Tuesday, November 3, 2015

Bad Spelling Meets Equally Bad Theology

****See Update Below****

I recently had a conversation in the comments section of a Youtube video with Ijaz Ahmad (aka "Calling Christians") about his egregious misrepresentation of orthodox Christology in his debate with Tony Costa, whom Ijaz erroneously accused of falling into the heresy of Nestorianism when defending Christ's deity. Since Ijaz shamelessly went on to misrepresent the contents of that conversation to others on another forum, even going as far as saying that I have branded Sam Shamoun and Matt Slick heretics, I am reproducing the entirety of it below for everyone's benefit. It should not require any further commentary from me to see that Ijaz is hopelessly ignorant about orthodox Christology and the position of those who hold to it.

****Update - 11/5/15****

Ijaz Ahmad still doesn't get that he is the only person who doesn't get it (see his response below).

In response to the fact that I posted our entire conversation, Ijaz has now referred to me as "mentally inchoate" and has said that my response was a "rabid rant." But as may be seen from the above, my responses to Ijaz were not filled with any unnecessary ad hominem attacks. Indeed, even though Ijaz is demonstrably ill-informed when it comes to orthodox Christology (see the conversation above), I have yet to refer to him as mentally inchoate and rabid, though others might think his (intemperate?) response warrants such a conclusion.

Ijaz has also complained about the fact that I corrected his spelling of the the Latin phrase - "communicatio idiomatum." However, given the fact that I have been arguing that he does not understand the orthodox version of the doctrine in question, repeatedly confusing it with heretical versions that go under the same name, it is surely apropos that he can't even get the spelling right. Moreover, how are we expected to believe that his untutored understanding of a doctrine he can't spell is better than that of trained theologians and historians?

In an effort to downplay the above, Ijaz is still seeking refuge in the fact that I later referred to the "communication" of attributes instead of using the Latin communicatio, the former of which he actually thinks is a misspelling. But this only further demonstrates just how much he doesn't have any handle on this discussion. The Latin phrase, i.e. communicatio idiomatum, literally means the "communication" of idioms/names/attributes. So not only does Ijaz not know how to spell the doctrine in question, he also doesn't even appear to know what the phrase means. If he doesn't even know what the phrase means, are we still to assume that he is well versed in the doctrine that goes under that label?

The most important part of Ijaz's response, the one that is the most telling, is his (unargued) assertion that I have inadvertently outed Sam and Matt as heretics since I reject Ijaz's idea that orthodox Christology maintains that Christ's two natures are "mashed together like a sausage." According to Ijaz, this is an appropriate way of explaining the relationship between Christ's two natures, because in the incarnation there was supposedly a blending of some sort between Christ's two natures, anywhere from 1% to 100%. Or, to put it another way, Ijaz believes that, to one degree or another, the attributes of Christ's divine nature were transferred to his human nature, and vice versa. This is what Ijaz thinks is the orthodox doctrine of the communication of attributes. Since I rejected "this" errant version of the communication of attributes, and since this is what Ijaz thinks is taught by Sam and Matt when they refer to the communicatio idiomatum, Ijaz thinks I am branding them as heretics.

In contrast to the above, the orthodox doctrine, which was affirmed in the church from the beginning and later formally codified at the Council of Chalcedon, teaches that Christ is one person with two natures. The natures remain distinct from each other and derive their unity not by a transferral of attributes from one nature to the other but by virtue of concurring in one person, i.e. the Lord Jesus Christ. In other words, the correct understanding of the communicatio idiomatum is that the attributes of both natures belong to the one person of Christ, not to each other. The Lord Jesus Christ is both God and man, but His deity is not His humanity, and His humanity is not His deity.

Since both Matt and Sam use the phrase communicatio idiomatum in some of their writings, Ijaz thinks my rejection of his understanding as heretical is a rejection of their understanding. But a simple glance at what both Matt and Sam have written reveals that they both affirm the orthodox version as I explained it above.

Here is what Matt has written:

"The communicatio idiomatum finds its source in the incarnation where the Divine Word became flesh in the person of Christ (John 1:114). This means that in the one person of Jesus are two distinct natures: divine and human. We call this the Hypostatic Union. Yet, we see in the Bible that the attributes of both natures are ascribed TO THE ONE PERSON OF CHRIST. In other words, the attributes of both divinity and humanity are ascribed TO THE ONE PERSON OF JESUS. Therefore, the communicatio idiomatum means "that the properties of both, the human and the divine natures, are now the properties of the person, and are therefore ascribed to the person."1Again, this means that the one person of Jesus can exhibit attributes of divinity (omnipresence, all-knowing, etc.,) and at the same time exhibit attributes of humanity (eating, walking, learning, growing, etc.). The communicatio idiomatum does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature." (Source; upper case, bold, italics mine; the person cited here by Matt is Louis Berkhof, who goes on to reject a "peculiarity" of Lutheran theology on the communicatio idiomatum that is akin to the mistaken view under which Ijaz is laboring.)

And here is the phrase as it appears in a quote Sam approvingly cites:

"With regard to the communicatio idiomatum, the human actions of Christ should be predicated of the human nature, the divine of the deity, but both could be predicated of the Person." (Source; bold emphasis original)

It is painfully obvious from all the above that Ijaz has misunderstood everything from the spelling of the doctrine to the correct understanding of it and of those who hold to it.

Is it going too far to suggest that this might explain why Ijaz perceived the need to fill his response with ad hominem attacks? One could surely not be faulted for thinking so. 

Will Ijaz now accuse me of engaging in ad hominem attacks even though I have sought to be very gracious in answering him in spite of his insults? Quite likely.

Will Ijaz now deny that he has said the things documented above and accuse me of putting words in his mouth? Quite likely.

Will Ijaz now claim that he did not accuse me of "outing" Sam and Matt and pretend he was only asking if I agree with them? Quite likely.

Will Ijaz try to find other writings he can misrepresent since he has now lost the ability to appeal to Sam and Matt? Quite likely.

Will Ijaz take down his post now that he has been thoroughly refuted on orthodox Christology? Not likely. 

Will Ijaz repent of misrepresenting Sam and Matt? Not likely.

Will Ijaz repent of spreading the falsehood that I have outed Sam and Matt as heretics? Not likely.

Will I continue to spin my wheels discussing this matter with him further knowing just how far off base he is and just how unwilling he is to receive instruction and correction? Not likely.

[By the way, I have since spoken to both Sam and Matt, and both affirm that I have correctly understood them and Ijaz has not. What do you think the chances are that Ijaz will consider himself a better authority on their views than they are?]

------------Here is Ijaz's post that I am responding to------------


George Monnat, Jr. said...

Misrepresentation is their only weapon. Well, they have ad hominem, too. They don't have evidence, logic, or truth to use in debates.

Keep fighting the good fight, brother.

Unknown said...

Dear David,
Would you please explain what Rogers has said in a simple manner.
Your brother in Christ Jesus,

Anthony Rogers said...

George, in light of Ijaz's subsequent reply, it looks like your prognostication ("...they have ad hominem, too") was spot on.

Unknown said...

If Ijaz truly believes that Divine Uncreated Nature could merge with Created Nature like mashed sausage then surely he should also apply this on Quran Arabic Letter where Uncreated Nature of Quran merge with Quran Created Nature.

However in doing this he would be condemned as heretic since 80% of Sunni Muslim hold the view of Ashariite Doctrine where Quran is both Divine and Created.

The merging of God Nature with Created Nature 'like mashed sausage' is certainly a freaking WEIRD Idea! (too many watching Sci-FI perhaps?)

My opinion, I'm more tend to see Ijaz has made the straw man fallacy over here yet regarding his intellect I really don't know whether he's intentionally doing this straw man stupidity or he's honestly unaware that we christians in majority don't believe in this mambo jumbo of merging the two natures like mashed sausage! ( I prefer to believe the later btw LOL)

Unknown said...

What anthony has to explain is God BECAME flesh then how could he have remained divine? If the divine nature remained divine then why did it lack the attribute of being all knowing?
Christians dont believe that God dresses up as a human or just filled a human like the temple. They believe he actually BECAME a human. Thats like saying a square BECAME a circle but still never lost the attributes of being a square.
So can anthony or david plz explain in simple english

Answering Judaism said...

I'll have to get around to looking at the debate, but nevertheless Anthony, this is a good post.

Hope Ijaz does repent.

Anthony Rogers said...

exposemyfoes (aka juniordean),

I don't have to explain something I don't believe.

I don't believe "a square BECAME a circle." Christ's divine nature did not become a human nature.

Rather, the Lord Jesus Christ united two complete and distinct natures in His one person. It was the eternal, personal Word of God who became flesh, not His divine nature.

In His divine nature the Word remained infinite, immutable, impassible, etc., while in His human nature he hungered, thirsted, sleep, wept, and died.

This is Christianity 101. Let me know if you ever have any questions about this. If your questions continue to be about some peculiar idea about Christianity that orthodox Christians do not believe, then you might want to talk to Ijaz.

I hope you will put forth the minimum effort necessary to understand and speak accurately about our beliefs, but as long as you refuse to do so you will make it look like asking Muslims to be reasonable and honest is like asking a square to become a circle and not lose the attributes of a square.

Unknown said...

Anthony remember this Ijaz fellow is the same guy who said that Erasmus was an atheist because he is labeled as a Humanist lol.

Unknown said...

Dennis let me explain it to you.

Basically Anthony Rogers said that Ijaz is an ignorant fool who does not understand the words that come out of his mouth. He is like some freakish idiot savant.

Hope that helps.

Anonymous said...

@exposemyfoes - Why do you compare God to a square?
Do you believe Allah is like a square?
That would be shirk, would it not?

CallingChristians.com said...

I'm forced to agree with George on his point, but with regard to Anthony. It should be noted that I never stated, Jesus's alleged two natures were 'mashed together like a sausage'. This is misrepresentation on Anthony's part. It should also be noted, that Anthony did cast ad hominem attacks, as commented above by his friend Robert Wells/ Radical Moderate.

@exposemyfoes, your question is a good one.

- Jesus has two natures.
- Jesus is one person with two natures.
- Jesus is ignorant.

Is the one person with the two natures ignorant?

Or, as Anthony will answer, Jesus while in his human nature was ignorant. Thus, again, dividing Jesus into two distinct persons. Jesus the person while in his divine nature, and Jesus the person while in his human nature.

If he's consistent, it will be Jesus the one person with two natures, that hungered, was ignorant, suffered and died. It's almost as if they believe Jesus switches modes between his divine and human natures. Surely, Anthony will squeal that I'm "misrepresenting Christian theology" and that "I don't understand it", but I'm using an argument that former Calvinists, Lutherans and Orthodox scholars have used for centuries. Surely then, this is an inter-Christian debate, and I'm merely a Muslim looking at the differing arguments. As Robin Phillips wrote on his theology blog, an apostate Calvinist with whom I agree with on many Christological issues:

"The Gnostics tried to solve the problem with a Docetism that detached Christ from materiality while Calvinists in the tradition of Sproul try to resolve the problem by a crypto-Nestorianism that sequesters the Second Person of the Trinity from the human nature going through birth and death (as Sproul says, “death is something that is experienced only by the human nature…”). However, extricating the human nature of Christ from the divine person, so that the central acts of the incarnation can be predicated of the former without touching the latter, denies the Nicene Creed’s explicit affirmation that it was “very God of very God” who was crucified, suffered and buried. The Second Council of Constantinople was even more explicit in affirming that it was “true God and the Lord of Glory and one of the Holy Trinity” who was born and died on the cross. Essentially, this type of Calvinism turns Christ’s humanity into merely a passive tool. Behind this turn is the recurring sense of angst among reformed theologians—bequeathed by the irrational commitment to Monergism—towards any synergy between the divine and the human, the spiritual and the material."

@Radical, thank you for translating Anthony's crass comments. You are a true Christian, and so is he. The Spirit is clearly within you.


Anthony Rogers said...

Although I did not say what Radical said, apparently Ijaz has no problem putting his words in my mouth. Given that, why exactly is he complaining that I have allegedly put words in his mouth that he does not agree with?

Now that Ijaz has decided it is wrong to misrepresent what others believe and have said, is he prepared to apologize to Tony Costa, Sam Shamoun, and Matt Slick, all of whom he demonstrably misrepresented?

Since Ijaz said that the orthodox doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum involved the union of the two natures anywhere from 1% to 100% -- such that if someone says the divine person of Christ suffered in His human nature not in His divine nature, then such a person is denying orthodoxy -- then isn't this the same thing as saying that, according to Ijaz, the two natures of Christ were "mashed together like a sausage," as indeed one of his defenders understood him?

Ijaz said, "If he's [i.e. Anthony] consistent, it will be Jesus the one person with two natures, that hungered, was ignorant, suffered and died." Since this is exactly what I believe, I will take this unwitting admission of my consistency as the best I am going to get from someone who refuses to be corrected and instructed.

There is only one personal subject in Christ, not two. That one person has two natures, not one. While both natures belong to the one person, they remain distinct from each other and retain their own properties. Whatever is said or done in either nature is said or done by the one person of Christ, whether that be upholding the universe by the word of His power or hanging on the cross, though the former is true as regards HIS Godhead or divine nature, and the latter is true as regards HIS manhood or human nature.

This is exactly what was stated at the council of Chalcedon, for which you can find any number of disgruntled apostates and Muslims who will continue to misunderstand and misrepresent it:

"Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge ONE AND THE SAME Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; ONE AND THE SAME Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, WITHOUT CONFUSION, WITHOUT CHANGE, WITHOUT DIVISION, WITHOUT SEPARATION; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather **the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence**, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us."

Unknown said...

Ijaz I would quote an apostate Muslim like you quote apostate "Christians," but it is hard to find Muslim apostates with their heads still attached.

uniquenz said...

Ijaz, you mentioned that exposemyfoes asked a good question. However, he compared God to a square. So, I'll ask you the same question. Is this not shirk?

Unknown said...

The Problem on how to fully& thoroughly explain of An Entity who possesses Two Natures ( Both Divinely Uncreated Nature & Non-Divine Created Nature), is actually a PAINSTAKING MATTER IN ISLAM. I'm talking about the Nature of Kalam(Word of God).

The Argument about Kalam of having Two Natures or whether It only has One Nature, has made BITTER DIVISION in Islam.

1) The Ashariite & Maturidy Sunnis(consist of 70-80% of World Muslim population) believe Kalam Quran has Two Natures (Divine and Non-Divine)and in this belief though having two natures but the natures are still somehow separated/distinct each other.

However to demand the specific explanation on how these Two opposite Natures Unite and how this can happen is NOT POSSIBLE and even FORBIDDEN!

If u went to the center of Ashariite Theological study at Al-Azhar University, Cairo,Egypt the final answer u would have is Walahuallam ( Only Allah Knows Best).

I think Ijaz is probably a Salafist since he goes to the area where almost no Asharites would go. But in insisting the christians to explain specifically the "miracle" of Christ Two Natures, consequently he actually indirectly also has deemed the 70-80% of Muslim World population as HERETIC, for they have also believed in the Unification of Divine Nature & Non-Divine within One Entity(Quran).

2)The Salafy in the other hand believes Quran only has One Nature! and hilariously the One Nature here is The Divine Nature meaning they don't separate& distinguish the recitation,the arabic languange and letters of Quran in other words recitation, letters and the Quran arabic language are also somehow AS DIVINE AS ALLAH

Imam Ahmad Hanbal even say , “whoever says my recitation is created is a Jahmi”

The Salafist mocked the Ashariites as Jahmis ( Those who reject the Divine Atribute of God)

However The Ashariite mocked the Salafist as Mujasimmah( Those who likened Allah's divinity to creation eg. considers Quran Arabic Language&Recitation as Uncreated&Divine as Allah )

Analyzing the Salafist although they only acknowledge Kalam Quran for only having One Nature however the way they've been seeing it, is quite similar with Ijaz's "mashed sausage" Theory!

The Salafist somehow believe the Quran is fully Divine/Uncreated and NO CLEAR DISTINCTION between human recitation, the Arabic Language&Letters with Allah' Genuine Spoken Word so it's like MASHED SAUSAGE!

Yet strangely if we confront the Salafist to specifically explain how could A Human Recitation and Arabic Letter have the same nature as Allah then they would only answer again Walahuallam ( Only Allah Knows Best). And any further demand for answer would certainly FORBIDDEN!

I perceive this as hypocritical& double standard for a Salafist like Ijaz to demand the specific explanation of Christ'Nature when in fact the Nature of Kalam Quran is having the similar problem in explaining it specifically.

And even in this case Christians are tend to agree with Ashariites' side because it's obviously a SHIRK / SIN to define a Created Nature of having the same nature with God, as being believed by the Mujassimahs / Salafists/Wahabists

TPaul said...

Ironically Ijaz in trying to refute Anthony will never once depend on the incorrect and absurd notion that the Koran brings forth on regards to the nature of Jesus, ie: Allah begetting a human child through the virgin Mary.
The concept of the Trinity in the Koran is so ridiculous that Muslims if they are truthful will see major flaws in it.

Nakdimon said...

Bro, this is the same guy that doesn't see the difference between a slip up and not knowing a language.

He equates James White slipping up with Ahmed Deedat not knowing what the heck he is talking about.
He thinks James White doesn't know Greek because of tripping up once, yet doesn't think Yasir Qadhi is ignorant of Arabic when he trips.

If you look up the word "irrational" in the dictionary you will see a picture of Ijaz Ahmad next to it.

Anonymous said...

Ijaz asks “How can God die?”

The problem that Muslims seem to have with the idea of God/Christ dying is that they have not grasped the basic Biblical definition of death. These debates (about God being manifested in the flesh and then dying) should begin with, or at least include the correct Scriptural definition of death, so that both sides are on the same level and not just talking past one another, each with a different definition/idea of death.

E.g. death in the Scriptures does not mean non-existence; it means an existence of extreme misery. No one ceases to exist when they die. We either end up in extreme joy/life or extreme misery/death. (In the case of Lazarus, spiritually he was not experiencing either but was simply “asleep”, as Jesus says before calling him forth and thereby demonstrating His divine power).

Now Jesus, even though He was God manifested in the flesh, had to die when He took on our sins because, as God himself says, sin kills whoever it touches. But again, as the Scriptures tell us, death does not at any time, or in any way, mean a cessation of existence, but rather, entry into extreme misery.

Jesus himself tells us that He would suffer and die both in the flesh and in the spirit. Sin condemned Jesus’ spirit/divine nature to death/extreme misery, as well as killing His body. His death/extreme misery was all consuming for His divine nature/spirit because He BECAME sin for us through and through (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 2:9-10). Anything less would have been a cop-out. It simply would not have done the job. But we know it was a thorough divine death/extreme misery when He cried out “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34) just before He gave up the ghost.

But, being God, death/extreme misery could not hold Him since He had committed no actual sin of His own (again, 2 Corinthians 5:21). He took on death on its own turf and totally defeated it, as His empty tomb and appearance in the flesh to many eyewitnesses (wounds and all), and eventual ascent into heaven proved.

Anonymous said...

To follow on from what Trevor has said:

Muslims believe that:

Allah has hands but not as we have hands.
Allah has eyes but not as we have eyes.
Allah has legs but not as we have legs.
Allah sees, but not as we see.
Allah hears, but not as we hear.
Allah speaks, but not as we speak.

Could not then Allah die but not as we die?

Food for thought:
Surah 3:185 + Surah 5:116

Anonymous said...

Royal Son says, “Could not then Allah die but not as we die?”

That’s a good point. Christ, being God and being without sin, yet dying as a sinner, is necessarily a unique, one-of-a-kind death.

And, because He ended up defeating death/extreme misery on the sinner’s behalf, those who believe in Him (including those before Christ who believed in the promise of Christ to come) no longer need to fear death/extreme misery. As Jesus says, “Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps my word he shall never see death.” (John 8:51).

