Early Judaic Fluidity Model Of God Theology Religion Essay

Print   

02 Nov 2017

Disclaimer:
This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of EssayCompany.

AJIBOLA G. ILESANMI

THEO 693 - 01:

Seminar in Old Testament

Instructor: Dr. Bogdan G. Bucur

December 11, 2012

Abstract

One of the major areas of differences between Islam and Christianity is doctrinal. The relational experiences of Christians and Muslims in the multi-religious Nigeria have not been different; rather, such doctrinal differences have often been the bedrock of ethno-religious concerns that have often degenerated into violent riots in the country. At such instances, the labelling of Christians as 'arna' or 'kafiri' (pagan) on the basis of conceiving Christianity as polytheistic is quite common. [1] Religious dialogue has been one of the means through which resolution of such issues are often attempted. At such instances, exploration of common basis for dialogue from the Qur’an and the Bible, like having the same Creator, common religious ancestry and that both religion have common call to serve humanity, are made. The results of such efforts are often tentative because the major point of Christians as 'arna' or 'kafiri' has not been addressed. Is Christianity polytheistic because of her dogma of Jesus as Lord beside God the Father? This paper takes up the issue from the common Scriptural heritage of Christianity and Islam to propose a model for theological discourse. It argued that the ancient Judaic religion from which came the Old Testament have the idea of fluidity of divine selfhood or of fragmentation and overlapping of identity of God inherent in it. That idea is not unfounded in the Qur’an and the hadith and that such remain a reference point to the Christian acceptance and teaching of Jesus as Lord and God. The idea is not to engage in comparative studies of the two religions but provide a platform from the Old Testament to help partners to begin to appreciate each other’s spiritual and religious values and promote communion and fellowship among adherents of both religions. To do this, the paper explored selected theophanies in the Old Testament, examined what the Qur’an says of such and goes further to find out if such instances could be identified in the Qur’an. It was discovered that the motif of divine fluidity is common to the three religions and since all three also claim that God cannot be seen, it asked: who was been seen? The Christians’ answer to the question was argued as a reference point for their claim for ‘God became man’ in Jesus. Hence, if the other two religions are non-polytheistic, Christianity cannot be said to be on the basis of what is common to the three religions.

Introduction

It must be stated from the onset that this paper does not intend a comparative study of Islam and Christianity nor of such with Judaism and Christianity. It is an academic attempt at a correlation of the ancient Judaic background to the doctrine of Jesus as Lord with the idea of fluidity of divine selfhood or of fragmentation and overlapping of identity [2] as perceived by some scholars in theophanic experiences in the Old Testament. The idea is to establish an argument that the doctrine of divine fragmentation is not a strange one to early Judaism, a religion to which Islam also claim some form of relationship. The assumption is also partly on the bases that the message of God to Moses, Jesus and Muhammad was one, the very same message given to Abraham… [3] and that such idea, as confirming the Christian understanding of Jesus, as God, is not unexplainable in presenting Christianity as a monotheistic religion to Islam. In doing this, this paper interacts basically with related Old Testament texts that justify the argument for God’s fluidity; the work of Sommer [4] and Camilla Helena von Heinje [5] were engaged in shedding light on these. In related manner, the perception of the Qur’an on Theophanies, divine fluidity and religious dialogue will be explored while engaging some patristic writings in the service of Christian apology on Jesus as the Son of God, co-substantial with the Father. It is hoped that such argument as presented in this paper will go a long way in achieving a better understanding of the Christian adherence to the teaching of Jesus as Lord within theological discourses among Christians and Muslims in Nigeria.

Nigeria’s socio-religious climate

Nigeria is a multi-religious and ethnically pluralistic state with Christianity and Islam having quite a large followership. In spite of the fact that the Constitution of the country [Section 38] clearly state that, "every person shall be entitle to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, including freedom to change his religion or belief..." [6] contest between Christianity and Islamic religious adherents have often been fierce and incessant. In fact, one of the demands for a ceasefire by the current Islamic fundamentalist aggressors in the Country is to establish the Islamic religion as a national religion and wipe out Christianity. [7] It is a common thing to hear Muslims refer to Christians as arna or kafiri, derogatory terms that connotes non-believers in the One God. Often, it is such labeling that is used in subjecting innocent Christians to maiming and killing and mere ‘religious war casualties’. Christians’ houses have been burnt, properties destroyed and innocent people killed on such ground.

