ive read the bible a few times because i was once a practicing christian. as i embraced islam i still continued to read the bible and one thing has stuck out to me that i still dont have an answer to.
though i think the trinity is silly, i do not think the bible denies the trinity. though i think the crucifixion and resurrection are silly, i also dont deny that these are both clearly mentioned in the bible.
however something that has startled me, is this.
if you read the 4 gospels alone, you will see that the term "son of god" is rarely used. looking into manuscript history as well, it is also noted that many of the times we see "son of god", they were not in the original manuscripts. a site that shows this while also providing manuscript proof would be http://www.bible-researcher.com/guide.html.
the term "son of man" however, is used in the gospels quite a lot. however, outside of the gospels, it is rarely used. i think it is used once in acts, and a few times in Revelation, but that is it. paul never used this term, though it is used in the gospels over 80 times!
so personally, i think that maybe this whole "son of god" concept was adapted by paul, and added to the gospels. however, i think "son of man" was initially the big "saying" per se, but was rarely used outside of the gospels in the NT. i think the whole "son of god" thing was added but not originally said by jesus.
but im not trying to argue this with you guys, because you guys see paul as an inspired man, as a "prophet." therefore you see his work as authentic and he clearly stated many times that jesus was the "son of god."
what i am asking though, is why dont you christians emphasize jesus as the son of man so much?
Well, let's look in the book of Daniel and see how the term Son of man is used.
'I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man (Jesus) came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days (the Father), and they brought him near before him.
And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom which shall not be destroyed.' Daniel 7: 13-14.
The thing is, Jesus is both the Son of man and the Son of God. Son of man refers to his humanity, and Son of God refers to his divinity.
I don't think many Christians believe Paul is a prophet. Rather, he was an inspired convert who devoted his life to the early church. From my understanding, 'Son of man' was a phrase used by Jesus to highlight His humility and humbleness.
what i am asking though, is why dont you christians emphasize jesus as the son of man so much?
I think what you are experiencing in terms of the emphasis on speaking of Jesus more as "the son of God" than as "the son of Man" (both of which are clearly biblical attributions regarding Jesus) has more to do with the context in which you are presently living than the whole of Christendom. The very early church fathers often did write and speak about Jesus as the "son of Man." This is a messianic figure of speech and the Messiahship of Jesus is very much an important part of the Christian understanding of who Jesus is -- we just tend to use the Greek term for it (Christ) more than the Jewish term (Messiah), but they mean the same thing. The emphasis on the teaching of Jesus as "the son of God" you rightly connect with Paul -- though Paul only uses the term 4 times in 13 letters, and the larger emphasis is found in the Gospel of John where it is used of Jesus 6 times in one book and John states that his whole purpose in writing his gospel is to present Jesus as the Son of God.
In responding to what he saw as the failings of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther used the writings of Paul to articulate much of his reproof of what he perceived to be errors present in the church in his day. As a result the theology articulated by other Reformation era theologians followed suit and was strongly Pauline in character. As you said, Paul does not once use the term "son of Man" in reference to Jesus. This makes sense when you realize that Paul was taking his message not to the Jewish Christians, but to the Greek Christians of his day. For Greeks, the concept of a Jewish Messianic figure didn't really mean much. Now, as I read Paul, I find that he was himself Jewish through and through. But he did not feel that one had to be a "good Jew" in order to be a good Christian, and thus he didn't push the Messiahship of Jesus as strongly as say does the Gospel of Matthew which was written for Jewish Christians, nor did he use the "son of Man" language the way Luke did who was pointing to Jesus as sharing in our common humanity. When Paul speaks of that aspect of Jesus, he uses terms such as "the second Adam." But as a result of the writings of the Reformation theologians, much of Protestanism, the people who make the biggest squeek, even if we aren't the biggest portion, in the western Christian world tend to use Pauline language more than the language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke when talking about the work of Jesus. But while you hear the term "son of God" more than you hear the term "son of Man," be assure that both are very important to us, and contrary to what some on this forum think, we don't see them as set one in opposition to the other, for Jesus is both, and I think even Paul would agree with that.
