I have a few questions

Salaam/Hello

Well I was a Catholic until recently...daddy was a muslim and at around 20 or so and im now 24 I became a muslim...well all our fam did...anyway...i was a real catholic as in...nothing u cood tell me wood i believe alwayz had an answer bla bla.. however I decided for once to listen...and be very open minded...as I alreadi knew thingz in the catholic religion didnt quite add up...the trininty...the hail mary where mary is the mother of God...priests and holy powerz and the order which the world was made...and then the scientific stuff thatz in the Quran...and even in the bible it said that a book wood be sent in a foreign tongue...in one nite..i was converted...i coodnt be miss high horse no more....the Quran made too much sense...evn tho i had onli read a few quotez and some paragrapghs in books here and there...

The main difference is that there is no trinity...therez no mother of God..which is the most important...Jesus or no other prophet do we pray to...itz just God...which is sumthing in catholism I didnt quite dig....praying to Jesus for that...St Thingy for that and Saint thingy for this.... Im not disrespectin it...but it was too all over the place...and being told that we just have to believe..blind faith....

TAKEZ A BREATH

but even the likez of the scientific thingz...which have beent he turnin point for a lot of scientistz and doctorz...coz they can simply tell that them sorta thingz...just wernt heard of..not tryna convert ya...just telln ya me stuff!!

salaam..i thing iv gone on a bit here..il regret me post when i re read..lol..but i never turn bak!

bye

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

should a believer denies the right of Prophet Ismail (p) in the holy land just because his mom was once a slave ?

If you are talking about a believer in the Hebrew scriptures, then the answer is YES. Because your Prophet Ismail was not promised any of the holy land in the Hebrew bible. But it wasn't because his mom was once a slave. That I don't think is relevant. It is because his mom was not Sarah. If Hagar had been a queen it would not change what God said to Abaraham in the Hebrew scriptures:

Genesis 17
1 When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. 2 I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers."
3 Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4 "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5 No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6 I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7 I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8 The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."

9 Then God said to Abraham, "As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. 10 This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. 12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. 13 Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. 14 Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, "Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?" 18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year." 22 When he had finished speaking with Abraham, God went up from him.

Now, I know you are familiar with this passage. In fact I think you have referred to it before to highlight the important place that Ishmael has. And you are right to highlight that God does not turn his back on Ishmael, even if Sarah does. But the key verse in terms of God's promise to Abraham is found here:

18 And Abraham said to God, "If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!"

19 Then God said, "Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year."

For those who believe that the biblical record is sufficient justification for determining who should be the inheritor of Israel, this verse is all that they need. Birthright means nothing when stacked up against just this one single verse. I'm not saying that I accept it as valid justification, but if I was a Muslim, I certainly wouldn't try to make an argument with a Jew based on the fact that Ishmael should have the birthright as firstborn. That card is going to get trumped by this verse every time.

format_quote Originally Posted by Talha777

This is correct, Allah made a special covenant with Ibrahim (Alaihi salaam) and his descendants:

And remember that Abraham was tried by his Lord with certain commands, which he fulfilled: He said: "I will make thee an Imam to the Nations." He pleaded: "And also (Imams) from my offspring!" He answered: "But My Promise is not within the reach of evil-doers." (2:124)

However, as you may well know, the covenants and laws which Allah made with the past nations have all been abrogated with the revelation of the Holy Quran and the coming of the final prophet Muhammad (Alaihi salaatu wa salaam). Now the final covenant is to believe in Allah and His Messenger. Regarding the holy land of Jerusalem, it has been promised to the Muslims, and we alone have the divine right to own it:

And He made you inherit their land and their houses and their wealth, and also a land on which you have not yet set foot. And Allah has power over all things. (33:27)

And if one accepts the Qur'an as true and a valid source to determine property rights, then Muslims should most certainly possess it. In fact, based on that single verse, perhaps Muslims should posses the entire world, for it doesn't specify just Israel, but that Muslims inherite "their" land. Whoever "their" is? And not just "their" land, but even "land on which you have not yet set foot". So, if this is all the backing you need is your own Holy scriptures then I suppose you have all the justification you need (at least for yourself, even if no one else) to claim pretty much whatever land you want. It is either land on which you once already lived and are to inheirt or land on which you have not yet stepped foot. Pretty much conveniently covers all land that I can think of.