According to Ajibola "wherever one may live in Nigeria, he/she cannot be unaffected, directly or indirectly by [the] incessant upheavals and religious unrest as often witnessed all over the Country" [8] Similarly, Nigerians are now quite used to the not very effective daily relief from such tensed aftermath of religious crises based on the palliative words of government officials and religious leaders arising from dialogues that are mainly of social engagements having no strong theological bases. [9] Most of the discussions hitherto often go around having the same Creator, [10] common religious ancestry [11] and that both religions have common call to serve humanity. Although, whenever these were invoked, as observed earlier, some level of pacification is often attained but it soon disappear because the major points has never been discussed, perhaps for lack of basis for such discussion, namely: are Christians arna or kafiri? Does not the doctrine of Jesus as Lord and God, Ipso facto, make Christianity polytheists? etc. This paper feels that a more profound theological insight from a trialogue of Judaism, Islam and Christianity with the Old Testament as the base reference scripture could be explore in this direction.

Relevance of trialogue to Nigeria’s socio-religious problem

This paper perceives that the trialogue of Ancient Judaic religion [documented in the Old Testament], Christianity and Islam rather than the dialogue of Christianity and Islam on inter-religious issues concerning the Sonship and Lordship of Jesus is a better base for peace discourse in Nigeria. It will be a trialogue of discourse in the order of dialogue of discourse otherwise known as dialogue at theological level where interlocutors [religious experts] exchange information on their respective religious beliefs and heritages. Such exchange of views [albeit its academic features] is often acclaimed the most profound form of progressive dialogue in a pluralistic society as Nigeria. [12] This is profound, primarily because issues of semblance, differences and grounds of common faith are discussed. According to Tanko this form of dialogue has the strength of "deepening and enriching the various religious heritages of the partners in the dialogue" [13] . It has the advantage of helping partners to begin to appreciate each other’s spiritual values and cultural categories and promote communion and fellowship among people. [14] Â 

The Fluidity model of God

Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema Yisrael: שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל‎; "Hear, O Israel: The Lord is our God, the Lord alone" [RSV] captures the profoundness and non-compromising disposition of early Judaism to monotheism. It is a defining anthem that underlies the peoples’ understanding of the worship of God as distinct from the practices and understanding of their contemporaneous Ancient Near East world. However, details of the relationship between Israelites and the God they profess singularly left much to be understood as a given. This is because, from the genealogies in Genesis 5 and 11 through the Patriarchal narratives and experiences of various theophanies, there exist religious experiences that raise the question of relational modality of God with His people. Such instances that raise questions boarder on ‘God being seen’; such have engaged the attention of scholars who have attempted a study of such conceptions of the divine in the ancient Near East (ANE) and the Hebrew Bible. Quite revealing is the notion asserted by many of these scholars of a divine corporeality and elusiveness in the Hebrew Bible and ANE religious traditions. Notable among these works is the work of Benjamin Sommer who categorically infers that "the Hebrew God has a body" [15] and that "... God has many bodies located in sundry places in the world that God created." [16] 

Sommer’s work explores a model that recognized the fluid notion of divinity, where a single deity may adopt multiple forms in multiple contexts simultaneously. This idea challenges the common conceptions of divinity in terms of corporeality and fluidity and provides a better platform for the understanding of how God could be Father and Son, one God, two persons.