BTW, I think it is also worth noting that while Paul never uses the term Son of Man, that both terms "son of Man" and "son of God" are found in all four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, plus every New Testament book that uses the phrase "son of Man" also uses the phrase "son of God" to refer to Jesus. Even excluding Paul's writings, the same cannot be said in reverse. To my way of thinking, that would tend to make the phrase "son of God" be the more normative way of speaking of Jesus if I were to be forced to choose between the two phrases -- which we are not so forced.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 01-13-2010 at 05:03 AM.
Reason: typos
I think what you are experiencing in terms of the emphasis on speaking of Jesus more as "the son of God" than as "the son of Man" (both of which are clearly biblical attributions regarding Jesus) has more to do with the context in which you are presently living than the whole of Christendom. The very early church fathers often did write and speak about Jesus as the "son of Man." This is a messianic figure of speech and the Messiahship of Jesus is very much an important part of the Christian understanding of who Jesus is -- we just tend to use the Greek term for it (Christ) more than the Jewish term (Messiah), but they mean the same thing. The emphasis on the teaching of Jesus as "the son of God" you rightly connect with Paul -- though Paul only uses the term 4 times in 13 letters, and the larger emphasis is found in the Gospel of John where it is used of Jesus 6 times in one bood and John states that his whole purpose in writing his gospel is to present Jesus as the Son of God.
In responding to what he saw as the failings of the Catholic Church, Martin Luther used the writings of Paul to articulate much of his reproof of what he perceived to be errors present in the church in his day. As a result the theology articulated by other Reformation era theologians followed suit and was strongly Pauline in character. As you said, Paul does not once use the term "son of Man" in reference to Jesus. This makes sense when you realize that Paul was taking his message not to the Jewish Christians, but to the Greek Christians of his day. For Greeks, the concept of a Jewish Messianic figure didn't really mean much. Now, as I read Paul, I find that he was himself Jewish through and through. But he did not feel that one had to be a "good Jew" in order to be a good Christian, and thus he didn't push the Messiahship of Jesus as strongly as say does the Gospel of Matthew which was written for Jewish Christians, nor did he use the "son of Man" language the Luke did who was pointing to the Jesus as sharing in our common humanity. When Paul speaks of that aspect of Jesus, he uses terms as as "the second Adam." But as a result of the writings of the Reformation theologians, much of Protestanism, the people who make the biggest squeek, even if we aren't the biggest portion, in the western Christian world tend to use Pauline language more than the language of Matthew, Mark, and Luke when talking about the work of Jesus. But while you hear the term "son of God" more than you hear the term "son of Man," be assure that both are very important to us, and contrary to what some on this forum think, we don't see them as set one in opposition to the other, for Jesus is both, and I think even Paul would agree with that.
BTW, I think it is also worth noting that while Paul never uses the term Son of Man, that both terms "son of Man" and "son of God" are found in all four gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry, plus every New Testament book that uses the phrase "son of Man" also uses the phrase "son of God" to refer to Jesus. Even excluding Paul's writings, the same cannot be said in reverse. To my way of thinking, that would tend to make the phrase "son of God" be the more normative way of speaking of Jesus if I were to be forced to choose between the two phrases -- which we are not so forced.
very great answer, and i must say you were on point with answering my question! makes a lot of sense now. thanks
I don't think many Christians believe Paul is a prophet. Rather, he was an inspired convert who devoted his life to the early church. From my understanding, 'Son of man' was a phrase used by Jesus to highlight His humility and humbleness.
the reason why Jesus and Gospel writers used the term Son of Man was not to highlight his humanity or humbleness, it was to highlight and identify him with the Son of Man in the OT, who was the Messiah, a major figure to these people, who was going to usher in an age of peace, the kingdom of God. Hence when he is called Son of Man, he is being called the Messiah, the one they have been waiting for, and alas he has arrived!
Son of God in hebrew literally means servant of God and with that definition Jesus would be a servant of God (thus agreeing with Islam) and not a biological son which sounds like a Pagan theory
Son of God in hebrew literally means servant of God and with that definition Jesus would be a servant of God (thus agreeing with Islam) and not a biological son which sounds like a Pagan theory
The term "son of God" as used in the Christian scriptures and other Christian writing has no biological meaning whatsoever.
Indeed you are correct that the Jewish roots of the phrase carry forth some of the connotations of servanthood, and some pagan ideas might be present in that for even Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon is called an ebed of Yahweh and the translation of that Hebrew word (ebed) into Greek (pais) is sometimes rendered servant and sometimes child. Early on in the Old Testament one can see the development of two different strains of usage for the word ebed in Jewish tradition. There was one strain in which the special role of the ebed is found in that of a King (like David or Nebuchadnezzar) who saves God's people from their enemies. The other tradition was the prophetic role of someone (such as Elijah or Moses) who is the messenger of God and by proclaiming God's word sets historical forces in motion.
But though the phrase ebed (meaning variously either "servant" or "child", depending on context) of Yahweh existed in the Hebrew scriptures, the use of its corresponding Greek translation (pais theos) in Greek-speaking Jewish literature was rare outside of scripture itself. The more common expression being doulos (meaning "servant" or "slave"). So, when in the New Testament the Gospel writers speak of Jesus not as the doulos of God but as the pais, they are setting Jesus apart as somehow different from others with regard to his connection with God. There is something unique about Jesus. Certainly Jesus is unique compared to other people of his day. And if he were to be understood as being on order with King David or the great prophets Elijah and Moses, that would be enough. But Jesus is presented as in relationship with God in even more unique ways than these great characters of Israel's history. For Jesus is also refered to not only as the pais theos (i.e. child/servant of God) but also as the hyios tou theo (son of God). The concept of hyios differs from pais in that it carries with it not biology, but status as an heir. And Jesus is presented as this hyios (son/heir) of God. Indeed it was making confession of Jesus as the son (hyios) of God that were the very first creeds of the Christian faith before any New Testament gospels or epistles were ever written.
Curiously, Jesus never uses the full title to designate himself, but he frequently does refer to himself as "the Son" (hyios) and further the phrase "Son of God" is the Gospels writer's favorite designation for Jesus. Especially important times for this is when Jesus is called "my Son" by the heavenly voice at his baptism (Mark 1:11) and at the transfiguration (Mark 9:7), even demons recognize him to be "the son of God" (Mark 5:7), and the high priest questions Jesus as to whether he is "the son of the Blessed One" (Mark 14:61) --a question which, in its context, can only refer to Yahweh-- to which Jesus responds "I Am."
Whereas there are times when references to Jesus as "the Son of God", and nearly all those which refer to him as "the Son of Man" are Messianic references, these that I have highlighted do not fit that category. The Gospel writers are saying something beyond a statement that Jesus is the Messiah or a servant of God. These are claims of divinity made on Jesus' behalf by those who have written the Gospels. And of that group of gospel writers, the one who was most certainly an actual disciple of Jesus, John, makes this claim central to the whole purpose of his gospel stating it was written "that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31).
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 01-13-2010 at 03:50 PM.
I don't think many Christians believe Paul is a prophet. Rather, he was an inspired convert who devoted his life to the early church. From my understanding, 'Son of man' was a phrase used by Jesus to highlight His humility and humbleness.
My god cannot be humbled before anybody. glory be to Allah. how can you assign such limitation to him?
to be 'humble' is to be low or inferior in station or quality.. not befitting of a creator. There is nothing difficult to about that, although you are certainly free to believe that god dies or is humbled etc.
all the best
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
Matthew: 26:39: "He went a little farther and fell on His face and prayed"
Interestingly, How Jesus pbuh prayed is very similar to how muslims currently pray, ie. with sujood/prostration.
And how current christians pray? singing and dancing of course.
Matthew 4:10 "You shall worship the Lord, your God, and him only you shall serve"
John 14:28 reads-- " You heard that I said to you,I am going away and i am coming back to you. If you loved me , you would rejoice that I am going my way to the Father,BECAUSE THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I AM"
Mark 13:32: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."
John 5:19: "Most truly I say to you, the son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative but only what he beholds the father doing."
Matthew 19:17. "And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."
John 7:16: Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me
Jesus pbuh also said:
Blind belief is dangerous and destructive!. Bible tells us to prove things.
(I Thessalonians 5:21): “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
The teachings of the Church contradict the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and that is the cause of the confusion. If a sincere christian who wants to follow Jesus, asks priests about trinity, the answer that he gets is "It is a Mystery, not explained by Jesus clearly", at that time again those forget that Jesus said,
"I spoke openly to the world. I always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where the Jews always meet, and in secret I have said nothing" (John 18:20 (NKJ)).