Of course, the verse doesn't say which Muslims. It just might refer to Malaysian Muslims, not Palestinians. Indeed, just as few of those in Israel who call themselves Jews live as Jews should in worshipping G-d. So, too, the practices of many of those Palestinians who are clamoring for the land indicates that they are striving to live according to Islam, but more according to politics.

But, be that as it may, it makes little difference. If the Muslims produce their book, and by it refuse to recognize the Hebrew scriptures with regard to Isaac. And Jews produce their book and refuse to recognize the Qur'an's authority. And if the nation states of the world refuse to base their judgment on any religious book. Then we have what we have right now. The strongest takes what he wants and the result is war. Everyone claims to seek peace, yet they all prepare for war. To paraphrase Shakespear: "a pox on all their houses."

format_quote Originally Posted by ZOREENA

Salaam/Hello

Well I was a Catholic until recently...daddy was a muslim and at around 20 or so and im now 24 I became a muslim...well all our fam did...anyway...i was a real catholic as in...nothing u cood tell me wood i believe alwayz had an answer bla bla.. however I decided for once to listen...and be very open minded...as I alreadi knew thingz in the catholic religion didnt quite add up...the trininty...the hail mary where mary is the mother of God...priests and holy powerz and the order which the world was made...and then the scientific stuff thatz in the Quran...and even in the bible it said that a book wood be sent in a foreign tongue...in one nite..i was converted...i coodnt be miss high horse no more....the Quran made too much sense...evn tho i had onli read a few quotez and some paragrapghs in books here and there...

The main difference is that there is no trinity...therez no mother of God..which is the most important...Jesus or no other prophet do we pray to...itz just God...which is sumthing in catholism I didnt quite dig....praying to Jesus for that...St Thingy for that and Saint thingy for this.... Im not disrespectin it...but it was too all over the place...and being told that we just have to believe..blind faith....

TAKEZ A BREATH

but even the likez of the scientific thingz...which have beent he turnin point for a lot of scientistz and doctorz...coz they can simply tell that them sorta thingz...just wernt heard of..not tryna convert ya...just telln ya me stuff!!

salaam..i thing iv gone on a bit here..il regret me post when i re read..lol..but i never turn bak!

bye

Alhamdulillah! Subhana-allah! Sister!

That is a very inspiring testament... you have beriefly summed up the main points why all other religion doesn't make sense. Truly, you have been guided and you have acknowledged Truth once it has been given to you. Real success is with those who believe when truth came to them.

May Allah bless you and your family always and guide you always to the striaght path!.. . Ameen!

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

Salaam/peace;

regarding Bible , Ismail (p) is not a Prophet but only an unwanted child of Prophet Abraham (p) ..who was wrongly born before Isaac (p) ? ??

Regarding Ishmael, in the Bible he is not a prophet. But neither are Abaraham, Isaac, or Jacob.

I guess , many Jews & Christian believe he was not even a legal child ????

Actually I never think of that one way or the other. If you were to ask me if he was illegitimate, I would only be able to think in terms of the culture I live in today, and that is irrelevant with respect to Ishamael. As I understand Abraham's culture, he would have been a true son of Abraham. Even Sarah recognized this, which is why Sarah suggested that Abraham try to have a son via her handmaiden, Hagar.

why birthright means nothing ????? It was God who gave all Firstborn sons the right ......so why Ismail (p) will be an exception ???

I didn't say that birthright means nothings. (If I did I was too extreme in my word choice.) My point was, that in this case, the promise of the covenant that God made with Abraham to have a son with his wife Sarah trumps the culture of the firstborn.

There are other instance of the blessing going not to the first born but to a later born child in the history of Israel, the most notable being the sons and grandsons of Isaac himself.

Isaac had twin sons Esau and Jacob. As they were born Esau's foot was delivered first and the midwife tied a string around the ankle to identify him. But then the foot was withdrawn and Jacob was born. Nonetheless, Esau is recognized as the firstborn, but Jacob gains Isaac's blessing.

Jacob had 12 sons and several wives. His favorite wife's oldest son, Joseph, is the one that received Jacob's favor. But Joseph was not the oldest son, and the older sons were all jealous of the attention that Jacob gave Joseph.

So, it seems that there are lots of exceptions not just Ishmael. And as the nation of Israel takes it's name from that fact that Jacob had his name changed to Israel by God and they are descendants of these sons of Israel, it seems highly unlikely that you are going to find a Jew who looks on birth order as more important that what God personally promises.

where it says that firstborn son will be deprived from inheritance ??

I don't think you are listening. I'm not talking about depriving anyone of anything. Where does it say that Ishmael should inherit this piece of land rather than that piece of land?

may be , second son of Abraham ( p ) will be the Prophet of the chosen people but only Jews will live there ???? Does this verse says so ???

There is nothing I know of in the Bible with regard to the holyland being a gift to anyone based on birthorder. And in terms of it being the land only for the Jews, that does not come out of either the Ishmael or Isaac stories but out of the story of the Exodus, that God would have Moses lead the people to a "Promised" land.

So many Christians live in the holy land ....do u think they have any right to live there ? If yes , how ?

I personally think that religion has nothing to do with one's rights to live any place.

so many disagreements between Jews , Christian , Muslims ....do we have to wait till last day for all these matters settled down ?

Not necessarily. If everyone would realize that I was always right and then just do what I said and we would have peace. But it seems that not everyone is willing to give me that much authority.

I think its so nice when non muslims ask questions and really get to know Islam for what it really is. I converted from christianity and I have found a lot of similarites..Jesus (peace be upon him) is mentioned in the Qu'ran more than Muhammad (peace be upon him) is. I hope you learn a lot about Islam. Best Wishes to you

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

Salaam/peace;

And to you as well.

in my Bible's translation , the word Hazrat is used before Abraham & Isaac (pbut).

Normally we Muslims used this word for Prophet . But also it can be used to address respected religious Muslim leader. I wonder if they are not Prophets in Bible , then why our local Christian society used this word ?

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are indeed respected religious leaders. In my English Bible the word that is most commonly used to describe them is "patriarch". In many ways they are thought of as the "founding fathers" or "forefathers" of Judaism and the nation of Israel in both a religious and a political sense.

I read in an article that in Muslim majority countries , Christians publish Bible using Islamic words to attract Muslim readers . Is that the reason both Abraham & Isaac ( pbut ) are Hazrats in my Bible ?

You're asking me to draw a conclusion regarding someone I have never meant or spoken to. That probably is not very fair to them or to you. For, I really have no information with regard to anyone's motive. But if pressed, I would say, probably that is NOT the reason. I suspect that it is because in trying to stress the important place of Abraham and Isaac in the life and history of the community that they adopted a word from the language of the culture that they were translating into that they understood to most closely fit their understanding of the role of Abraham and Isaac to the subsequent nations of Judah and Israel and to the Jews of Jesus' day who became the Church.

Sometimes they have to pick words that are not always the right translation of the term in order to get at the idea behind the word, and that may have been what happened here. Let me give you another (true) illustration from the country of Guatemala.

There is a group of Indians in Guatemala for whom some translators were trying to translate the Bible. And they came to a verse in Luke (2:19) where Mary is remembering all of the miraculous events surrounding Jesus' birth, and the verse says: "But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart." And they wanted to translate it into the language spoken by these Guatemalan Indians, but they were having trouble with the last word of the verse. It is καρδια (kardia) from which we get English words like cardia or cardiac. And so in English it is translated "heart". And likewise in Spanish the word is "corazon", meaning heart, because in both English and Spanish speaking cultures the heart is often understood to be the place where one's greatest emotions are stored. If you've ever been "in love" you may have even felt that tightness that can grip you in the chest or stomach and if you lost someone dear to you felt like your "heart was breaking".

Well, in Guatemala, these Indians had the same emotional and physiologocial reactions to love as well. It is a universal human condition. But as they grasped their chest or abdomen, they did not sense that the pain or joy they were feeling was located in the organ we call the heart, they who would often hunt birds for food found a organ in the bird that was very close to where they felt this in their own bodies. And this organ was filled with small pea-sized gravel. It was the bird's gizzard. And whenever they felt those pains in their own chest, it made them think of the rocks in the bird's chest cavities. So, they attributed the pain not to the heart, which was just another organ like the stomach or instestines, in their common language when they loved a person they loved them with all of their gizzard. If they missed someone, they were not heart-broken, but gizzard-broken. And they stored their most precious memories of people not in their hearts but in their gizzards.

I know that might sound strange to people who have grown up speaking of feeling things with one's heart, but these Guatemalan Indians didn't feel things with their hearts, they felt love and other personal emotions with their gizzards. So, when the Bible translators translated that verse into the dialect of this small group of Guatemalan Indians they had to decide do they say that Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her "heart" -- as this was the best translation of the word that Luke had written? Or do they say that Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her "gizzard" - which was not the word Luke had used, but communicated the idea to these Guatemalan Indians in the way they were most familiar with thinking? Eventually, the translators chose "gizzard" as they decided that Luke chose the word "heart" as a figure of speach for where we feel things most deeply, not because it was the organ that pumps blood through our bodies. And for these Guatemalan Indians, the figure of speech that they used to express the idea that Luke was trying to express was not "heart" but "gizzard", so gizzard was actually the better translation of what Luke was trying to say, even if it wasn't the word he had actually used.

I don't know, but I suspect that some similar process was used in selecting "hazrat" in the Bible passages you are referring to. It wasn't done to attract Muslims as much as the translators were trying to communicate the idea of a person who was a leader of great respect among the people of the religion who were telling his story.

Qatada,

Love your posts. So clear, precise and from Quran...perfect combination.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Eventually, the translators chose "gizzard" as they decided that Luke chose the word "heart" as a figure of speach for where we feel things most deeply, not because it was the organ that pumps blood through our bodies. And for these Guatemalan Indians, the figure of speech that they used to express the idea that Luke was trying to express was not "heart" but "gizzard", so gizzard was actually the better translation of what Luke was trying to say, even if it wasn't the word he had actually used.

Could the same "mistranslation" have happened in the translation of the word that became "Son" when applied to Jesus because we know that Allah can not "father" or "sire" a son with a woman as we understand the process.

format_quote Originally Posted by Muslim Woman

Salaam/peace;

they could put the word heart & within bracket / in explanation/ footnotes --they could used gizzard to give them a clear picture.


After many years , if anybody translates the line in to English or other language , s/he will surely make a mistake & may be there won't be any learned person to explain them the background .

After many years, if anybody translates the line into English or other language, hopefully they will be translating from the original Greek and not from the Guatemalan Indian language translation.

Translating from a version that is already itself a translation usually results in a mistranslation, as we can see with some of the older English translations that depended on Latin translations rather than the original Greek and Hebrew.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Could the same "mistranslation" have happened in the translation of the word that became "Son" when applied to Jesus because we know that Allah can not "father" or "sire" a son with a woman as we understand the process.

I don't think that "Son" is a mistranslation because the Greek phrase υιος του θεου (huios tou theou) is very simple to translate. υιος = son and [/i]θεου[/i] = God and του is the definite article "the". The only thing that is tricky is to pay attention to the declension and case. In this instance του θεου is in the genitive case which expresses possession. In certain grammatical constructions the genitive has other means, such as agency, but this is such a simple construction that it is quite easy to recognize that "son of God" (or literally "son of (the) God") is the proper English translation of the Greek phrase.

What you might wish to consider but didn't touch on is the possibility not of mistranslation, but misinterpretation of a correct translation. Remember, interpretation involves more than just getting the right word, but understanding what is meant by those words. Mustafa, you've been in my house and you have seen pictures on my walls of persons that I did not sire that I still call my children. Luke records a geneology of Jesus that goes from Joseph back to Adam:

Luke 3
23Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
the son of Heli, 24the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
25the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos,
the son of Nahum, the son of Esli,
the son of Naggai, 26the son of Maath,
the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein,
the son of Josech, the son of Joda,
27the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa,
the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,
the son of Neri, 28the son of Melki,
the son of Addi, the son of Cosam,
the son of Elmadam, the son of Er,
29the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer,
the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, 30the son of Simeon,
the son of Judah, the son of Joseph,
the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim,
31the son of Melea, the son of Menna,
the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan,
the son of David, 32the son of Jesse,
the son of Obed, the son of Boaz,
the son of Salmon,[d] the son of Nahshon,
33the son of Amminadab, the son of Ram,[e]
the son of Hezron, the son of Perez,
the son of Judah, 34the son of Jacob,
the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham,
the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,
35the son of Serug, the son of Reu,
the son of Peleg, the son of Eber,
the son of Shelah, 36the son of Cainan,
the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem,
the son of Noah, the son of Lamech,
37the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch,
the son of Jared, the son of Mahalalel,
the son of Kenan, 38the son of Enosh,
the son of Seth, the son of Adam,
the son of God.

(Let's leave aside some of the obvious anomalies in the list for another thread so that we can focus on the interpretation issue at the moment.)

Even if you don't speak Greek, you can probably see one of the interesting things in this passage:

23και αυτος ην ιησους αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι

24του μαθθατ του λευι του μελχι του ιανναι του ιωσηφ

25του ματταθιου του αμως του ναουμ του εσλι του ναγγαι

26του μααθ του ματταθιου του σεμειν του ιωσηχ του ιωδα

27του ιωαναν του ρησα του ζοροβαβελ του σαλαθιηλ του νηρι

28του μελχι του αδδι του κωσαμ του ελμαδαμ του ηρ

29του ιησου του ελιεζερ του ιωριμ του μαθθατ του λευι

30του συμεων του ιουδα του ιωσηφ του ιωναμ του ελιακιμ

31του μελεα του μεννα του ματταθα του ναθαμ του δαυιδ

32του ιεσσαι του ιωβηδ του βοος του σαλα του ναασσων

33του αδμιν του αρνι του εσρωμ του φαρες του ιουδα

34του ιακωβ του ισαακ του αβρααμ του θαρα του ναχωρ

35του σερουχ του ραγαυ του φαλεκ του εβερ του σαλα

36του καιναμ του αρφαξαδ του σημ του νωε του λαμεχ

37του μαθουσαλα του ενωχ του ιαρετ του μαλελεηλ του καιναμ

38του ενως του σηθ του αδαμ του θεου

The term υιος is used just once and applied to the whole list of names. Each of the other persons is baiscally "of ___________". Thus, Adam is "of God" (or the "son of God") in the same way that Isaac is "of Abraham" (or "the son of Abraham"). Now Muslims, Jews, and Christians don't agree on a whole lot, but we do agree on two things. (1) God created, he did not sire, Adam. (2) Abraham did in fact sire Isaac. Yet in one passage, one sentence, we see this term used to refer to both events.

Why is that important? It means that to say that Jesus is "the son of God" does NOT mean that one is saying that God sired Jesus anymore than it is to say that God sired Adam. But it is to say that Jesus is "of" God in the same way that Isaac is "of Abraham" and Adam is "of God". Well, how is that? They both come from, have their genesis, their beginnings, in the one they are said to be "of".

So, the phrase "Son of God" could mean several different things. It could mean that God sired Jesus -- but it doesn't. It could mean that God created Jesus -- but it doesn't mean that either. It simply means that Jesus is "of" God. That he comes from God, that he has his beginning with God in some way. To place futher interpretation into that term, one has to go beyond the mere words of the text and see how it is used in the context of the larger passages of which it is apart. It is in that reading, not the three-word phrase, that we see the divinity of Jesus being delineated and the term "Son of God" come into use as a title to mark his divinity for it is used and applied to Jesus in a completely different way than it is to Adam and others who are termed "sons of God" or "children of God".

something interesting in Grace Seeker's last post, the son of 'the' god is none other than Adam notJesus since that sentence follows Adam's name not Jesus's.
-may god's blessings be upon all the prophhets-

format_quote Originally Posted by JAG

I know next to nothing about Islam, so please excuse my ignorance.

hello GUY! As I can read your comments from the first one to the last one on this thread, I draw conclusion that you are not saying the truth on this quotation.

AND, your purpose is NOT to learn more about Islam BUT it's something else.

format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad

something interesting in Grace Seeker's last post, the son of 'the' god is none other than Adam notJesus since that sentence follows Adam's name not Jesus's.
-may god's blessings be upon all the prophhets-

You are right that Adam is referred to as being "of God" in this passage. This is exactly what I said above. However, that does not mean that one should infer that Jesus is therefore not "of God". Indeed when we consider a phrase like "son of ________", it really can mean many different things depending on its context. For instance, the Jews today (and in Jesus' day) consider themselves sons (and daughters) of Abraham. Yet we know that none of them can claim that Abraham was their biological Father. So then why did they make that claim?

"Abraham is our father," they answered. (John 8:39)

One could mean that Abraham was their ancestor and thus father in that he was their great-great-great-great-...-great-grandfather. But I don't think that is the meaning. It appears that it doesn't have anything to do with biology, genetics, or bloodlines. Look what Jesus says about it:

And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. (Matthew 3:9)

Surely there would be no bloodlines in children who were raised up from rocks. But Jesus says they would still be "children of Abraham". So, in what sense would that be? Paul gives us a big clue in writing:

He [Christ] redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. (Galatians 3:14)

Sometimes when the Bible speaks of a person as another's son, it means so in a spiritual sense. Examples of that include both Peter and Paul refering to Mark and Timothy, respectively, as "my son" (see 1 Peter 5:13 and 1 Corinthians 4:17). When meant this way, the claiming of one person as a son would not preclude the same term from being applied to another. Indeed the Bible refers not only to Jesus as God's son (in several places - Matthew 3:17, Matthew 17:5, Hebrews 5:5, 2 Peter 1:17 being just a few) but also to humans as God's sons, God's children (see 1 John 3:1-2, Philippians 2:15).

So, there remains two questions:
1) In what manner, if any, is Jesus being spoken of as the "son of God" in the passage from Luke 3 (cited above)?
2) Is the sonship of Jesus referred to in the Bible in any way unique and differentiated from other references to sonship?

In the first, if one understands what I was saying with regard to the Greek grammar, the passage is indeed saying that Jesus is the son of God. It uses a particular aspect of Greek grammar to communicate that. It begins with supposed biological relationship between Jesus and Joseph. It then traces how each of the men mentioned is the son of the next by the simple Greek word "tou", which in this case just means "of" (literally, "of the") to indicate that each man is of the next in the genealogical listing, implying that they are the offspring of them. Of course when we get to Adam, though Adam is not the offspring of God, he is still "of" God, having been created by God. All that Luke is saying by the list at all is to place Jesus in the context of the rest of humanity, saying that Jesus is one of us -- a child of Adam and a child God just as you and I are. There are several strong theological reasons that I believe Luke wanted to make that point, but the only thing that is important for this discussion is to ascertain whether in doing so that Luke was also claiming that Jesus was only like the rest of us. I think the answer to that is categorically NO. Luke not only refers to Jesus with the title of "Son of Man" (Luke 22:48), but also with other titles such as "the Christ" (Luke 24:26), "son of David" (Luke 20:41), "Savior" (Luke 2:11), and "Son of God" (Luke 22:70). When taken together, these are titles that definitely make Jesus unique.

Second, the sonship of Jesus is a unique sonship. As many different people are properly termed the "son of Abraham", a case can also be made to call many different people "sons or daughters of God". I would even submit to you that all who belong to God can, and perhaps should, be properly so called.

But Jesus' sonship is unique. When Jesus is referred to as THE "son of God", except on rare occassion, it is not with the same meaning as would be meant by calling you or me A "son of God". The whole context of the statement is generally different. (Though as I have now noted twice, once in this post and once in the above post, Luke's reference in 3:38 is not one of those.)

When Jesus is called the "son of God", it is not generally a description of his origins at all. Rather, it is a title. As a description, it is a description of his character, his nature, the essence of his being. Satan understands this and challenges Jesus to reveal it when he tries to tempt him in the wilderness:

If you are the Son of God.... (Luke 4:3 and 4:9)

The statements are phrased in such a way that, though couched in if/then terminology, there really isn't any question as to Satan's understanding of who Jesus is. The devil is actually acknowledging who and what Jesus is; he is the Son of God. So it is that when Jesus casts out demons, they recognize him and begin to announce it before Jesus silences them:

Moreover, demons came out of many people, shouting, "You are the Son of God!" But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew he was the Christ. (Luke 4:41)

Early in Jesus' ministry, Jesus did not go around announcing who he was. His parents knew (see Luke 1:35, Matthew 1:20-23), but, for the most part, Jesus basically let people figure it out for themselves:

Matthew 16
13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

But Jesus leaves hints all over the place for, as he would put it, those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.


Consider that there are certain things that only God can do. Yet we see Jesus doing them and speaking of them in reference to himself-- Jesus forgave sins; he spoke of God has his Father in a unique way that others understood to be claiming equality with God; he pictured himself as the ultimate judge in heaven between the righteous and the unrighteous; Jesus declared himself "Lord of the Sabbath" (a breaking of both the first and 4th commandments unless he is God); Jesus even presented himself as pre-existent:

Matthew 9
2Some men brought to him a paralytic, lying on a mat. When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Take heart, son; your sins are forgiven."
3At this, some of the teachers of the law said to themselves, "This fellow is blaspheming!"

4Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, "Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts? 5Which is easier: to say, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up and walk'? 6But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...." Then he said to the paralytic, "Get up, take your mat and go home." 7And the man got up and went home.

John 5
16So, because Jesus was doing these things [healing miracles] on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. 17Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working." 18For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

Matthew 25
31"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. 32All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

41"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'

44"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'

45"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'

46"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

Luke 6
1One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and his disciples began to pick some heads of grain, rub them in their hands and eat the kernels. 2Some of the Pharisees asked, "Why are you doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
3Jesus answered them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? 4He entered the house of God, and taking the consecrated bread, he ate what is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." 5Then Jesus said to them, "The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

John 8
54Jesus replied, "If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. 55Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word. 56Your father Abraham rejoiced at the thought of seeing my day; he saw it and was glad."

57"You are not yet fifty years old," the Jews said to him, "and you have seen Abraham!"

58"I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" 59At this, they picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus hid himself, slipping away from the temple grounds.

And though we can see that Jesus did confess that he was the son of God to people:

He trusts in God. Let God rescue him [Jesus] now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' (Matthew 27:43)

They all asked, "Are you then the Son of God?"
He [Jesus] replied, "You are right in saying I am." (Luke 22:70)

Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."
Jesus said, "You believe because I told you I saw you under the fig tree. You shall see greater things than that." (John 1:49-50) (Note that Jesus accepts and does not correct this statement of Nathanael's.)

The Jews insisted, "We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he [Jesus] claimed to be the Son of God." (John 19:7)

The gospel writers never put those words on Jesus' own lips, rather they let others make that declaration, which they themselves also affirm: "these (pericopes from Jesus' life) are 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).


And John goes on to affirm that not only is Jesus the Son of God, but he is THE UNIQUE son of God. He is not a son in the same way that other humans might be spoken of as being children of God. No, Jesus' sonship is unlike ours in that he is (to use theological language) actually very God from very God. Thus it is that John, in introducing Jesus to us in his gospel, speaks of him in this very theological way, writing: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only,who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (John 1:18) The word behind "One and Only" is the Greek term "μονογενης" (or monogenes). Now "monogenes" can have the simple meaning of "only" as in the way Luke uses it a few times. But it is also used to speak of Isaac as Abraham's "only" son (see Hebrews 11:17). Obviously we know, and the biblical writer knew, that Abraham had more than one son. What he meant by referring to Isaac as the "monogenes" son of Abraham is not "only", but "unique". Isaac was unique in that he was born as the result of God's promise to Abraham that Sarah, though past child-bearing age, would give to him a son. Isaac was unique in that regard. So it is that when John speaks of Jesus as the "monogenes" son of God, that he isn't trying to say "only begotten" in the way that we understand the KJV translation of that passage, he is trying to say he is in a unique way the "one and only", as the NIV translation puts it. And this is why we see the same term used in John's introduction to his gospel: "The Word [already identified in John 1:1 as being God] became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)

Thus, I believe that we can see that the use of the title "son of God" in reference to Jesus, is a unique reference to the nature of Jesus as being "of God". Not biologically, not in a larger familial sense (that we might all also share), but in a unique way that fits Jesus alone. As the one who is actually God himself: "No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only [that is Jesus], who is at the Father's side, has made him known." (John 1:18)

format_quote Originally Posted by JAG

Wow, thanks guys, all of that helped a lot. I am very intriged about your faith.

I still have a few more questions though.

You are welcome!

format_quote Originally Posted by JAG

1) I understand Islam doesn't say Jesus is God, but does it say Jesus is the Son of God?

Islamic view point about Jesus Christ (pbuh) is very simple and straight.

1) We Muslims believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah.
2) Jesus Christ (pbuh) was one of the mightiest Messengers of God.
3) Jesus Christ (pbuh) was born of a virgin Mary without any male's intervention.
4) Jesus Christ (pbuh) healed those born blind and leppers by the permission of Allah.
5) Jesus Christ (pbuh) was neither killed nor was he crucified, but God raised him unto himself.
6) Jesus Christ (pbuh) will come again before the last day.

format_quote Originally Posted by JAG

2) How much of the New Testament do Muslims believe in? All of it? None of it? Or just the parts that are also in the Qur’an?

We Muslims believe that whatever was revealed to Jesus Christ (pbuh) was truth, and was from God. The New Testament Christians are having, was written centuries after Jesus' ascendance to heaven. Even Christians scholars agree that New Testament is not what Jesus Christ (pbuh) had been teaching to his followers.

format_quote Originally Posted by JAG

3) Where is Islam in relation to Judaism. I have always learned that it stemed from Isaac and Ishmael - Isaac carried on Judaism, Ishmael's decendents were Muslim.

Judaism is derived from "Judah", a tribe of Children of Israel. The religion practiced by Prophet Israel (pbuh) and his children was Islam.

Even Abraham (pbuh) was a Muslim (as Muslim means one who submits will to God). Abraham (pbuh) and all prophets after him were Muslims, even their followers were submitters to God (which means that they were Muslims).

The God who revealed “Torah” to Prophet Moses (pbuh), “Injeel (Gospel)” to Prophet Jesus (pbuh), He revealed the Qur’an to Prophet (pbuh).

Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) was the last prophet of the God of Israel.

format_quote Originally Posted by JAG

4) I really know next to nothing about Muhammad. Can you explain his story to me?

Prophet Mohammad's (pbuh) story is not such a short one that can be explained here.

Click here to know about Prophet Mohammad (pbuh)http://www.islamway.com/mohammad/?lang=eng