Sommer presented historical and textual analyses of relevant ANE and Old Testament texts to present ‘what the Jewish God is and might be’. [17] Summarily, to him there are evidences of divine fragmentation, in which several divinities with a single name "somehow are and are not the same deity". [18] Basic to his idea of fluidity of divine selfhood are the concept of fragmentation and overlapping of identity where he argued that fragmentation does not mean contradictions in paradoxical extremes nor diachronic process but gods manifesting in several independent yet parallel beings. [19] While Sommer’s work must be read within its scholarly exercise, using it as flag for doing practical theology is quite attractive as it is a reading selection of high relevance with high attraction to research proclivity. Its relevance in attempting an explanation of Christianity as a non-polytheistic religion is though academic but justified on the fact that Christianity has been considered as such in cases other than the Nigeria Muslim context and similar argument as proposed in Sommer’s fluidity model was used in clarification. [20] 

On Divine fluidity in the Old Testament

The Bible remain to the Christians a sacred scripture and to the Muslim a revelation of God and a ‘proto-Scripture of the heavenly type.’ [21] It is a source book to what we know about God as Christians and basis on which we conduct our everyday business – personal and public. That the Bible is relevant and primal to the adherents of the triad religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam cannot be overemphasised, yet the contemporary users are not the originally intended recipients. Obviously, given this situation cultural and semantic gap must be bridged in attaining good grasp of its contents. In this respect a comprehensive hermeneutics of the passages cannot be devoid of knowledge of the history, context, language, beliefs and practice of those whose stories and experiences are documented on those pages. This is where works as Sommer’s becomes quite handy.

As noted earlier, one of the major claims of the Jews whose religious beliefs and practices are documented in the Bible is that God is One. This monotheistic notion was well guarded against undue interference of their neighbours’ polytheistic religious views. To them, God is invisible and lives in heaven and according to the Bible no one has ever seen God. [22] In fact, God declares, "You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live." [23] However, there are scriptural passages that tend to contradict this declaration; for instance in the same book of Exodus just referred, Moses was said to have spoken to God "face to face." [24] 

The on-going citation is not a singular or an isolated instance of such divine encounter as will seem to contradict what God has said concerning seeing Him. While experiences of such encounter with God could be explained away as a figurative expression for some kind of intimate religious experiences, some other theophanic experiences defy such explanations. For instance, the Lord appearing to Abraham on his arrival to the land promised to him and his descendants [25] or in the more tangible encounter of Abraham with two angels and God Himself. [26] In the latter narrative, Abraham invited the visitors to a meal which they ate. [27] 

Similarly, in Genesis 32:22-30, Jacob was recorded to have wrestled with what appeared to be a man, but the man said, "You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God …." Outside the burning but not consumed bush experience of Moses in Exodus 3:2 - 4:17, other encounters including the appearance of God to Moses with Aaron and his sons and the seventy elders in Exodus 24:9-11 has generated the questions of ‘who’ is appearing? God - Who is not seen by anyone and live? an angel – claiming and acting God? If it was an angel, what sort of angel was he? Was the angel a manifestation of God himself, or an independent angelic being, a messenger distinct from God or a hypostasis of God …? [28] These and related questions has not only generated the question of ‘who?’ but also ‘why?’

Camilla Helena von Heijne did a great work in investigating who this angel of the Lord is in Genesis. [29] She dealt extensively with such questions in her book, observing that "knowledge of the Hebrew Bible alone is not sufficient for a proper understanding of Judaism", hence she advocated for an addition of the "oral Torah" which was also revealed by God. Hence she attempted a profound midrashic excursus of the issues in her book, especially, in chapter three where she examined a wide range of texts from Genesis with explicit references to angel of the Lord/God. Generally, her work offers insights into the Angel’s identity. Beginning with the Gen. 16:7-14 pericope on Hagar and the Angel, Heijne notes that the Angel speaks in the first person as if he were God. While the Angel never says that God sent him, the Angel talks about Yahweh as someone distinct from himself (v. 11) and as far as Hagar is concerned she encountered God. Similarly, in the Gen 18-19:29 pericope on the three heavenly visitors of Abraham and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, "the term ‘the Angel of the Lord’ is not mentioned, but the narrative is reminiscent of ‘the angel of the Lord text’ which describe the appearance of a divine messenger in the form of a man". [30] There are other periscopes like the Aqedah in Genesis 22:1-19, the wooing of Rebekah (Gen 24:1-4) and Jacob’s various encounters with the Angel of the Lord.

What is clear in all these is that "he who is said to have appeared to Abraham, Jacob and Moses, and is called God, is distinct from God, the Creator … in number, but not in mind". [31] Coupled with that, though not precisely clear, in most of the theophanic pericopes where the idea of presence [of the Messenger of the Lord/God] is highlighted, the motif of redemption is often linked with it. The appearances of the angel of the Lord/God at certain points of need for deliverance is significant to the overall Christian salvation story and offers a better understanding of a genuine ‘biblical’ theology which respects historical complexity when considered in the light of God’s presence in Jesus and the Church. [32] 

At this point, we may ask, how does these serve to promote a better understanding of Christian idea of Trinity as Monotheistic to Muslims in a pluralistic society as Nigeria. Before this is done it is appropriate to cast a quick look at what the Qur’an makes of the Old Testament theophanies and then what it perceives of such fluidity model.

Qur’anic perception of Old Testament Theophanic instances

Keeping in mind, ass stated at the outset, that this paper is not a comparative study of two religions on God’s fluidity, it is apt to point out that in spite of the conservative pose of Islam on the non-visibility of God, one still find instances that betrays that motif in the Qur’an. A section has been dedicated to considering such presence below. However, a quick look is made here of what the Qur’an makes of the Old Testament’s theophanies.

In most parallel theophanic narrations found in the Old Testament and in the Qur’an, the motif for the manifestations are in most instances different, accordingly, the presentation seem to differ in response to what they illustrate. Beginning with the aqedah, the narrative of Abraham and the sacrifice of Isaac, the Qur’an only said that Abraham had a dream to sacrifice his son, he told the son of the dream and the latter succumbed but at the point of the sacrifice, further variation from the Biblical narrative is noticed: "We called out to him: O Abraham! You have fulfilled the dream! … And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice (i.e. a ram)…" [33] Similarly, while God’s appearance in Gen 15:5-6 was part of the pericope in proving His being truthful to His promise, the episode in Sura 2:260/262 omit the appearance but proceeded with the inclusion of a ritual reminiscent of the puzzling form of the covenant mentioned in the Genesis 15 pericope of the divided heifer. The aim in the Qur’anic version was to demonstrate the proof for the resurrection of the dead. [34] 

The pericope of Abraham under the oak of Mamre and his encounter with the three visitors has a parallel in the Quran also but told without certain details as recorded in the Bible. The visit was narrated in direct connection with Lot and the judgment on Sodom. [35] Significantly, the Qur’an mentioned that though Abraham offered the ‘visitors’ food, "… their hands went not towards it…" [36] It should be noted that the eating of food has continually been one of the supplanting argument for the non-divine status of Jesus according to the Qur’an, [37] hence any inference that the three visitors of Abraham as recorded in the Bible are divine would be nullify on that ground. Be that as it may, when a similar argument was filed by Trypho to Justin, he observed that angels do eat, though not the same kind of food human beings eat. [38] Thus, the eating by Abraham’s visitors should not be taken literarily but should be "understood in the same way as when we say that fire devours everything" [39] 

In general term, sources of the theophanic narratives from which the fluidity model of God is made clear for the Christians are presented in the Qur’an in a somewhat different scenario from their Biblical parallels. As earlier observed, there exist roles for intermediaries as angels in the Qur’an, they feature in similar pericopes where the Christian Bible also feature them but what seem to differ is the role they play in the reported context in both books; hence a variation in doctrinal use of such pericopes.

The guarding against close association of theophanies with God’s direct presence in the Qur’an calls to mind the struggle of Conservative Judaism with such extensions of divine presence at the face of possible influence of their polytheistic neighbors of the Ancient Near East. It is my opinion that such variations and motif for retelling should nevertheless deter a reasonable attentiveness to the meaning derivable in the context of the documents’ composition.

Perception of the Qur’an on God’s fluidity and the ensuing Trinitarian doctrine

On God’s fluidity

In the on-going section, it was stated that theophanic instances of the Old Testament were rendered differently in the Qur’an, probably to guard against inference that could lead to polytheistic interpretations of such theophanies; however, there are significant references in the Qur’an to establish traits of divine fluidity tradition in Islamic heritage.