There was no mystery in the message of Jesus, nothing secret. Will you accept the priests' so called "mystery of trinity" and forget clear commandments of Jesus? Trinity or divinity of Jesus to be anywhere close to basis of christian faith would have to be there in bible in clear words in any even one book of bible, with Jesus saying I am God, worship me, which is not. Doesn't it mean something to you.
The trinity is a doctrine from about the year 325 AD, It has its roots in polytheism, pagan religion, and pagan philosophy (most probably added to christianity by humans to make it more acceptable to worshippers of more than one God). It is not in the bible unless you really, really stretch it to fit.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia - 1967, VOL. XIV, PAGE 299:
The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, PRIOR TO THE END OF THE 4TH CENTURY. But it is precisely this formulation that first claimed to title "The Trinitarian Dogma. AMONG THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS, THERE HAD BEEN NOTHING EVEN REMOTELY APPROACHING SUCH A MENTALITY OR PERSPECTIVE.
Indeed! He had already prophesied that people will worship him uselessly and will believe in doctrines not made by God but by men. (Matthew 15:9):
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”
Men make all doctrines of modern Christianity: the Trinity, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Original Sin and Atonement.
You should not accept the word “son” literally . Word "son" was used in bible for general human beings and other prophets also. "we all are the children of father in heavens" indicates that word "son" was used in different meaning of love and care.
Mathew: 5:9. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.”
Exodus 4:22.
“And thou (Moses) shalt say unto Pharaoh, thus saith the Lord, Israel is my son, even my firstborn.”
The belief that Jesus died for our sins and salvation is gurarenteed for believers of Jesus, and now actions do not have to fall in line with our faith, is not what Jesus preached clearly. It contradicts with interpretations and additions done by scribes/ historians centuries after Jesus:
Matt 5:20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness (your uprightness and your right standing with God) is more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
There is no guranteed heaven for anyone, this life is a test, whether you pass and enter heaven or fail,.
Jesus said, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)
Jesus, Moses, Mohammad (p.b.u.h), they all worshiped the same God, the God of Ibrahim. All prophets taught "surrendering one's will to God" that is the meaning of word "Islam". Word "christianity" did not exist at the time of Christ, but you will find Jesus teachings to be "surrender your will to God" in bible many times.
JAMES 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
Mohammad (peace be upon him) was also a messenger of God, who never claimed to be God, the same way Jesus or Moses never claimed to be God, nor did they ever say worship me. Bible confirms the coming of another true prophet as:
"The Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said unto you."
[Bible - John 14:26]
If only the genuine followers of Jesus, who truly love him, read the Bible in context, and study the Qur’an, they will definitely reach the conclusion that GOD IS ONE, without any partners; and Jesus (pbuh) the son of Mary (pbuh) is a messenger of GOD!
Muslims love Jesus, they believe in his miraculous birth with the will of God without a father or sexual act (the way Adam was born without a mother and father), , they believe in miracles that Jesus performed with permission of God, muslims faith demands them to believe Jesus was a great prophet of God and belief in the original message of Jesus the massaya.
Muslims feel closer to the sincere Christians than to the Jews, or the idol worshippers and the atheists.
The Qur’an clearly says in Surah.5:v 82: “Thou wilt find the most vehement of mankind in hostility to those who are muslims (to be) the Jews and the idolators. And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe; those who say: Lo! We are Christians. This is because there are among them priests and monks (i.e. persons entirely devoted to the service of God, as are the muslims) and because they are not proud.”
Qur’an, revealed to the Prophet Muhammed some 600 years after Jesus, (pbut) corrects the errors that crept (knowingly or unknowingly) into the message that Jesus brought. This book should prove to be a very valuable asset to both Muslims and Christians
The Holy Qur’an warns in Surah 5:73& 74: “They do blaspheme who say, Allah is Christ the son of Mary. But said Christ: O’ Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Whoever joins other gods with Allah- Allah will forbid him the garden, (i.e. paradise) and the fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong doers, be no one to help”. “Surely they are disbelievers, those who say: Allah is one of the three in a Trinity: But there is none who has the right to be worshiped but one God (i.e. Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them”.
Decide whether you love Jesus and want to follow his clear words and be saved, or love other human beings who gave different meaning to his original words.
When you ask the bulk of Christians , how many SONS has God got , they would say one and will quote the below verse .
John 3:16 " For God so loveth the world ,that he gave his only begotten SON, so who shall believe in him shall not perish but shall have ever lasting life "
I would say they dont read their Bible properly because if you read the bible clearly you would find that God has got sons by the tons in the bible
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the SONS
OF GOD." ROMANS 8:14
When truth is hurled at falsehood , falsehood perishes. because falsehood by its nature is bound to perish [21:18- Holy quran]
When you ask the bulk of Christians , how many SONS has God got , they would say one and will quote the below verse .
I would say they dont read their Bible properly because if you read the bible clearly you would find that God has got sons by the tons in the bible
Well, you misunderstand. Jesus is the Son (capital) of God, existing from eternity to eternity with the Father. Those who are in Christ and accept him are then adopted into the family of God and they become sons of God.
When you ask the bulk of Christians , how many SONS has God got , they would say one and will quote the below verse .[John 3:16)
I would say they dont read their Bible properly because if you read the bible clearly you would find that God has got sons by the tons in the bible
I would say that just as to properly underrstand th Qur'an Muslims insist you need to read it in Arabic, not English; so to properly understand the Bible you will do better to read it in its original languages. The phrase "only begotten" is translated from a term monogene that is used just a few other times in scripture and one of those is to refer to Isaac as the monogene of Abraham. Now, clearly Isaac was NOT the only begotten son of Abraham, for he had an older brother Ishmael. (I suspect you've heard of him. ) And the author of that account was clearly well enough versed on Jewish history to be aware of that ascpect of Abraham's story. So, I suggest that a proper understanding of the compound word monogene is must be more than simply a derivation from the meaning of each of the terms independently combined together. Rather, I prefer the idea of it setting apart the individual as being the "uniquely generated" of God. And even Muslims must admit that this is true for Jesus was indeed uniquely generated given that he was born of a virgin, though I think it means far more than just that with regard to Jesus.
naidamar, I don't get your point at all. Are you responding to a previous post or just making your own independent declarative presentation?
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 01-14-2010 at 10:43 PM.
to be 'humble' is to be low or inferior in station or quality.. not befitting of a creator. There is nothing difficult to about that, although you are certainly free to believe that god dies or is humbled etc.
all the best
I disagree that being humble has anything to do with being inferior in station or quality. It is an attitude, not a position. History is rife with the stories of people who were humble kings and others who were arrogant, haughty peasants.
I disagree that being humble has anything to do with being inferior in station or quality. It is an attitude, not a position. History is rife with the stories of people who were humble kings and others who were arrogant, haughty peasants.
Greetings,
That is the dictionary definition, so there is nothing to disagree with as it isn't a statement of my making. Also I don't see how God can have an 'attitude' whatever that attitude maybe as feelings and beliefs are a human value and not a divine one!
all the best..
Text without context is pretext If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him
That is the dictionary definition, so there is nothing to disagree with as it isn't a statement of my making. Also I don't see how God can have an 'attitude' whatever that attitude maybe as feelings and beliefs are a human value and not a divine one!
all the best..
The dictionary I checked had multiple definitions for the word "humble":
1 : not proud or haughty : not arrogant or assertive
2 : reflecting, expressing, or offered in a spirit of deference or submission <a humble apology>
3 a : ranking low in a hierarchy or scale : insignificant, unpretentious b : not costly or luxurious <a humble contraption
Using the primary (instead of the terciary) definition, if Allah is not proud or haughty, nor arrogant or assertive, then by definition Allah would be humble.
As to your point that God cannot have an attitude, feeling or belief for they are human values and not divine, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree. My scriptures do speak of God possessing these things. Though it appears that at least once even the Quran speaks of Allah having an attitude (that of being pleased):
Al-Fath, Chapter #48, Verse #18
Indeed, Allah was pleased with the believers when they gave the Bai'ah (pledge) to you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) under the tree: He knew what was in their hearts, and He sent down As-Sakinah (calmness and tranquillity) upon them, and He rewarded them with a near victory.
(as translated by Moshin Khan)
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. Sign Up
) And the author of that account was clearly well enough versed on Jewish history to be aware of that ascpect of Abraham's story. So, I suggest that a proper understanding of the compound word monogene is must be more than simply a derivation from the meaning of each of the terms independently combined together. Rather, I prefer the idea of it setting apart the individual as being the "uniquely generated" of God. And even Muslims must admit that this is true for Jesus was indeed uniquely generated given that he was born of a virgin, though I think it means far more than just that with regard to Jesus.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks