Arguably the most famous and widely known verse in the whole NT is John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
In what sense of the words was Jesus (as) the "only begotten Son" of God?
beget (begotten inflected form of beget)
1 : to procreate as the father : sire
2 : to produce especially as an effect or outgrowth
We know that God did not beget or "sire" Jesus in the way that I did my own son, but the second definition may apply. Could God have produced (or created) Jesus as an "effect" from Himself? As in saying the word, "Be" from whence he "was".
In what sense of the word is Jesus God's "son"?
son
1 a: a human male offspring especially of human beings b: a male adopted child c: a human male descendant
2capitalized: the second person of the Trinity
3: a person closely associated with or deriving from a formative agent (as a nation, school, or race)
The definition 1a and 1c have been excluded from the definition of beget above because we know that God did not copulate with Mary (astaghfir'Allah). I also assume that God did not legally adopt Jesus. Although adoption has some benefit to the adopter and the adoptee, there is still no biological connection between the two and the one is not really the son of the other.
Definition 2 should be excluded because it relies upon a nebulous term, "Trinity" as the essential element and because it is a circular argument.
What about door #3? Could Jesus (as) have derived (or been created from) from a previously existing formative agent, known as God?
...but then again, I have heard Christians say that Jesus (as) was not really the "Son of God", but rather fully God Himself. However, how does one reconcile this with Matthew 3:16-17? After being baptized, Jesus (Son) came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he (Son) saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove and lighting on him, and behold, a voice out of the heavens (Father) said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
As you stated, the term has nothing to do with copulation or any other carnal means. Just as the term "son of man" is used to refer to human beings, the term "Son of God" is used to express Christ's divine origin. That is why Christ referred to being the "Son of Man" and the "Son of God". Human and divine.
As for Matthew 3-16/17, that is exactly why the concept of the Trinity was established. You have all three aspects of God interacting at the same time. As for why God refers to Christ as His "Son", that would speak to the nature of that relationship. Christ, being of the flesh, was naturally submissive to the Father. That is why that difference is highlighted by the terms "Father" and "Son", and why Christ repeatedly makes mention of the fact that "the Father is greater than I". Being lesser than the Father doesn't convey any lack of divinity, only a statement regarding the limitations of the flesh. To make it simple, flesh is submissive to Spirit.
I assume you already understand the Christian theology as to the nature of Christ? Being fully human and fully divine? Christ had all the weaknesses that we all have except for one, sin. In that role He was naturally submissive to the Will of God. Hence, the Father/Son relationship.
Hope that is clear as mud....
*It's late and I must rest for the big Red River rivarly tomorrow. Boomer Sooner!
Last edited by Keltoi; 10-11-2008 at 05:10 AM.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
As for Matthew 3-16/17, that is exactly why the concept of the Trinity was established. You have all three aspects of God interacting at the same time.
I have difficulty with this verse meaning that God existed simultaneously as a man (Jesus), a dove (Holy Spirit) and a voice in Heaven (Father). To me they are 3 distinct entities and this verse illustrates the lack of "unity in the Trinity".
As for why God refers to Christ as His "Son", that would speak to the nature of that relationship. Christ, being of the flesh, was naturally submissive to the Father. That is why that difference is highlighted by the terms "Father" and "Son", and why Christ repeatedly makes mention of the fact that "the Father is greater than I". Being lesser than the Father doesn't convey any lack of divinity, only a statement regarding the limitations of the flesh. To make it simple, flesh is submissive to Spirit.
I assume you already understand the Christian theology as to the nature of Christ? Being fully human and fully divine? Christ had all the weaknesses that we all have except for one, sin. In that role He was naturally submissive to the Will of God. Hence, the Father/Son relationship.
... but that interpretation is not found in the definition of a son that I quoted above. What you described better fits the word servant as in Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus... and Acts 4:27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus...
servant
1. one privately employed to perform household services
2. one publicly employed to perform services, as for a government
3. one expressing submission or debt to another
4. one that serves another
It seems that definitions 3 and 4 fit Jesus (as) like a glove. So my interpretation of your post and the 2 verses in Acts implies that "Servant of God" is actually better suited as a title for Jesus (as) than is "Son of God".
As far as I am aware of the christianity doctrine, they believe Jesus (as) to be the son of God, not biology, but as a form, 1 of the three forms. They believe God can come as different forms, and they labelled him as the son. Any christians who think I got it wrong feel free to correct me. Meh, its all pretty weird.
As far as I am aware of the christianity doctrine, they believe Jesus (as) to be the son of God, not biology, but as a form, 1 of the three forms. They believe God can come as different forms, and they labelled him as the son. Any christians who think I got it wrong feel free to correct me. Meh, its all pretty weird.
So, are you saying that for the lack of a better term, "son" was chosen? But, there are references in the NT at Jesus' (as) baptism and transfiguration where a Voice from Heaven (Father?) said, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased."
Since we know that Jesus wasn't really the Son of God, could there have been a misinterpretation of the presumably Aramaic word for "servant" into the Greek or Latin word for "son"?
These bid'a innovations in Christianity are pagan in origin. The trinity is of pagan origin, particularly the trinity of Ancient Egypt. The trinity of Egypt was flexible. The pharoahs (who considered themselves Gods) would promote and demote their Gods as they wished. One of the most common trinities was Osiris (the father), Horus (the son), and Ra (the holy ghost). All three were at some point or the other worshiped as Sun Gods. 98% of Christian practices are of pagan origin. For example, Christmas was originally a pagan festival called Saturnalia, which later became the birthday of Sol Invictus, a pagan cult created by the Roman Emperor El-Gabalus, which became the official religion of the Empire and combined the three most prominant solar deities - Mithras (a pagan God which was created from the Zoroastrian Ahura Mithra, who was also a prominent solar deity in India in the form of Mithra-Varuna prior to the creation of the Hindu trinity or "trimurti", which is Brahma - the creator, Vishnu - the preserver, and Shiva- the destroyer), El-Gabal, and Apollo. On this day (Dec 25), the sun reaches its lowest point in the Mediterranean area (Greece, Italy, Egypt, etc - the main religious centres of the Roman Empire), when it aligns with the crux constellations of the sky, which is shaped like a cross, or crucifix. For three days, it stays fixed in this position, after which it rises by one degree. Thus, the "son" died on a cross, was dead for three days, and was thus resurrected. Easter was also a pagan festival, celebrated on the Spring Equinox, which was when the sun would reach the highest position of the sky. That's why the Christians celebrate his "resurrection" on this day.
The cross is of pagan origin, from the Egyptian Ankh.
Which later became the coptic cross:
Which evolved into the modern cross.
"Son of God" was a very common term in Pagan Rome. For example, Julius Caesar was declared a God after his death. After that, Octavian (his adopted son, the Romans considered adoption the same as having a blood child) justified his dictatorial rule by calling himself the son of a God. Also, the term "Christ" is derived from the Greek "Christos", which means "the annointed one". The heir apparent to the Roman throne would be called "Caesar", after the death of Julius Caesar (prior to his assasination, Rome was a theocracy, through which the elite would elect two consuls every year who would govern the Republic). "Christos" is a corruption of "Caesar".
Most of Christianity is based on Pagan rituals, for example, Sunday was the day when the worshipers of Mithras would gather for Mass. The veneration for Maryam (AHS) began when the worshipers of Isis (Isis worship died out long before in Egypt, but was popular with all of the Roman traders who adopter her as their Goddess after the conquest of Egypt. Alexandria was a very important trading port) refused to convert unless they had a "mother figure" to pray to. Esa's (AHS) Aramaic name was Ezu, which later became the Hebrew word for ******* (astaghfirullah), which became Iesus in Greece, and evolved into Jesus in English.