It was demonstrated through the work of Sommer above that hermeneutical analyses of relevant passages from the Bible established the claim of God having a body. This claim is made in spite of claimed non-visibility of God and that no one sees God and lives, yet the instances pointing to divine interventions that cannot be otherwise understood abound. If the religion of Mohammad and the Scripture of Islam share basic religious stories with the Old Testament - product of a culture of a people, is it not likely that certain motif underscoring the understanding of God and His relationship with the human from that background be evident in the Qur’an too? Of interest to this paper is whether Allah could be said to also have a body and seen.

As in the Old Testament instances, there are references in the Qur’an and the hadith that suggest bodily appearance of Allah to Mohammad. One must however observe that in many translations of the Qur’an, the angel Jibril [Gabriel] is often fingered as the subject of such instances. Nevertheless, apart from passages that specifically make affirmative claims of God’s appearances, [40] some of those attributed to the angel Jibril, in some cases, do not make meaningful conclusions when read as such. An example of the latter case is:

By the Star when it goes down, - Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him: He was taught by one Mighty in Power, Endued with Wisdom: for he appeared (in stately form); While he was in the highest part of the horizon: Then he approached and came closer, And was at a distance of but two bow-lengths or (even) nearer; So did ((Allah)) convey the inspiration to His Servant- (conveyed) what He (meant) to convey. [41] 

Questions that comes to mind here include, who approached Muhammad in visible form... Mighty in Power and endued with Wisdom… convey inspiration to His servant? Who conveyed inspiration to His servant?

Going by claims that it was angel Jibril that is referred to in Qur’anic theophanies, the reference will only make sense if its meaning is taken to mean Mohammad is the servant of Jibril. If the passage is taken as referring to angel Jibril, how should one understand the Hadith that specifically stated that Mohammad said:

I saw my Lord, the Exalted and Glorious in the most beautiful form. He said: What do the Angels in the presence of Allah contend about? I said: Thou art the most aware of it. He then placed HIS PALM between my shoulders and I felt its coldness in my chest and I came to know what was in the Heavens and the Earth. He recited: 'Thus did we show Ibrahim the kingdom of the Heavens and the Earth and it was so that he might have certainty." [42] 

A quick note that should be taken while the debates continue concerning who appeared in recorded theophanies in Islam, Allah? or Jibril? is the claim by many Islamic Scholars who have warned, that ‘Allah literally descends and ascends, and that he actually does have hands, shin etc.,’ and that such expressions should not be considered a metaphoric or figurative expression. [43] According to Shamoun, it is a position held by the majority of scholars … and it is not advisable to interpret such traditions figuratively" [44] 

On the Trinity

Although, Mohammad did say that Jesus was neither God nor an angel, but a man, [45] he did acknowledge that he has no earthly father and was raised up to heaven by God. [46] Furthermore, apart from saying that Jesus was raised from the dead to heaven, [47] he asserted that he will come down from heaven to earth as a sign for the coming of the hour of the day of resurrection. [48] Similarly, he affirms that Jesus’ mother is in heaven [49] . Thus, either by coincidence or by design, Muhammad’s Christology and Mariology apparently agree to some extent with similar Christian opinion but widely differ in Jesus’ relationship and place in the Godhead. He does not subscribe to the notion of the Trinity. Mohammad’s non-acceptance of the doctrine of the Trinity could be presumed on three arguments:

God cannot be seen [50] 

God cannot indulge in act of procreation by which He could get a son

God is the Third of Three. [51] 

The first is reminiscent of such defence in cases where monotheistic idea of God need be defended perhaps to guard against relativizing such strict monotheistic character. [52] 

On the second argument, Surah 2:116 said: They say: "(Allah) hath begotten a son" and in Surah 39:4, it says, "Had Allah wished to take to Himself a son; He could have chosen whom He pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is Allah, the One, the Irresistible." Note here a careful use of the word ‘chosen’; divine paternity is out of the discussion, because it was conceived in the sense of procreation through sexual engagement. According to Dayton, [53] 

Muhammad perceived this language to mean that Christians believe that God literally engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary, the mother of Jesus. In light of the historical and religious context into which Muhammad was born, it is no surprise that he would object to a doctrine he believed mirrored the pagan "trinities" existing in Arabia. In summary, the Qur’an proposes that Christians believe the following. First, Mary is literally the wife of God. Second, Allah physically engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary and Jesus of Nazareth is the physical offspring resulting from this carnal encounter. Third, the Christian concept of the Trinity resembles paganism, teaching that a high god (Yahweh) took for Himself a wife (Mary) and sired a half-man-half-God son.

