Our Father...

[Paul Williams]

I'm sure people must have asked u this before but here I go again!

If it is the case (as New Testament scholars believe) that Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God as 'Father', why would it be wrong for muslims to follow Jesus' example?

[Pk_#2]

Hey bro, is it wrong for us to call em priest 'father' well i duno if he is a prest buh he is ma mates next door nieghbour, and we all like call him 'father john'

:s that's wah everyone calls him ...

Would that be wrong/haraam? for us to do,

jus asking! AsalamuAlaykum!

[- Qatada -]

I'm sure people must have asked u this before but here I go again!

If it is the case (as New Testament scholars believe) that Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God as 'Father', why would it be wrong for muslims to follow Jesus' example?

:salamext:


We know that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a messenger of Allaah Almighty. And therefore he would never fall into the sin of calling Allaah, father. Because calling Allaah Almighty father may be kufr (disbelief.)

Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,

Allah , the Eternal Refuge.

He neither begets nor is born,

Nor is there to Him any equivalent."


[Qur'an: Surah Ikhlaas [Surah 113]

We call out to Allaah with His beautiful names and attributes. You can view them from here insha'Allaah:

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm



Allaah Almighty know's best.



Peace.

[Paul Williams]

I am not clear how your quotation from the Quran is relevent. If Jesus adressed God as Father he could have meant it in a metaphorical sense, not in a crude literal way.

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

[glo]

Hi Paul

I have not seen you for a long time. How are you?

I have the impression that the thought of seeing God as 'Father' (which to me as a Christian seems so natural, and describes a close relationship with God) is to Muslims incomprehensible, or even offensive.

I have the feeling that Muslims take the word very literal - which would then mean that God has 'fathered' us all, in the biological sense (which clearly he hasn't!)

This is a very interesting question, and I am looking forward to reading the replies. :)

Peace

[Paul Williams]

I asked a Muslim friend of mine today about this question and he replyed as follows...

I am unsure how often Jesus used the term "father" to address God. We can see the increased use of them term as we move on to Matthew, Luke and John. So, if we find a source earlier than Mark, are we likely to encounter less or no abba references within them? I am not sure. It is also unclear how frequently, or the lack of it, the Jews used abba as a way of addressing God. So, it is difficult for me to know how distinctive was Jesus' use of "abba."

Be that as it may, I would say Muslims do not address God as Father just as they do not address Jesus, or any of the prophets and holy men as "sons" of God for the same reason -- while originally these terms did not carry the meanings attached to them later on, they were, eventually, given different meanings and used in different ways commonly and even now many, if not all, Christians use these terms with such meanings in mind. For instance, "son of God" is taken to mean something like divine and even god incarnate, whereas the term Father, when used by Jesus, is taken to mean as something "unique" which affirms the godly status of Jesus. Moreover, people from other faiths, hindus for instance, tend to even take such terms rather literally. So, the potential of misunderstanding is grave and these terms have, in fact, been used in ways to make claims of Jesus which, I think, oppose monothiesm as taught by Islam. Hence they are avoided for such reasons.

That does not mean that one thinks of God as "less" loving by refusing to use the term "Father." Love is the same, we just avoid a term which has been misused in the past, in the present, and which conjures up different literal understandings in other people's minds.

Hope that made sense. Let me know if you disagree with what I said.

[- Qatada -]

Asalaamu 'alykum warahmatulahi wabarakatuh brother Paul.



That's the reason i felt that he wouldn't have used that word, plus if it's not mentioned in the Qur'an or Authentic Sunnah, we don't need to use the previous scriptures because this religion is perfected already.

However, you may feel that the previous scriptures can be a source for us if it's not mentioned in the Qur'an or Authentic Sunnah, but the matters which are not mentioned of [within our authentic sources] - we neither reject them, nor do we accept them - but instead we stay neutral.



Therefore if it's not mentioned in the Qur'an or Authentic Sunnah that 'Eesa ibn Maryam (Jesus son of Mary) [peace be upon them] said 'abba' - then we don't need to follow that way insha'Allaah. And Allaah Almighty know's best.

[Skillganon]

I asked a Muslim friend of mine today about this question and he replyed as follows...

I am unsure how often Jesus used the term "father" to address God. We can see the increased use of them term as we move on to Matthew, Luke and John. So, if we find a source earlier than Mark, are we likely to encounter less or no abba references within them? I am not sure. It is also unclear how frequently, or the lack of it, the Jews used abba as a way of addressing God. So, it is difficult for me to know how distinctive was Jesus' use of "abba."

Be that as it may, I would say Muslims do not address God as Father just as they do not address Jesus, or any of the prophets and holy men as "sons" of God for the same reason -- while originally these terms did not carry the meanings attached to them later on, they were, eventually, given different meanings and used in different ways commonly and even now many, if not all, Christians use these terms with such meanings in mind. For instance, "son of God" is taken to mean something like divine and even god incarnate, whereas the term Father, when used by Jesus, is taken to mean as something "unique" which affirms the godly status of Jesus. Moreover, people from other faiths, hindus for instance, tend to even take such terms rather literally. So, the potential of misunderstanding is grave and these terms have, in fact, been used in ways to make claims of Jesus which, I think, oppose monothiesm as taught by Islam. Hence they are avoided for such reasons.

That does not mean that one thinks of God as "less" loving by refusing to use the term "Father." Love is the same, we just avoid a term which has been misused in the past, in the present, and which conjures up different literal understandings in other people's minds.

Hope that made sense. Let me know if you disagree with what I said.

Actually that make's sense, and it is not good to follow in their footstep where their is a potential to go or "lead other's" astray.

The term father is like to conjure up an image of an old-bearded guy in the sky (A father Figure)

Well, fundementaly it is best to call upon Allah by the name denoted in the Quran.

[Umar001]

Assalamu aleykum Wa Rhametulah,
Hope All Is Well :)

I'm sure people must have asked u this before but here I go again!

If it is the case (as New Testament scholars believe) that Jesus taught his disciples to pray to God as 'Father', why would it be wrong for muslims to follow Jesus' example?

Let's say for example if Jesus, peace be upon him, did say 'Our Father', why would it be wrong?

Personally, I understand that, in Islam, we have to follow the Law given to Muhammad, if Moses were here, he peace be upon them both, would have to follow this Law, and with knowledge that some laws before contain permissible stuff that is not prohibited, i.e. Solomon making Statues, then it would not be, for me, logical to take something another Prophet, peace be upon him, said, for it may have been ok in his law but not ours.

Also, we have many names from which we can call upon G-d, given in the Qu'ran and Sunnah, those are the names which according to our law are allowed.

From my humble view, it would be unnecesarry to call upon G-d with a name/attribute, that is not prescribed in our Law, while knowing that things allowed or prohibited to those before us may be prohibited or allowed to us.

Assalamu Aleykum :)

[thirdwatch512]

i call God God, but in christianity it isn't wrong to call him father. he is our father! whether he was human or not, he created us right? i think so. :)

and i think muslims can call him father if you guys want. i don't see anywhere in the qu'ran where it rejects that.

[Paul Williams]

Also, in response to glo, Muslims are not against the term "Father" because they believe that God is not close to us. Simply, since the term is open to abuse and misunderstandings, it is not used. You will not find any Islamic source speaking against referring to God as "Father" because God is far removed from us and is not loving etc. Rather, as the Quran says, God is even closer to us than our jugular veins.

It is not that Muslims take the word literally; the term has been taken literally by some, it has led to misunderstandings. Taken in such ways, it becomes offensive. So, to avoid any such problems, it is simply not used any more, though it may have been appropriate to use it in a different time and among a different people.

Also, while I am uncertain about the frequency of "abba" used by both Jesus and the Jews of the first century, I think it is quite likely that Jesus did use the term "abba" and that in at least one prayer, he taught some of his immediate followers to do the same. It is just the range and frequency of usuage which is uncertain to me. Now, does it contradict any of the teachings of Islam because Jesus addressed God as abba? I would argue no. The term, as you correctly pointed out, is metaphorical and was simply a manner of calling upon God with affection. This love and effection for God - and of God for us - is not denied by Islam. The person using the term was not thought to be God, the second person of the trinity, or divine in any sense. In the first century it appears that one of the ways to address God was with the term abba. Others besides Jesus also did that, such as Honi. No one thought that Honi was comitting blasphemy. As mentioned before, eventually the term came to be misused - as the term "son" - and the potential to abuse/misuse remains high.

I still on occasion encounter Christians who argue that Jesus is God/divine because God was his father and because he is the son of God. I am sure you can find tons of such arguments online if you do a search online. Of course, as almost any scholar would point out, these terms were not understood in such ways in first century Palestine and so their meanings eventually evolved into something very different from the original meaning.

[starfortress]

:salamext:

We call out to Allaah with His beautiful names and attributes. You can view them from here insha'Allaah:

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm



Allaah Almighty know's best.

:sl:

Exactly agreed,and all the 99 Names of Allah, also known as The 99 attributes of Allah are greater and perfect in qualities than a Father.

[chacha_jalebi]

salaam

in real english language a father needs a wife, so i.e a wife, so accordin that logic, the "christian" god has a wife :p :D

and that is like puttin a image to god, by callin him father, when god is like unimaginable, like you cant imagine how he would be, he is so great :D

Allah (swt) says in surah Maryam v 88 - 93

"They say, the Most Affectionate has taken a son'.

No doubt, you brought a thing of heavy limit. (Most evil)

It is near that the heavens may burst by it and the earth may crack down and the mountains fell down collapsed.
That because they ascribed a son to the- Most Affectionate."

so when the christians say that, Allah (swt) has taken a son, it says the heavens wana burst open and the earth wans 2 split due to that statement, so ascribing thins to Allah (swt) is a bad statement :p as he is only one, nothin is with him and he dont need anythin, he can do woteva he wants by :D

[Paul Williams]

Christians of course don't believe God has a wife.

