His only begotten son?

[Malaikah]

To the christians,

I was just listening to this talk by Ahmed Deedat, and he mentioned the following qoute from the bible:

John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life"

This confuses me (just as it confuses him). Christians will always say the use of the word Son and Father as part of the trinity doesnt actually mean literally a father-son relationship. However, why then the specific use of the word begotten? And even the context of the verse makes it sound very much like a father-son relationship too. :?

Let us also define Begotten: (esp. of a male parent) to procreate or generate (offspring). (Source)

[Keltoi]

In Christianity, the term "Son of God" doesn't mean that God "produced" an offspring. Christ is not the literal "son" of God, but the reflection of his will. The term "son" of God is used many times in Old Testament. Job 38:7 "When the morning stars sang together, and all the SONS of God shouted for joy." The word "son" in the context of the Gospel isn't describing God as having an offspring, but that God manifested his will through the birth of Jesus Christ.

[habiibti]

Keltoi,peace, Does that mean we are all sons of God?Do u call fellow christians da term sons of God?

[Keltoi]

Keltoi,peace, Does that mean we are all sons of God?Do u call fellow christians da term sons of God?

In that sense yes, all Christians would be the sons and daughters of God, as we are obedient to Him. Do I personally call fellow Christians "Hello, son or daugher of God"....no, we don't talk like that anymore.

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

[Malaikah]

Ok thanks Keltoi, two question if you dont mind:

1. if teh bible refers to heaps of people as the son of God why is it that you only take Jesus to be the 'son' part of the trinity? :?

2. Also that still doesnt explain the specific use of the word begotten...

[Umar001]

2. Also that still doesnt explain the specific use of the word begotten...

Luke 1:

34And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?'

35And the messenger answering said to her, `The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee, therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God;

Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

34"How will this be," Mary asked the angel, "since I am a virgin?"

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God.

New International Version (NIV)

34 Mary asked the angel, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin.”

35 The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God.

New Living Translation (NLT)

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

King James Version (KJV)

Source

Maybe those answer you?

[Woodrow]

I believe the Bible explains what it means by the word begot in Genesis. It is very specific about listing the linage of the prophets and it states who is the father of who by saying: "so and so begot so and so" It definetly means that the first is the physical father of the second.

Now in the NT we are told that "Jesus(as) is the only begotten Son of God(swt)" Yet, through out the old testament begot refers to being a physical father and not being the same person as the son.

Did something change?

[Malaikah]

:sl:

Interesting point Woodrow! :shade:

Eesa, I think what you have done is support Woodrow's claim that begotten refers to physically fathering someone... ^o) I'm nor sure thought what point you wanted to make?

[Keltoi]

In any event, it is not Christian belief that God physically produced a child.

[Malaikah]

In any event, it is not Christian belief that God physically produced a child.

That isnt a very convincing argument... :? Your own bible says he was begotten. So it would seem (to me) that you believe something that is contrary to what the bible says.:rollseyes

I'm not trying to make an accussation... I just want to know why you believe that when your holy book seems to imply the opposite.

[Keltoi]

That isnt a very convincing argument... :? Your own bible says he was begotten. So it would seem (to me) that you believe something that is contrary to what the bible says.:rollseyes

I'm not trying to make an accussation... I just want to know why you believe that when your holy book seems to imply the opposite.

The Bible does not imply that Christ is the physical "son" of God. In the original Greek, the word "begotten" was actually "Monogenes" Mono meaning "only" or "alone" and "genos" which means "of the same nature, kind, sort, species, etc." A good translation I've seen, which I can't find the source of at the moment, describes the phrase as meaning "a lone being, a unique existence, the only one of its kind, that which has no duplicate" .
An example would be Isaac in the Old Testament. "For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the bondwoman and one by the free woman." Galations 4:22. Then of course we have the incident where Isaac sacrifices his "only begotten son"...when of course we know he had more than one child. However, was Isaac "unique" and "one of a kind"? Yes, because he was the "son of promise" and Ishmael was not.

So what we really have here is the trouble of translating some words from Greek into English. In many newer versions the passages mentioned above have been changed to this more accurate translation or a footnote has been added to account for this. However, as I stated earlier, it is not a Christian belief that God produced an offspring, regardless of the semantics.

[Malaikah]

A bit of a conflict here:

The meaning of only begotten. "Only begotten" is from the Greek monogenes. This word is used nine times in the Greek New Testament. The word is a compound word, mono, meaning only, and gennesis, meaning birth.

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTARO16.htm

Which origin is correct? :playing: :rollseyes

[Umar001]

The Bible does not imply that Christ is the physical "son" of God. In the original Greek, the word "begotten" was actually "Monogenes" Mono meaning "only" or "alone" and "genos" which means "of the same nature, kind, sort, species, etc." A good translation I've seen, which I can't find the source of at the moment, describes the phrase as meaning "a lone being, a unique existence, the only one of its kind, that which has no duplicate" .

So what we really have here is the trouble of translating some words from Greek into English. In many newer versions the passages mentioned above have been changed to this more accurate translation or a footnote has been added to account for this. However, as I stated earlier, it is not a Christian belief that God produced an offspring, regardless of the semantics.

May you name us some translations please, I have heard Yusuf Estes say this too that aparently some say it is 'unique'.


Malaikah, I was just showing you what some feel is how mary concieved. The Power of the Almighty Overshadowed her, and the Holy Spirit came upon her.

[Keltoi]

A bit of a conflict here:

The meaning of only begotten. "Only begotten" is from the Greek monogenes. This word is used nine times in the Greek New Testament. The word is a compound word, mono, meaning only, and gennesis, meaning birth.

http://www.bibletruths.net/Archives/BTARO16.htm

Which origin is correct? :playing: :rollseyes

They appear to say the same thing in my estimation. If you read the rest of the link you supplied.