Interestingly, neither the New Testament nor the Qur’an makes such obnoxious claim of sexually procreative activity by God. Both scriptures attested to the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus. [54] Hence, Jesus is better understood, for the sake of lingual clearness, as ibnu’llah and not waladu’llah in which most passage that denies the sonship of Jesus is often expressed. [55] The former expresses sonship in metaphorical sense, while the latter describe offspring resulting from the sexual union of a male and female. [56] 

On the third point, evidence of a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of the Trinity is seen in the very key text often used in rejecting the teaching: "And behold! Allah will say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?’" [57] It is claimed by reference to this question that Christians ascribes a human wife to God in the person of Mary. In fact scholar as Ibn Taymiyya has consistently made this claim [58] in spite of abundant resources available to make such teaching clearer.

The possibility of a probable misconception arising from some Christians that include Mary, the mother of Jesus as part of the Trinity may not be ruled out here. [59] Such misconception is derivable from a logic that would conclude that since Mary was assumed into heaven as taught by Modestus, [60] she lives in heaven with her son and God – hence, the Trinity as Father, Son and Mother. To Mohammad, this is polytheism and, obviously, if the Trinitarian formula is conceived as such, it is polytheistic.

Conclusively, since neither the Islamic conception of Mary as member of the Trinity, nor the understanding of Jesus as waladu’llah is what the Christian perceived them to be, what is needed is clarification from the Christians of their doctrine on the Trinity and an educative disposition from the Muslims in a theological discourse.

The fluidity model as Theological basis for inter-religious dialogue

As earlier discussed, although there was initially a non-segregating relational principle by Mohammad between Christians and Muslims in Mecca, it is characteristic of any multi-religious society to have differences in doctrines and practices which often breed dichotomy in relationships. Nevertheless, it is instructive and relevant to this paper to note that according to al- Bukhari in the work of Murad Wilfried Hofmann, "the Prophet of Islam once said: One who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and one who hurts me, hurts Allah". [61] 

The principles on which the on-going is operational are the Qur’anic interfaith principles which Roger Boase [62] highlighted as including non-compulsion in matters of faith, avoidance of ridicule of others’ beliefs, non-association with "those who ridicule our faith", speaking with courtesy, invitation to reasoning together, "avoidance of idle speculation about the nature of God" and competing in good works.

Since in principle, Islam encourages non-compulsion in matters of faith, [63] and categorically recognises divergence in race and religious creeds as God’s doing, [64] what is required is not necessarily dialogue aimed at conversion to the other’s religion but an educative dialogue to know what the other is doing and tolerate him/her in that context. After all, the same Qur’an advocates and encourages the use of reasoning in the understanding of doctrines. [65] 

Given the above background, it must be stated here clearly that the Christian doctrine of and believe in the Trinity is neither an arbitrary doctrine nor polytheistic. We have stated that the basis for this teaching and belief is well rooted in the parent religion of Christianity and Islam, namely Judaism. On similar premise of what Sommer later referred to as fluidity model of God [66] in which evident overlapping and fragmentation motif of God is experienced and expressed in the Old Testament, the Christians sees these instances as a visit from "the angel of the Lord". [67] Since God cannot be seen, a fact to which both ancient Judaism and Islam squarely agreed, the answer to the question of who appears and fully operates as God in theophanies as recorded in both traditions is, while being enigmatic, considered by Christians as Christ. To the Christians each of those instances were Christophanies which culminated in the incarnation; the conception of Jesus by Mary under the influence of the Holy Spirit, a fact that is not denied by Islam.

It is not disputed that Muhammad rejected divine paternity of Jesus in the biological sense but we must note that he did not place a blanket conclusive end of discussion on what the Christian understanding of Jesus Sonship could be. Accordingly, the Qur’an said, "Say: If the All-merciful [God] had a son, I would be the very first to worship [him]." [68] Of course, such statement as this will be interpreted variously from different stand points. In fact to Chawkat Moucarry "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". [69] 

This task of proving the Sonship of Jesus was a task taken up in the early Christian church where the Christians also had to deal with similar questions of concern to the current issues on Jesus’ Sonship in the Nigeria multi-religious context. Trypho, for instance, had told Justin Martyr: "let you who are of Gentile origin, who are all named Christians after Christ, profess him to be the Lord and Christ and God, as the Scripture signify" but he, like his fellow Jews was not going to take that. [70] Arguing from the background of Moses, the Servant of God, who ‘speak to God face to face, plainly and not in riddles and sees God’s form,’ [71] Justin argued that, that same Moses "tells us that he who appeared under the oak tree of Mamre was God." [72] 

In the line of Justin’s position, Tertullian also argued that since no one has seen God and lived, what was seen and experienced were rehearsals of the incarnation by the Son, [73] and a proof that the Son is God who has often been seen at various points of theophanic experiences. According to Tertullian, in a way, analogous to the Sun and its rays relationship, a Tree and its root, a Fountain and its river – the  [emanations] [74] such is the Father related to the Son.

Hippolytus also perceived the same of the Father and the Son as being of the same substance but different individuals. The Father [One God] was alone in Himself … in this solitary, by exercise of reflection He brought forth the Logos first as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. … the Logos alone of this God is from God Himself … being the substance of God. He spoke by the Prophets but became manifest to us at incarnation and thus became Son. [75] 

Arguments for the third person of the Trinity is consequent on such antecedents as have been discussed in this paper, that is, of a ‘more-than-singular God’ conception where a second God as a viceroy to God the Father is one of the oldest of theological ideas in Israel. [76] Hence, If this idea is fully expressed in the Old Testament and in spite of the differences in details as recorded by the Qur’an of these theophanic narratives, the Qur’an still have records of God having a body and was seen by Muhammad, conclusions reached on the bases of the theophanies shouldn’t be a reason for aspersions as differences in perceptions among Muslims and Christians only tend to have issued from variation in interest.

Conclusion

The bottom-line in this paper is that Christians are not polytheists but see Jesus Christ as that whom "God has begotten of himself" [77] as "…when one fire kindles another", or in a way akin to Justin’s analogy that "when we utter a word, it can be said that we beget the word, but not by cutting it off, in the sense that our power of uttering words would thereby be diminished". [78] Going by the common experiences of Islam and Christianity variously documented in their various Scriptures, it is established that while both religions perceive their religions as monotheistic, they both associate invisibility to God as an attribute, yet record instances of human beings seeing God. Such narrations invariably give rise to ambiguity and questions as to who was seen. While such appearances were occasionally ascribed to a particular angel in the Qur’an, instances where such inference could not be derived without implying idolatry abound. However, in Christianity such ambiguity was explained as instances of God’s fragmentation in a fluid expression, they were Christophanies – considered as a rehearsal of the eventual incarnation of Jesus, God became man, and dwell among us.

Finally, by this work is not a case made or claim made for necessary uniformity in the practice of Islam and Christianity but that the experiences in the Old Testament from which it is inferable that Jesus is God and one with the Father also abound in the Qur’an and the Hadith and could be considered a common ground for tolerable co-existence in a pluralistic country as Nigeria.



rev

Our Service Portfolio

jb

Want To Place An Order Quickly?

Then shoot us a message on Whatsapp, WeChat or Gmail. We are available 24/7 to assist you.

whatsapp

Do not panic, you are at the right place

jb

Visit Our essay writting help page to get all the details and guidence on availing our assiatance service.

Get 20% Discount, Now
£19 £14/ Per Page
14 days delivery time

Our writting assistance service is undoubtedly one of the most affordable writting assistance services and we have highly qualified professionls to help you with your work. So what are you waiting for, click below to order now.

Get An Instant Quote

ORDER TODAY!

Our experts are ready to assist you, call us to get a free quote or order now to get succeed in your academics writing.

Get a Free Quote Order Now