I'm very happy with some of the answers I've got to my question. But I think it is reasonably certain, historically, that Jesus at least on some occasions addressed God as 'Father' and taught his disciples to do likewise. So it must follow that Muslims cannot reject absolutely this term for all people everywhere.

However, I understand now why would it be wrong for Muslims to follow Jesus' example. But I don't think we can simply reject Jesus' example as wrong.

[chacha_jalebi]

but thats where the difference lies, because a christian wouldnt accept the muslim way and a muslim wouldnt accept a christian way init,

lemme ask you a Q, why dont christians follow the way of muslims and not associate anything with god:D

[Paul Williams]

but thats where the difference lies, because a christian wouldnt accept the muslim way and a muslim wouldnt accept a christian way init,

lemme ask you a Q, why dont christians follow the way of muslims and not associate anything with god:D

Good question. Some Christians do end up following the Prophet (PBUH) - some did during his life time and some still revert today (like I did). But most Christians I know understand nothing of the beauty of his life nor the miracle of the Qur'an.

[duskiness]

but thats where the difference lies, because a christian wouldnt accept the muslim way

way of what? of speaking about God? I think we can accept most of you way with ease.

[duskiness]

lemme ask you a Q, why dont christians follow the way of muslims and not associate anything with god:D

oh..that's simple. Christians (as we see it) don't associate anything with God. Saying that Jesus is God, when you believe it, is like saying "God is God". no association.

[Paul Williams]

oh..that's simple. Christians (as we see it) don't associate anything with God. Saying that Jesus is God, when you believe it, is like saying "God is God". no association.

But your gospels clearly suggest he was NOT God. See my next post below...

[Paul Williams]

oh..that's simple. Christians (as we see it) don't associate anything with God. Saying that Jesus is God, when you believe it, is like saying "God is God". no association.

Sorry - I don't think I agree.

Exactly who was Jesus and why is a man called Paul of Tarsus so important to today’s Christians?

Christians, especially evangelicals, love to ask people ‘are you saved?’ or ’do you have eternal life?’ I agree with these Christians that this question is important. So let us read what Jesus’ himself taught about this question in the Bible:

Mark, chapter 10 verses 17-27

17As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

18"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. 19You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'

20"Teacher," he declared, "all these I have kept since I was a boy."

21Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

22At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

24The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

26The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

27Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

Incidentally, it is instructive to compare how Matthew in his later gospel written about 85AD alters Jesus’ words (probably because they were an embarrassment to him). In Matthew’s gospel we read:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?" "Why do you ask me about what is good?" Jesus replied. "There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.”

See how the words have been changed?

I think this is a fascinating conversation for a number of reasons. In reply to the man’s question ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life’ Jesus as a good Jew refers him to the Ten Commandments that were revealed to Moses. Sensing that the man’s great riches were an obstacle to receiving eternal life in the age to come he urged him to give his wealth to the poor.

Have you ever heard a Christian say to a non-Christian that the way to receive eternal life is by obeying the commandments of God and giving your wealth to the poor? I doubt it!

But why is this? I think part of the answer is to be found in the teaching of a man from 1st century Tarsus (in what is called Turkey today). He had never met Jesus. But he claimed to speak for him. His name was Paul, and most of the New Testament is written by him.

Paul’s answer to the same question – what must I do to be saved/inherit eternal life, is found in his letter to the Romans:

If you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.

Clearly Paul has put Jesus at the centre of his gospel, unlike Jesus who put God and his will first.

And what does Paul say about the Law that Jesus said should be followed in order to receive eternal life?

Paul’s view of the matter can be found in his letter to the Galatians:

10All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." 12The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." 13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."

You might be forgiven for thinking Jesus and Paul are talking about two completely different religions! In fact that is exactly what many scholars think too! If you take the trouble to read Marks gospel you will quickly realize that Jesus preached the importance of turning from sin and accepting the rule of God (‘ Kingdom of God ’) in our lives. He referred to himself as the Son of Man. But Paul preached about Jesus as if he were a God to be prayed to and worshiped. Jesus though was a messenger of God, a humble man. Remember the man in the gospel story who ran up to Jesus and fell on his knees before him: "Good teacher," he exclaimed, but Jesus was quick to put him straight - "Why do you call me good? No one is good—except God alone.” He didn’t say ‘You’re absolutely right; I am good, so worship me!’

It is sadly the case that the church has spent the last 2000 years following the innovations of Paul and not the original teaching of Jesus. The prophet Muhammad was sent to remind the world of the true teachings of Jesus (PBUT) and purify Christianity from its corruptions.

[Skillganon]

Come on let's not go off-topic.

We got plenty of thread covering that subject, and let's not make another one out of this one.

[Grace Seeker]

:salamext:


We know that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a messenger of Allaah Almighty. And therefore he would never fall into the sin of calling Allaah, father. Because calling Allaah Almighty father may be kufr (disbelief.)

Say, "He is Allah , [who is] One,

Allah , the Eternal Refuge.

He neither begets nor is born,

Nor is there to Him any equivalent."


[Qur'an: Surah Ikhlaas [Surah 113]

We call out to Allaah with His beautiful names and attributes. You can view them from here insha'Allaah:

http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/99names.htm



Allaah Almighty know's best.



Peace.

I would like to share a story that I believe is on topic with the question at the beginning of this thread?

A few years ago I had an exchange student for a daughter. She is a Muslim and I am Christian. In the course of a year we learned a great deal from each other, attended each other's worship, kept Ramadan together, and many other things.

One day she comes up to me and says: "Dad, when you pray, who come you
call God 'Father'?"

I asked her, "How come you call me 'Dad'?"

I was not her biological father. I did not begat her, nor was she born to my wife, whom she called 'Mom'. The reason she used those terms had nothing to do with biology. It was because it expressed the closeness and intimacy that was (and still is) the essence of our relationship with one another. I believe that this, not because that Jesus was supposedly "begotten", is the primary reason that Jesus referred to God as Father, and for the same reason taught his disciples to do likewise. God wants to be in a close intimate relationship with us as if we are all family. Of course God is spirit and neither male nor female. The use of the term "Father" is probably because of the patriarchal nature of the culture in which Jesus lived.

[north_malaysian]

When Malaysian Muslims were singing Black Eyed Peas' "Where is the Love" song, with lyrics.... "Father, Father, Father, Father ... send us guidance from above..." some religious scholars ruled out that it's amounted to "shirk"

[Umar001]

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah
Peace be upon ya and mercy from G-d Almighty

Hope all is well and I am pleased that you have been satisfied,

But I think it is reasonably certain, historically, that Jesus at least on some occasions addressed God as 'Father' and taught his disciples to do likewise. So it must follow that Muslims cannot reject absolutely this term for all people everywhere.

If possible, and if you have time, if you don't please do not feel obligated to, but could you explain to me how you feel it is historically, 'reasonably certain' . I didn't think it was or is, but anyhow, if you do get time, even if it takes you a long while to respond inshaAllah send me a pm or something so I know ;) Thank you.

However, I understand now why would it be wrong for Muslims to follow Jesus' example. But I don't think we can simply reject Jesus' example as wrong.

I agree with you, that we as Muslims should not say, that Jesus was wrong in anything he said of his message and his example, authobillah, he was/is one of those close to Allah in this world and the hereafter, Alhamdulilah :)

Assalamu aleykum again, thank you for staring such a nice topic,

Your brother Eesa. :)

[Grace Seeker]

oh..that's simple. Christians (as we see it) don't associate anything with God. Saying that Jesus is God, when you believe it, is like saying "God is God". no association.

Sorry, this is off-topic.

Natalia, thank you for sending me a PM to welcome me. I wrote you a response, but unfortunately I can not send it to you until I reach 50 posts. imsad

[Paul Williams]

Assalamu Aleykum Wa Rhametulah
Peace be upon ya and mercy from G-d Almighty

Hope all is well and I am pleased that you have been satisfied,



If possible, and if you have time, if you don't please do not feel obligated to, but could you explain to me how you feel it is historically, 'reasonably certain' . I didn't think it was or is, but anyhow, if you do get time, even if it takes you a long while to respond inshaAllah send me a pm or something so I know ;) Thank you.



I agree with you, that we as Muslims should not say, that Jesus was wrong in anything he said of his message and his example, authobillah, he was/is one of those close to Allah in this world and the hereafter, Alhamdulilah :)

Assalamu aleykum again, thank you for staring such a nice topic,

Your brother Eesa. :)

Salam Eesa

Before I answer your interesting question, would you mind telling me why you think Jesus did not address God as 'Abba' ?

[Umar001]

Salam Eesa

Before I answer your interesting question, would you mind telling me why you think Jesus did not address God as 'Abba' ?

Wa Aleykum Salam Wa Rhametulah Brother Paul,

I hold no view as to whether he did or didn't, I hold the view that I have not seen any evidence that he called Him father, and I have no evidence that Jesus did not call Him father, but the quran, which claims that jesus never said he was the son, I think or at least that he never said he was G-d.

I hope that makes sense lol

[Grace Seeker]

Wa Aleykum Salam Wa Rhametulah Brother Paul,

I hold no view as to whether he did or didn't, I hold the view that I have not seen any evidence that he called Him father, and I have no evidence that Jesus did not call Him father, but the quran, which claims that jesus never said he was the son, I think or at least that he never said he was G-d.

I hope that makes sense lol

Of course there are some that would dispute as evidence of corruption anything in the Bible that might be understood as being different from what is found in the Qur'an. On the other hand, there would also be some that would cite those differences as evidence of error in the Qur'an. I'll not get into that dispute, but I do want to provide the quote you were seeking:

Mark 14:36 (NIV)
"Abba, Father," he [Jesus] said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will."

[Umar001]

Thank you kindly for the quote Grace Seeker,

And I think we have a whole handful of threads with regards to whether the Bible has been changed or not, though it rather sometimes turns into an arena where people just try to prove themselves right instaed of providing their evidence and trying to see the opposing views and their understading.

As Eric says:

In the spirit of better inter-faith dialogue

Eesa.

[Paul Williams]

Wa Aleykum Salam Wa Rhametulah Brother Paul,

I hold no view as to whether he did or didn't, I hold the view that I have not seen any evidence that he called Him father, and I have no evidence that Jesus did not call Him father, but the quran, which claims that jesus never said he was the son, I think or at least that he never said he was G-d.

I hope that makes sense lol

The evidence that he did address God as 'Abba' is found in a number of first century writings some of which are found in the Christian New Testament. God is also referred to as 'father' in a number of places in the Old Testament too, so the term would have been familiar to Jesus and his contemporaries.

The term 'son of God' in the first century Jewish context has NO connotations of divinity whatsoever - and if Jesus was called that, it would have been understood as synonymous with the word 'messiah'. Only much later with the apostle Paul did 'son of God' mean a divine being. Of course I agree with you that Jesus never claimed to be God.

Does this answer your questions? :)

[Grace Seeker]

As we now have both a Christian and a Muslim giving the same testimony regarding Jesus' use of the term "abba", I would think that would settle any question on this matter.

[Umar001]

The evidence that he did address God as 'Abba' is found in a number of first century writings some of which are found in the Christian New Testament. God is also referred to as 'father' in a number of places in the Old Testament too, so the term would have been familiar to Jesus and his contemporaries.

The term 'son of God' in the first century Jewish context has NO connotations of divinity whatsoever - and if Jesus was called that, it would have been understood as synonymous with the word 'messiah'. Only much later with the apostle Paul did 'son of God' mean a divine being. Of course I agree with you that Jesus never claimed to be God.

Does this answer your questions? :)

Assalamu Aleykum,

Thank you for your reply,

I sure see why you believe that, do I believe that is enough evidence, erm, I don't know its something I have to look into it myself but you sure have opened up an avenue of thinking whichI had before, but havent re-visted in a while.

For learning sake, you said "The evidence that he did address God as 'Abba' is found in a number of first century writings some of which are found in the Christian New Testament."

Where are the others?

And do you not think that it is possible that stil they could be stuff that is made up?

Just wondering, curious thats all.

Thanks for your time though Brother.

Eesa. :)

[Paul Williams]

Assalamu Aleykum,

Thank you for your reply,

I sure see why you believe that, do I believe that is enough evidence, erm, I don't know its something I have to look into it myself but you sure have opened up an avenue of thinking whichI had before, but havent re-visted in a while.

For learning sake, you said "The evidence that he did address God as 'Abba' is found in a number of first century writings some of which are found in the Christian New Testament."

Where are the others?

And do you not think that it is possible that stil they could be stuff that is made up?

Just wondering, curious thats all.

Thanks for your time though Brother.

Eesa. :)

Another example from outside the New Testament is the Gospel of Thomas -which you can read in translation here:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html

Of course one can say of much history from the ancient world that it was all just made up. If you insist on being a sceptic then you are free to doubt. But to my knowledge, perfectly reputable historians of the first century have no qualms in believing that Jesus addressed God as Abba. I think the onus is on you to come up with some evidence or an argument that suggests otherwise. Do you have such evidence or such an argument?

Why is this an issue for you?

[Umar001]

I think the onus is on you to come up with some evidence or an argument that suggests otherwise. Do you have such evidence or such an argument?

Why is this an issue for you?

Thank you so much for the link, erm I don't have an opposing arguement.


It aint so much an issue as in that I wanna prove the opposite of what your saying, I'm just a questionative person, I like to know things, that is why I asked if it was possible that so and so mighth ave happend, just for the reason that reading your answer would provide me a better understanding of the view you hold.

Again, I don't particularly agree or disagree, I think I'm just attracted at any knowledge which talks about the Bible or Jesus or such, just a personal sense of curiousity.

[Paul Williams]

Thank you so much for the link, erm I don't have an opposing arguement.


It aint so much an issue as in that I wanna prove the opposite of what your saying, I'm just a questionative person, I like to know things, that is why I asked if it was possible that so and so mighth ave happend, just for the reason that reading your answer would provide me a better understanding of the view you hold.

Again, I don't particularly agree or disagree, I think I'm just attracted at any knowledge which talks about the Bible or Jesus or such, just a personal sense of curiousity.

Well, I think its really good you are questioning things. :clever:

[Umar001]

Well, I think its really good you are questioning things. :clever:

Yea well sometimes, specially online, I think people misunderstand me and think that I'm just being arguementative, I get the feeling it happens alot.

May Allah reward you for your kindness and patience with me Brother.

:)

[Grace Seeker]

Another example from outside the New
Of course one can say of much history from the ancient world that it was all just made up. If you insist on being a sceptic then you are free to doubt. But to my knowledge, perfectly reputable historians of the first century have no qualms in believing that Jesus addressed God as Abba. I think the onus is on you to come up with some evidence or an argument that suggests otherwise. Do you have such evidence or such an argument?

A very good observation. It is easy to question history, all one has to do is be willing to doubt. Thus it is that today conspiracy theories thrive with regards to all sorts of recent events because we doubt the "official" or the reported version.

Apply that sort of thinking to anciet documents like the Bible and pretty soon one has the Bible re-written to create a Jesus that never existed. Now I don't have any trouble accepting that people wrote their stories about Jesus from their own particular bias, but finding evidence of that bias only tells us that the people really did believe these things. Why did they believe them? If we are talking about the earliest (and here now I mean first generation believers) it is most probable that it is because they themselves were witness to those events and experienced them first-hand, or received the information from other sources credible to them who themselves had.

Apply that sort of thinking to the Qur'an and you have basically denied the very heart of Islam.


Oh, and Eesa, I don't mean not to ask questions, for asking questions is how we learn. But there is a difference from being inquisitive and being a skeptic.

[Paul Williams]

Apply that sort of thinking to the Qur'an and you have basically denied the very heart of Islam.

What exactly do you mean by this statement?

[Umar001]

A very good observation. It is easy to question history, all one has to do is be willing to doubt. Thus it is that today conspiracy theories thrive with regards to all sorts of recent events because we doubt the "official" or the reported version.

Apply that sort of thinking to anciet documents like the Bible and pretty soon one has the Bible re-written to create a Jesus that never existed. Now I don't have any trouble accepting that people wrote their stories about Jesus from their own particular bias, but finding evidence of that bias only tells us that the people really did believe these things. Why did they believe them? If we are talking about the earliest (and here now I mean first generation believers) it is most probable that it is because they themselves were witness to those events and experienced them first-hand, or received the information from other sources credible to them who themselves had.

Apply that sort of thinking to the Qur'an and you have basically denied the very heart of Islam.

I think theres a difference between, reasonable logical questioning or logical doubt, than just being a person who says 'prove it, prove it' and for proof they want to be shown for example, Matthew writing down the scripture with his own hand.

Oh, and Eesa, I don't mean not to ask questions, for asking questions is how we learn. But there is a difference from being inquisitive and being a skeptic.

I totally agree, and all I've been is inquisitive, I may have asked questions that seem to come from a person who might be a skeptive, but those question do not neccesarily reflect my belief on the matter.

[Abu Ibraheem]

Hey Paul, on this note did you know that Allah loves His creation more than a mother loves her child? Did you know that Allah has sent only 1 mercy from His 99 Mercies in which a mothe loves her child and protects her child? Did you know that nobody can love a child more than its mother... except Allah?
The reason as to why the term father was used was to denote the relationship between God and man, Why father? this is due to grammar, anything without gender is classed as masculine (when in reality its not) if it has no sign of feminine gender. In Arabic a car is feminine whilst a book is masculine. If the word for God happened to be feminine, the Bible would have called God mother! but we all know God doesnt have gender. Its simply for grammar reasons. The reason God now objects to be called a father because there are certain sects that have seperated from Islam (the true relgion since the word beand took Jesus as a literal son.
The Son and Father (God) relationship was metaphorical.

[Umar001]

The reason God now objects to be called a father because there are certain sects that have seperated from Islam (the true relgion since the word beand took Jesus as a literal son.
The Son and Father (God) relationship was metaphorical.

Assalamu Aleykum Brother Abu IBraheem,

I was just wondering, is that stated in Islamic sources, that it is the actual reason, or is it just derived from thinking?

Just wondering, please do not feel offended.

Your brother

Eesa.

[Grace Seeker]

What exactly do you mean by this statement?

Eesa has expressed some doubt regarding Jesus (pbuh) ever using the term "abba" to refer to God. This despite where you and I have both showed him that it was used. The reason, seems to be that he doubts the credibility of the texts. Why? Well, I don't know he hasn't said. But rather than accept the text at face value, he is applying something outside the text to judge it. In Islam, as I understand it, one does not judge the Qur'an, one accepts the Qur'an and judges one's life by it. But if I were to begin with a belief that Jesus (pbuh) did in fact do XYZ, and then look to see if that was also found in the Qur'an, I would not be accepting the Qur'an, I would be judging it. I would be saying that another authority was higher than the Qur'an, namely my beliefs as to what is or isn't true.

We may disagree with whether or not Jesus should have called God "abba" as a poiint of faith. (Personally I think he did and have not problem with it, but that is not relevant.) But after seeing all of the evidence that other Jews of Jesus' day used the term "abba" in reference to God, that first century Christians used the term "father" in reference to God, and that in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as referring to God as "abba", plus that in Matthew and Luke that Jesus (pbuh) is reported as teaching his disciples to specifically address God as "father" in prayer to continue to doubt is simply to be unwilling to accept the witnesses as credible. If one were to apply that way of thinking to the Qur'an -- an unwillingess to accept the witness to it as credible -- it would strike at the very heart of Islam, or at least so it seems to me.

[Paul Williams]

Dear Grace Seeker

thanks for clarifying your meaning...

:)

[Grace Seeker]

Hey Paul, on this note did you know that Allah loves His creation more than a mother loves her child? Did you know that Allah has sent only 1 mercy from His 99 Mercies in which a mothe loves her child and protects her child? Did you know that nobody can love a child more than its mother... except Allah?
The reason as to why the term father was used was to denote the relationship between God and man, Why father? this is due to grammar, anything without gender is classed as masculine (when in reality its not) if it has no sign of feminine gender. In Arabic a car is feminine whilst a book is masculine. If the word for God happened to be feminine, the Bible would have called God mother! but we all know God doesnt have gender. Its simply for grammar reasons.

Very well illustrated.

The Son and Father (God) relationship was metaphorical.

Precisely. Or perhaps, even better, it was anthropomorphical.

The reason God now objects to be called a father because there are certain sects that have seperated from Islam (the true relgion since the word beand took Jesus as a literal son.

What sects do you refer to? I hope you are not refering to Christians. Sometimes Christians are sloppy with the word choices and they sound like this, but Christians certainly do NOT think of Jesus (pbuh) as the literal son (i.e not the biological son) of God.

When Christians use the term "Son of God" to refer to Jesus, they are using it just like Jews of that era did, as title to refer to the Messiah. Some within Roman Catholic Christendom have gotten more sloppy with their language and even talk of Mary as the Mother of God. They do not mean this to imply that Allah actually has a mother. However, I am sure the Islam would still disgree with what they do mean, namely that Jesus (pbuh) is quite truly God incarnate. Hence Mary as the mother of Jesus (pbuh) is also in a sense the "mother" of God.

[Paul Williams]

When Christians use the term "Son of God" to refer to Jesus, they are using it just like Jews of that era did, as title to refer to the Messiah.

I don't want to get picky with what u say, but (!) when Christians use the term 'Son of God' of Jesus they mean a divine being, synonymous with 'God the Son'. Unfortunately very few Christians (outside of academia) know that in the first century Jewish context as u say it meant Messiah. That's how it is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example - written by Jews around the time of Jesus.

Jesus was a humble man and expressly rejected anyone ascribing God's attributes to himself. As someone once heard him say...

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'

[Grace Seeker]

I don't want to get picky with what u say, but (!) when Christians use the term 'Son of God' of Jesus they mean a divine being, synonymous with 'God the Son'. Unfortunately very few Christians (outside of academia) know that in the first century Jewish context as u say it meant Messiah. That's how it is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example - written by Jews around the time of Jesus.

I didn't say that Christians do not view Jesus as divine. I said that the use of the term "Son of God" is a Messianic reference. The use of the term "God the Son" is indeed a divine reference. And as I said, many Christians get sloppy with their language, but those are not equivalent terms.

Jesus was a humble man and expressly rejected anyone ascribing God's attributes to himself.

This is a statement expressing an opinion. Some of which we hold in common and some of which we do not.

As someone once heard him say...

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'

I appreciate your quoting one of my favorite stories. However, borrowing from "The Princess Bride", one of my children's favorite movies, "I do not think it means what you think it means." However any discussion of this should probably be in a different thread.

[Paul Williams]

Indeed, Christology is the big sticking point between Muslims and Christians.

We can agree to disagree on this. I used to believe in the historic creeds of the church - Nicea, Chalcedon etc, but I came to realise that, to put it mildly, they did not reflect the realities of Jesus' Jewish context and beliefs.

But as u say: this is a deviation from this thread

[Grace Seeker]

I do need to make one correction to where I said that the term "Son of God" was a Messianic Title. It is, as you seem to be well aware, however, there is at least one place where it was used, as you said, by a person basically calling Jesus God:

Matthew 27:54
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

And its parallel passage:

Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!"

Since the centurion would be a Roman and not a Jew, he is unlikely to be making a Messianic reference. One still has to deal with whether one accepts as true Matthew's and Mark's testimony that it was Jesus on the cross, but I suppose that it makes no difference if, as in accordance with Islamic teaching, the Roman soldier would have been just as fooled into believing it was Jesus as everyone else present was.


The other that probably needs to be considered more carefully is

Romans 1:4
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Though Paul was a Jew and in this instance writing to a church of mixed Jewish and Gentile Christians, in this case Paul's use of the term if probably not as a Messianic title but is being used to contrast it with his declaration that Jesus is "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the preceeding verse.

[Paul Williams]

there is at least one place where it was used, as you said, by a person basically calling Jesus God.

Since the centurion would be a Roman and not a Jew, he is unlikely to be making a Messianic reference. One still has to deal with whether one accepts as true Matthew's and Mark's testimony that it was Jesus on the cross, but I suppose that it makes no difference if, as in accordance with Islamic teaching, the Roman soldier would have been just as fooled into believing it was Jesus as everyone else present was.


The other that probably needs to be considered more carefully is Though Paul was a Jew and in this instance writing to a church of mixed Jewish and Gentile Christians, in this case Paul's use of the term if probably not as a Messianic title but is being used to contrast it with his declaration that Jesus is "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the preceeding verse.

Oh dear we are seriously off topic now! But I'm happy to continue till I get my wrist slapped.

Now I'm going to answer your post purely from memory and will not consult the Bible or a text book. So here goes...

There is an alternative variation in the NT text which says 'surely this man was a son of god' I believe the NRSV at least cites this alternative reading. In the Graeco-Roman world all sorts of people and deities were call sons of God. Emperors, holy men, mythological characters in literature were all given this title. To assert that the Roman soldier must have seen Jesus as God is, in my opinion, highly speculative. He probably thought Tiberius was divine too. What does this prove?

As to the passage in Romans you cite. We are in deep water here. There are some technical exegetical points I'd like to make but this is not the right place to do it. It would be rude to others to go off into NT scholarship issues. But I'll just say this: Paul's use of 'Son of God' has a different meaning from the synoptic Gospels. He seems to have moved some way to exulting Jesus as divine. This of course doesn't mean Jesus was divine. Christians must never forget that Paul never met Jesus. Paul never ever calls Jesus by the name Jesus used most often of himself :son of man. And Paul was deeply at odds with the apostles as to the meaning of being a follower of Jesus and God...

[Grace Seeker]

Oh dear we are seriously off topic now! But I'm happy to continue till I get my wrist slapped.

hahahah Yes, we are. But I am so enjoying this conversation with you. Though a "thread", or at least a filament, of a connection remains with the original topic in that we are discussing the relationship between Jesus and God. (I know it is a stretch, but you did start the topic, so maybe we won't get our wrists slapped to hard.)

Now I'm going to answer your post purely from memory and will not consult the Bible or a text book. So here goes...

There is an alternative variation in the NT text which says 'surely this man was a son of god' I believe the NRSV at least cites this alternative reading. In the Graeco-Roman world all sorts of people and deities were call sons of God. Emperors, holy men, mythological characters in literature were all given this title. To assert that the Roman soldier must have seen Jesus as God is, in my opinion, highly speculative. He probably thought Tiberius was divine too. What does this prove?

Yes, though it isn't from a variant text, but just an alternate rendering of the text "θεου υιος". But you are correct, it can also be translated "a son of god." I wasn't citing it because I thought this proved anything. I had just earlier stated that the phrase "Son of God" was used as a Messianic title, which it generally was. But then later I recalled some instance where it would not have been used that way. So, for integrity's sake, I thought I should correct myself.

As to the passage in Romans you cite. We are in deep water here. There are some technical exegetical points I'd like to make but this is not the right place to do it. It would be rude to others to go off into NT scholarship issues. But I'll just say this: Paul's use of 'Son of God' has a different meaning from the synoptic Gospels. He seems to have moved some way to exulting Jesus as divine. This of course doesn't mean Jesus was divine. Christians must never forget that Paul never met Jesus. Paul never ever calls Jesus by the name Jesus used most often of himself :son of man. And Paul was deeply at odds with the apostles as to the meaning of being a follower of Jesus and God...

Actually we are nearly agreed on this too. As I said, I wasn't trying to prove anything, just correcting myself. But let's start another thread to discuss how Paul and the synoptics used these terms differently. It might be an interesting discussion.

[Abu Ibraheem]

The question was

I was just wondering, is that stated in Islamic sources, that it is the actual reason, or is it just derived from thinking?

No worries bro, i am not offended in the slightest. Our doctrines clearly refute the deviations of the people of the book. From Trinity, Sonship, Crucifixion to blood sacrifice and atonement for the "original sin." As Jesus did the action of submission to God, he therefore was Muslim (active participle denoting one who sunmits to God or even the action of submitting to God). It is safe to conclude that Jesus was upon Islam whether or not the linguistic term existed or not. Christianity, was indeed a ofshoot of the pure religion of all the Prophets in which Jesus was not the founder. Christianity to Islam is simlpy what mormonism is to Christianity, i dont intend to offend any sincere Christian reading this. In fact if a Christian wishes to speak with me then please do through private mail as i find it more effective and sincere when we have a personal discussion than a public debate. With public disscussions pride can too easily creep into the conversation and all of a sudden we have this urge that we have to proove to the people that we are right under all circumstances.
i hope i clarified , if not then please ask for further clarification.