PDA

View Full Version : In what sense is Jesus (as) God's "Son"?



MustafaMc
10-04-2008, 05:10 PM
Arguably the most famous and widely known verse in the whole NT is John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

In what sense of the words was Jesus (as) the "only begotten Son" of God?

beget (begotten inflected form of beget)
1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

We know that God did not beget or "sire" Jesus in the way that I did my own son, but the second definition may apply. Could God have produced (or created) Jesus as an "effect" from Himself? As in saying the word, "Be" from whence he "was".

In what sense of the word is Jesus God's "son"?

son
1 a: a human male offspring especially of human beings b: a male adopted child c: a human male descendant
2capitalized : the second person of the Trinity
3: a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)

The definition 1a and 1c have been excluded from the definition of beget above because we know that God did not copulate with Mary (astaghfir'Allah). I also assume that God did not legally adopt Jesus. Although adoption has some benefit to the adopter and the adoptee, there is still no biological connection between the two and the one is not really the son of the other.

Definition 2 should be excluded because it relies upon a nebulous term, "Trinity" as the essential element and because it is a circular argument.

What about door #3? Could Jesus (as) have derived (or been created from) from a previously existing formative agent, known as God?

...but then again, I have heard Christians say that Jesus (as) was not really the "Son of God", but rather fully God Himself. However, how does one reconcile this with Matthew 3:16-17? After being baptized, Jesus (Son) came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he (Son) saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove and lighting on him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens (Father) said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
MustafaMc
10-11-2008, 01:34 AM
Can a Christian provide some insight into the "Divine Sonship" of Jesus (as) as delineated above?
Reply

Yanal
10-11-2008, 01:58 AM
In sense of today. A wise person will say "We are all sons and daughters of god"Because he sees everyone the same.
Reply

Keltoi
10-11-2008, 05:08 AM
As you stated, the term has nothing to do with copulation or any other carnal means. Just as the term "son of man" is used to refer to human beings, the term "Son of God" is used to express Christ's divine origin. That is why Christ referred to being the "Son of Man" and the "Son of God". Human and divine.

As for Matthew 3-16/17, that is exactly why the concept of the Trinity was established. You have all three aspects of God interacting at the same time. As for why God refers to Christ as His "Son", that would speak to the nature of that relationship. Christ, being of the flesh, was naturally submissive to the Father. That is why that difference is highlighted by the terms "Father" and "Son", and why Christ repeatedly makes mention of the fact that "the Father is greater than I". Being lesser than the Father doesn't convey any lack of divinity, only a statement regarding the limitations of the flesh. To make it simple, flesh is submissive to Spirit.

I assume you already understand the Christian theology as to the nature of Christ? Being fully human and fully divine? Christ had all the weaknesses that we all have except for one, sin. In that role He was naturally submissive to the Will of God. Hence, the Father/Son relationship.

Hope that is clear as mud....:)

*It's late and I must rest for the big Red River rivarly tomorrow. Boomer Sooner!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
MustafaMc
10-11-2008, 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
As for Matthew 3-16/17, that is exactly why the concept of the Trinity was established. You have all three aspects of God interacting at the same time.
I have difficulty with this verse meaning that God existed simultaneously as a man (Jesus), a dove (Holy Spirit) and a voice in Heaven (Father). To me they are 3 distinct entities and this verse illustrates the lack of "unity in the Trinity".
As for why God refers to Christ as His "Son", that would speak to the nature of that relationship. Christ, being of the flesh, was naturally submissive to the Father. That is why that difference is highlighted by the terms "Father" and "Son", and why Christ repeatedly makes mention of the fact that "the Father is greater than I". Being lesser than the Father doesn't convey any lack of divinity, only a statement regarding the limitations of the flesh. To make it simple, flesh is submissive to Spirit.

I assume you already understand the Christian theology as to the nature of Christ? Being fully human and fully divine? Christ had all the weaknesses that we all have except for one, sin. In that role He was naturally submissive to the Will of God. Hence, the Father/Son relationship.
... but that interpretation is not found in the definition of a son that I quoted above. What you described better fits the word servant as in Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus... and Acts 4:27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus...

servant
1. one privately employed to perform household services
2. one publicly employed to perform services, as for a government
3. one expressing submission or debt to another
4. one that serves another

It seems that definitions 3 and 4 fit Jesus (as) like a glove. So my interpretation of your post and the 2 verses in Acts implies that "Servant of God" is actually better suited as a title for Jesus (as) than is "Son of God".
Reply

SixTen
10-11-2008, 12:29 PM
As far as I am aware of the christianity doctrine, they believe Jesus (as) to be the son of God, not biology, but as a form, 1 of the three forms. They believe God can come as different forms, and they labelled him as the son. Any christians who think I got it wrong feel free to correct me. Meh, its all pretty weird.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-11-2008, 06:27 PM
Originally Posted by SixTen
As far as I am aware of the christianity doctrine, they believe Jesus (as) to be the son of God, not biology, but as a form, 1 of the three forms. They believe God can come as different forms, and they labelled him as the son. Any christians who think I got it wrong feel free to correct me. Meh, its all pretty weird.
So, are you saying that for the lack of a better term, "son" was chosen? But, there are references in the NT at Jesus' (as) baptism and transfiguration where a Voice from Heaven (Father?) said, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased."

Since we know that Jesus wasn't really the Son of God, could there have been a misinterpretation of the presumably Aramaic word for "servant" into the Greek or Latin word for "son"?
Reply

The Khan
10-11-2008, 07:26 PM
:sl:

These bid'a innovations in Christianity are pagan in origin. The trinity is of pagan origin, particularly the trinity of Ancient Egypt. The trinity of Egypt was flexible. The pharoahs (who considered themselves Gods) would promote and demote their Gods as they wished. One of the most common trinities was Osiris (the father), Horus (the son), and Ra (the holy ghost). All three were at some point or the other worshiped as Sun Gods. 98% of Christian practices are of pagan origin. For example, Christmas was originally a pagan festival called Saturnalia, which later became the birthday of Sol Invictus, a pagan cult created by the Roman Emperor El-Gabalus, which became the official religion of the Empire and combined the three most prominant solar deities - Mithras (a pagan God which was created from the Zoroastrian Ahura Mithra, who was also a prominent solar deity in India in the form of Mithra-Varuna prior to the creation of the Hindu trinity or "trimurti", which is Brahma - the creator, Vishnu - the preserver, and Shiva- the destroyer), El-Gabal, and Apollo. On this day (Dec 25), the sun reaches its lowest point in the Mediterranean area (Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc - the main religious centres of the Roman Empire), when it aligns with the crux constellations of the sky, which is shaped like a cross, or crucifix. For three days, it stays fixed in this position, after which it rises by one degree. Thus, the "son" died on a cross, was dead for three days, and was thus resurrected. Easter was also a pagan festival, celebrated on the Spring Equinox, which was when the sun would reach the highest position of the sky. That's why the Christians celebrate his "resurrection" on this day.

The cross is of pagan origin, from the Egyptian Ankh.


Which later became the coptic cross:


Which evolved into the modern cross.

"Son of God" was a very common term in Pagan Rome. For example, Julius Caesar was declared a God after his death. After that, Octavian (his adopted son, the Romans considered adoption the same as having a blood child) justified his dictatorial rule by calling himself the son of a God. Also, the term "Christ" is derived from the Greek "Christos", which means "the annointed one". The heir apparent to the Roman throne would be called "Caesar", after the death of Julius Caesar (prior to his assasination, Rome was a theocracy, through which the elite would elect two consuls every year who would govern the Republic). "Christos" is a corruption of "Caesar".

Most of Christianity is based on Pagan rituals, for example, Sunday was the day when the worshipers of Mithras would gather for Mass. The veneration for Maryam (AHS) began when the worshipers of Isis (Isis worship died out long before in Egypt, but was popular with all of the Roman traders who adopter her as their Goddess after the conquest of Egypt. Alexandria was a very important trading port) refused to convert unless they had a "mother figure" to pray to. Esa's (AHS) Aramaic name was Ezu, which later became the Hebrew word for ******* (astaghfirullah), which became Iesus in Greece, and evolved into Jesus in English.

Most of these Bid'a innovations occured during the three councils of Nicaea. You see, there were a lot of riots in the Roman Empire as the pagans refused to convert, hence, these councils adopted these pagan rituals into the religion, altering the Bible, and only preserving the monotheistic core by a fragment. The only Imam who tried to prevent these innovations from occuring was Arius. Only some of the Goths preserved his teachings, that there's no God but God, and that Jesus (AHS) was his prophet. However, a few centuries later, they were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism.
Reply

coddles76
10-13-2008, 12:46 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I have difficulty with this verse meaning that God existed simultaneously as a man (Jesus), a dove (Holy Spirit) and a voice in Heaven (Father).
This is a concept which is not only difficult for you but difficult for any free thinking human mind which has the flow of logic running through his brain. The reason for the difficulty in understanding is because its a man made theory and anything that is man made will have its flaws. My advice is do not try to understand the Trinity, or the role of Jesus as prescribed by christianity. I have tried for years and years, speaking to religious men of the christian faith, Priests, scholars etc etc and even they have themselves are confused and do not have the answers. The final answer I get is "You just have to believe", or just ignore you. Some Christians will just continue to try to state there point and dazzle you with words but in essence the illogical nature of the theory will remain. Its only Allah SWT that will rid the world of these lies and we just have to continue spreading the truth which will always crush falsehood wherever it may lie.
These comments are not to offend anyone.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-13-2008, 01:35 AM
Originally Posted by The Khan
:sl:

These bid'a innovations in Christianity are pagan in origin.
The trinity is of pagan origin, particularly the trinity of Ancient Egypt.
The cross is of pagan origin, from the Egyptian Ankh.
"Son of God" was a very common term in Pagan Rome.
Most of Christianity is based on Pagan rituals, for example, Sunday was the day when the worshipers of Mithras would gather for Mass.
Your statements are as true as the assertion that the God of Islam is a moon God. Just because their is a moon God does not mean that Islam is patterned after it, and just because these other things existed doesn't mean that Christianity was patterned after them either.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 02:51 AM
http://www.mostmerciful.com/moongod.htm

You have a point. If you can explain why the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians perform Salah and other Christians do not, then I shall rest my case.

The reason, according to my view, is simple: Ethiopia, or Axum as it was known at that time, was free from Roman control, and did not participate in the Nicaean councils. However, the trinity was accepted as a basic compromise with Rome.
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2008, 04:01 AM
Originally Posted by The Khan
http://www.mostmerciful.com/moongod.htm

You have a point. If you can explain why the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians perform Salah and other Christians do not, then I shall rest my case.

The reason, according to my view, is simple: Ethiopia, or Axum as it was known at that time, was free from Roman control, and did not participate in the Nicaean councils. However, the trinity was accepted as a basic compromise with Rome.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts the Trinity as part of their fundamental theology. Perhaps that is what you mean by your last sentence, but if not I think that should clarified.

As for the Council of Nicaea, it wasn't Constantine who formulated the Trinitarian theology. That was well in place long before his time. The issue was the nature of Christ. There were disagreements with the Alexandrian Church over whether Christ was of the same substance as God or a similar substance. There were other issues like the date of the Resurrection. It was primarily formed to combat the Arian heresy.

As for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, it was a part of the greater Church of Alexandria. Which did take part in the Nicean Council.
Reply

SixTen
10-13-2008, 08:47 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
So, are you saying that for the lack of a better term, "son" was chosen? But, there are references in the NT at Jesus' (as) baptism and transfiguration where a Voice from Heaven (Father?) said, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased."

Since we know that Jesus wasn't really the Son of God, could there have been a misinterpretation of the presumably Aramaic word for "servant" into the Greek or Latin word for "son"?

I guess the term son was used, maybe to signify human form. As all humans are seen as the "children" of God, so to say, (atlest that is wht I am aware of, in christianity).

Again, the trinity concept, IMO (though its under debate), is not clearly in the bible, I think it is a rather philosophical manifestation within the bible. So, I don't think it is actually a translation error, but rather a speculative idea which got attached to the belief itself well after his death.

I mean, prophesy wise, a messiah had been predicted to come in the future - from the torah as you know. Christians claimed him as the messiah, but then somewhere along the line - due to what they believed to be the ressurection - ideas of divinity came accross. From their, it was easy to find verses which they felt justified their beliefs. I know both muslims and christians, know of how jews for example, when seeing Jesus (as) miracles, thought he was divine, God perhaps, and they use the notion (which I think is a logical fallacy) that because he didn't deny it (he didn't say anything), it is a further proof that he was indeed God.

On a side note, Jesus (ra) has been called by many titles, other than son, like the alpha and omega and many more.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 11:07 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts the Trinity as part of their fundamental theology. Perhaps that is what you mean by your last sentence, but if not I think that should clarified.

As for the Council of Nicaea, it wasn't Constantine who formulated the Trinitarian theology. That was well in place long before his time. The issue was the nature of Christ. There were disagreements with the Alexandrian Church over whether Christ was of the same substance as God or a similar substance. There were other issues like the date of the Resurrection. It was primarily formed to combat the Arian heresy.

As for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, it was a part of the greater Church of Alexandria. Which did take part in the Nicean Council.
It was the third council of Nicaea which made the third and final decision regarding what the Arians considered "heresies". Unfortunately for Arius and his followers, most of them were barred from participating in the council. Of course, there were many other "heresies" prevalent during the time which the Catholic church condemned, such as the Nestorian chruch. There was trinity view, the dual view, the nestorian view, and the Arian view. Then there were gnostics, including the Mandeans, then there were Manichaens, who were wiped out with an iron fist, etc.

And then there were the Jewish-Christians, who were persecuted to such an extent that they sought refuge in Kerela, India. Around 13-14 centuries passed, and they preserved the teaching of Jesus (AHS). They believed in one God and associated no partners with him. They believed that Isa (AHS) was his servant and prophet. They prayed thrice daily towards Jerusalem. They observed the Sabbath. Then, the Portuguese conquered Cochin, and forced them to convert to Catholicism. They had nowhere else to run to this time. The only custom which remains is of eating the Jewish flatbread during the Sabbath. There are around 300,000 Jewish-Christians remaining in Kerela to this day.

The Ethiopian orthodox chruch was nominally a part of the greater Chruch of Alexandria, as far as I can recall. It's similar to say, the Syro Indian Church in affiliation to the See of Rome.The Ethiopian Orthodox Chruch was more or less autonomous, which only led to a few influences such as the trinity being imposed, iconography of Jesus (AHS), and change of the Qibla from Jerusalem to the East.

Anyway, I see no point in arguing any further. My view is a combination of the secular historical view and Islamic view.
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2008, 11:16 AM
Originally Posted by The Khan
It was the third council of Nicaea which made the third and final decision regarding what the Arians considered "heresies". Unfortunately for Arius and his followers, most of them were barred from participating in the council. Of course, there were many other "heresies" prevalent during the time which the Catholic church condemned, such as the Nestorian chruch. There was trinity view, the dual view, the nestorian view, and the Arian view. Then there were gnostics, including the Mandeans, then there were Manichaens, who were wiped out with an iron fist, etc.

And then there were the Jewish-Christians, who were persecuted to such an extent that they sought refuge in Kerela, India. Around 13-14 centuries passed, and they preserved the teaching of Jesus (AHS). They believed in one God and associated no partners with him. They believed that Isa (AHS) was his servant and prophet. They prayed thrice daily towards Jerusalem. They observed the Sabbath. Then, the Portuguese conquered Cochin, and forced them to convert to Catholicism. They had nowhere else to run to this time. The only custom which remains is of eating the Jewish flatbread during the Sabbath. There are around 300,000 Jewish-Christians remaining in Kerela to this day.

The Ethiopian orthodox chruch was nominally a part of the greater Chruch of Alexandria, as far as I can recall. It's similar to say, the Syro Indian Church in affiliation to the See of Rome.The Ethiopian Orthodox Chruch was more or less autonomous, which only led to a few influences such as the trinity being imposed, iconography of Jesus (AHS), and change of the Qibla from Jerusalem to the East.
The Trinity was not "imposed", it was an accepted part of the Christian faith. The Ethiopian Church was guided by the Patriarch of Alexandria. It grew increasingly isolated due to the Muslim conquests which cut it off from the larger Church. That isolation has been remedied in the modern age however. That isolation did affect the evolution and philosophy of the Ethiopian Church of course.

As for the heresies addressed during the period in question, putting " around the word doesn't change the fact that the views of Arius and others were not accepted by the vast majority of Christendom. This is why a concrete doctrinal creed was so important. Sects were being created that taught doctrines that were not considered Scripturally sound. That will happen when a faith spreads so quickly amongst varied peoples with different cultural traits.
Reply

SixTen
10-13-2008, 11:19 AM
The Khan, The council meeting, was not held to discuss whether Jesus (ra) was God or not, rather, it was a debate as to how he was divine - basically the meeting had already accepted the assumption that he was divine, it was just on technicalities.

Its a bit like, you believe that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is a prophet, but you could discuss as a 2ndary topic, as to what makes him a prophet.

The trinity concept had been established well before this meeting.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 11:53 AM
Thank you for clarifying my doubt regarding the actual emergence of the trinity.

Originally Posted by Keltoi
The Trinity was not "imposed", it was an accepted part of the Christian faith. The Ethiopian Church was guided by the Patriarch of Alexandria. It grew increasingly isolated due to the Muslim conquests which cut it off from the larger Church. That isolation has been remedied in the modern age however. That isolation did affect the evolution and philosophy of the Ethiopian Church of course.
Not really. Firstly, Ethiopia was never conquered in its history except by the Italians briefly. Secondly, the independence of Axum prevented many pagan characteristics creeping into the faith, although some were imposed.

However, my view of Christianity being paganised will not change. You see, when I was an atheist, and decided to return to religion, I researched as many religions I could before reverting, and ended up discovering too many similarities between Christianity and Pagan religions. In fact, I discovered that it is only de jure monotheism by a fraction, de facto polytheism. Hence, my view will not change.
Reply

SixTen
10-13-2008, 11:59 AM
Originally Posted by The Khan
Thank you for clarifying my doubt regarding the actual emergence of the trinity.

However, my view of Christianity being paganised will not change. You see, when I was an atheist, and decided to return to religion, I researched as many religions I could before reverting, and ended up discovering too many similarities between Christianity and Pagan religions. In fact, I discovered that it is only de jure monotheism by a fraction, de facto polytheism. Hence, my view will not change.
I agree with you, that I don't believe the trinity concept is valid or has strong evidence. It requires a heck of a lot of work to justify and make it intellectually viable. Personally, it is accepted by some scholars, that no one can ever truly understand the concept.

As I think I have explained in another post (or thread), that, it is just 1 thing, which lead to another, and the ideology went out of control and in the end - they ended up with Jesus (ra) being divine, and from their on - in belief that their was strong evidence for such a case, the doctrine was formed.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 12:09 PM
Yes, true.

I personally could go on and on about the pagan influences on Christianity, and I would probably take hours (if not days) to finish typing. It would be easier to point out the basic monotheistic core.

Ex:





Source: www.pocm.info

Of course, the website goes to the extent of declaring Christianity to be a myth. Discovered it a week back.
Reply

SixTen
10-13-2008, 12:12 PM
Originally Posted by The Khan
Yes, true.

I personally could go on and on about the pagan influences on Christianity, and I would probably take hours (if not days) to finish typing. It would be easier to point out the basic monotheistic core.
Their are, pagan similarities between the doctrine of christianity and that of ancient pagans - HOWEVER I do not think their is sufficient evidence to conclude that, it was the paganistic influences which lead to the doctrine of trinity, infact it would be very wrong of myself to do so due to no backing.

Anyway, such is not required to be sought, as it is not impossible that the trinity doctrine can come about due to the circumstances without the influence of paganism. Nor is it important in terms of not accepting the trinity doctrine.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 12:14 PM
Yes, true, Protestant denominations themselves, such as the Unitarian chruch have disputes regarding the trinity.
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2008, 04:26 PM
The "similarities" you point to have to do with iconography, not theology. Yes, many cultures adopted Christianity and substituted Christ and/or saints in the place of their former pagan beliefs in the context of artwork. That has nothing to do with the theology of Christianity. In fact, there is more evidence that Christianity influenced many pagan cults, not the other way around. Especially when one is referring to Roman mystery cults.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 04:49 PM
Keltoi, can you link this evidence to me, please? I've always considered it to be the other way around. The rites of the mystery cults and such are no different from those performed when the Romans developed paganism over their animist beliefs.
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2008, 05:00 PM
Originally Posted by The Khan
Keltoi, can you link this evidence to me, please? I've always considered it to be the other way around. The rites of the mystery cults and such are no different from those performed when the Romans developed paganism over their animist beliefs.
I will have to search because I don't normally get my info from the internet if I can help it.

Though some similarities are clear between these religions and Christianity (death and resurrection of a god, a ceremonial meal, etc.), scholars differ as to the level of influence the mystery religions exerted on early Christianity. Part of the difficulty is that the bulk of our knowledge of these pagan religions dates from the second century onward, and the mystery religions may have been influenced by Christianity by then. {3} Also, the two religious movements flourished in the same cultural context, so it is possible their similarities are best explained not by dependence but in terms of parallel development.

http://www.religionfacts.com/christi...ry/context.htm

I found this one that mentions it.

and this one: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...20Encyclopedia

*there were many more I didn't paste.
Reply

barney
10-13-2008, 05:50 PM
What likelyhood is there that he sent several sons?

I'm asking due to the incredible amount of virgin born deities with divine fathers , 12 diciples, the light of the world, saving mankind by their death, getting eaten by followers, water into wine...etc etc born under a star worshipped in ancient times, who were tortured and died, rose after 3 days and are schedualed to come again. Also the many who did similar if not exactly the same miracles.

Asklepios.
Hercules.
Prometheus
Dionysos
Osiris
Horus
Mithra
Krishna
Buddha
Apollonius
Zarathustra
and the aztec Gods who I fear will break my spellchecker.

Why have all these older gods done all the things that Jesus did. it's almost, if you squint a bit and bite your lip, like the bibalic Jesus was a cobbled together mix of all these gods and others.
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2008, 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by barney
What likelyhood is there that he sent several sons?

I'm asking due to the incredible amount of virgin born deities with divine fathers , 12 diciples, the light of the world, saving mankind by their death, getting eaten by followers, water into wine...etc etc born under a star worshipped in ancient times, who were tortured and died, rose after 3 days and are schedualed to come again. Also the many who did similar if not exactly the same miracles.

Asklepios.
Hercules.
Prometheus
Dionysos
Osiris
Horus
Mithra
Krishna
Buddha
Apollonius
Zarathustra
and the aztec Gods who I fear will break my spellchecker.

Why have all these older gods done all the things that Jesus did. it's almost, if you squint a bit and bite your lip, like the bibalic Jesus was a cobbled together mix of all these gods and others.
The names on that list that I'm familiar with have no or simply far fetched similarity to Christian theology. Don't make the mistake of accepting the internet scholarship on this topic.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 06:19 PM
@Keltoi: Read - Pagan Christianity by Frank Viola and George Barna

Originally Posted by barney
What likelyhood is there that he sent several sons?

I'm asking due to the incredible amount of virgin born deities with divine fathers , 12 diciples, the light of the world, saving mankind by their death, getting eaten by followers, water into wine...etc etc born under a star worshipped in ancient times, who were tortured and died, rose after 3 days and are schedualed to come again. Also the many who did similar if not exactly the same miracles.

Asklepios.
Hercules.
Prometheus
Dionysos
Osiris
Horus
Mithra
Krishna
Buddha
Apollonius
Zarathustra
and the aztec Gods who I fear will break my spellchecker.

Why have all these older gods done all the things that Jesus did. it's almost, if you squint a bit and bite your lip, like the bibalic Jesus was a cobbled together mix of all these gods and others.
And that's where the Islamic view makes sense. ^^;
Reply

barney
10-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Bhudda: In the miracle of Iddhi, Iddhipatihariya (Superhuman power) the Bhikkhu experiences various kinds of power. From one form he becomes many, and from many he becomes one again; he becomes visible or invisible, passes through wall and rocks without touching them, as if they were space. He dives into and emerges from the earth as if it were water, and walks on water without disturbing the surface as if it were land
Hercules carried Hersione back to her father on magic horses that galloped over the water

Horus was carried off by Set to the summit of Mount Hetep where they battled

Attis and Adonis were crucified

Dionysus did the water into wine trick, always popular.

Etc Etc. I could fill several pages as im sure you know.
Internet scholorship can be hidiously inaccurate, and yet the basic facts are there. things like Horus being the Lamb, have little basis. A few pictures of Horus with lambs, which may be simply a shepherd with their sheep.

Many others are measurable fact if you read the sagas and the ancient legends.
Why the dovetailing with christianity?
The only solution really for a christian is that the story of christ is a massive coincidence!
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 06:59 PM
@barney: There are many scholars who have written books regarding these subject, such as the one mentioned above and "Suns of God" by Acharya S. Most of these internet scholars base their works based on these books, which have numerous citations for validation.
Reply

barney
10-13-2008, 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by The Khan
@barney: There are many scholars who have written books regarding these subject, such as the one mentioned above and "Suns of God" by Acharya S. Most of these internet scholars base their works based on these books, which have numerous citations for validation.
Oh part of it is an axe to grind against christianity i'm sure. But taking away anything vaguely biased, there are dozens upon dozens of examples of the Christ story being in the main part cut 'n pasted from dozens of other old religions now exterminated by christians.

Funnily enough, its all the bits where Jesus does stuff thats not normal human actions. Like rising from the dead and raising the dead and the water and wine and healing the blind.

It must have been a great sales pitch. "Look, this is a new improved version of Horus...its got bells and whistles on it and makes your old MK1 Horus look lame...our one flies into space and you can still eat the flesh like you are used to doing. Oh and if you dont accept it, we will burn you from the feet up on a slow fire....and your kids...."
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2008, 10:11 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Bhudda: In the miracle of Iddhi, Iddhipatihariya (Superhuman power) the Bhikkhu experiences various kinds of power. From one form he becomes many, and from many he becomes one again; he becomes visible or invisible, passes through wall and rocks without touching them, as if they were space. He dives into and emerges from the earth as if it were water, and walks on water without disturbing the surface as if it were land
Hercules carried Hersione back to her father on magic horses that galloped over the water
...and? Because some culture has a story about a supernatural deity that is able to walk on water points to some theological borrowing? Sorry but I don't buy it.

Originally Posted by barney
Horus was carried off by Set to the summit of Mount Hetep where they battled
Yeah...

Originally Posted by barney
Attis and Adonis were crucified
That is a new one on me. From what I know Adonis was killed by the tusk of a boar. Attis performed self-castration and was also said to be killed by a boar. It was thought that the myth of his death had more to do with explaining the dietary laws of Gaul.

Originally Posted by barney
Dionysus did the water into wine trick, always popular.
Meaning Bacchus of course, which is the god of wine in mythology. Not striking that such a god would produce wine.

Originally Posted by barney
Why the dovetailing with christianity?
The only solution really for a christian is that the story of christ is a massive coincidence!
Massive coincidence? Making comparisons like this and attempting to point to some massive borrowing of theology is akin to pointing to Zeus and stating.."Look, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship a God who lives in the sky." Or "Look, an angel supposedly gave Muhammed the Qu'ran, that sounds just like Zoroastrianism."

As I stated before, there is plenty of evidence that Christian iconography was influenced by pagan artwork of the period. That is more apparent in the Eastern Church, but still there in the Western as well.

You have to keep in mind that Christianity developed in Palestine in the world of Judaism. The theology is based on Judaic prophecy that Christians see as fulfilled in the body of Jesus Christ.
Reply

Keltoi
10-13-2008, 10:15 PM
Originally Posted by barney
It must have been a great sales pitch. "Look, this is a new improved version of Horus...its got bells and whistles on it and makes your old MK1 Horus look lame...our one flies into space and you can still eat the flesh like you are used to doing. Oh and if you dont accept it, we will burn you from the feet up on a slow fire....and your kids...."
Horus? Like the part where Horus is conceived by a manufactured penis? There is nothing in the Horus mythos that is even slightly aligned with Christianity.
Reply

The Khan
10-13-2008, 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Massive coincidence? Making comparisons like this and attempting to point to some massive borrowing of theology is akin to pointing to Zeus and stating.."Look, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all worship a God who lives in the sky." Or "Look, an angel supposedly gave Muhammed the Qu'ran, that sounds just like Zoroastrianism."
Islam rejects any anthropomorphic characteristics when it comes to describing Allah (SWT).

Zarathustha, although not mentioned in the Qur'an, was most definitely a messenger of Allah (SWT). The pagan characteristics in Zoroastrianism were introduced during the reign of the Achaemenid Shahenshah Darius, during the same time the older Avesta was composed. The only piece of the Avesta composed by Zarathustra (to which most Zoroastrians agree) were the Gathas.

Islamic view is simple: Most of these so called Gods in other religions were messengers of Allah (SWT), and over time, were deified into Gods and worshiped. The message they preached was corrupted. Jesus (AHS) is no exception.
Reply

barney
10-13-2008, 11:41 PM
Rather than type out reams of stuff from my literature here is a comparison. Between specifically Horus and Jesus.
The Bibliography is worth a look. Discard any single sourced non contempary authors as biased trash.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2008, 02:48 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Rather than type out reams of stuff from my literature here is a comparison. Between specifically Horus and Jesus.
The Bibliography is worth a look. Discard any single sourced non contempary authors as biased trash.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
This website is exactly what I'm talking about.

Let me address a few of them.

Claim: Horus was born of a virgin. This is false. As I stated earlier, Horus was concieved when Osiris was hacked into 14 pieces. Isis put Osiris back together again...except for Osiris's penis. Isis fashions a substitute penis and has relations with it. Out comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.

Claim: Horus was Baptized. Horus was never mentioned to have been Baptized. Never mentioned to have taught at a temple either.

Claim: Three wise men. This one is pretty funny, because whoever came up with this supposed similarity obviously didn't know much about Christianity at all. The Bible never mentions how many wise men attended Him. Of course there were no three wise men that attended Horus either, so the comparison is complete garbage.

Claim: 12 disciples. Again, false. Horus had four disciples called "Heru-Shemsu". There are other mentions of 16 followers and a group of blacksmiths.

Claim: Horus walked on water No, he was never said to have walked on water.

Claim: Horus had a sermon on the mount. No. This isn't backed up by anything in the mythos.

Claim: Horus died and went to Hell before being resurrected. The only mention of Horus dying at all is a rather unofficial version of the myth in which he is killed by a crocodile.

Claim: Horus was crucified No, he was never said to have died at all in most accounts.
Reply

The Khan
10-14-2008, 04:28 AM
Horus's birth is a mystery. There are too many myths and sources regarding it.

All of Horus's deeds and attributes changed time and time again. The Egyptians would promote and demote their Gods as they wished. The Pharoahs considered themselves the greates of the Gods themselves. When Horus was introduced in Egypt by invaders, he was a war God. Later, he became a Sun God. First, he was the son of Ra. Later, the son of Osiris. Depictions of Horus change with every Egyptian dynasty. In some sources of the book of the dead, he is depicted as being born from Osiris's semen. In other sources, Ra impregnates Isis without sexual intercourse. Hence, I personally consider comparing Jesus and Horus as irrelevant.

Instead, a comparision to other Sun Gods of Rome, such as Mithras and Sol Invictus produces better results.

In short, while the Egyptian religion as a whole influences Christianity along with the cults practiced in Rome and Greece, the cult of Horus specifically did not play a major influence.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2008, 04:56 PM
Originally Posted by The Khan
Horus's birth is a mystery. There are too many myths and sources regarding it.

All of Horus's deeds and attributes changed time and time again. The Egyptians would promote and demote their Gods as they wished. The Pharoahs considered themselves the greates of the Gods themselves. When Horus was introduced in Egypt by invaders, he was a war God. Later, he became a Sun God. First, he was the son of Ra. Later, the son of Osiris. Depictions of Horus change with every Egyptian dynasty. In some sources of the book of the dead, he is depicted as being born from Osiris's semen. In other sources, Ra impregnates Isis without sexual intercourse. Hence, I personally consider comparing Jesus and Horus as irrelevant.

Instead, a comparision to other Sun Gods of Rome, such as Mithras and Sol Invictus produces better results.

In short, while the Egyptian religion as a whole influences Christianity along with the cults practiced in Rome and Greece, the cult of Horus specifically did not play a major influence.
There is no evidence that Mithra had anything to do with the development of Christianity either. The people who attempt to make this case do so by trying to form some semblance of continuity between the Indo/Iranian origins of the god and the Roman incarnation. Usually people who make the claim also use the work of a guy named Cumont, whose book on Mithraism has been dismissed as faulty scholarship. If you wish I can address each individual claim regarding Mithra as well. It isn't hard to do. All it takes is to actually read the works of Mithra scholars in the modern period.

Here are examples:
http://www.unrv.com/culture/mithras.php

http://faculty.cua.edu/Pennington/Ch...0/Mithras.html
Reply

The Khan
10-14-2008, 05:09 PM
Keltoi, this is the article I am currently writing on Zoroastrianism: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

My information on the Mithraic mysteries is from: The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire by Roger Beck.

I have done way too much research on pagan religions of Rome. I have an obsession around religions due to my Asperger syndrome. As much as I appreciate your efforts in defending your faith, it is futile.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2008, 05:15 PM
Originally Posted by The Khan
Keltoi, this is the article I am currently writing on Zoroastrianism: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism

My information on the Mithraic mysteries is from: The Religion of the Mithras Cult in the Roman Empire by Roger Beck.

I have done way too much research on pagan religions of Rome. I have an obsession around religions due to my Asperger syndrome. As much as I appreciate your efforts in defending your faith, it is futile.
Futile huh? Why don't you humor me and state your claims and we'll see what is futile.
Reply

barney
10-14-2008, 05:36 PM
The website is a good example of what I was saying, and Kahn put it rather nicely too.
The Gods of old included many different forms. In one tale Hercules walks on water,(gallops) and in other versions he dosnt.

I am not saying that all these deities did the exact same as jesus. Thats totally incorrect.
Certain parts of certain tales about them are however identical to Jesus's story. The rather fantastical supernatural parts that make Jesus's story that of a God in human form rather than that of a perfectly ordinary "prophet".

If you discount 90% of the sources then you are left with dozens of copy&pasted superpowers attributed to pagan gods.
Reply

The Khan
10-14-2008, 06:20 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Futile huh? Why don't you humor me and state your claims and we'll see what is futile.
I'll soon create a thread including a huge compilation of similarities between Christianity and Pagan faiths.

Like I said earlier, Christianity is not influenced by a single Pagan faith. It has been influenced by most pagan faiths practiced in Rome prior to Theodisius's ban on all non-Christian faiths.
Reply

barney
10-14-2008, 06:29 PM
A simili would be Thor and Zeus. Did Thor copy Zeus?
They both lived in clouds and fired rightious smitey thunderbolts. same superpower-same God? Nope.

They were seperated by large tracts of land between worshippers and frankly Lightning, till it was explained was the most obvious manifestation of an angry god until electricity was discovered, and explained. It's natural and normal for the ignorant ancients to apply Zeus to their smoking house, or to Yahweh to Sodom or gommoragh.

With the Jesus myths, it seems clearer cut. Water into wine? Well thats a freaking good trick. Evryone would like to do that, and so some utterly smashed outoftheirface ancient attributed this lovely power to their god, and being a popular miracle it stuck to other gods.
"I worship Dionysus...he's fab. He turns water into wine"
"well mine's better! She is the living embodyment of the hottest chick possible"
"Mine does water into wine....and its the best wine ever tasted"
"Lets fight over it...meet you next week with your army"
"Sorry all booked up next week sacrificing..."
Reply

The Khan
10-14-2008, 07:48 PM
Rofl!!! XD
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2008, 08:46 PM
Originally Posted by barney
A simili would be Thor and Zeus. Did Thor copy Zeus?
They both lived in clouds and fired rightious smitey thunderbolts. same superpower-same God? Nope.

They were seperated by large tracts of land between worshippers and frankly Lightning, till it was explained was the most obvious manifestation of an angry god until electricity was discovered, and explained. It's natural and normal for the ignorant ancients to apply Zeus to their smoking house, or to Yahweh to Sodom or gommoragh.

With the Jesus myths, it seems clearer cut. Water into wine? Well thats a freaking good trick. Evryone would like to do that, and so some utterly smashed outoftheirface ancient attributed this lovely power to their god, and being a popular miracle it stuck to other gods.
"I worship Dionysus...he's fab. He turns water into wine"
"well mine's better! She is the living embodyment of the hottest chick possible"
"Mine does water into wine....and its the best wine ever tasted"
"Lets fight over it...meet you next week with your army"
"Sorry all booked up next week sacrificing..."
In other words, there isn't any concrete example of Christianity "copying" some pagan mythology, so we will just pick and choose solitary examples that seem similar and make a sweeping generalization of cross-religious borrowing? That is basically what you are suggesting. You even contradict your own point when you made the comparison between Zeuss and Thor and then state that "turning water into wine" is a "clear cut" example.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2008, 08:47 PM
Originally Posted by The Khan
I'll soon create a thread including a huge compilation of similarities between Christianity and Pagan faiths.

Like I said earlier, Christianity is not influenced by a single Pagan faith. It has been influenced by most pagan faiths practiced in Rome prior to Theodisius's ban on all non-Christian faiths.
Yes, you state that. Let's see what you have to back up that sweeping statement.
Reply

Hamayun
10-14-2008, 09:19 PM
I think it is pretty clear cut. All you have to do is read...

Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. -(ACTS 2:22).

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God…-(REVELATION 19:10)

For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.-(JOHN 12:49).

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.-(JOHN 5:30-31).

…for my Father is greater than I.-(JOHN 14:28).

And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent.-(JOHN 17:3)

Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his Lord; neither he that is sent greater than He that sent him.-(JOHN 13:16)

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her (Mary Magdalene)… I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.-(JOHN 20:17)

But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.-(MARK 13:32)

But now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.-(JOHN 8:40).
Reply

barney
10-14-2008, 10:56 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
In other words, there isn't any concrete example of Christianity "copying" some pagan mythology, so we will just pick and choose solitary examples that seem similar and make a sweeping generalization of cross-religious borrowing? That is basically what you are suggesting. You even contradict your own point when you made the comparison between Zeuss and Thor and then state that "turning water into wine" is a "clear cut" example.
Nope Kelt, there is no radiocarbon dated text that says, "Hey guys, this is all a bit of a laugh, dont take it too seriously or worship it in 3000 years, and for blimmys sake dont kill or hurt each other over it...its all for giggles: Signed J.C of N, son of YW"

That text sadly dosnt exist.

We are simply left with cartload after cartload of "circumstantial" evidence.
The certified icelandic lunatic with the axe laughing over the dead guy whilst covered in DNA screaming "I did it! I hacked him down and I'm happy I did it,and he deserved it!!!!!! " but being let off by the court because perhaps he was chopping trees down in the vicinity and was enthusing about his days work as a lumberjack sideline.
Or the French ambassador who suggested that the fleet of Iraqi trucks assembling in the desert 40 miles in the wilderness exodusing from a known ex chemical weapons factory 2 hours prior to a UNSCOM inspection were "Going on a truckers picnic". (the last anacdote is true)

I admire Sis Skye's signature. For the beleiver: No proof is neccessery.

It is simply a case of how many hoops you have to jump. I often wonder at the leap of faith people make. There are many very intelligent, gentle,doctorate holding christians, who will spring happily over animal sacrifice, infanticide, homophobia and rape sized hoops in order to prove their thousands of years old text divinely connected. Thats the facination for me.
Reply

Keltoi
10-14-2008, 11:37 PM
Originally Posted by barney
Nope Kelt, there is no radiocarbon dated text that says, "Hey guys, this is all a bit of a laugh, dont take it too seriously or worship it in 3000 years, and for blimmys sake dont kill or hurt each other over it...its all for giggles: Signed J.C of N, son of YW"

That text sadly dosnt exist.

We are simply left with cartload after cartload of "circumstantial" evidence.
The certified icelandic lunatic with the axe laughing over the dead guy whilst covered in DNA screaming "I did it! I hacked him down and I'm happy I did it,and he deserved it!!!!!! " but being let off by the court because perhaps he was chopping trees down in the vicinity and was enthusing about his days work as a lumberjack sideline.
Or the French ambassador who suggested that the fleet of Iraqi trucks assembling in the desert 40 miles in the wilderness exodusing from a known ex chemical weapons factory 2 hours prior to a UNSCOM inspection were "Going on a truckers picnic". (the last anacdote is true)

I admire Sis Skye's signature. For the beleiver: No proof is neccessery.

It is simply a case of how many hoops you have to jump. I often wonder at the leap of faith people make. There are many very intelligent, gentle,doctorate holding christians, who will spring happily over animal sacrifice, infanticide, homophobia and rape sized hoops in order to prove their thousands of years old text divinely connected. Thats the facination for me.
So it is only Christians you believe have this "fault?"

For Christians, we have plenty of proof that our thousand year old text is divinely connected. The issue with religion is that it is a spiritual pursuit. Not a physical one. The world is the world, and God is God.

The fascination for me is that so many athiests will jump through gigantic hoops of deception in an attempt to convince people that Christianity is false. By athiests I'm not referring to you personally.
Reply

The Khan
10-15-2008, 12:13 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
For Christians, we have plenty of proof that our thousand year old text is divinely connected. The issue with religion is that it is a spiritual pursuit. Not a physical one. The world is the world, and God is God.
.
Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.

Jeremiah 8:8
How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?
Reply

MustafaMc
10-15-2008, 12:26 AM
In what way are the last 3 pages of this thread relevant to the topic at hand?

I would really like some to gain some understanding, particularly from our Christian members.
Reply

Keltoi
10-15-2008, 03:25 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
In what way are the last 3 pages of this thread relevant to the topic at hand?

I would really like some to gain some understanding, particularly from our Christian members.
Well, to return to the topic, I'm not sure I have more to add to what I already posted unless you have a more specific approach to the topic. We have established that the Christian understanding of the word "Son" has no relation to God actually producing an offspring. What is meant by the term "only begotten Son" seems to be the most often asked question in regards to this doctrine. The Greek word in play here means "one of a kind" or "unique".

The reason we have this phrase "only begotten" is because of the bad translation contained in the King James Bible. We know this is a bad translation because the word monogenes is also used in another verse:

[B]By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only [monogenes] son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[B] Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
—Hebrews 11:17-19 (NIV)

We all know that Isaac had more than one son, so obviously the word has a different meaning than simply a biological connection.

Knowing this, it hopefully sheds a helpful light on what is meant by the term "begotten". It means unique.
Reply

The Khan
10-15-2008, 07:10 AM
First, when circumstantial evidence is put forth on the similarities between Christianity and Paganism, you say that it's a mere coincidence.

Second, when you say that your text is divinely connected, and I point out that your own text says otherwise, your're silent.

Third, you finally agree with us that Jesus is not divine, not the same substance as God, and that he was a unique prophet.

And...of course, you pointed out the usual translation errors. I can't wait for the dead sea scrolls to digitalised.

Reminds me of this aspie on wrongplanet who claimed that Islam allows mass slaughter, and I proved otherwise and pointed out countless verses in the bible alleging murder, rape (including that of 3 year old girls), sodomy, incest, x-rated pornography, etc, silence is yet again followed.

I see no point in arguing anymore.
Reply

Hamayun
10-15-2008, 08:12 AM
Can a Christian Brother please reply to my above post regarding Jesus being the son of God. The quotes are very significant to this debate.
Reply

Keltoi
10-15-2008, 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by The Khan
First, when circumstantial evidence is put forth on the similarities between Christianity and Paganism, you say that it's a mere coincidence.
Firstly, I haven't seen any theological similarities at all, so I didn't see a coincidence there.

Originally Posted by The Khan
Second, when you say that your text is divinely connected, and I point out that your own text says otherwise, your're silent.
Secondly, I was attempting to respect Mustafa's wishes that the thread return to the topic.

Originally Posted by The Khan
Third, you finally agree with us that Jesus is not divine, not the same substance as God, and that he was a unique prophet.
Thirdly, I don't remember saying that at all.

Originally Posted by The Khan
And...of course, you pointed out the usual translation errors. I can't wait for the dead sea scrolls to digitalised.
Okay

Originally Posted by The Khan
Reminds me of this aspie on wrongplanet who claimed that Islam allows mass slaughter, and I proved otherwise and pointed out countless verses in the bible alleging murder, rape (including that of 3 year old girls), sodomy, incest, x-rated pornography, etc, silence is yet again followed.
Awww....so your agenda sees the light of day.

Originally Posted by The Khan
I see no point in arguing anymore.
After the paragraph above, neither do I.
Reply

The Khan
10-15-2008, 11:06 AM
Ok.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-15-2008, 11:28 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Well, to return to the topic, I'm not sure I have more to add to what I already posted unless you have a more specific approach to the topic. We have established that the Christian understanding of the word "Son" has no relation to God actually producing an offspring.
From your earlier post, "Just as the term "son of man" is used to refer to human beings, the term "Son of God" is used to express Christ's divine origin." So I understand that the word "son" is used in the third figurative, not literal sense of the word as in "a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)". What verses prove the Divine origin of Jesus?
What is meant by the term "only begotten Son" seems to be the most often asked question in regards to this doctrine. The Greek word in play here means "one of a kind" or "unique".

The reason we have this phrase "only begotten" is because of the bad translation contained in the King James Bible. We know this is a bad translation because the word monogenes is also used in another verse:

[b]By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only [monogenes] son, even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned."[b] Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.
—Hebrews 11:17-19 (NIV)

We all know that Isaac had more than one son, so obviously the word has a different meaning than simply a biological connection.

Knowing this, it hopefully sheds a helpful light on what is meant by the term "begotten". It means unique.
Actually, I think you meant Abraham had more than one son, but if you consider the Qur'an as true, then the verse would be correct if one substituted Ishmael for Isaac in the Bible verse. Then one would not have to twist word meanings around.

So are you saying that the phrase "only begotten Son" should better be interpretted "a unique man who was derived from My (God's) Essence"?
Reply

Keltoi
10-15-2008, 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by Hamayun
Can a Christian Brother please reply to my above post regarding Jesus being the son of God. The quotes are very significant to this debate.
Well, those verses, like all verses, require context. This issue has been explored many, many times on this forum. Probably most often in the Questions For Christians thread.

However, you are a new member so I'll attempt a coherent explanation. :D

Christ always made a distinction between the Son and the Father. That is because of Christ's human nature. I can visualize how many non-Christians view the concept of God in the body of Jesus Christ. I'm sure you envision the Almight God trapped in the body of a human being. That isn't how Christians envision it. It is a matter of origin and substance.

As was talked about earlier in this thread, the term "begotten" or monogenes is referring to something that is unique. What was it that made Christ unique? He was born without sin and lived a life free of sin. That was due to His divine nature. His weaknesses, meaning hunger, thirst, pain, fear, etc, were due to his human nature. That human nature meant that Christ needed to pray like the rest of us. He didn't have a cell phone connection to the Father, to use an analogy.

Having established that, what about these verses:

John 1:1-3 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 8:58 - When questioned about how He could be old enough to have seen Abraham, Jesus said, "...before Abraham was, I AM."
John 10:30-"I and the Father are one.”
John 8:18“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am..., you will indeed die in your sins”

So as Christians we see evidence of Christ's duel nature. Both divine and human. That is the context of all verses. The verses you pointed out combined with the ones I pointed out.
Reply

The Khan
10-15-2008, 11:38 AM
Isn't the dual nature concept a Nestorian view which has been deemed heretical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most Protestants?
Reply

Keltoi
10-15-2008, 11:49 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
From your earlier post, "Just as the term "son of man" is used to refer to human beings, the term "Son of God" is used to express Christ's divine origin." So I understand that the word "son" is used in the third figurative, not literal sense of the word as in "a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)". What verses prove the Divine origin of Jesus?
Yes, it could not be used as the human literal understanding of the word "son". That would be blasphemous to consider. As for verses proving the divine origin of Jesus, I posted a few of them in an earlier post.
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Actually, I think you meant Abraham had more than one son, but if you consider the Qur'an as true, then the verse would be correct if one substituted Ishmael for Isaac in the Bible verse. Then one would not have to twist word meanings around.
Sorry, yes I was referring to Abraham. Yes, I suppose you could take that stance with the Qu'ranic understanding, but that isn't the Christian one.

Originally Posted by MustafaMc
So are you saying that the phrase "only begotten Son" should better be interpretted "a unique man who was derived from My (God's) Essence"?
Hmm...I'm going to say no. The relationship was more than that. We believe Christ to be God incarnate in the flesh. The word "Son" is used to express that special relationship. Which is actually more fitting as long as one understands its usage in the context of the Bible as a whole. Using the word son to mean some biological "father and son" relationship would be incorrect.

It would probably be helpful to consider what Christ's task was while on Earth. A perfect and eternal atonement for sin. That perfection of nature was due to God, the weakness of the flesh was due to humanity. Christ had both. That is the distinction between Father and Son.
Reply

Keltoi
10-15-2008, 11:57 AM
Originally Posted by The Khan
Isn't the dual nature concept a Nestorian view which has been deemed heretical by Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy, and most Protestants?
No, the Nestorian view was that Christ's divinity and humanity were not unified. In other words, he divided Christ into two Persons, divine and human. In his own words, he did not see a communicatio idiomatum , meaning "communication of attributes." In other words, God staring through human eyes. That isn't what traditional Christianity believes. We believe in total unity of Christ's two natures.
Reply

The Khan
10-15-2008, 12:05 PM
I see. Thank you.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-15-2008, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
We believe in total unity of Christ's two natures.
Just to be clear, unity without the abosrobtion of one into the other.
Reply

Keltoi
10-15-2008, 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Just to be clear, unity without the abosrobtion of one into the other.
True
Reply

barney
10-15-2008, 08:03 PM
Bah! Christians and their pesky metaphysics.
Its all "unity without absorbtion" and "solid whilst still a gas"

Fassendrassenblassen
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-15-2008, 11:54 PM
Sorry, like Marie Antoinette we want to have our cake and eat it to. No doubt much of Christianity strikes you as illogical, perhaps all of it. That is what I continually hear from Muslims. But at least you are an atheist, so it makes sense. I have trouble understanding how Muslims who agree with the statement "with God nothing is impossible" take exception to him doing things that they can't understand.
Reply

The Khan
10-16-2008, 12:18 AM
He is Allah (SWT), who created everything, and we are his creations. Is that simple enough?
Reply

MustafaMc
10-16-2008, 02:31 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Hmm...I'm going to say no. The relationship was more than that. We believe Christ to be God incarnate in the flesh. The word "Son" is used to express that special relationship. Which is actually more fitting as long as one understands its usage in the context of the Bible as a whole. Using the word son to mean some biological "father and son" relationship would be incorrect.
But to be a "son of God" is not "unique" in the Bible as shown in Matthew 5
43You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

It is interesting that Jesus again used "Father in Heaven" like in the Lord's Prayer to refer to God.
It would probably be helpful to consider what Christ's task was while on Earth. A perfect and eternal atonement for sin. That perfection of nature was due to God, the weakness of the flesh was due to humanity. Christ had both. That is the distinction between Father and Son.
But that is a definition applied to "Son" that does not fit in any fashion to our understanding of the word.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-16-2008, 02:58 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
But to be a "son of God" is not "unique" in the Bible as shown in Matthew 5
And also Romans 8 where all those who are led by the Spirit are enjoined to see themselves as sons of God.

But to speak of a son of God is not the same as to speak of the Son of God anymore than to speak of a white house is to speak of the White House. The only place in scripture that uses the definite artilce when speaking of the Son of God that is not obviously a reference to Jesus Christ is Daniel 3:25 ("He answered and said, 'Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God'.") which many commentators would argue is also a reference to the pre-incarnate Son. So, I think we are back to what Keltoi has said, the term "THE Son of God" is a unique title that the early Christian community reserved for Jesus alone.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-16-2008, 10:58 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Christ always made a distinction between the Son and the Father. That is because of Christ's human nature. I can visualize how many non-Christians view the concept of God in the body of Jesus Christ. I'm sure you envision the Almight God trapped in the body of a human being. That isn't how Christians envision it. It is a matter of origin and substance.

As was talked about earlier in this thread, the term "begotten" or monogenes is referring to something that is unique. What was it that made Christ unique? He was born without sin and lived a life free of sin. That was due to His divine nature. His weaknesses, meaning hunger, thirst, pain, fear, etc, were due to his human nature. That human nature meant that Christ needed to pray like the rest of us. He didn't have a cell phone connection to the Father, to use an analogy.

Having established that, what about these verses:

John 1:1-3 - "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
John 8:58 - When questioned about how He could be old enough to have seen Abraham, Jesus said, "...before Abraham was, I AM."
John 10:30-"I and the Father are one.”
John 8:18“You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am..., you will indeed die in your sins”

So as Christians we see evidence of Christ's duel nature. Both divine and human. That is the context of all verses. The verses you pointed out combined with the ones I pointed out.
So, we have shown that Jesus wasn't really the "Son fo God" in any sense of the definition of SON.

You have just quoted a few verses to indicate that Jesus was one and the same as God the Creator, yet we know that there are verses that show that Jesus was less than the Father in that 1) he could do nothing of his own will and outside that of the Father, 2) the Father was greater than him, 3) he had imperfect knowledge particularly of the future, ) he prayed to the Father that His will be done even though he rather have the cup pass from him, 4) he asked, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me, and 5) in teacheing the disciples to pray, he had them pray to "Our Father who art in Heaven".

I have a related new question: In what sense is Jesus (as) God?
Reply

Keltoi
10-16-2008, 02:09 PM
In what sense is Jesus God?

We'll start with this passage: Hebrews 1-3

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also He made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as He hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.


Here is another: Luke 5:24
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins

Only God can forgive sin, which is a fairly blatant example of what Christ is claiming about Himself.

I'm slightly unsure of what you are asking, other than verses which point to and express Christ's divine origin. Perhaps if you re-ask the question in more specific terms I can be more specific with a reply.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-16-2008, 09:14 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
So, we have shown that Jesus wasn't really the "Son fo God" in any sense of the definition of SON.
Not in any biological sense of the word Son. But I have also shown that Jesus was the one and only one who is referred to in scripture by the title "THE Son of God."

Beyond this, the term Son does refer to the nature of an eternal relationship that exists within the very nature of the one God of his being bnoth an eteranl Father and an eternal Son, for you cannot have an eternal Father without the presence of an eternal child. And this is what the term that gets translated "begetting" refers to, and over which Arius wanted to argue. Arius saw this term and conceived in his own mind that this meant that the Son had some sort of beginning.

Now, for all the Muslims who want to jump on Arius bandwagon, I don't think you really would if you fully understood what Arius was saying. Arius was not objecting to Jesus' divinity. Rather, what he was holding was that Jesus was some sort of second, lesser god, who had been created by the Father. --Talk about associating partners with God; that's exactly why the Christian church said that Arius was wrong.-- Arius said that then God had the Son do all of the rest of the work of the creation of the world, but that there was a time when the Son was not.

The problem with that is that it makes the Son into a lesser God and thereby Christianity would be a faith not with just one God, but with multiple gods. It implied that there were aspects of the Father unknowable to the Son and hence Jesus could no longer be a true mediator between humanity and God as God was still in some ways inaccessible, even to the Son.

And worst of all Arius' views actually denied the Fatherhood of God, even if Arius did not readily see that for himself. For if God was both Father and everlasting (read that impassible, unchanging), then he has always been Father. But if there was a time when the Son was not, then there was also a time when the Fatherhood of God was not. Hence God either has changed or the assumption that there was a time when the Fatherhood was not is itself false. If it is false, then it is also false that there was a time when the Son was not. And if that idea is false, then Arius is wrong. And thus we can believe that the Father and the Son are both eternal, co-eternal in fact, one subsisting in the presence of the other from before the beginning. They could do this because the Son was not of a different essence than the Father, but being of one essence they were then therefore really just one God even as they are known in more than one person. The Son is part of the Father, eternally generated out of his very essence. And the word used for that in the gospel of John is monogenes, (translated by the KJV as "only begotten, but) meaning uniquely generated. So there does exist within the nature and character of God himself this unique divine community that the ancient writers saw reflected in the Father/Son relationship, hence the evolution of those terms to refer to it.

Jesus is God's Son in the same sense that we think of God as our Father.

And in the same sense that we can think of God as our Father, we must remember that the Biblical (or at least New Testament) understanding of God includes both Father and Son. The Father is no more God than the Son is God. So if we can think of God as the Father, we should also think of God as the Son. And if we stumble over that, then we are not yet thinking Biblically, but with some other content in our head.
Reply

The Khan
10-17-2008, 01:26 AM
That depends on what view you support, the trinitarian view or non-trinitarian. Personally, I think the unitarian church will refute your belief on Arius.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-17-2008, 01:43 AM
Originally Posted by The Khan
That depends on what view you support, the trinitarian view or non-trinitarian. Personally, I think the unitarian church will refute your belief on Arius.
HUH?

Regarding Arius, all I did was give you a little bit of history that most people seem to miss. My critique of Arius' view is unabashedly trinitarian and unitarians may take exception to it, but Arius' view is Arius' view.
Reply

coddles76
10-17-2008, 01:48 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Sorry, like Marie Antoinette we want to have our cake and eat it to. No doubt much of Christianity strikes you as illogical, perhaps all of it. That is what I continually hear from Muslims. But at least you are an atheist, so it makes sense. I have trouble understanding how Muslims who agree with the statement "with God nothing is impossible" take exception to him doing things that they can't understand.
Just for correction, Muslims believe "With Allah SWT nothing is impossible" but at the same time we also believe that Allah SWT doesn't create things that are illogical because he is way above that. Its humans that create illogical theories and hence why the trinity will always be regarded as illogical because it was thought by from man.
Reply

Woodrow
10-17-2008, 02:21 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I have trouble understanding how Muslims who agree with the statement "with God nothing is impossible" take exception to him doing things that they can't understand.
I think I can understand why you would have trouble understanding. It is a very logical assumption. We do agree that "with God(swt) nothing is impossible" yet we do not believe he could become man. Paradoxical, isn't it?

Well not really, look at these examples and perhaps you may see some of what we comprehend as God(as) becoming man.

Can God(as) make a 4 sided triangle? The answer is no. The statement is a faulty statement and self limiting because by defenition a triangle has 3 sides. If it has any other number it is not a triangle.

Now define what a man is:

Is a man immortal?
Is a man created?
Is a man equal to God(swt)

Now define God(swt) with those same three questions. Can God(swt) have those same attributes man has and still be God(swt) or are we now back to the 4 sided triangle?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-17-2008, 03:13 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
I think I can understand why you would have trouble understanding. It is a very logical assumption. We do agree that "with God(swt) nothing is impossible" yet we do not believe he could become man. Paradoxical, isn't it?

Well not really, look at these examples and perhaps you may see some of what we comprehend as God(as) becoming man.

Can God(as) make a 4 sided triangle? The answer is no. The statement is a faulty statement and self limiting because by defenition a triangle has 3 sides. If it has any other number it is not a triangle.

Now define what a man is:

Is a man immortal?
Is a man created?
Is a man equal to God(swt)

Now define God(swt) with those same three questions. Can God(swt) have those same attributes man has and still be God(swt) or are we now back to the 4 sided triangle?
Woodrow, I guess I also disagree with your definition of man. Plus, I happen to think that it doesn't deny the infinite to have it contained within the finite. /o\ Some would say that it is illogical to conceive of a line without end as being contained within the closed system of a box, but I dispute that theory as well. [<-->]
Reply

Woodrow
10-17-2008, 10:20 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Woodrow, I guess I also disagree with your definition of man. Plus, I happen to think that it doesn't deny the infinite have it contained within the finite. /o\ Some would say that it is illogical to conceive of a line without end as being contained within the closed system of a box, but I dispute that theory as well. [<-->]

I believe that this is one of the things that seperates Muslims and Christians. We each see the same things, but what may be logical to one of us is paradoxical/illogical to the other.

Perhaps if we all could understand that we each have reasons for our views, there is hope that there can be tolerance if not agreement.
Reply

Oleander
10-17-2008, 01:56 PM
[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;1027402] I have trouble understanding how Muslims who agree with the statement "with God nothing is impossible" take exception to him doing things that they can't understand



And where you drew the line:

How about if Muslim claim Muhammad was God? "with God nothing is impossible"

Or the Jews claim Moses was God? "with God nothing is impossible"


How about God becoming in the shape of Buddha? "with God nothing is impossible"

How about God becoming a cow? "with God nothing is impossible"


If it's imossible for God to be the above, then it's impossible to be dove, man, or anything beside bieng GOD.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-17-2008, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE=Oleander;1028452]
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If it's imossible for God to be the above, then it's impossible to be dove, man, or anything beside bieng GOD.
I don't hold them to be impossible, but in the absence of special revelation declaring them so, I hold them to be untrue.
Reply

Oleander
10-17-2008, 02:23 PM
[quote=Grace Seeker;I don't hold them to be impossible, but in the absence of special revelation declaring them so, I hold them to be untrue.[/QUOTE]




How do you know they are untrue?

Why it was possible for God to tell you the truth, and impossible for God to tell others the same truth?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-17-2008, 05:16 PM
Originally Posted by Oleander
How do you know they are untrue?

Why it was possible for God to tell you the truth, and impossible for God to tell others the same truth?
I didn't say I know them to be untrue; I said I hold them to be untrue.
Reply

Oleander
10-17-2008, 06:18 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I didn't say I know them to be untrue; I said I hold them to be untrue.


You see how unconsistant Christians are?

Muslim: Impossibale for God to be a dove, or a man?

Christians: Why not, you're putting God in a box, "with God nothing is impossible".

Muslim: Impossibale for God to be a man.

Christians: The same answer as the above!


Buddhist: Buddha the man was God walking on earth.

Christians: Huh, everything possibale with God except this one!

Hindus: The cow has the spirit of God in it."with God nothing is impossible"

Christians: Noway, not this one either!


Look who is putting God in a box: Christians believe only god was in a man called Jesus, and a ghost in shape of dove, that's it.


BTW, why you hold them untrue, and you hold yours to be true?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-17-2008, 08:39 PM
Originally Posted by Oleander
You see how unconsistant Christians are?

Muslim: Impossibale for God to be a dove, or a man?

Christians: Why not, you're putting God in a box, "with God nothing is impossible".

Muslim: Impossibale for God to be a man.

Christians: The same answer as the above!


Buddhist: Buddha the man was God walking on earth.

Christians: Huh, everything possibale with God except this one!

Hindus: The cow has the spirit of God in it."with God nothing is impossible"

Christians: Noway, not this one either!
You are mis-stating what I said. Read again. I never said those portions which you have attributed to Christians that I have highlighted in bold above.

If you do not know the difference between the statement I made and the statement you claim I made, then you should be sure to quote people exactly and not try to paraphrase, because your paraphrases are incorrect expressions of what I have said. Further they show a complete lack of understanding of some significant differences between the concepts what is possible and what is actual.
Reply

doorster
10-17-2008, 09:01 PM
but but, you are perhaps misunderstanding him/her too?
the way I read his/her posts is that:

You are being seen as representative of Christendom, which says that none but those who believe in divinity of Christ are saved
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 12:07 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Not in any biological sense of the word Son. But I have also shown that Jesus was the one and only one who is referred to in scripture by the title "THE Son of God."

Beyond this, the term Son does refer to the nature of an eternal relationship that exists within the very nature of the one God of his being bnoth an eteranl Father and an eternal Son, for you cannot have an eternal Father without the presence of an eternal child.
So Son refers to the relationship between TWO Beings - the Father and the Son. But even if one refers to the second Being as THE Son and the first as being THE Father, it still does not define in what sense this second one is a "son" to the first outside of that "eternal relationship". Even this circular argument points to TWO beings not one.
And this is what the term that gets translated "begetting" refers to, and over which Arius wanted to argue. Arius saw this term and conceived in his own mind that this meant that the Son had some sort of beginning.
What you stated does not relate to the act of begetting, but rather the nature of being unique.
So there does exist within the nature and character of God himself this unique divine community that the ancient writers saw reflected in the Father/Son relationship, hence the evolution of those terms to refer to it.
But the prophets of the OT had no concept of a Father/Son God.
Jesus is God's Son in the same sense that we think of God as our Father.

And in the same sense that we can think of God as our Father, we must remember that the Biblical (or at least New Testament) understanding of God includes both Father and Son. The Father is no more God than the Son is God. So if we can think of God as the Father, we should also think of God as the Son. And if we stumble over that, then we are not yet thinking Biblically, but with some other content in our head.
Sorry, but that content has been erased from my understanding.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 12:20 AM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Here is another: Luke 5:24
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins

Only God can forgive sin, which is a fairly blatant example of what Christ is claiming about Himself.
Yes, I would agree with you if the verse is true. Given the importance of this capability are there other examples of Jesus (as) forgiving one's sins?
I'm slightly unsure of what you are asking, other than verses which point to and express Christ's divine origin. Perhaps if you re-ask the question in more specific terms I can be more specific with a reply.
It is incomprehensible to Muslims for Allah to be within a human body and do the things we do only in private and for Him to be required to get sustenance from His creation. I know of Jesus' human nature, but I am having trouble seeing his God nature. Perhaps, you have some personal insight or an illustrative parable to shed new light on the question.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-18-2008, 12:31 AM
Mustafa, maybe you want to try again. I read your post twice, and it seems that you were affirming what I said, but I hardly would think you would mean to do so. So, I read it again, and read them the same. Don't know if it is what you said or the way I read it that is off, but maybe if you could restate it would make more sense to me. Or am I to be shocked that you actually were affirming the things I said?
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 12:40 AM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Can God(as) make a 4 sided triangle? The answer is no. The statement is a faulty statement and self limiting because by defenition a triangle has 3 sides. If it has any other number it is not a triangle.

Now define what a man is:

Is a man immortal? (No, he is born and he dies.)
Is a man created? (Yes, we don't believe in a "spontaneous existence" outside of being created by a Creator.)
Is a man equal to God(swt)? (No, a created being is not equal to his Creator.)

Now define God(swt) with those same three questions. Can God(swt) have those same attributes man has and still be God(swt) or are we now back to the 4 sided triangle?
Is God immortal? (Yes, he is neither born nor does He die.)
Is God created? (No, the Creator is not a created Being else His creator would be God.)
Is God equal to a man? (No, the Creator is greater than His creation.)

Another set of questions:
Does God change and evolve?
Did The Son look like Jesus before his birth to Mary?
Does Jesus as he now sits at the right-hand of the Father look like his pre-birth image, his earthly human body, or his transfigured body?
What will Jesus look like upon his return to earth?
Reply

Yanal
10-18-2008, 02:09 AM
:w:
Apologies for my other post.
But some Muslims might look at that statement that prophet Jesus (as) was born without a father but Allah willed he was born so he was doesn't that mean that he is the son of Allah (forgive if I am wrong)
Need opinions.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 03:10 AM
Originally Posted by Islamic Bro
:w:
Apologies for my other post.
But some Muslims might look at that statement that prophet Jesus (as) was born without a father but Allah willed he was born so he was doesn't that mean that he is the son of Allah (forgive if I am wrong)
Need opinions.
In that case Adam was doubly so as he had no father or mother. No, it is incorrect to say that Jesus (as) is the son of Allah in any sense of the word. Allah said "Be!" and he was.
Reply

Yanal
10-18-2008, 03:27 AM
apologies
Reply

Oleander
10-18-2008, 04:24 AM
QUOTE=Grace Seeker;1028775]. I never said those portions which you have attributed to Christians that I have highlighted in bold above.


Oleander>>I never claim you did, I was giving only example how CHRISTIANS answer our question.

I believe I know very well your name is not Christians but Grace Seeker.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 04:42 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Mustafa, maybe you want to try again. I read your post twice, and it seems that you were affirming what I said, but I hardly would think you would mean to do so. So, I read it again, and read them the same. Don't know if it is what you said or the way I read it that is off, but maybe if you could restate it would make more sense to me. Or am I to be shocked that you actually were affirming the things I said?
I am not sure what you are saying about affirming what you said, rather I was replying to Keltoi. If the verse was actually said by Jesus, in the context indicated, that he was willing and able to forgive someone's sins, then that seems to be a God-like characteristic to me. I am not saying that I necessarily believe that it IS true, but if it were it would make me wonder.

Do you have other examples of Jesus forgiving sins? If so, this is more amazing to me than all of the miracles that he performed, for even Paul is indicated as having raised the dead to life. If it was so, why would people be concerned about mundane things like leprosy, blindness, cripple, etc. For myself, I would take forgiveness over even being raised from the dead.
Reply

SixTen
10-18-2008, 10:35 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am not sure what you are saying about affirming what you said, rather I was replying to Keltoi. If the verse was actually said by Jesus, in the context indicated, that he was willing and able to forgive someone's sins, then that seems to be a God-like characteristic to me. I am not saying that I necessarily believe that it IS true, but if it were it would make me wonder.

Do you have other examples of Jesus forgiving sins? If so, this is more amazing to me than all of the miracles that he performed, for even Paul is indicated as having raised the dead to life. If it was so, why would people be concerned about mundane things like leprosy, blindness, cripple, etc. For myself, I would take forgiveness over even being raised from the dead.

I'd say its because, you can't see "forgiveness", so to say - but you can see someone being cured of blindness etc.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-18-2008, 12:16 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
I am not sure what you are saying about affirming what you said, rather I was replying to Keltoi.
I was referring to your post #85 in this thread where you quoted and replied to my previous post.

If the verse was actually said by Jesus, in the context indicated, that he was willing and able to forgive someone's sins, then that seems to be a God-like characteristic to me. I am not saying that I necessarily believe that it IS true, but if it were it would make me wonder.
And given that we Christian accept the recorded Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luike, and John, perhaps you have a better understanding of why it is that even though Jesus is never quoted in them as saying "I am God" in exactly those 3 words, that we nonetheless believe he did claim to be God by his actions and other things (along with other things that he is reported to have said).

Do you have other examples of Jesus forgiving sins? If so, this is more amazing to me than all of the miracles that he performed, for even Paul is indicated as having raised the dead to life. If it was so, why would people be concerned about mundane things like leprosy, blindness, cripple, etc. For myself, I would take forgiveness over even being raised from the dead.
Matthew and Mark record parallels to the story Keltoi provided from Luke:
Matthew 9
2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"

4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home. 8When the crowd saw this, they were filled with awe; and they praised God, who had given such authority to men.
Mark 2
A few days later, when Jesus again entered Capernaum, the people heard that he had come home. 2So many gathered that there was no room left, not even outside the door, and he preached the word to them. 3Some men came, bringing to him a paralytic, carried by four of them. 4Since they could not get him to Jesus because of the crowd, they made an opening in the roof above Jesus and, after digging through it, lowered the mat the paralyzed man was lying on. 5When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven."
6Now some teachers of the law were sitting there, thinking to themselves, 7"Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

8Immediately Jesus knew in his spirit that this was what they were thinking in their hearts, and he said to them, "Why are you thinking these things? 9Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? 10But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, 11"I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." 12He got up, took his mat and walked out in full view of them all. This amazed everyone and they praised God, saying, "We have never seen anything like this!"

Jesus doesn't just offer his personal forgiveness as a human being, but pronounces again the type of forgiveness of sins that only God can do on a woman during a dinner banquet:

Luke 7
36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."

40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.

41"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"

43Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.

44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"

50Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

Jesus proclaims that his blood brings forgiveness to others:
This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:28)
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 12:42 PM
Examples of Jesus forgiving the sins of another human as reported in the Bible:

Matthew 9:2 And behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins are forgiven.
3 And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For which is easier, to say, Thy sins are forgiven; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins (then saith he to the sick of the palsy), Arise, and take up thy bed, and go up unto thy house.
7 And he arose, and departed to his house.
8 But when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men.

Note the acknowledgment that this is a blasphemous act for a man and that verse 8 indicates the authority for a MAN to heal and presumably to forgive was given by God. Jesus was not acknowledged as being God. This story is also found in Mark 2:3-12 and Luke 5:18-26, but not in John.

There is another apparent example in Luke 7:44-50 And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath wetted my feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair.
45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but she, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet.
46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but she hath anointed my feet with ointment.
47 Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, [the same] loveth little.
48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
49 And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that even forgiveth sins?
50 And he said unto the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace. In this passage it seems that the woman's faith and acts of blessing Jesus are what saved her.

But in another passage Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who were crucifying him. Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And parting his garments among them, they cast lots. If Jesus could forgive the cripple of his lifelong accumulation of sins, why could he not forgive those who had harmed him personally?
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 12:45 PM
Grace Seeker, I was writing my post above and did not see your post. Interesting that we quoted the same passages.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-18-2008, 12:57 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I was referring to your post #85 in this thread where you quoted and replied to my previous post.
I don't see what is amazing about my post to indicate perhaps agreement about a unique relationship between Jesus and God as my point in the post was that a relationship indicates TWO separate individuals not ONE being. As the saying goes, "It takes two to tango." This theme is consistent with Jesus praying to the Father in the Garden.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-18-2008, 11:23 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Examples of Jesus forgiving the sins of another human as reported in the Bible:

Matthew 9 Note the acknowledgment that this is a blasphemous act for a man and that verse 8 indicates the authority for a MAN to heal and presumably to forgive was given by God. Jesus was not acknowledged as being God. This story is also found in Mark 2:3-12 and Luke 5:18-26, but not in John.

There is another apparent example in Luke 7:44-50 In this passage it seems that the woman's faith and acts of blessing Jesus are what saved her.
The point being with both of these that you asked for places where Jesus did forgive sins. I guess whether he actually forgave or just pronounced a forgivenss that he had no authority to pronounce depends on whether one views Jesus as God or not. But let us not say that Jesus who understood that only God had authority to forgive then went ahead and made these pronouncements when we say that Jesus never claimed to be God. His actions show that he did. Now, you may say that he was not God. That is exactly why the Jews called him a blasphemer. But if these Jews were right in labeling him a blasphemer, then Jesus wasn't the true prophet who never sinned that Islam holds Jesus to be. And if the Jews were wrong, then Jesus is exactly the God that Christianity holds him to be.

Islam's only option, it would seem, is to deny that the recorded events ever happened.



But in another passage Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who were crucifying him. Luke 23:34 And Jesus said, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And parting his garments among them, they cast lots. If Jesus could forgive the cripple of his lifelong accumulation of sins, why could he not forgive those who had harmed him personally?
You make a good point here. Obviously he could have (and I suspect that he did without ever uttering it aloud).

So, then why would Jesus have said this? Sadly, this is one of those places where Muslims may be correct about an altered text. As we don't have the original and only copies of what Luke wrote, and the weight of evidence from those earliest copies is split over whether Jesus ever uttered these words or not, the inclusion of Luke 23:34 is actually in dispute. It is in some of the earliest texts, but it is not in others. Thus, the very earliests copies of the text are split on whether it was an original saying of Jesus or added later. I'll not bore you with the technical nature of the process used to reach one conclusion or the other, but arguments go both ways. Ultimately the United Bible Societies, the Greek text I prefer, believes it to be an addition of "dominical origin"; while the editors of the New International Version believe elements in it "speak strongly for [its] genuiness" and they have therefore included it in their English translation.

Either way, one should not infer from either the verse's absence (if that was original) nor from its presence (if that was original) and Jesus' calling on the Father to forgive them, that Jesus himself was unforgiving. There is nothing in the text to suggest that. If anything, I would infer from such a saying that Jesus is in fact forgiving and is asking his Father to join with him in offering that forgiveness.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-19-2008, 12:30 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Islam's only option, it would seem, is to deny that the recorded events ever happened.
I agree with your reasoning, hence my statement above, "If the verse was actually said by Jesus, in the context indicated, that he was willing and able to forgive someone's sins, then that seems to be a God-like characteristic to me." However, the context of the statement seems odd to me. If Jesus wanted to assert his authority to forgive sins, a more fitting setting would have been when the adulteress was brought by the Pharisees in John 8:3 and in 8:5 Jesus was asked "Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such: what then sayest thou of her?" In that context, Jesus statement to the cripple would have been perfectly pertinent. Rather after the accusers walked away, Jesus replied to the woman in verse 11, "Neither do I condemn thee: go thy way; from henceforth sin no more." There is a difference between not condemning with punishment and actively forgiving the sin.
If anything, I would infer from such a saying that Jesus is in fact forgiving and is asking his Father to join with him in offering that forgiveness.
In this case of the people who had crucified Jesus and the case of the cripple, neither party was repentant of their sins. Can their be forgiveness of sin without remorse and repentance?
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2008, 12:46 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
If Jesus wanted to assert his authority to forgive sins, a more fitting setting would have been when the adulteress was brought by the Pharisees in John 8
Maybe he would have if that event had actually ever happened. There is no record of this particular passage (John 7:53-8:11) in not just the earliest copies we have of the Gospel of John, but even later ones. The first time a church father even bothers to comment on it is in the 12th century. There is unanimous agreement on textual scholars that this particular pericope may have existed alongside as a part of oral tradition, but it wasn't in the original writing of John's gospel. I wish that modern publishers would just leave it out of the copies of the Bible they print, or do what the RSV did and print it only in a footnote. But because it was in the KJV, people are so use to hearing it that they can't give up one of their favorite texts even if it isn't original; I guess it would feel too much like ripping a page out of one's Bible. But in this case it would actually be the right thing to do.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-19-2008, 01:22 AM
The capacity to forgive sin seems Divine to me, hence my exception to the Catholic confessional. ...or if in fact the priest is acting in the capacity that Jesus did as God's vicegerent.
Reply

The Khan
10-19-2008, 02:50 AM
It's simple Akhee...no right to forgive, no job. Especially since all the sacirifical rites disappeared once the pagan religions were banned...the former pagan priests had to adapt to the new religion which they corrupted.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2008, 06:13 PM
Originally Posted by The Khan
It's simple Akhee...no right to forgive, no job. Especially since all the sacirifical rites disappeared once the pagan religions were banned...the former pagan priests had to adapt to the new religion which they corrupted.
Please name one former pagan priest who became a Catholic priest. Until you can back that claim up, I ask you to quit making it.

You also show ignorance with regarding what it is that Catholic priests actually do. As Mustafa indicates, the don't forgive themselves. He called them viceregents. That's certainly closer to what happens, though I'm not sure that Catholics would even agree with that terminology. What they do is proclaim the forgivness offered by Christ. It is God in Christ who grants forgiveness; no human being can do that, but we can remind people what it is that God can and does do.

Surely, if Muslims can quote the book that was written by people who heard what Muhammad claimed that he was told that an angel received from Allah, then Christians can proclaim the forgiveness which we read Christ offers in scripture.
Reply

Oleander
10-19-2008, 08:20 PM
Even IF Jesus was day and night forgiving sins, still who gave him the authority to do so?

My manager, buy and sell, open and close, count the money and take them to the bank, hire and fire, make order.....ect.

Is he the owner of my business?

Is he equal to me in the ownership of my buismess?

NO, because I TOLD HIM TO DO WHAT HE DOES.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2008, 08:35 PM
Originally Posted by Oleander
Even IF Jesus was day and night forgiving sins, still who gave him the authority to do so?
Hence the whole point of the story told in Luke. Jesus knows that anyone can just say, "Your sins are forgiven, and that only God actually has the authority to do so. So, to show that his authority is in fact that of God he does one other thing that only God can do, he heals the man.

Now, those that say that Jesus could have done this healing not in his own power, but in that of God are also exactly right. But what they have yet to provide is any compelling reason why God would heal a person that Jesus was pointing to as proof that he, Jesus, was in fact able to forgive sins just as God is unless God wanted to back him up in that claim. So, it seems to me that the healing is proof that not only was Jesus claiming to be God, but that God was in fact backing him up with regard to that assertion.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-19-2008, 09:00 PM
Doesn't it seem odd for Jesus to forgive an apparently unrepentant sinner who came seeking not to be forgiven, but rather to be healed of paralysis?

It is like a woman who is starving in an area stricken by famine and is coming to a distribution center to get some food from a man that was distributing aid. The man instead gives her a brand new luxury car to make a point that he is also rich in addition to being the distributor of aid. Then after the point is made, he then gives the woman the bag of rice that she was wanting all along. There is no indication that the woman wanted the car in the first place.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-20-2008, 04:13 AM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Doesn't it seem odd for Jesus to forgive an apparently unrepentant sinner who came seeking not to be forgiven, but rather to be healed of paralysis?
Yeah. Many of the things that Jesus is reported to have done seem odd to me from my vantage point today. I could make some hypothesis about Jesus knowing that the man needed forgiveness, that perhaps it was the man's sins that were at the root even of his paralysis. But whether my hypothesis is right or not it would not make Jesus' actions any less odd from my position as an outside observer. It also wouldn't make his granting of forgiveness and his healing of the man's paralysis any less real.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-20-2008, 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yeah. Many of the things that Jesus is reported to have done seem odd to me from my vantage point today. ... It also wouldn't make his granting of forgiveness and his healing of the man's paralysis any less real.
My point about it being odd and the example of the starving woman was to raise the question as to whether or not the forgiveness portion ever really happened or if Jesus even said those words in any setting. If one were to forgive another of sin, then it makes sense to know what sins are being forgiven along the lines of a Catholic's confession to his priest.

It goes back to your statement, "Islam's only option, it would seem, is to deny that the recorded events ever happened."
Reply

Oleander
10-20-2008, 05:22 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, it seems to me that the healing is proof that not only was Jesus claiming to be God, but that God was in fact backing him up with regard to that assertion.

>>Backing him up?

We agree all other prophet did thier miracle by "backing" of God.

Are they all gods?

We are talking about a man who claim :"NOTHING", I do or I say is on my own.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-20-2008, 09:09 PM
Originally Posted by Oleander
>>Backing him up?

We agree all other prophet did thier miracle by "backing" of God.

Are they all gods?

We are talking about a man who claim :"NOTHING", I do or I say is on my own.
No, because they never made the claims of offering forgiveness associated with it. While nothing was in Jesus' own power, that is he depended on the presence of God's Spirit, Jesus still dared to make the suggestion that he could forgive sins. Such a claim is something known to Jesus and all present this is reserved to God alone to do. Thus, if he had no authority to do that, then why would the Father grant this miraculous healing that validates his act of in essence claiming to be God?
Reply

INsearch
10-23-2008, 04:24 PM
Originally Posted by MustafaMc
Arguably the most famous and widely known verse in the whole NT is John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

In what sense of the words was Jesus (as) the "only begotten Son" of God?

beget (begotten inflected form of beget)
1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth

We know that God did not beget or "sire" Jesus in the way that I did my own son, but the second definition may apply. Could God have produced (or created) Jesus as an "effect" from Himself? As in saying the word, "Be" from whence he "was".

In what sense of the word is Jesus God's "son"?

son
1 a: a human male offspring especially of human beings b: a male adopted child c: a human male descendant
2capitalized : the second person of the Trinity
3: a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)

The definition 1a and 1c have been excluded from the definition of beget above because we know that God did not copulate with Mary (astaghfir'Allah). I also assume that God did not legally adopt Jesus. Although adoption has some benefit to the adopter and the adoptee, there is still no biological connection between the two and the one is not really the son of the other.

Definition 2 should be excluded because it relies upon a nebulous term, "Trinity" as the essential element and because it is a circular argument.

What about door #3? Could Jesus (as) have derived (or been created from) from a previously existing formative agent, known as God?

...but then again, I have heard Christians say that Jesus (as) was not really the "Son of God", but rather fully God Himself. However, how does one reconcile this with Matthew 3:16-17? After being baptized, Jesus (Son) came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he (Son) saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove and lighting on him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens (Father) said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Well Jesus is suppose to be the Son of God but also God himself does that make sense? its the whole idea of the trinity 3 in one. I dont know how to say this but its like... God put himself in Mary:-[ (sorry I dont know how to explain it for Christians you could say it is the mystery of God) and Mary gave birth to Jesus thus making him his Son but also God himself^o) he even sits on the right side of God.... its all really confusing as in Christianity the Trinity is one of the most difficult things to understand. (please dont take me word for word on this tho... I am just giving my own little shot on explaining it lol)
Reply

seeker-of-light
10-25-2008, 04:07 PM
are not we all sons and daughters of allah? we were all created from him and we will all return to him in time.
Reply

MustafaMc
10-25-2008, 10:16 PM
Originally Posted by seeker-of-light
are not we all sons and daughters of allah?
In what sense of the words "sons and daughters" do you mean? My understanding is that this implies some kind of equality with Allah that is not there.
we were all created from him and we will all return to him in time.
Yes, we are His creations and to Him we will return. We were created to worship Allah, as servant to Master.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-18-2017, 06:26 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2012, 09:35 PM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-17-2012, 11:18 PM
  4. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-27-2007, 07:00 AM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-22-2006, 12:52 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!