Most of these Bid'a innovations occured during the three councils of Nicaea. You see, there were a lot of riots in the Roman Empire as the pagans refused to convert, hence, these councils adopted these pagan rituals into the religion, altering the Bible, and only preserving the monotheistic core by a fragment. The only Imam who tried to prevent these innovations from occuring was Arius. Only some of the Goths preserved his teachings, that there's no God but God, and that Jesus (AHS) was his prophet. However, a few centuries later, they were forced to convert to Roman Catholicism.
I have difficulty with this verse meaning that God existed simultaneously as a man (Jesus), a dove (Holy Spirit) and a voice in Heaven (Father).
This is a concept which is not only difficult for you but difficult for any free thinking human mind which has the flow of logic running through his brain. The reason for the difficulty in understanding is because its a man made theory and anything that is man made will have its flaws. My advice is do not try to understand the Trinity, or the role of Jesus as prescribed by christianity. I have tried for years and years, speaking to religious men of the christian faith, Priests, scholars etc etc and even they have themselves are confused and do not have the answers. The final answer I get is "You just have to believe", or just ignore you. Some Christians will just continue to try to state there point and dazzle you with words but in essence the illogical nature of the theory will remain. Its only Allah SWT that will rid the world of these lies and we just have to continue spreading the truth which will always crush falsehood wherever it may lie.
These comments are not to offend anyone.
These bid'a innovations in Christianity are pagan in origin.
The trinity is of pagan origin, particularly the trinity of Ancient Egypt.
The cross is of pagan origin, from the Egyptian Ankh.
"Son of God" was a very common term in Pagan Rome.
Most of Christianity is based on Pagan rituals, for example, Sunday was the day when the worshipers of Mithras would gather for Mass.
Your statements are as true as the assertion that the God of Islam is a moon God. Just because their is a moon God does not mean that Islam is patterned after it, and just because these other things existed doesn't mean that Christianity was patterned after them either.
Last edited by Grace Seeker; 10-13-2008 at 01:37 AM.
You have a point. If you can explain why the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians perform Salah and other Christians do not, then I shall rest my case.
The reason, according to my view, is simple: Ethiopia, or Axum as it was known at that time, was free from Roman control, and did not participate in the Nicaean councils. However, the trinity was accepted as a basic compromise with Rome.
You have a point. If you can explain why the Ethiopian Orthodox Christians perform Salah and other Christians do not, then I shall rest my case.
The reason, according to my view, is simple: Ethiopia, or Axum as it was known at that time, was free from Roman control, and did not participate in the Nicaean councils. However, the trinity was accepted as a basic compromise with Rome.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts the Trinity as part of their fundamental theology. Perhaps that is what you mean by your last sentence, but if not I think that should clarified.
As for the Council of Nicaea, it wasn't Constantine who formulated the Trinitarian theology. That was well in place long before his time. The issue was the nature of Christ. There were disagreements with the Alexandrian Church over whether Christ was of the same substance as God or a similar substance. There were other issues like the date of the Resurrection. It was primarily formed to combat the Arian heresy.
As for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, it was a part of the greater Church of Alexandria. Which did take part in the Nicean Council.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
So, are you saying that for the lack of a better term, "son" was chosen? But, there are references in the NT at Jesus' (as) baptism and transfiguration where a Voice from Heaven (Father?) said, "This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased."
Since we know that Jesus wasn't really the Son of God, could there have been a misinterpretation of the presumably Aramaic word for "servant" into the Greek or Latin word for "son"?
I guess the term son was used, maybe to signify human form. As all humans are seen as the "children" of God, so to say, (atlest that is wht I am aware of, in christianity).
Again, the trinity concept, IMO (though its under debate), is not clearly in the bible, I think it is a rather philosophical manifestation within the bible. So, I don't think it is actually a translation error, but rather a speculative idea which got attached to the belief itself well after his death.
I mean, prophesy wise, a messiah had been predicted to come in the future - from the torah as you know. Christians claimed him as the messiah, but then somewhere along the line - due to what they believed to be the ressurection - ideas of divinity came accross. From their, it was easy to find verses which they felt justified their beliefs. I know both muslims and christians, know of how jews for example, when seeing Jesus (as) miracles, thought he was divine, God perhaps, and they use the notion (which I think is a logical fallacy) that because he didn't deny it (he didn't say anything), it is a further proof that he was indeed God.
On a side note, Jesus (ra) has been called by many titles, other than son, like the alpha and omega and many more.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church accepts the Trinity as part of their fundamental theology. Perhaps that is what you mean by your last sentence, but if not I think that should clarified.
As for the Council of Nicaea, it wasn't Constantine who formulated the Trinitarian theology. That was well in place long before his time. The issue was the nature of Christ. There were disagreements with the Alexandrian Church over whether Christ was of the same substance as God or a similar substance. There were other issues like the date of the Resurrection. It was primarily formed to combat the Arian heresy.
As for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, it was a part of the greater Church of Alexandria. Which did take part in the Nicean Council.
It was the third council of Nicaea which made the third and final decision regarding what the Arians considered "heresies". Unfortunately for Arius and his followers, most of them were barred from participating in the council. Of course, there were many other "heresies" prevalent during the time which the Catholic church condemned, such as the Nestorian chruch. There was trinity view, the dual view, the nestorian view, and the Arian view. Then there were gnostics, including the Mandeans, then there were Manichaens, who were wiped out with an iron fist, etc.
And then there were the Jewish-Christians, who were persecuted to such an extent that they sought refuge in Kerela, India. Around 13-14 centuries passed, and they preserved the teaching of Jesus (AHS). They believed in one God and associated no partners with him. They believed that Isa (AHS) was his servant and prophet. They prayed thrice daily towards Jerusalem. They observed the Sabbath. Then, the Portuguese conquered Cochin, and forced them to convert to Catholicism. They had nowhere else to run to this time. The only custom which remains is of eating the Jewish flatbread during the Sabbath. There are around 300,000 Jewish-Christians remaining in Kerela to this day.
The Ethiopian orthodox chruch was nominally a part of the greater Chruch of Alexandria, as far as I can recall. It's similar to say, the Syro Indian Church in affiliation to the See of Rome.The Ethiopian Orthodox Chruch was more or less autonomous, which only led to a few influences such as the trinity being imposed, iconography of Jesus (AHS), and change of the Qibla from Jerusalem to the East.
Anyway, I see no point in arguing any further. My view is a combination of the secular historical view and Islamic view.
It was the third council of Nicaea which made the third and final decision regarding what the Arians considered "heresies". Unfortunately for Arius and his followers, most of them were barred from participating in the council. Of course, there were many other "heresies" prevalent during the time which the Catholic church condemned, such as the Nestorian chruch. There was trinity view, the dual view, the nestorian view, and the Arian view. Then there were gnostics, including the Mandeans, then there were Manichaens, who were wiped out with an iron fist, etc.
And then there were the Jewish-Christians, who were persecuted to such an extent that they sought refuge in Kerela, India. Around 13-14 centuries passed, and they preserved the teaching of Jesus (AHS). They believed in one God and associated no partners with him. They believed that Isa (AHS) was his servant and prophet. They prayed thrice daily towards Jerusalem. They observed the Sabbath. Then, the Portuguese conquered Cochin, and forced them to convert to Catholicism. They had nowhere else to run to this time. The only custom which remains is of eating the Jewish flatbread during the Sabbath. There are around 300,000 Jewish-Christians remaining in Kerela to this day.
The Ethiopian orthodox chruch was nominally a part of the greater Chruch of Alexandria, as far as I can recall. It's similar to say, the Syro Indian Church in affiliation to the See of Rome.The Ethiopian Orthodox Chruch was more or less autonomous, which only led to a few influences such as the trinity being imposed, iconography of Jesus (AHS), and change of the Qibla from Jerusalem to the East.
The Trinity was not "imposed", it was an accepted part of the Christian faith. The Ethiopian Church was guided by the Patriarch of Alexandria. It grew increasingly isolated due to the Muslim conquests which cut it off from the larger Church. That isolation has been remedied in the modern age however. That isolation did affect the evolution and philosophy of the Ethiopian Church of course.
As for the heresies addressed during the period in question, putting " around the word doesn't change the fact that the views of Arius and others were not accepted by the vast majority of Christendom. This is why a concrete doctrinal creed was so important. Sects were being created that taught doctrines that were not considered Scripturally sound. That will happen when a faith spreads so quickly amongst varied peoples with different cultural traits.
"Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."
The Khan, The council meeting, was not held to discuss whether Jesus (ra) was God or not, rather, it was a debate as to how he was divine - basically the meeting had already accepted the assumption that he was divine, it was just on technicalities.
Its a bit like, you believe that the Prophet Muhammad (saw) is a prophet, but you could discuss as a 2ndary topic, as to what makes him a prophet.
The trinity concept had been established well before this meeting.
Thank you for clarifying my doubt regarding the actual emergence of the trinity.
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The Trinity was not "imposed", it was an accepted part of the Christian faith. The Ethiopian Church was guided by the Patriarch of Alexandria. It grew increasingly isolated due to the Muslim conquests which cut it off from the larger Church. That isolation has been remedied in the modern age however. That isolation did affect the evolution and philosophy of the Ethiopian Church of course.
Not really. Firstly, Ethiopia was never conquered in its history except by the Italians briefly. Secondly, the independence of Axum prevented many pagan characteristics creeping into the faith, although some were imposed.
However, my view of Christianity being paganised will not change. You see, when I was an atheist, and decided to return to religion, I researched as many religions I could before reverting, and ended up discovering too many similarities between Christianity and Pagan religions. In fact, I discovered that it is only de jure monotheism by a fraction, de facto polytheism. Hence, my view will not change.
Thank you for clarifying my doubt regarding the actual emergence of the trinity.
However, my view of Christianity being paganised will not change. You see, when I was an atheist, and decided to return to religion, I researched as many religions I could before reverting, and ended up discovering too many similarities between Christianity and Pagan religions. In fact, I discovered that it is only de jure monotheism by a fraction, de facto polytheism. Hence, my view will not change.
I agree with you, that I don't believe the trinity concept is valid or has strong evidence. It requires a heck of a lot of work to justify and make it intellectually viable. Personally, it is accepted by some scholars, that no one can ever truly understand the concept.
As I think I have explained in another post (or thread), that, it is just 1 thing, which lead to another, and the ideology went out of control and in the end - they ended up with Jesus (ra) being divine, and from their on - in belief that their was strong evidence for such a case, the doctrine was formed.
I personally could go on and on about the pagan influences on Christianity, and I would probably take hours (if not days) to finish typing. It would be easier to point out the basic monotheistic core.
I personally could go on and on about the pagan influences on Christianity, and I would probably take hours (if not days) to finish typing. It would be easier to point out the basic monotheistic core.
Their are, pagan similarities between the doctrine of christianity and that of ancient pagans - HOWEVER I do not think their is sufficient evidence to conclude that, it was the paganistic influences which lead to the doctrine of trinity, infact it would be very wrong of myself to do so due to no backing.
Anyway, such is not required to be sought, as it is not impossible that the trinity doctrine can come about due to the circumstances without the influence of paganism. Nor is it important in terms of not accepting the trinity doctrine.
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
... but that interpretation is not found in the definition of a son that I quoted above. What you described better fits the word servant as in Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified His servant Jesus... and Acts 4:27 For truly in this city there were gathered together against Your holy servant Jesus...As for why God refers to Christ as His "Son", that would speak to the nature of that relationship. Christ, being of the flesh, was naturally submissive to the Father. That is why that difference is highlighted by the terms "Father" and "Son", and why Christ repeatedly makes mention of the fact that "the Father is greater than I". Being lesser than the Father doesn't convey any lack of divinity, only a statement regarding the limitations of the flesh. To make it simple, flesh is submissive to Spirit.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks