Thomas in India

His main opponent was St. Cyril.

I am aware of his main opponent being St. Cyril - and have discussed this before in-depth with others when it comes to seeing the complex interactions between him and Nestorius. As said there:

In many respects, it's really a matter of noting whether all of the Holy Trinity is involved in the Incarnation in order for it to be valid - or if all parts of the Trinity (which ALWAYS have communion with each one another) are all involved on the same level at all times. And with the Incarnation, it was not an illusion -

​

I appreciate how it was stated here (for brief excerpt)...more shared there on how Nestorius had changes in language due to the changes he perceived in what others were saying:

Nestorius and the Antiochene tradition understood the term hypostasis from an Aristototelian sense, “as a material reality bound up in its species.” The hypostasis is an individual representation of the nature but does not necessarily have a substantive existence. In other words, it is immaterial. Nestorius used the term prosopon to refer to the concrete person or substantive existence. Therefore, the argument was presented in an atmosphere of terminological confusion, which escalated the polemics and alienated both parties in the process. Baum accurately defines Nestorius’ terminology in that “[the term] ‘person’ [prosopon] denotes the external appearance and ‘hypostasis’ the inner reality.

​

In Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, he wrote, “Two different natures came together [in Christ] in a hypostatic union, in order to form a unity.”Because Nestorius understood the term ‘hypostatic’ as a non-material (nature) existence prior to the coalescing of the natures into the prosopon, the concept of a ‘hypostatic union’ made little sense and appeared to mix the natures. From Nestorius’ perspective, Cyril’s Christological mechanism distorted the natures by combining them into an indistinguishable amalgamation. As a result, Nestorius angled his attacks toward Cyril as if Cyril was arguing for a restricted Apollinarian (logos-sarx) position. If the two natures in Christ were to make a substantive exchange, meaning if the logos ousia admitted entrance to the anthropos ousia, and if the anthropos ousia admitted entrance to the logos ousia, each nature would cease to be what it is and would result in a divine/human hybrid (i.e. Apollinarianism). Milton Anastos accurately summarizes Nestorius’ position with these words: “Uncreated God the Word, who is eternal, cannot be transformed into that which is created (body), nor can the human body of Christ be changed into the ousia of God the Word. Nestorius was confused by the terminology used by Cyril. They were explicating their arguments using the same words but with different meanings. The misunderstanding between Cyril and Nestorius was primarily because Nestorius believed Cyril downplayed the significance of Christ’s humanity.​

That said, something to be said on seeing that language can make it appear as if one is advocating more than what they are saying. In example, I am a person. I have a name - and I have a body, as well as a spirit. When I die, my body will be in the grave and will not be ressurected until Jesus returns. Till then, my body will be present in the ground. However, my spirit will go to the Lord when I pass - and even though my body is in another place, the essence of who I am is not present there. If John Smith (called John Smith at birth/going by that name when identifying himself in his preaching...but also called "J Smooth" for his rap/musical skills ) ...if John Smith has a funeral, others can note that the physical side of John Smith (the Body) is right there in front of everyone - but J Smooth the musician/the music he made under that label is not present because his spirit/being is no longer present in the Body of John Smith.

It's all the same person - the same unit - and no multiple personalities going on. But differing aspects of who they are or were are not present. In the same kind of way, the reason others such as Nestorius can say what they did on the two natures being ONE person (even though they are separate) is because he was always speaking in a dual sense. When Christ died, he offered his Spirit into the hands of the Father - and yet while he died and his body was in the grave, He (Christ) was in the Father. Till his body was raised from the grave RESURRECTED IN POWER (Romans 1:7-14), with the Spirit of God bringing him forth.

No one would dare advocate "But you're advocating TWO Persons by saying one's spirit is with the Father when they die!!" because we already know the reality of dual senses. Nestorius did as well - and hence, he had no problem saying Jesus could die in regards to being God/Incarnated....but he also did not have issue seeing that Christ had one aspect of his nature dormant (even if you give it a name to distinguish it from the other aspect of who Christ was - no different than someone having multiple titles to describe differing aspects of who they are and yet not having it assumed they are multiple people simply because of differing descriptions to describe who they are...their thoughts vs. their physicality, their soul vs. their skills, etc.). Nestorius believed that Christ could truly die and that God (as Christ in his humanity ) could cease...but God (as Christ in his DIVINITY) could never cease being self-existent or perishing.

Jesus, in one aspect of his being/identity, was able to experience what humans could. Jesus was hungry (Matthew 4:2), Jesus was thirsty (John 4:6; John 19:28), Jesus cried (Luke 19:41; John 11:35) and Jesus sweat (Luke 22:44). We are to always take seriously where John says “The Word became flesh”..with that same Apostle noting in his second epistle to be aware of others advocating against that when he said “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus in the flesh. Such a one is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 8). It is most likely the case that he was speaking against Cerinthus in his comments - but that's besides the point. The bottom line is that the Incarnation was truly real - God was present, in the form of Christ...a HUMAN nature and a DIVINE nature all in one. But certain things happen in one side of his nature that the other side did not do - and understanding that is key.

Tertullian noted it best when saying “How will all this be true in Him, if He was not himself true—if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? [I mean] this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, [a flesh] which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being” (On The Flesh of Christ)



There can be no escaping the reality that Jesus is God and not merely an entity meant to show us who God is - but Nestorius did not advocate that Jesus was.

As it concerns Docetism, Nestorius was far from that (even though his wording led to the idea of Nestorianism which needed to be condemned and even Nestorius agreed with that condemnation). For Nestorius was not in any denial that God become man or that Christ has come in the flesh - and its generally a false scenario whenever people argue that Nestorious was docetic in his views by noting that God became a man in the form of Christ Jesus, even though Jesus was separate in distinction from the Father (regardless of the fact that he and the Father were one - John 5, John 7, etc.). Nestorius well understood that Divinity and Humanity were united together and that it was not simply an illusion - but that is neglected on many fronts due to the language issue. Nestorius and his followers were already against things such as Eutychianism, which is a form of Docetism. ..and as mentioned earlier, we know that Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo which condemned Docetism as well.


Docetism, if one is not careful on clarifying the language one uses, can easily arise when there's confusion. We don't wish to advocate other prominent Docetic teachers (like Maricon who advocated Jesus' humanity was an illusion, that he appeared to be truly human but was not) or tread in that territory.

We obviously are not to go with Docetism that says Christ's body was just an illusion - but noting where the Body was real and noting that Christ could still live even as part of him died is not the same as Doceitism ....to argue otherwise would be like someone accusing someone of saying my body "didn't exist" because of them telling others I was in Heaven with Christ even as they see my casket and know I'm not fully there at the moment. For Nestorius, he wanted to both avoid Arianism (claiming Christ was NOT God /always eternal or pre-existent ) and respect Christ's full humanity...and his heart was showing one Christ with two natures present in one individual - noting that the 'twofold Christ' is displayed in John 2:19, which says, 'Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.' ...and noting in his first letter to Cyril of Alexandria 'Does he not call himself both a destroyable temple and God who raises him up? And if it was God who was destroyed - and let that blasphemy be shifted to the head of Arius! - the Lord would have said, “Destroy this God and in three days I will raise him up.”

This concept of duality is already present today in practical ways. As Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology (based in Reformed thought, like Sproul) noted in Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith :

“When we are talking about Jesus’ human nature, we can say he ascended to heaven and is no longer in the world (John 16:28; 17:11; Acts 1:9-11). But with respect to his divine nature, we can say that Jesus is everywhere present.” “Particularly striking is the scene on the Sea of Galilee where Jesus was asleep in the stern of the boat, presumably because he was weary (Matt. 8:24). But he was able to arise from his sleep and calm the wind and sea with a word (Matt. 8:26-27)! Tired yet omnipotent! Here Jesus’ weak human nature completely hid his omnipotence until that omnipotence broke forth in a sovereign word from the Lord of heaven and earth.” “In a similar way, we can understand that in his human nature, Jesus died (Luke 23:46; 1 Cor. 15:3). But with respect to his divine nature, he did not die, but was able to raise himself from the dead (John 2:19; 10:17-18; Heb. 7:16).”​

Others have advocated similar ideologies - although more so within the Pentecostal or Charismatic world ( as noted in Kenosis, Christology, and Bill Johnson, Part I | CrossWise ). Much of it (for many) comes down to understanding what others think of Philippians 2 and what it meant for Christ to lay aside grasping equality with God in his life..

I agree with others who noted the following:

Folks, one isn’t Nestorian unless one believes in Christ having two separate persons. And it isn’t Nestorian to say that something can happen to one nature and not the other, any more than it is Nestorian to say that Jesus sometimes acts according to one nature, and sometimes acts according to the other nature. What is true for the activities of Jesus is also true of the passivities, especially since Jesus actively took upon Himself the suffering.


One must make a distinction, if you will pardon the pun, between the distinction of Christ’s two natures (which is Chalcedonian!), as opposed to the separation of the two natures (which is Nestorian). But again, here we must say that just because something happens to one nature and not the other does not mean that we are separating the two natures. That is a definite confusion I am seeing in some of the comments. Just because one does not scrape one’s violin bow across the tuning pegs of a violin does not mean that one has separated the violin strings from the tuning pegs. Now, every analogy will break down, of course. My only point here is that positing suffering of only the human nature of Christ does not constitute Nestorianism in any way, shape, or form.​

For many, the mindset is that the charge of Nestorianism is limited since all believers are such in one way or another....and the charge of "Nestorianism" has often been brought up in accusation before toward many others wrestling over the exact nature of Christ. If you believe in things such as the Hypostatic Union (Luke 1-2)---or Christ growing/learning as Luke 2:51-52 & Luke 2:39-41 & Hebrews 5:5-10 make clear---then you also believe by default that there's a degree of Neostarism that is inherent in the theology of Christianity since there are DUAL natures.......Christ didn't grow in knowledge or power as it concerns his Divinity - but he did grow as it concerns his human nature.

Others feel that it must be dual for Christ to do all that He did. For as the logic goes, how can he grow in knowledge/wisdom if He was already ALL-KNOWING/OMNISCIENT at all times? How could he be hungry and tired ( Matthew 4:1-3, Luke 4:1-3 , etc ). How can the man be amazed at the level of faith others had (Matthew 15:26-28, Mark 6:5-7 , Luke 7:8-10 , ) if it was impossible in one of his natures to never be surprised --unless, of course, the natures were seperate to a degree....

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]To be clear, of course, I think that Jesus had one nature - with two different expressions (which can also be termed as a nature on some level). He was ONE PERSON - One being - but with two differing aspects of who He was (i.e. Divine vs. Humanity) and certain things would impact one aspect of who he was that would not impact the other automatically. But Christ truly did experience death for our sakes

Hebrews 2:9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.​

​

One person endured the horrors of the Cross/sin and conquered it - Jesus was very God and very man, yet one Christ, as we know when seeing historical Christianity in comparision to other versions (including Nestorianism, which is something Nestorius never actually taught even though the error is now associated with him even when he sought to address it and other groups associated with him - like the Assyrian Church of the East - have often had to clarify the issue and show what it means to be ONE person with two aspects united together). For reference to other places to investigate on the issue:

• Gregory Nazianzen | Eclectic Orthodoxy

• Jesus Christ: Man or a man? | Eclectic Orthodoxy

• The Unitive Christology of St Gregory the Theologian | Eclectic Orthodoxy...

• St Vincent of Lérins: Are Ecumenical Councils Infallible? | Eclectic Orthodoxy

• Chalcedon Visits Wonderland, or Why Jesus Ain’t Thor | Eclectic Orthodoxy

Ultimately, the Divine Nature is Fully God and Human nature is Fully Man....with the One Person of Christ being in both of the two natures, therefore meaning that the One Person of Christ is both Fully the God-man.

​

​

As you quoted, it has often been said the actual Christology of Nestorius does not have direct bearing on the definition - but that is often done after condemning Nestorius in the process as if he always supported the definition.

The Council of Chalcedon went counter to the formula accepted in the 3rd council - and the fact that Leos tome is clearly Nestorian is something to consider, seeing that Nestorius himself, in the Bazaar of Heracles, says that the tome is a "vindication of the truth." For Pope Leo opposed Eutyches’s extreme theology for mixing and blending the natures of Christ. ...addressing the severe error of the Robber Synod.


On Leo's Tome, as he noted:

He is God by reason of the fact that “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God” [John 1:1]. He is human by reason of the fact that “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us” [John 1:14]. He is God by reason of the fact that “all things have been made through him, and without him nothing was made” [John 1:3]. He is human by reason of the fact that “he was made out of a woman, made under the law” [Gal. 4:4].

The fact that it was flesh which was born reveals his human nature, while the
fact that he was born of a virgin gives evidence of the divine power. The state of infancy proper to a child is exhibited by the meanness of his cradle; the greatness of the Most High is declared by the voices of the angels. The one whom Herod sets out to kill is like an ungrown human being, but the one whom the Magi worship with humble joy is the Lord of all. Lest the fact that his flesh was the veil of deity go unrecognized, the voice of God thundered from heaven as early as the time at which he came to the baptism
ministered by his forerunner John: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” [Matt. 3:17]. So the one whom the devil’s cunning tempted as a human being is the same one to whom the angel’s services were rendered as God. Plainly it is a human think to hunger and thirst and get tired and sleep. But to satisfy five thousand men with bread and to bestow on a Samaritan woman living water whose consumption enables its drinker to
thirst no more, to walk on the surface of the sea without sinking and to moderate “the swellings of the waves” when a storm has come up – that is a divine thing without question. But let us pass over much of the evidence and sum the matter up.

It is not an act of one and the same nature to weep over a friend’s death in an access of pity and to summon that very friend back to life with the power of a word after opening the grave in which he had been buried for four days; or to hand from the cross and to cause the stars to tremble in their courses after turning day into night; or to be pierced with nails and to open the gates of paradise to the faith of a their. By the same token, it is not an act of one
and the same nature to say, “I and the Father are one” [John 10:30], and to say “The Father is greater than I” [John 14:28]. Even though there is, in our Lord Jesus Christ, one person of God and of a human being, nevertheless the principle in virtue of which both share in glory is another. A humanity inferior to the Father comes to him from us, and a divinity equal to the Father’s comes to him from the Father. Because of this unity of person, which must be understood to subsist in a twofold nature, we read that the Son of man came down from heaven (since the Son of God took on flesh from the Virgin of whom he was born), and conversely we say that the
Son of God was crucified and buried (even though he endured these things not in that divine nature in virtue of which, as Only Begotten, he is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of his human nature). Consequently we all also confess in the creed that the only-begotten Son was crucified and buried, in accordance with the words of the apostle: “For if they had known, they would never have crucified
the Lord of glory” [1 Cor. 2:8].​

Moreover, as said elsewhere (for brief excerpt):

That Nestorius and other Antiochenes were accused of preaching “two persons” in Christ is therefore not surprising; this misinterpretation typically occurs when “the context and characteristics of the Christological language of the Antiochene tradition are ignored." One of the main problems seems to have been Alexandria’s inability to accept the symmetrical Christology of Antioch, where divinity and humanity both played key roles, united in the person of Christ. By contrast, Cyril and other Alexandrians insisted on the subject of their Christology being the divine Logos, with the result that Christ’s humanity became less important. Any attempt by Nestorius or other Antiochenes to present a balanced picture was interpreted as “preaching two persons.” However, Nestorius expressly denies any belief in two Sons or two Christs, ascribing this view to the followers of Paul of Samosata (“They speak of a double son and a double Christ&#8221. In an exposition of the introduction to John’s gospel, which refers to the divine Word of God indwelling Christ, he says, “How then can we understand this to be one Son,and Christ to be another Son, and one that is man only?”

Elsewhere, he remarks, “God the Word and the man in whom He came to be are not numerically two” and “He is a single(person), but… He is different in the natures of manhood and Godhead” and “I call Christ perfect God and perfect man, not natures which are commingled, but which are united”(Bethune-Baker 1908, 82-5; cf. Driver and Hodgson 1925, 45-6, 50). Thus, judged by his own words, Nestorius comes across not as a “heretic,” but as orthodox, in agreement with the theology articulated at Chalcedon. Indeed, he was incomplete accord with the Tome of Leo, commenting when he read it, “I gave thanks to God that the Church of Rome was rightly and blamelessly making confessions, even though they happened to be against me personally” (Bethune-Baker 1908, 191-2; cf. Driver and Hodgson1925, 340). A letter of Nestorius to the inhabitants of Constantinople, probably from 449,further states: “It is my doctrine which Leo and Flavian are upholding... Believe as our holy comrades in the faith, Leo and Flavian!” (Loofs 1914, 25).Nonetheless, Nestorius’ use of prosopon is sometimes confusing and undoubtedly supported his enemies’ accusations. Besides describing the union occurring in one prosopon ,he also refers in places to two prosopa in Christ, although the former use is much more common than the latter (Loofs 1914, 79). Anastos concludes that he used prosopon
in two distinct senses: A) “the exterior aspect or appearance of a thing” (as Loofs observed) and B)“an approximate equivalent of our word ‘person’.” The first relates to the two natures of Christ, indicating that “each had a substantive reality… which remained undiminished after the union” while the second relates to Jesus Christ as “the common prosopon of the two natures.” Nestorius is then able to speak of the “two prosopa (sense A)… in the one prosopon ( sense B) of Jesus Christ” (Anastos 1962, 129-30; cf. Chesnut 1978, 402; Uthemann 2007,478). Put another way, “Nestorius’ theory was that the two distinctly existing persons combine to make a new person, who is called Jesus. Hence, Jesus is one person made up of two persons” (Braaten 1963, 258). [/B][/U][/I]​

We need to have to keep context in mind at all times..

Some of what Nestorius noted seemed to be in line with the ideology expressed in the Early Church that LIFE ITSELF could never die....as it concerns God being unable to ever be defeated. Hence, for Nestorius, his ideology led him to advocate plainly that Christ was God and Christ could die - but when it came to God the Father and the rest of the Trinity, they could never be extinguished.

Some of this gets into the territory that others have often brought up in Church history when wondering what it means for the Lord to die - with others noting that it was impossible for the devil to defeat the Lord. I Corinthians 15 notes this in detail when it came to death being defeated because of the work of the Lord - as the Author of Life can never be destroyed (John 11)...he can no more be defeated/perish than God can stop being eternal since his very nature will not allow for it. So in a very real sense, it can be noted rather easily that God himself can die (in the person of Christ) even though God himself did not die as it concerns the rest of the Holy Trinity.

The dualistic dynamic with language makes a world of difference - as two natures existed in one person with Jesus, as seen in 2 Cor 5:19 when it notes “that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” and Phil.2:8 notes “Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.” Additionally, we see in John 10:18 where Jesus said “no one takes my life from me, but I lay it down of myself.” And yet even though Jesus was God and in communion with the Father, Jesus in committing his spirit to the Lord (as seen when He cried out once more to His Father saying, “Into Your hands I commit My Spirit” and then breathed His last and died) was obviously aware that His Father did not die on the Cross - the Father, who has always existed and NEVER died, was the one Christ (also God) turned to.

William Lane Craig noted this when having to address the issue. In his words:

Christ could not die with respect to his divine nature but he could die with respect to his human nature. What is human death? It is the separation of the soul from the body when the body ceases to be a living organism. The soul survives the body and will someday be re-united with it in a resurrected form. That's what happened to Christ. His soul was separated from his body and his body ceased to be alive. He became temporarily a disembodied person. On the third day God raised him from the dead in a transformed body.

In short, yes, we can say that God died on the cross because the person who underwent death was a divine person. So Wesley was all right in asking, "How can it be, that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" But to say that God died on the cross is misleading in the same way that it is misleading to say that Christ died on the cross in relation to his human nature, but not in relation to his divine nature.​

Jesus was God - and it was more than possible for God to die, as evidenced in Christ. Nonetheless, God the Father was not the one who died on the Cross even as Christ was fully God/Fully man - and yet the paradox doesn't have to be resolved. We can have the concept of truth in tension - knowing that Jesus really cannot be defeated. For Rev.1:18 says of Jesus “I am He who lives and was dead, and behold I Am alive forever more.”...with this mentioned again in Rev.4:8-9 when it says he is the one “who was and is and is to come.

As another noted best, "Was Nestorius promoting the heretical idea that two distinct persons resided in Jesus? It is hard to say because of the political and ecclesiastical rivalries that involved him in the church. Also, his ambiguous language was easily misunderstood among the many heresies swirling about (e.g. adoptionism, docetism, Apollonarianism, etc.) Nestorius was viewed as not fully appreciating the unity of Christ’s person. The West resolved the debate of the two-natures at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD).......It should be acknowledged that Chalcedon did not entirely remove the mystery of the paradox that exists in the person of Christ. At best, the Chalcedonian Creed states what the “two natures in one person” does not mean"

With Nestorius in what he emphasized when saying Jesus (as God) could die but God the Father (as well as God the Holy Spirit) could not, it really is reflective on several levels with what the early Church noted when it came to Jewish believers (in the first century beforethe councils) had battles as it concerns the concept of the Divine Council - and the reality of the Two Powers in Heaven idea that helped many Jews come to faith in Christ and developa Christological Monotheism since they could understand that the rabbis always taught that God had a lesser power to Him (regent) who was God as well and they co-ruled. Many are not aware of the relationships between rabbinic Judaism, Merkabah mysticism, and early Christianity - as it was the case that "Two powers in heaven" was a very early category of heresy and one of the basic categories by which the rabbis perceived the new phenomenon of Christianity...yet they did not understand the reality of what Christianity advocated on the role of the Messiah nor did they know the history of what the rabbis before them had already said in agreement with the Messiah being Divine.


One Jewish scholar who did an amazing job on the issue is Daniel Boyarin, who wrote Two Powers in Heaven; Or the Making of Heresy as well as the book entitled Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity (as well as The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John and the work "The Jewish Gospels" where he noted at multiple points where the concept of the Messiah was always rooted in Jewish thought and echoed by what the rabbis said....and for Jews, the two powers are one and a person does not worship one without the other and even Second Temple literature is replete with forms of bitheism, including the philonic logos and the Ezekiel traditions of an Angel of God in the image of a man appearing on the throne. ).


Additionally, Dr. Michael Heisner (of LOGOS Bible Software) did an excellent job covering the issue in his presentation entitled The Naked Bible » Two Powers in Heaven ....more here in The Divine Council and Jewish Binitarianism - YouTube or the following:

Dr. Michael Heiser: The Jewish Trinity - YouTube

Michael Heiser - Two Powers of the Godhead - May 4, 2013 - YouTube

Holy Trinity - Dr. Michael Heiser - YouTube

All of that is again said to bring home the point that Nestorius was very much in line with the Jewish Binatarianism concept - although others are free to debate it.

Even Nestorious had reconsiderations on trying to explain things as it concerns a robust separation of the natures - noting that it was all one person. As for Nestorios, I think one would be in good company to read the earlier and later Nestorious. Sometimes, being exiled to an oasis in the middle of nowhere can give one the time needed to rethink things. Of course, others took things further than he went in amazing ways like Babai the Great....and even St. Isaac of Nineveh had views reminiscent of Nestorius - more in The images of 'heart' and Isaac the Syrian | Hyung Guen Choi - Academia.edu - but that's another issue.

With Nestorius and not demonizing him or anything else associated with his name, as another noted best:

As Matthew Steenberg has commented elsewhere on this site, later generations have created a Nestorianism which Nestorius would not recognise; these things have become labels, and once one penetrates beyond them, one sees how complex and nuanced things were - and are. Demitrios Bethrellos' The Byzantine Christ (2004), which is an excellent work by an impeccably Orthodox scholar, and certainly not well-disposed to non-Chalcedonians, is a good place to find an informed discussion of some of these Christological issues. He acknowledges the insights that came from some of the Nestorian theologians, as well as their limitations. A simple condemnation of a whole tradition, which would, itself, reject the notion that it has ever taught 'two sons', seems an unhelpful approach.​

[/INDENT​

​

​

]


Comparing Nestorius to his contemporaries who disagreed with him as others do todaY (like with Cyril), I think it's important to look at Cyril of Alexandria in terms of his theology predicated on two states for the Son: the state that existed prior to the Son (or Word/Logos) becoming enfleshed in the person of Jesus and the state that actually became enfleshed in and through the Incarnation – Cyril made the following conjecture: Only the Logos “Incarnate” suffered and died on the Cross and that has implications for how we read Romans 8:3."

As others have noted, logically, there cannot be a’dislocated engagement’ of the Son in relation to Romans 8:3 and the mature thought of Nestorius is a better statement on the ‘integrated engagement’ of the Son in relation to Romans 8:3.

I think it makes sense to note that if God can suffer in his Divinity, then he’s not really God....and there's no suffering divinity in Orthodoxy except in the Incarnation, where it is the Word’s humanity that suffers, not as a separate person, but as the locus of where the suffering occurs. Of course, if the Divine Logos in the Incarnation remains “Impassible” then how does one reconcile this verse from Ephesians 4:30 with Divine Impassibility when it says "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God" then? Personally, here is where I would fall back on apophatic theology, noting the limitedness of our language. Additionally, I would ask others to keep in mind that not all passions are inherently sinful and therefore less than divine. So, there may be something akin to what we call “grief,” but in a way that we cannot fully comprehend, such that we use the word but do not think the use of the word means God himself is sinfully suffering or less than God. We do this with love.... God loves, and we say this, even saying “God is love” and Christ takes on blameless passions and truly has them and weeps over Lazarus, but we do not think God himself is subject to suffering in a manner that makes him subject to something outside himself.

[FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]This is something that has to be considered even in regards to things noted by Cyril - and on the issue, Fr. John McGuckin’s study, Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy ( ) - is really a powerful read when it comes to examining Cyril within the context he developed in and the things left out that impacted others like Nestorius: [/FONT]

• [FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy[/FONT]
  
  [FONT=verdana, helvetica, sans-serif]
  [/FONT]

​

I thought it was interesting that John McGuckin suggested that Nestorius proposed the notion of ‘conjunction by interrelation’ (shetike synapheia); indwelling (kat’ enoikasin); appropriation (oikeosis); or by the habituated possession (skhesis) of the human prosopon by the prosopon of the Logos. Essentially, in each of the analogical models one discerns the eternal element of his thought to be an epmphasis on the divine provenience and initiative whereby the Logos binds himself to the man Jesus in an unassailably intimate union, without destroying any of the free capacities of the human life he graces with his unlimited power and presence.

Something to consider is 1 Corinthians 15.

1 Corinthians 15:45
So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

​

If one can understand the attributions of the ‘New Adam’ in comparison to the ‘Old Adam’ then the relationship of the Godhead to our [New] Humanity in and through the Incarnation becomes immediately clear. A Soteriological inter-fusion by mutual engagement. As said elsewhere:

40. “The divinity makes use of the humanity’s prosopon, and the humanity that of the divinity. In this way we say that there is only one single [inter-fused]prosopon for both. In such a manner is God shown to be complete, since his nature suffers no diminishment from the union. In the same way the man is complete and lacking nothing (as a result of the union) of all the functions and limitations of his nature…The natures are [inter-fused] without confusion and make mutual use of their respective prosopa.”
Nestorius, Heraclides, 172. [remixed...in a single word].​

Dialogue can make a world of difference....and with Nestorius' thought, we can see the same reality present when it comes to reassessing what Nestorius was actually about and why so many seemed to be fighting against based on a lack of understanding.​

 

[Wgw]

You are aware by the way that the specific position of the Oriental Orthodox church, doctrinally speaking, and indeed of the Eastern Orthodox, is that Nestorius was a vile heretic?