Though the body dies (only to be resurrected in the future), our spirit just falls asleep (John 11:11) as explained by Jesus when he called Lazarus (who was physically dead) from the tomb. We don’t actually suffer death/extreme misery. We just have a nice sleep (“Do not weep; she is not dead, but sleeping.” Luke 8:52) until, like Lazarus, He calls us. “Our friend Lazarus sleeps, but I go that I may wake him up.” John 11:11

There Jesus is already demonstrating that: “I am the resurrection and the life…” John 11:25

Below are some more verses describing our state after the body dies.

“Do not marvel at this: for the hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear his voice and come forth – those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of condemnation.” John 5:28, 29

…For since the fathers fell asleep… 2Peter 3:4

It would be the same as when we normally fall into a deep sleep and then wake up later only to realize that we have been asleep for hours with no awareness or memory of it. It seems as though we only just fell asleep moments before.

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt. Daniel 12:2

If we look to Christ then we will awake to eternal life rather than eternal death/extreme misery. As He promises:

“And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die…” John 11:26

“If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.” John 8:52

TAREK said...

Hello brother Anthony! There are some few things you should always take into consideration when talking to a muslims:
1* Allah allows them to lie so they can lie to non muslims and even muslims as long as it helps the cause of Islam.
2* Allah promised to creat enemity among us Christians therefore what do you think Ijaz will do. Iknow brother Sam Shamoun and the rest of us understand very well. So you do not need to come up with the conversation you had on youtube. They muslims apologists have notbeen able to win any argument or defend their religion so the only way fighting us is to adopt their god allah strategy.
Anyway Ijaz let me inform you that we CHRISTIANS are above your allah's plan because we are coverby the precious blood of YESHUA.
STAY BLESS brother Anthony

TAREK said...

Ijaz can you comeon paltalkfor a debatewith Christian Prince? Please if you are a man enough and want your72 virgins in Janh then please let us know nd we can set it up. Are you ready to stand as a true muslim? Come on stop making noise. WE WANT TO DEMOLISH YOU AND YOUR CONGREGATION. cOME AND GET IT.....OKAY KID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

exposemyfoes said: “Christians dont believe that God dresses up as a human or just filled a human like the temple. They believe he actually BECAME a human.”

A woman cannot give birth to any creature other than another human. Obviously, whoever is born of a woman qualifies as being human. If God (in the Person of Christ) decides to enter the world by being born of a woman, then that automatically qualifies Him as being human/Man. So now He is both God and Man because He qualifies as both.

It would be similar to a man who decided to get a trade. When he passes his trade exam he is qualified as both man and plumber (or electrician etc.) He is born of a woman, which makes him human, and he is, at the same time, a plumber. He is both entities at the same time because he qualifies as both.

So also Christ qualifies as God, because He is God, and at the same time He also qualifies as being human because He was born of a woman. So it is really about qualifications and titles. E.g. Jesus also qualifies as the ‘Son of God’ because it was the miraculous conception of Mary by the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35) by which Jesus was conceived (He had no human father). And Jesus is, at the same time, qualified as the ‘Son of man’ because He was born of a woman. He is also qualified as the ‘Redeemer’ or ‘Savior’ because He defeated sin and death on our behalf. He is qualified to be all these things at once.

exposemyfoes said: “If the divine nature remained divine then why did it lack the attribute of being all knowing?”

That He willingly forfeited certain powers (Philippians 2:7-8) does not take away from his divinity since that was His choice to do so in the first place (Matthew 20:28). God the Father and God the Holy Spirit were running the show during Jesus’ earthly ministry until after His resurrection when, as He says, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18).

George Monnat, Jr. said...

I've never understood how muslims or anyone can claim that God is omnipotent yet can't do things like be in two places at once, be both Father and Son, walk around as a human, or anything else that He wants. Muslims are constantly and publicly limiting and belittling their allah and our God, as if God can't do something just because they can't understand it. Here's what we should all be saying, "God can do or be anything."