[Keltoi]

May you name us some translations please, I have heard Yusuf Estes say this too that aparently some say it is 'unique'.


Malaikah, I was just showing you what some feel is how mary concieved. The Power of the Almighty Overshadowed her, and the Holy Spirit came upon her.

Here is a rather long-winded diatribe about the various translations used for the word "begotten". It is about a quarter of the way down.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html

[Malaikah]

They appear to say the same thing in my estimation. If you read the rest of the link you supplied.

I read the rest. It made no sense. :rollseyes

[glo]

Greetings

It is interesting to read that this is such a difficult concept for Muslims, whereas it isn't for Christians at all.

Christians believe that God came down to earth in the form of Jesus. In order to do so, he needed a human form, a human body, to be born into.
God divinely caused Mary to become pregnant without her having intercourse with a man - hence he 'begot' Jesus in his human form.
I don't see anything difficult here at all.

People have said in other threads that Jesus was 100% human, but is also 100% God.
Jesus, the human, is merely a body for God to fulfill his earthly mission.
But Jesus is also God himself. Jesus (=God) was not begotten, nor created by God, he is and was one with God, ever since the beginning of time ...

I know that this is nigh impossible for Muslims to understand, and even less so to accept, but that's what Christians - based on Biblical teachings - believe. :)

The greatest stumbling block (for atheists) is how Mary could become pregnant being a virgin.
For Muslims and Christians alike, that's not a problem at all: God just can!
(Incidentally, how exactly - according to Islamic teachings - did God cause Mary to be with child?)

Peace

[Malaikah]

^Allah sent the angel Gabriel to her and he blew on (or into) her sleeve or and she conceived.

[Umar001]

Hi,

God divinely caused Mary to become pregnant without her having intercourse with a man - hence he 'begot' Jesus in his human form.

Jesus (=God) was not begotten, nor created by God, he is and was one with God, ever since the beginning of time

So, the are two parts of Jesus, there is Jesus the body and Jesus the God, so Mary gave birth to Jesus the Body which was begoten by Jesus the God.

Hmm, so when Jesus was before the stage of being begoten he was 100% God, then Jesus God begot a body Jesus the body which is 100% Human, so then these two joined, Jesus God and Jesus Body came together to be Jesus 100% god and human.

So Jesus the body is a lifeless body in reality, when Jesus god leaves the body it is lifeless?

So now, at what time did Jesus God go into Jesus body, I mean it brings up questions, so the fetus of Jesus the body was also Jesus the God?
Also how is it possible for something to be two opposites, like an imortal and mortal.
How can someone be 100% God and 100% human?
At what point is Jesus the God distinguish himself from Jesus the body, was Jesus the body only a body without the mind and way of thinking of a man?
Was Jesus the God an active part in Jesus the body, if so then isn't that an unfair advantage in the battle against evil?

Cheese please do provide some evidence sister. :)

[Malaikah]

:sl:

"And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through our Ruh (Jirrail- Gabriel)], and We made her and her son [Isa (Jesus)] a sign for Al-'Alamin (mankind and jinn)."

Chapter 12, Verse 19.

[dougmusr]

:sl:

"And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through our Ruh (Jirrail- Gabriel)], and We made her and her son [Isa (Jesus)] a sign for Al-'Alamin (mankind and jinn)."

Chapter 12, Verse 19.

The following translations do not contain the same text in parenthesis. Does this mean that the translator added his or her own interpretation to the Quran?

021.091
YUSUFALI: And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.
PICKTHAL: And she who was chaste, therefor We breathed into her (something) of Our Spirit and made her and her son a token for (all) peoples.
SHAKIR: And she who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her of Our inspiration and made her and her son a sign for the nations.

[Malaikah]

I qouted the verse from my copy of the translation Quran which included explanations in brackets. The stuff in brackets isnt actually part of the Quran, it was added (in the translation only) as an exlpanation only. For example, some readers might not understand who the verse was talking about because it doesnt specifiy her by name.

Also it wasnt the translators own interpretation, not any one can interprete the Quran, it is done by experienced scholars in light of the hadith.

[glo]

Greetings, Eesa

Your post sounds so confusing, I am not sure I even understand it, let alone be able to answer it ...

I have reread my post to see whether I have worded things not very clearly, and perhaps I haven't.

How can someone be 100% God and 100% human?

Why is it as difficult to accept that God can do these things?
As Muslims you too believe that with God all things are possible.
The reason you reject the idea of Jesus' divinity, is that it doesn't fit into your religious teachings. That's fair enough.
But for Muslim to say 'How can God do this? and 'Why would God do that?', seems rather odd.
God knows best, and God is all-powerful ... we both believe this!

Allah sent the angel Gabriel to her and he blew on (or into) her sleeve or and she conceived.

Thank you, Malaikah.
Would this act performed by Allah through the angel Gabriel be considered 'begetting a baby'?

Peace

[Malaikah]

Hey Glo,

Of course not! It is considered a miracle through which God created a baby without a father.

"Begetting" is something humans do, not something God does. God creates and stuff. It is said very very clearly in the Quran: "He begets not, nor was He begotten" Chapter 12 verse 3.

But for Muslim to say 'How can God do this? and 'Why would God do that?', seems rather odd.
God knows best, and God is all-powerful ... we both believe this!

Actually it only seems that way at a superficial glance but if you consider the matter a little more deeply you realise that the implications of God presenting himself to humans as a man are against the nature of God.

It does not represent an ability for him to do so, rather it represents a disablity because God would have had to reduce himself to a state in which he was no longer all knowing, all seeing, all hearing, all powerful, all mighty! And thats only touching the surface (God has 99 atrtributes in Islam, most of which He would have had to give up if He is to be human)!

Tell me, how is it that the all powerful can be overcome by His creations? He is no longer all powerful when He is crucified by man... He no longer all wise and all knowing when He cries out to God (to himself?) "Why have you forsaken me"! By making that cry He has sinned because He has questioned Gods will rather than remain patient- surely the all-knowing would have known already that this was the whole point of his becoming human? To sacrifice Himself? Why then did He seem to forget it here?:?

Thats just touching the surface of why this doesnt make sense to Muslims. I hope this did not come across as an attack on your faith, I was only intending to reply to your statement.

:)

Take care (I think the mod has taken us of topic :hiding: )

[glo]

Hi cheese

Perhaps this is an issue around the meaning of 'begetting', which - with English not being my first language - I don't fully grasp.

It seems silly to me to use one word as a stumbling block, when the meaning behind it is clear to us both:
God caused Mary to become pregnant, miraculously, by divine intervention!
That is the important message - everything else is just pointless (in my view) discussion. :rollseyes

The issue of Jesus' divinity is a separate one (and yes, it would probably take this thread off topic), but the miracle of Jesus' birth is something we should both rejoice at and be in awe of! :statisfie

Jesus could be overcome by the power of his creation, because he willingly gave up his divine powers while he was living in human form. He performed his miracles and healings through the power of the Holy Spirit, not his own.
He experienced the fear of death before his arrest, and the temptation of running away from it.
He suffered torture, humiliation and death as a human - knowing that he could on his divine powers at any time, and yet remaining obedient to the purpose of his earthly life.

As for your questions around God humbling himself into human form, it is something that cannot be fathomed by us humans.
To imagine God's love and grace for us to do such a thing, is more than most of us can comprehend!!!
And yet I believe he did.
We should not question why God would such a thing.
We should be eternally grateful that he did!

Sometimes it saddens me to know that Muslims just cannot see what God did for us - and thereby miss the true nature of God, his grace and his tremendous love for us! imsad

Cheese, I know that this issue is a real divide between our faiths.
I appreciate how you ask questions and try to understand.
But I fear you cannot understand, and no answer will ever satisfy you.
There will not be a time when it all makes sense to you - unless you are willing to open your heart to the message of Jesus' sacrifice for us.
Since you are a Muslim, that is not likely to happen.
But we can continue to learn about each other's beliefs, and - if we manage to learn to respect them - our lives may become richer for it! :)

peace

[Malaikah]

Jesus could be overcome by the power of his creation, because he willingly gave up his divine powers while he was living in human form. He performed his miracles and healings through the power of the Holy Spirit, not his own.
He experienced the fear of death before his arrest, and the temptation of running away from it.
He suffered torture, humiliation and death as a human - knowing that he could on his divine powers at any time, and yet remaining obedient to the purpose of his earthly life.

But this here is the problem isnt it? That God can stop being God... and I know that you will say that that he is 100% man and 100% divine, but I cant see how someone who lacks all the defining attributes of God can still be God, even if did give them up while in his human form it still doesnt make sense because God cant just stop being all-knowing, who can you be all knowing then make yourself ignorant? Not only that but know youre saying he had to reply of the Holy spirit, which makes one third of God dependent on something...

Okay I'm going to stop now because this is getting too confusing... :confused: the christian understanding of God is just too different to the Islamic one, I can not understand it, I cant evn understand how any person can understand it. :confused:

Sometimes it saddens me to know that Muslims just cannot see what God did for us - and thereby miss the true nature of God, his grace and his tremendous love for us!

We don't need to believe that God would sacrifice himself for our sake to show his love for us. He shows his love and mercy towards us in different ways that are more befitting of his majesty than sacrificing himself. God is greater than that. :)

[Keltoi]

".... I and the Father are One." (John 10:30)

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:28)

"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." (John 17:24)

Another thought to consider. The prophets before Jesus Christ were "adopted", while Christ was a "natural" prophet. Christ was completely man, because he had all the weaknesses of men, meaning hunger, pain, thirst, temptation, etc. Christ had all of these weaknesses but remained without sin. That is why Christ's suffering is the ultimate evidence of God's love for us, that He, in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, suffered upon the cross to grant us eternal life with the Father.

Seemingly this concept is difficult for non-Christians to accept, just as it was difficult for many to accept in the time of Jesus Christ. However, this is fundamental to the Christian faith.

[MTAFFI]

Hi,





So, the are two parts of Jesus, there is Jesus the body and Jesus the God, so Mary gave birth to Jesus the Body which was begoten by Jesus the God.

Hmm, so when Jesus was before the stage of being begoten he was 100% God, then Jesus God begot a body Jesus the body which is 100% Human, so then these two joined, Jesus God and Jesus Body came together to be Jesus 100% god and human.

So Jesus the body is a lifeless body in reality, when Jesus god leaves the body it is lifeless?

So now, at what time did Jesus God go into Jesus body, I mean it brings up questions, so the fetus of Jesus the body was also Jesus the God?
Also how is it possible for something to be two opposites, like an imortal and mortal.
How can someone be 100% God and 100% human?
At what point is Jesus the God distinguish himself from Jesus the body, was Jesus the body only a body without the mind and way of thinking of a man?
Was Jesus the God an active part in Jesus the body, if so then isn't that an unfair advantage in the battle against evil?

Cheese please do provide some evidence sister. :)

ITS RELATION TO THE RESURRECTION
The resurrection of Jesus without the ascension of Jesus leaves us with the problem of what happened to Jesus' body. The gospels are clear that the body which was laid in the tomb on Friday evening left the tomb on Sunday morning. When Jesus appeared to his disciples, it was in his body. They were seeing a real body, not a vision. If it were only a vision, then it was certainly the most deceptive and lying vision on record. Jesus said, "Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:39).

A phantom or hallucination can just fade away, but a body has to go somewhere. If Jesus' resurrected body didn't ascend, as the scriptures say, what happened to it? Luke tells us and I believe him.

[Grace Seeker]

This discussion of "begetting" is much ado over nothing.

The term "beget" is a 16th century English translation of the Greek word "monogenes". It was a poor translation then, it is an even poorer translation now. Surely both Muslims and Christians understand the importance of going back to the original languages and not arguing over an English term that doesn't mean in our language today what the original writers of scripture were talking about when they wrote what they wrote in their own language nearly 2000 years ago.

from The New International Dictionary of New Testamanet Theology, Colin Brown, editor

Literally it [monogenes] means "of a single kind", and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, [meaning] beget. The idea of "only begotten" goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the [Latin] Vulgate to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made. monogenes reflects the Hebrew yahid of Isaac (Genesis 22:2, 12, 16) of whom it is used in Hebrews 11:16. The meaning of monogenes "is centered in the Personal existence of the Son, and not in the Generation of the Son" (B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, [1833], 1966, p. 170).

[Grace Seeker]

I want to tack on another thought here. I am beginning to see a difference in the way many (not all) of our Muslim brothers and sisters use language vs how some (not all) of our Christian brothers and sister use it.

I think that maybe Muslims use language more literally than do Christians. For instance, Christians speak of Jesus sitting at the right hand of God. Now, even very fundamentalist, and literalist-interpreting Christians speak this way, even though not one person thinks that Jesus is really sitting, kneeling, standing, or otherwise physically present at God's right hand, foot, knee, elbow or another other physical aspect of God. Christians just use these words, often don't think about them, and consider the reference to speak of the extreme closeness between Jesus and the Father and the honor bestowed on Jesus. Muslims hear us use these same terms and have all sorts of vivid pictures of two seperate and independent personages, perhaps in a throne room, and wonder what in the world Christians are thinking of when they then call Jesus God or talk about a Trinity. And with these pictures in the backs of their minds, it is no wonder that a concept of something like the incarnation just doesn't make sense.

Christians and Muslims simply process the very same words differently. It is in part because of the context in which we are each rasied. It is not that one way is right and the other is wrong. They are just different. And of course there are some Christians who don't get those images, and perhaps the way Muslims speak about God is easier for them to understand. I don't know, perhaps there are also some Muslims for whom these Christians ways of speaking are a welcome expression.


.....Or maybe I'm just all washed up in suggesting this to begin with. But some of the confusion on this thread makes me think that though I am surely not 100% right, that I might still be on to something.

[glo]

This thread has raised very similar thoughts in me, Grace Seeker.

Except you put it into words much better! :)

[Malaikah]

This discussion of "begetting" is much ado over nothing.

The term "beget" is a 16th century English translation of the Greek word "monogenes". It was a poor translation then, it is an even poorer translation now. Surely both Muslims and Christians understand the importance of going back to the original languages and not arguing over an English term that doesn't mean in our language today what the original writers of scripture were talking about when they wrote what they wrote in their own language nearly 2000 years ago.

Okay... so why does the King James version still use it if it is a bad translation?:?

I want to tack on another thought here. I am beginning to see a difference in the way many (not all) of our Muslim brothers and sisters use language vs how some (not all) of our Christian brothers and sister use it.

Well, the general rule is that we interprete things literally unless their is a reason to believe it is not meant to be literal.

For example, the verse in the Quran that says "Allah is the light of the heavens and earth". This is obviously metaphoric and not meant to be literal. There are many, many other examples but I think that makes it clear enough.

But to me... when something reads, "His only begotten Son"... it doesnt sound very metaphoric, but if you think it is a translation error and that the word Son doesnt really mean son... then fair enough...

[Grace Seeker]

Well, the general rule is that we interprete things literally unless their is a reason to believe it is not meant to be literal.

For example, the verse in the Quran that says "Allah is the light of the heavens and earth". This is obviously metaphoric and not meant to be literal. There are many, many other examples but I think that makes it clear enough.

But to me... when something reads, "His only begotten Son"... it doesnt sound very metaphoric, but if you think it is a translation error and that the word Son doesnt really mean son... then fair enough...

No problem. I really don't think that one is right and the other wrong, any more my mother is wrong for approaching the world from a left-handed point of view while I do it from a right-handed one. I thoroughly get the concept of interpret literally unless there is a specific reason to do otherwise. I thought I used the same approach myself, but I see that I do not do so as much as some others (mostly Muslim I am observing) on this board do. And it's just taken me awhile to realize it.

But yeah, Jesus "son"ship is not about him have God's genetic code. What genetic code? God is a spirit. Spirits don't have genes. It is a statement about the nature of the internal relationship within God himself.

(Notice I used all singular terms, though in Genesis the word to describe the God who created the universe is "Elohim", which is plural; so that God (singular) says: "Let us make man in our (plural) image (singular)." I don't expect you to get your head around that all in one fell swoop, I'm still working on it. But then God is enough bigger than me, that I don't ever expect to fully understand in this life, some things will just have to wait for entry into eternity. And I can live with that.)

[Grace Seeker]

Okay... so why does the King James version still use it if it is a bad translation?:?

This gets to what many people, not just Muslims by any means, do not understand about translations, versions, editions, etc.

A translation is a work based on a particular original language text. It can only be as good as:

(1) the quality of the original text that is chosen.
Here is where Muslims have an advantage over Christians. Muslims believe that they have uncorrupted copies of the original Qu'ran. And that all Arabaic copies are identical to both the first and to one another. Thus, there is no question about what text to use to make a translation into another tongue. Grab any Arabaic text; they are all the same.
Christians have to deal with their "corrupted" text (I'll use the Muslim word, though I prefer "variant readings") and engage in some serious textual criticism to arrive at what they hope is a closer rendering of the original language text.
(2) the quality of the translation.
Here both Jews and many Muslims have an advantage over Christians for they can generally read in the original tongue and don't need a translation. However, for the most part, Christians need their scriptures translated for them. And there are differing theories as to the best way to translate -- using a literalistic and wooden translation or using a free form whereby the translator tries to express the thoughts of the author, but may not use the actual word choices. Both forms have their advantages and disadvantages.

That work is done by a particular group of people. They produce a translation. Then, business being what it is, the people who paid for all of this translation work, have this typeset, printed and bound into book form. That process produces a version be it the King James Version or the Revised Standard Version or New International Version. Each version is then the result of a completely different individual or group of scholars selecting a text and producing a translation which then gets published. Now, sometimes, these groups will go back and amend their work because they believe that they can do a better translating job or simply to add some footnotes or a few extra maps, these are new editions of the same work. The King James Version was first published in 1611. Most printings of the King James Version today are based on slightly later editions, but still from the 1600s.

The only people who can go back and change a poorly translated word in the King James Version are those who were part of it to begin with. And none of them are still living to do so. So, new publications of the KJV come out all the time with this person commentary in the margins, or that person's outline for studying it, or some one else's pictures or drawings to illustrate it. But the text is going to be the same text no matter which one you pick up.

So, what does someone do if they think that a word in the King James Version could have been translated better? They get their own group together and go through the whole process themselves. And when they get done they give that translation over to a publisher who publishes it under a new name, i.e. the Revised Standard Version, Today's Englsih Version, the New International Version, The American Standard Bible, The New American Standard Bible, The Living Bible, The New Living Translation, The Philips Bible, The Message, and many more. These are all the works of individuals or groups that thought they could do either task # 1 or task # 2 mentioned above better than those who had gone before them.

And if you look, you will see that indeed many of them do not use the phrase "only begotten Son". But the King James Version will remain unchanged, because King James i no longer around to authorize a change.

(Oh, and by the way, that is the biggest joke, maybe even scandal, to think that the King James Version is some how authorized and others are not. That was only relevant to James subjects meaning that he had given permission for the committee to carry out the work that it did. It surely does not make it a more authorized version than any other.)

[Ummu Sufyaan]

Hi cheese

Perhaps this is an issue around the meaning of 'begetting', which - with English not being my first language - I don't fully grasp.

It seems silly to me to use one word as a stumbling block, when the meaning behind it is clear to us both:
God caused Mary to become pregnant, miraculously, by divine intervention!
That is the important message - everything else is just pointless (in my view) discussion. :rollseyes

The issue of Jesus' divinity is a separate one (and yes, it would probably take this thread off topic), but the miracle of Jesus' birth is something we should both rejoice at and be in awe of! :statisfie

Jesus could be overcome by the power of his creation, because he willingly gave up his divine powers while he was living in human form. He performed his miracles and healings through the power of the Holy Spirit, not his own.
He experienced the fear of death before his arrest, and the temptation of running away from it.
He suffered torture, humiliation and death as a human - knowing that he could on his divine powers at any time, and yet remaining obedient to the purpose of his earthly life.

As for your questions around God humbling himself into human form, it is something that cannot be fathomed by us humans.
To imagine God's love and grace for us to do such a thing, is more than most of us can comprehend!!!
And yet I believe he did.
We should not question why God would such a thing.
We should be eternally grateful that he did!

:sl:
Cheese, I know that this issue is a real divide between our faiths.
I appreciate how you ask questions and try to understand.
But I fear you cannot understand, and no answer will ever satisfy you.
There will not be a time when it all makes sense to you - unless you are willing to open your heart to the message of Jesus' sacrifice for us.
Since you are a Muslim, that is not likely to happen.
But we can continue to learn about each other's beliefs, and - if we manage to learn to respect them - our lives may become richer for it! :)

peace

hello and asalamualakum brothers and sisters.

all i can say is: all praise is due to Allah, who has made Islam the truth. Who has made the worship of Him alone easy to understand, comprehend and easy to follow. The only thing lacking is people not willing to be open hearted.

[Grace Seeker]

hello and asalamualakum brothers and sisters.

all i can say is: all praise is due to Allah, who has made Islam the truth. Who has made the worship of Him alone easy to understand, comprehend and easy to follow. The only thing lacking is people not willing to be open hearted.

You know I can concur with most of that. And it might surprise the part and reason I don't concur with all of it. I think that people, on the whole, are open hearted. At least I sense that on this forum. I truly believe that people have a passion to share what they know of God with one another. And I think that the hearts that do this are wide open to both God and filled with compassion for others.

Our differences come more from our minds than our hearts. And I think that we all, self included, have a tendency to believe that since we of course have the truth, those who don't think like us must not.

[Ummu Sufyaan]

You know I can concur with most of that. And it might surprise the part and reason I don't concur with all of it. I think that people, on the whole, are open hearted. At least I sense that on this forum. I truly believe that people have a passion to share what they know of God with one another. And I think that the hearts that do this are wide open to both God and filled with compassion for others.

Our differences come more from our minds than our hearts. And I think that we all, self included, have a tendency to believe that since we of course have the truth, those who don't think like us must not.

hello and :sl: brothers and sisters.

It is not about who has the truth or not, in the sense that because i am me, than i must be right, or it isn't that because i follow islam, than it must be right. (I know that it is). It is rather that we, as muslims know that Islam is the truth because it has been divinley inspired by Allah, through his Prophet Muhammad (salalahu aleyhi wa salam). The quran has not been distorted over the centuries, and people have not changed it to how they want, and thus teaching others by what they think is right, yes, there are a few misguided people who have deviated, and have had followers, however the point is, is that the one unique thing about truth is that it never changes, and this is how you know what the truth is.
Let me give you a comparison. A murder, for example takes place. No matter if the detectives/investigaors cannot gather enough evidences to convict a person, does not negate the fact that x person commited the murder. in other words, person x will always be that murderer no matter what evidences may (or may not) be apparent.

and no, grace seeker, i have to disagree with you on the point you raised concerning our differences, in that you said that Our differences come more from our minds than our hearts.
i believe the opposite, because the human mind will always be rational, when somehting has been exaplined properly. However, it is dependent on what that person understands. For example when something is explained to some one, eg a math problem, a person who understands math, will obviously understand the problem. It has nothing to do with what he believes, because the person explaining, let us assume that it is a teacher, will show his student, what are the necessary steps to acheive the correct answer. He, as a student cannot dispute with that, based on what his heart believes as 1: he has been shown through a logic what he has to do to achieve the correct answer and 2: because otherwise, he cannot acheive the correct answer.
it is however, a sickness in the heart that people will not accept truth, because our hearts tend to be deceived.

[Grace Seeker]

hello and :sl: brothers and sisters.

It is not about who has the truth or not, in the sense that because i am me, than i must be right, or it isn't that because i follow islam, than it must be right. (I know that it is). It is rather that we, as muslims know that Islam is the truth because it has been divinley inspired by Allah, through his Prophet Muhammad (salalahu aleyhi wa salam). The quran has not been distorted over the centuries, and people have not changed it to how they want, and thus teaching others by what they think is right, yes, there are a few misguided people who have deviated, and have had followers, however the point is, is that the one unique thing about truth is that it never changes, and this is how you know what the truth is.
Let me give you a comparison. A murder, for example takes place. No matter if the detectives/investigaors cannot gather enough evidences to convict a person, does not negate the fact that x person commited the murder. in other words, person x will always be that murderer no matter what evidences may (or may not) be apparent.

and no, grace seeker, i have to disagree with you on the point you raised concerning our differences, in that you said that Our differences come more from our minds than our hearts.
i believe the opposite, because the human mind will always be rational, when somehting has been exaplined properly. However, it is dependent on what that person understands. For example when something is explained to some one, eg a math problem, a person who understands math, will obviously understand the problem. It has nothing to do with what he believes, because the person explaining, let us assume that it is a teacher, will show his student, what are the necessary steps to acheive the correct answer. He, as a student cannot dispute with that, based on what his heart believes as 1: he has been shown through a logic what he has to do to achieve the correct answer and 2: because otherwise, he cannot acheive the correct answer.
it is however, a sickness in the heart that people will not accept truth, because our hearts tend to be deceived.

Then I stand corrected. For you see I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin named Mary. That he was God incarnate, come to dwell among us. That this very God also took our sins upon him, thus free us from having to pay a debt for that sin which we could never have paid in full, and thereby grants us new life in his name. This is something I know to be true because I have experienced his living presence in my life. I know God not just as an idea, someone far removed from and separate from my life, but as one who has actually entered my life and changed who I am on the inside.

Whether it is your head or your heart that keeps you from seeing how this could be true is not what is important. What is important is that you keep your spirit open to let God speak to you and direct your path. As a true follower of Islam I am sure you will. And in that hope, I will trust you to the Almighty One's care and grace.

Praise be the transcendent one who can be confined by neither time nor space, that he has shown such great compassion upon his creation as to humble himself to take on their form and become part of human history. Blessings be upon him who though he abides no form of sin nor corruption, takes both upon himself to redeem us and make us holy. Glory be to him who is wholly other than us and yet still infuses our lives with his holy presence whereby we are enabled to live holy lives in submission to his good, pleasing, and perfect will.

[Umar001]

Howdy Glo,

Why is it as difficult to accept that God can do these things?
As Muslims you too believe that with God all things are possible.

Yes God can do things, but he does not do things that would contradict his attributes, for example, if God made a made a person immortal, could God cause that immortal to die? No, because if the immortal dies then he was not immortal, you see the attribute given as 'immortal' was not a true attribute.

The reason you reject the idea of Jesus' divinity, is that it doesn't fit into your religious teachings. That's fair enough.

Yes, because I've been a Muslim who didnt want to and didnt believe Jesus was God. :heated:

Hi Keltoi

".... I and the Father are One." (John 10:30)

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matthew 28:28)

"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world." (John 17:24)

I guess we understand the above verses differently :okay:

Another thought to consider. The prophets before Jesus Christ were "adopted", while Christ was a "natural" prophet. Christ was completely man, because he had all the weaknesses of men, meaning hunger, pain, thirst, temptation, etc. Christ had all of these weaknesses but remained without sin. That is why Christ's suffering is the ultimate evidence of God's love for us, that He, in the person of Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, suffered upon the cross to grant us eternal life with the Father.

Well if maybe you mean Jesus the body was like a man, but Jesus the God could not have those weaknesses, God doesn't need to eat or drink or feel hurt and so forth. God can't be tempted right?

Nice to have you participating MTAFFI

ITS RELATION TO THE RESURRECTION
The resurrection of Jesus without the ascension of Jesus leaves us with the problem of what happened to Jesus' body. The gospels are clear that the body which was laid in the tomb on Friday evening left the tomb on Sunday morning. When Jesus appeared to his disciples, it was in his body. They were seeing a real body, not a vision. If it were only a vision, then it was certainly the most deceptive and lying vision on record. Jesus said, "Look at my hands and my feet; see that it is I myself. Touch me and see; for a ghost does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have" (Luke 24:39).

A phantom or hallucination can just fade away, but a body has to go somewhere. If Jesus' resurrected body didn't ascend, as the scriptures say, what happened to it? Luke tells us and I believe him.

I don't understand this in particular, what is this telling me?? But anyhow, it would be interesting to into this, but I rather not stray off topic, insha'Allah, God willing. Maybe if you want you can pm me or something telling me why you feel the author of Luke is reliable :)

Eesa.

[glo]

Then I stand corrected. For you see I believe that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin named Mary. That he was God incarnate, come to dwell among us. That this very God also took our sins upon him, thus free us from having to pay a debt for that sin which we could never have paid in full, and thereby grants us new life in his name. This is something I know to be true because I have experienced his living presence in my life. I know God not just as an idea, someone far removed from and separate from my life, but as one who has actually entered my life and changed who I am on the inside.

Whether it is your head or your heart that keeps you from seeing how this could be true is not what is important. What is important is that you keep your spirit open to let God speak to you and direct your path. As a true follower of Islam I am sure you will. And in that hope, I will trust you to the Almighty One's care and grace.

Praise be the transcendent one who can be confined by neither time nor space, that he has shown such great compassion upon his creation as to humble himself to take on their form and become part of human history. Blessings be upon him who though he abides no form of sin nor corruption, takes both upon himself to redeem us and make us holy. Glory be to him who is wholly other than us and yet still infuses our lives with his holy presence whereby we are enabled to live holy lives in submission to his good, pleasing, and perfect will.

I'm in total agreement with Grace Seeker's post and his statement of faith. :statisfie

[Abdul Fattah]

Greetings, Eesa
Why is it as difficult to accept that God can do these things?
As Muslims you too believe that with God all things are possible.
The reason you reject the idea of Jesus' divinity, is that it doesn't fit into your religious teachings. That's fair enough.
But for Muslim to say 'How can God do this? and 'Why would God do that?', seems rather odd.
God knows best, and God is all-powerful ... we both believe this!
Peace

Actually Glo disagree. I don't believe this is capable. I think you are misinterpreting omnipotence. Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice. So the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature. Like asking God to draw squared circles. A circle by defenition is round, so a squared circle would no longer fit the defenition of circle. The flaw lies not in God, but in the question.

[Grace Seeker]

Actually Glo disagree. I don't believe this is capable. I think you are misinterpreting omnipotence. Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice. So the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature. Like asking God to draw squared circles. A circle by defenition is round, so a squared circle would no longer fit the defenition of circle. The flaw lies not in God, but in the question.

Malaikah, since I know that you are in this thread also, do you see how Steve's description of ominpotence is in line with the Kenosis theory we have been talking about Thread on the Crucifixion. He has just given a Muslim description with respect to God of the same thing I have been talking about with respect to Jesus as God.

[Malaikah]

I dont see how it supports youre point though... :?

[Grace Seeker]

Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. I think we begin in agreement that nothing is impossible with God.


But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. Now Steve begins to show how making a choice begins to limit possiblities without limiting who God is.


For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice.


So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness, but as a man is also at the same time choosing to not exercise his divine attributes as long as he is physically incarnate amongst us -- the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature to be both exercising divine attributes and human limitations at the same time.

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also. Thus, Jesus (who is God) prays to God. I know for you that is a contradiction in terms; it simply isn't for me. It isn't important that you believe this this actually occurred, but I hope you can imagine that God might be able to make and execute such a choice if he so desired.

[Umar001]

Yea but Grace Seeker, if God then choses to make a body for himself and go into the body, then how is it still possible that God is still totally God, for example, God knows everything, so when He goes into the body and submits his powers, does he then submit his knowledge? If so then he is not God because God knows everything. If he doesn't submit the knowledge then he knows everything which contradicts the fact of him being same as Adam.

If your finding this annoying or anything then say, I find this type of discussion interesting and it helps me see other people's views and so forth, some find it irritating that I dont just say 'Oh ok' and walk off.

Eesa.

[Malaikah]

Yea but Grace Seeker, if God then choses to make a body for himself and go into the body, then how is it still possible that God is still totally God, for example, God knows everything, so when He goes into the body and submits his powers, does he then submit his knowledge? If so then he is not God because God knows everything. If he doesn't submit the knowledge then he knows everything which contradicts the fact of him being same as Adam.

:sl:

LOL! This is exactly the topic of my thread about Can God be 100% man and 100% divine.

See, I knew this topic needed to be discussed on its own, it cmes up everywhere otherwise! Shame that no body took my thread seriously.

[Abdul Fattah]

Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. I think we begin in agreement that nothing is impossible with God.


But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. Now Steve begins to show how making a choice begins to limit possiblities without limiting who God is.


For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice.


So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness, but as a man is also at the same time choosing to not exercise his divine attributes as long as he is physically incarnate amongst us -- the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature to be both exercising divine attributes and human limitations at the same time.

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also. Thus, Jesus (who is God) prays to God. I know for you that is a contradiction in terms; it simply isn't for me. It isn't important that you believe this this actually occurred, but I hope you can imagine that God might be able to make and execute such a choice if he so desired.

I think you missed the whole point of my post. It is true that waving away capabilities by choice does not undermine omnipotence. However my whole point was that due to this choice, it is decided that the opposite of the choice will not happen. So saying: "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this" is a smokescreen, because in reality he will not do it, as he already chose not to. God isn't like people who after making a chose change their mind. Next to being omnipotent, god is also omniscient. So suggesting he'd change his mind undermines that omniscience. When we change our minds, that happens when new information becomes available; and when based on that new information we realize our decision was wrong. So God, being omniscient wouldn't have this.

[Grace Seeker]

Yea but Grace Seeker, if God then choses to make a body for himself and go into the body, then how is it still possible that God is still totally God, for example, God knows everything, so when He goes into the body and submits his powers, does he then submit his knowledge? If so then he is not God because God knows everything. If he doesn't submit the knowledge then he knows everything which contradicts the fact of him being same as Adam.

If your finding this annoying or anything then say, I find this type of discussion interesting and it helps me see other people's views and so forth, some find it irritating that I dont just say 'Oh ok' and walk off.

Eesa.

Not annoying at all. In fact, I have had this same discussion with some of my Christiam friends. There are some who believe that Jesus would have known that the earth was round not flat, that germs not demons are what causes illnesses, and a whole host of other things not known by the people of his day. They believe this for the same reasons you have just given.

I disagree. Jesus himself says that there are some things that he does not know, such as when he would return, that such information is known only to the Father. Now you claim that this makes him less than God because God knows everything. Again I disagree. We have all heard stories of the king who seeks to become a servant, who goes amongst his people incognito. He is still king, but having given up all of the trappings of royality, not only will people not recognize him, but he can act as a king unless they recognize him as such. While not a perfect analogy for what we are talking about, I think it speaks to the situation you protest about. Jesus, while on earth, had to live within the limitations of ordinary human beings. You say that makes him less than God, I think he is just a king that must make his way on his human rather than his royal attributes.

[Grace Seeker]

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Omnipotence means the possibility to do anything. I think we begin in agreement that nothing is impossible with God.


But if one makes certain choses then by doing so one waves some of those possibilities. Now Steve begins to show how making a choice begins to limit possiblities without limiting who God is.


For example Allah subhana wa ta'ala with his omnipotent capabilities chose to be the most just. So by his own capabilities he choses to waves his capability to be less just then others. Now this doesn't undermine his omnipotence. This is just a result of choice.


So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness, but as a man is also at the same time choosing to not exercise his divine attributes as long as he is physically incarnate amongst us -- the problem is not that God would be incapable of it, but rather that it is contradicting by nature to be both exercising divine attributes and human limitations at the same time.

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also. Thus, Jesus (who is God) prays to God. I know for you that is a contradiction in terms; it simply isn't for me. It isn't important that you believe this this actually occurred, but I hope you can imagine that God might be able to make and execute such a choice if he so desired.

I think you missed the whole point of my post. It is true that waving away capabilities by choice does not undermine omnipotence. However my whole point was that due to this choice, it is decided that the opposite of the choice will not happen. So saying: "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this" is a smokescreen, because in reality he will not do it, as he already chose not to. God isn't like people who after making a chose change their mind. Next to being omnipotent, god is also omniscient. So suggesting he'd change his mind undermines that omniscience. When we change our minds, that happens when new information becomes available; and when based on that new information we realize our decision was wrong. So God, being omniscient wouldn't have this.

Steve, I know what you were trying to say. But I think the application of your idea is bigger than you might have thought. As to the "smokescreen" you refer to, I didn't say "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this", nor did I make a reference to God changing his mind.

[Abdul Fattah]

Steve, I know what you were trying to say. But I think the application of your idea is bigger than you might have thought. As to the "smokescreen" you refer to, I didn't say "see he is still omnipotent so he should be able to do this", nor did I make a reference to God changing his mind.

Well you did imply it didn't you?
First you said:

So God may chose to be the most perfect example of how a man surrenders to the will of God. In so chosing he himself becomes an incarnate man. This does not diminish in anyway his Godness

So God choses option A, and hence waves option B.

then you said:

Yet (and I know you don't accept this), even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also

So even though he waved option B, that was only the result of chose so he is still omnipotent and still capable of option B.

[Grace Seeker]

Well you did imply it didn't you?
First you said:

So God choses option A, and hence waves option B.

Right

then you said:

So even though he waved option B, that was only the result of chose so he is still omnipotent and still capable of option B.

This is where the Trinitarian concept kicks in. Meaning that while Jesus is God on earth waving option B, that God the Father still exists retaining option B. That is what I was referring to in saying that "even as God manifests himself on earth in the person of Jesus, he still continues to exist as the infinite, ominpotent, omniscient, transcendent God of the universe also". And while I know that some will see this as two Gods, we Christians simply do not see it that way, but as one God being manifested in more than one way.

[Abdul Fattah]

Sorry for my late reply, I lost track of this tread among all the new ones :)
anyway to get back to your post. You said:

This is where the Trinitarian concept kicks in. Meaning that while Jesus is God on earth waving option B, that God the Father still exists retaining option B.

But that means only part God waves option B. So were not talking about 100% here. If I understand teh concept of trinity correctly it claims that God is all three at the same time, and not one third of him being one thing, another third being something else and yet another being something else. So if you say that Jesus waves option B but the father (and the holy spirit) do not wave it aren't you deviding it up in three thirds? No offence, but this trinity thing is really frustrating to discuss. Everytime I raise a question that suggests that according to the theory we're dealing with three parts I get a reply that says that it is not three parts but one being three at the same time. And every time I raise a question about one being three at the same time I get a reply that it are actually three parts. It's like there's a different trinity-theory depending on the question. So what it the trinity? One God consistent out of three different parts, or one God being three things at the same time?