Does the title "son of God" embody Divinity?

[MuslimCONVERT]

Son of God, what does it mean?

Many Christians often take refuge in the fact that Jesus (saas) called himself the Son of God. But this doesn’t really mean that Jesus (saas) is divine because the term ‘Son of God’ in Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew was used to mean several things. It meant ‘Servant’ more accurately. There is proof of this in the way Bible translators have translated the original meanings of words. Consider the King James Translation of Acts 3:26:

Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities. (Acts 3:26)​

Now lets look at the same verse translated in the New King James version:

To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning every one of you away from his iniquities. (Acts 3:26)​

One version calls Jesus (saas) the Son and the other calls him the Servant. Whether the mistranslation is accidental or on purpose it is proof that people have been making mistakes in the Bible that dramatically alter the meaning. But it is clear that more educated scholars of recent times have a better understanding of the original language of Jesus (saas) and the bible and have proven through some new translations that when Jesus (saas) called himself a ‘Son’ of God, he could have just as easily been calling himself a ‘Servant’ of God. The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant."

But even if Jesus (saas) did call himself the ‘Son of God’ he obviously didn’t mean that he was the LITERAL son of God. The proof of this is in the fact that others in the Bible are called ‘Sons of God’ and none of them are worshipped by Jews or Christians:

Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. (Jesus speaking in Matthew 5:9)​

Let us ask the Christians, do you worship peaceful people as God or the Son of God? Is Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr the Son of God?

that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. (Matthew 5:45)​

Jesus (saas) here is talking to his disciples. Let us ask Christians, do you worship the 12 disciples as God or Sons of God?

the son of Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. (Luke 3:38)​

Let us ask the Christians, do you worship Adam as the son of God?

But those who are counted worthy to attain that age, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; 36nor can they die anymore, for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:35-36)​

Jesus (saas) here is referring to the celibate. Let us ask Christians, do you worship any celibate person as God or the Son of God?

Then you shall say to Pharaoh, "Thus says the LORD: "Israel is My son, My firstborn. (Exodus 4:22)​

Here God orders Moses to refer to Israelites as His Sons. Let us ask the Christians, do you worship Israelites as God or the son of God?

"You are the children of the LORD your God; you shall not cut yourselves nor shave the front of your head for the dead. (Dueteronomy 14:1)​

Again, referring to the Israelites. Do you worship the Israelites? Also, the Bible itself makes it clear that Jesus was not the ONLY son of God:

though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)​

It calls Christ A son, not THE son. There were other sons! So can Christians claim that Jesus (saas) was Divine simply because he referred to himself as the Son of God? I would say no, because "son of God" can easily mean a host of different things in the biblical language.

 

[dougmusr]

One version calls Jesus (saas) the Son and the other calls him the Servant. Whether the mistranslation is accidental or on purpose it is proof that people have been making mistakes in the Bible that dramatically alter the meaning. But it is clear that more educated scholars of recent times have a better understanding of the original language of Jesus (saas) and the bible and have proven through some new translations that when Jesus (saas) called himself a ‘Son’ of God, he could have just as easily been calling himself a ‘Servant’ of God. The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant."

The fact that it could be translated as either does not prove it was one or the other. Nevertheless, it is clear from the gospels that those hearing Christ speak understood His claim to be God's Son. Some wanted Him killed for blasphemy.

13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
14 So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." 15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.

Peter's confession shows first that ancient scriptures taught God would send His Son in a clear enough manner that even a fisherman could understand the claim.

But even if Jesus (saas) did call himself the ‘Son of God’ he obviously didn’t mean that he was the LITERAL son of God. The proof of this is in the fact that others in the Bible are called ‘Sons of God’ and none of them are worshipped by Jews or Christians:

Actually, the fact that Christians worship Christ as the Son of God rather than the others seems to contradict your conclusion.

though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered. (Hebrews 5:8)

It calls Christ A son, not THE son. There were other sons! So can Christians claim that Jesus (saas) was Divine simply because he referred to himself as the Son of God? I would say no, because "son of God" can easily mean a host of different things in the biblical language.

If some one asks me if I have children, and if I have a male child, I say I have "a" son, not "the" son. This verse is referring to the fact that Christ willingly came to earth to suffer and die as a man. There are children in this world even today that are born into wealth or royalty that willingly leave it behind to earn their own success. None however, leave the glory of heaven for certain crucifixion.

 

[Phil12123]

One version calls Jesus (saas) the Son and the other calls him the Servant. Whether the mistranslation is accidental or on purpose it is proof that people have been making mistakes in the Bible that dramatically alter the meaning. But it is clear that more educated scholars of recent times have a better understanding of the original language of Jesus (saas) and the bible and have proven through some new translations that when Jesus (saas) called himself a ‘Son’ of God, he could have just as easily been calling himself a ‘Servant’ of God. The Greek word found in the text here is "pais". It can be used in Greek for either "son" or "servant."

Have you considered John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; and 1 John 4:9, and the expressions, "only begotten" and "only begotten Son." In those verses using the latter expression the word "Son" is not the Greek "pais." It is another Greek word, huios, which never means servant. And when you add to it the Greek word, monogenes (=only begotten), you definitely don't have a servant but you have the ONLY Son of a Father. Some translations render it "One and Only" Son, or the "Unique" Son. That distinguishes it from "sons of God" or "children of God." In NO verse do you find "Sons of God" (plural) in the same sense that Jesus is uniquely the "Son of God."

But even if Jesus (saas) did call himself the ‘Son of God’ he obviously didn’t mean that he was the LITERAL son of God. The proof of this is in the fact that others in the Bible are called ‘Sons of God’ and none of them are worshipped by Jews or Christians.

No, I think it is quite true to consider Jesus the LITERAL Son of God. After all, literally, WHO was His Father? It wasn't Joseph. Luke 1:35 says, "And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. So, if He wasn't literally the Son of God, Who was He literally the Son of?

Peace

 

[Phil12123]

Another thought. When Jesus walked on the water, the disciples recognized Him as the Son of God and they worshiped Him, which would only be proper worship if He were divine:

Matthew 14:
25. Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went to them, walking on the sea.
26. And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It is a ghost!'' And they cried out for fear.
27. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.''
28. And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.''
29. So He said, "Come.'' And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus.
30. But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!''
31. And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?''
32. And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
33. Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God.''

Furthermore, when He came upon the man with a legion of demons, the demons said to Him, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?'' (Matt 9:29) The demons knew Who He was and that ultimately when it was their "time" for judgment, He would be their Judge. They wouldn't have said that of a mere man.

Peace

 

[E'jaazi]

Actually, Jesus, when speaking of himself, he called himself the "Son of Man," which is the same title that God called Isaiah by in the OT.

 

[Woodrow]

Let us look at the term "Son of God" either it is a metaphor or it is an actual statement that Is'a(as) was actually the Son of God. Most Christians refuse to accept it as a metaphor.

Christians will say that Is'a(as) was both true man and true God(swt)

Did Is'a(as) have a created Soul? If the answer is yes, then he can not be true God as he would be a creation of God, not God. If the answer is that his soul was not created as a man's soul is, then he would not be true man.

Then if he was God(swt) come to Earth in human form in order to sacrifice himself for mankind, there would be no sacrifice as God(swt) is eternal and can not be sacrificed.

Either there is an error in the Christian concept of Is'a(as) or Christians are deliberatly blaspheming God(swt) by calling him a man, limiting his power to forgive sins, and attributing Godly powers to a man.

 

[جوري]

brother woodrow that was an excellent post... I'd like to add to yours if I may these quotes from the bible pointed out by a muslim revert....

Jesus As the Son of God
Is Jesus the Son of God? Matthew 3:17 could be used by some Christians to support the divine Sonship of Jesus. If Matthew 3:17, "And Lo a voice for heaven, saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," is used to support divine Sonship, then there should be no other verse that contradicts or gives equal divine Sonship to another person or persons in the Old or New Testament. However, many references were found in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned someone other than Jesus as having a divine Sonship to God. See Exodus 4:22:

"Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

The word "Son" must not be accepted literally because God addresses many of his chosen servants as son and sons. The Jews have also claimed Ezra to be the Son of God. The New Testament Greek words used for "son" (pias and paida, which mean servant or son in the sense of servant) are translated as son in reference to Jesus and as servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible.

Further, the term "Father" as used by Jesus corresponds more closely to the term Rabb, i.e. One who nourishes and sustains, so that in Jesus’ doctrine, God is "Father" – Nourisher and Sustainer – of all men. The New Testament also interprets "son of God" to be mystical: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14). This mystical suggestion is further supported with Jesus being called the only begotten Son of God.

In Psalm 2:7, the Lord said to David:

"...Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee."

Does this mean that God had two sons? Jesus also said that God is not only his Father but also your Father (Matthew 5:45, 48). Luke 3:38 says:

"...Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."

Who is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3 as like unto the Son of God? It is Melchisedec, King of Salem, as mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. He (Melchisedec) is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not preferred to be the Son of God? Moreover, Adam did not have a mother or father, but was the first human being created by God and in the likeness of God to exist in the Garden of Eden and on earth. Wouldn’t this give more rights to Adam to be called the Son of God in its truest meaning?

 

[Phil12123]

Let us look at the term "Son of God" either it is a metaphor or it is an actual statement that Is'a(as) was actually the Son of God. Most Christians refuse to accept it as a metaphor.

Christians will say that Is'a(as) was both true man and true God(swt)

Did Is'a(as) have a created Soul? If the answer is yes, then he can not be true God as he would be a creation of God, not God. If the answer is that his soul was not created as a man's soul is, then he would not be true man.

What you are calling for may be speculation. "Did [Jesus] have a created Soul?" No verse says He did. I would say NO, His pre-existing Deity and "soul/spirit" was "made flesh" or "became flesh" (John 1:14) when he was conceived in the womb of Mary and "took on the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7).

What is a man's soul? Is it not the immaterial part of man that is his real self, his personality, affections, desires, will, etc.? Obviously that does not exist for the average Joe until he is born, or, more properly, conceived. I do not believe in the pre-existence of the soul, as Mormons or Hindus or some others do. The Bible does not teach it.

You say, "If the answer is that his soul was not created as a man's soul is, then he would not be true man." Wrong. His "soul" (as defined above) already existed and merely took on a body, the body of a "true man" except with no fallen nature. Just because the average Joe has to have his soul created at the time of conception when he also gets his body, does not make Jesus any less "true man" because His soul already existed and all He got at the time of conception was His earthly body.

Then if he was God(swt) come to Earth in human form in order to sacrifice himself for mankind, there would be no sacrifice as God(swt) is eternal and can not be sacrificed.

Wrong again. He died for our sins. You know that; I'm sure I don't need to give you all the verses on that. His mortal body was sacrificed as "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). His soul, some say, also experienced a sort of death (if death can be defined as separation) when He bore all the world's sins and in that instant was "separated" from the Father, as He (the Son) was paying for our sins.

That His body was the sacrifice is seen in Hebrews 10:
10. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.
12. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God,
13. from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool.
14. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

It was His body that bore our sins and was the sacrifice for them, because it was His body that contained His precious BLOOD that makes an atonement for our souls (Lev. 17:11; Heb. 9:22; 1 Pet. 1:18-19)

Either there is an error in the Christian concept of Is'a(as) or Christians are deliberatly blaspheming God(swt) by calling him a man, limiting his power to forgive sins, and attributing Godly powers to a man.

No error at all. Certainly no blasphemy when we simply believe the Word of God that says, "The Word became flesh and dwelt among us." We (you certainly) may not understand or believe it, but it is true nevertheless. Not sure why you would say it in any way limits "his power to forgive sins." He can and does forgive sins when a sinner comes to HIM on HIS terms, the WAY HE has ordained since before the foundation of the world.

Speaking of the Anti-Christ, John says in Rev. 13:
8. And all who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
9. If anyone has an ear, let him hear.

Do you hear?

Peace

 

[MuslimCONVERT]

Another thought. When Jesus walked on the water, the disciples recognized Him as the Son of God and they worshiped Him, which would only be proper worship if He were divine:

Matthew 14:
25. Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went to them, walking on the sea.
26. And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It is a ghost!'' And they cried out for fear.
27. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.''
28. And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.''
29. So He said, "Come.'' And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus.
30. But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!''
31. And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?''
32. And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
33. Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God.''

Furthermore, when He came upon the man with a legion of demons, the demons said to Him, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?'' (Matt 9:29) The demons knew Who He was and that ultimately when it was their "time" for judgment, He would be their Judge. They wouldn't have said that of a mere man.

Peace

The translation of the Bible I have does not say they worshipped him, it says they paid homage to him. I am reading the Goodspeed Bible.

 

[MuslimCONVERT]

Have you considered John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; and 1 John 4:9, and the expressions, "only begotten" and "only begotten Son." In those verses using the latter expression the word "Son" is not the Greek "pais." It is another Greek word, huios, which never means servant. And when you add to it the Greek word, monogenes (=only begotten), you definitely don't have a servant but you have the ONLY Son of a Father. Some translations render it "One and Only" Son, or the "Unique" Son. That distinguishes it from "sons of God" or "children of God." In NO verse do you find "Sons of God" (plural) in the same sense that Jesus is uniquely the "Son of God."



No, I think it is quite true to consider Jesus the LITERAL Son of God. After all, literally, WHO was His Father? It wasn't Joseph. Luke 1:35 says, "And the angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. So, if He wasn't literally the Son of God, Who was He literally the Son of?

Peace

Peace. I shall answer your question with a question. Who was Adam's father? Is Adam divine? A point I made in my previous post.

Gurthermore, all you ahve really shown is that Jesus (Saas) is unique. I agree with the statement. Among the Millions of sons of God proclaimed by the Bible, Jesus (Saas) was a unique one. The question is, if the title "Son of God" does not have to entail divinity, then why does adding "Unique" to the front of it automatically make the phrase mean "Divine?" To me this is overspecification of words. You have admitted yourself that the world now translated as "only begotten" can also mean "Unique" -It doesn't have to mean "one and only" and it doesn't have to mean "begotten." -So saying "unique" means divine is overspecification of words. Saying something means more than it says.

Peace.

 

[Phil12123]

Originally Posted by Phil12123
Another thought. When Jesus walked on the water, the disciples recognized Him as the Son of God and they worshiped Him, which would only be proper worship if He were divine:

Matthew 14:
25. Now in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went to them, walking on the sea.
26. And when the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, "It is a ghost!'' And they cried out for fear.
27. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, "Be of good cheer! It is I; do not be afraid.''
28. And Peter answered Him and said, "Lord, if it is You, command me to come to You on the water.''
29. So He said, "Come.'' And when Peter had come down out of the boat, he walked on the water to go to Jesus.
30. But when he saw that the wind was boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink he cried out, saying, "Lord, save me!''
31. And immediately Jesus stretched out His hand and caught him, and said to him, "O you of little faith, why did you doubt?''
32. And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased.
33. Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God.''

Furthermore, when He came upon the man with a legion of demons, the demons said to Him, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?'' (Matt 9:29) The demons knew Who He was and that ultimately when it was their "time" for judgment, He would be their Judge. They wouldn't have said that of a mere man.

The translation of the Bible I have does not say they worshipped him, it says they paid homage to him. I am reading the Goodspeed Bible.

You need a more accurately translated Bible. Here are how other versions render that verse:

-- King James
Matthew 14:33 Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

-- New King James
Matthew 14:33 Then those who were in the boat came and worshiped Him, saying, "Truly You are the Son of God.''

-- American Standard
Matthew 14:33 And they that were in the boat worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

-- Revised Standard
Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

-- Simple English
Matthew 14:33 They all worshiped him, saying, "You really are the Son of God!''

-- New American Standard
Matthew 14:33 And those who were in the boat worshiped Him, saying, "You are certainly God's Son!"

-- New Revised Standard
Matthew 14:33 And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

The Greek word is proskuneo and is the word for "worship" throughout the N.T., being used in one grammatical form or another 60 times, including when referring to worship of GOD, as in these verses:

Matt. 4:10. Then Jesus said to him, "Away with you, Satan! For it is written, `You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve.' ''

John 4:
21. Jesus said to her, "Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.
22. "You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.
23. "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.
24. "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.''

There are numerous verses using the exact same word, proskuneo, in relation to worship of Jesus. One of those is Hebrews 1:6, which says GOD instructed all the angels to WORSHIP Jesus, "...let all the angels of God worship Him."

Now compare all that with what happens when someone who is NOT to be worshiped is worshiped:

Acts 10:
25. As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him.
26. But Peter lifted him up, saying, "Stand up; I myself am also a man.''

Rev. 19:10 And I [John] fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.''

Rev. 22:
8. Now I, John, saw and heard these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel who showed me these things.
9. Then he said to me, "See that you do not do that. For I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren the prophets, and of those who keep the words of this book. Worship God.''

See the difference? Jesus received worship time and time again, never ONCE rebuking anyone who did it. His Father told all the angels of God to WORSHIP the Son. THERE IS NO WAY THAT WOULD BE PROPER UNLESS JESUS IS GOD!!

So... are YOU ready to WORSHIP HIM too? The angels do. Man did. Christians do. WHY not YOU?

Peace

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Have you considered John 1:14,18; 3:16,18; and 1 John 4:9, and the expressions, "only begotten" and "only begotten Son." In those verses using the latter expression the word "Son" is not the Greek "pais." It is another Greek word, huios, which never means servant.

Let us look at some Biblical usages of huios.

Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of the Kings

Matthew 17:25 He said, “Yes.”
And when he had come into the house, Jesus anticipated him, saying, “What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take customs or taxes, from their sons or from strangers?”

Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of God

Matthew 7:9 Or what man is there among you who, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?

Context shows this is an analogy of God.

Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of Peace

Luke 10:6 And if a son of peace is there, your peace will rest on it; if not, it will return to you.

Metaphorical - believers are the sons [greek word is huios] of light

Luke 16:8 So the master commended the unjust steward because he had dealt shrewdly. For the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light.

There's also sons of kingdom (Matt 8:12) and sons of thunder (Mark 3:17).

Clearly, the term is used metaphorically so frequently in the Bible that literal translation solely in the case of Jesus becomes indefensible.

And when you add to it the Greek word, monogenes (=only begotten), you definitely don't have a servant but you have the ONLY Son of a Father.

But monogenes is used for Isaac in Hebrews 11:17 as follows:

By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son

There's something wrong with this statement. Ishmael was born 14 years before Isaac, so at NO point was Isaac Abraham's only begotten son.

But in case you try to pull the common 'illegitmate son' defense, let me pre-empt that with the following refutation:

A frequently encountered reflex defense is the assertion that Ishmael was born out of illicit union between Abraham and Hagar, Sarah’s maidservant. Therefore, some people assert that Ishmael was illegitimate -- a b a s t a r d child -- and so he doesn’t count. This sounds like an argument worthy of consideration, but does it hold holy water? A common sense observation is that Ishmael was Abraham’s begotten son regardless of the nature of the parental relationship. More concrete validation of the rank of Ishmael as Abraham’s legitimate son is simply that God recognized him as such, as found in many passages of the Bible, including Genesis 16:11, 16:15, 17:7, 17:23, 17:25, 21:11. If God recognized Ishmael as Abraham’s son, who of mankind dares to differ?

But man is inclined to argument, so looking at all angles a person should recognize that polygamy was an accepted practice according to the laws of the Old Testament.[1] Examples include Rachel, Leah, and their handmaids (Gen ch. 29 and 30), Lamech (Gen 4:19), Gideon (Judges 8:30), David (II Samuel 5:13), and the archetype of marital plurality, Solomon (1 Kings 11:3). The Oxford Dictionary of the Jewish Religion notes that polygamy was permitted in the laws of the Old Testament, and was recognized as legally valid by the rabbis.[2] Encyclopedia Judaica further acknowledges the common nature of polygamy amongst the upper classes in Biblical times.[3] Polygamy persisted up until the tenth century, at which time it was officially banned amongst the Ashkenazi Jews by Rabbenu Gershom; the practice, however, persisted amongst the Sephardi Jews.[4] [5] To give an idea of the acceptability of polygamy even in modern Judaic law (not to mention an indication of the religiously overriding influence of politics), the chief rabbis of Israel officially banned the practice only as recently as 1950.[6]

For all of the above reasons, it would seem reasonable for a person to accept that when the Bible describes Hagar as Abraham’s second wife (Genesis 16:3, “...Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her slave-girl, and gave her to her husband Abram as a wife.” [emphasis mine]), it means precisely what it says. The idea of polygamy being permissible may offend a lot of modern Western sensitivities. Be that as it may. Whether a person likes it or not, the point is that Abraham was acting within the laws of his time, and Ishmael was therefore a legitimate child.

Nonetheless, there are still those who assert that Hagar was Abraham’s concubine, despite scripture to the contrary. Even that claim has an answer. According to Old Testament law, concubines (as well as multiple wives) were legally permitted, and the offspring of a man’s concubines and wives had equal rights. To quote Hasting’s Dictionary of the Bible, “...there does not seem to have been any inferiority in the position of the concubine as compared with that of the wife, nor was any idea of illegitimacy, in our sense of the word, connected with her children.”[7] Jacob M. Myers, professor at the Lutheran Theological Seminary, contributor to the Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, and acknowledged Old Testament scholar, comments in his Invitation to The Old Testament:

“Archaeological discoveries help us to fill in the details of the Biblical narrative and to explain many of the otherwise obscure references and strange customs that were commonplace in Abraham’s world and time. For instance, the whole series of practices relating to the birth of Ishmael and the subsequent treatment of Hagar, his mother…all are now known to have been normal everyday occurrences regulated by law.
A Nuzi marriage contract provides that a childless wife may take a woman of the country and marry her to her husband to obtain progeny. But she may not drive out the offspring even if she later has children of her own. The child born of the handmaid has the same status as the one born to the wife.”[8]

Returning to the ‘Alice in Wonderland’ perspective on reality, what makes more sense, anyway? Would God design a prophet to set less than an ideal example, by violating the exact same commandments which he bears from The Creator? Would God send a prophet with a ‘do as I say, not as I do’ message? Alice might find much more comfort in the assumption that God created prophets to embody the message of revelation in their actions as well as their words.

So could Hellenized Western opinions be wrong? Does it not make more sense for Abraham to have acted, as would be expected of a prophet, within the laws of his time by engaging Hagar in a lawful relationship?

Given the above evidences, no matter how a person cuts the cake of Ishmael’s conception, the union between his parents was legal according to Old Testament law, God Himself endorsed Ishmael as Abraham’s son, and the chronology in the Old Testament reveals that Ishmael was without a doubt the first begotten son of Abraham. Look up ‘Ismael’ in the New Catholic Encyclopedia (the reference of those who would be most likely to oppose, on ideological grounds, the piecing together of this puzzle), and a person finds the following agreement: “Ismael (Ishmael), son of Abraham, Abraham’s firstborn...”[9]

A person might reasonably question why Trinitarian Christianity would wish to conceal this truth. The answer, though distasteful to those who do not accept any reality contrary to their own opinion, is that Biblical use of the term ‘monogenes’ to describe Isaac as the only begotten son of Abraham is clearly either metaphorical, a mistranslation, or inaccurate. If a person accepts the term to be metaphorical, then literal understanding of ‘monogenes’ as it relates to Jesus in the five passages of ‘John’ is indefensible. The doctrine of Jesus actually being ‘begotten’ of God is readily recognized as unacceptable, especially when the aforementioned Biblical reference to David as a previously ‘begotten son of God’ (Psalms 2:7) is factored into the equation.

Should the error be understood to fall into the realm of mistranslation, then both the mistranslation and the doctrine deserve correction.

On the other hand, should the term ‘monogenes’ be considered a Biblical inaccuracy a greater challenge surfaces -- that of reconciling a Biblical error with the infallibility of God.

Understandably, the most modern and faithful translations of the Bible are quietly discarding the word ‘begotten.’ The Revised Standard Version, the New Revised Standard Version, The Good News Bible, The New English Bible, The Jerusalem Bible, the New International Version, and many others have unceremoniously expunged the word ‘begotten’ as an interpolation. By so doing, they are narrowing the gap between Christian and Islamic theology, for as stated in the Holy Qur’an, “…it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son” (TMQ 19:92), and, “He (Allah) begets not, nor is He begotten” (TMQ 112:3).

__________
[1]Meagher, Paul Kevin et al. Vol 3, p. 2821.
[2] Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. p. 540.
[3] Encyclopaedia Judaica. Vol 11, p. 1026.
[4] Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. p. 540.
[5] Roth, Cecil B. Litt., M.A., D. Phil. and Geoffrey Wigoder, D. Phil. (editors-in-chief). 1975. The New Standard Jewish Encyclopedia. W. H. Allen. p. 1550.
[6] Werblowsky, R. J. Zwi and Geoffrey Wigoder. p. 540.
[7] Hastings, James. Dictionary of The Bible. p. 292.
[8] Myers, Jacob M. 1966. Invitation to the Old Testament. [ New York: Doubleday & Company. p. 26.
[9] New Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol 7, p. 690.
​

That's from Dr. Laurence Brown.

No, I think it is quite true to consider Jesus the LITERAL Son of God.

The literal meaning of son is biological offspring. Are you saying Jesus's relation to god is biological and not spiritual?

There are numerous verses using the exact same word, proskuneo, in relation to worship of Jesus. One of those is Hebrews 1:6, which says GOD instructed all the angels to WORSHIP Jesus, "...let all the angels of God worship Him."

“proskuneo, pros-koo-neh'-o; from G4314 and a prob. der. of G2965 (mean. to kiss, like a dog licking his master's hand); to fawn or crouch to, i.e. (lit. or fig.) prostrate oneself in homage (do reverence to, adore):--worship.” (Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible)
​

"Matthew 18:26 records the story of a slave who ‘proskuneo’ed’ his master begging for forgiveness of his debts. Old Testament references include 1 Samuel 25:23, in which Abigail “fell on her face before David, and bowed down to the ground.” 2 Kings 4:37 speaks of a Shunammite woman who, after having her child revived through the prayers of Elisha, “…fell at his feet, and bowed to the ground…” Genesis 50:18 and 2 Samuel 19:18 weigh into the equation as well."

Someone groveling, prostrating before some was common. Not proof of divinity.

Now here's a challenge for you. In Luke 4:8, it says about God, "him alone shall you serve", the word here being translated is latreuo:

Find me even ONE reference in the Bible where latreuo is used for Jesus. There are 22 uses of the word in the NT. NOWHERE is it used for Jesus.

Regards

 

[Ninth_Scribe]

What you are calling for may be speculation. "Did [Jesus] have a created Soul?" No verse says He did. I would say NO, His pre-existing Deity and "soul/spirit" was "made flesh" or "became flesh" (John 1:14) when he was conceived in the womb of Mary and "took on the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7).

I don't mean to weird anyone out here, but we were all born as soul/spirit before we were made flesh. I double dare anyone to provide proof that this isn't so!

You say, "If the answer is that his soul was not created as a man's soul is, then he would not be true man." Wrong. His "soul" (as defined above) already existed and merely took on a body, the body of a "true man" except with no fallen nature. Just because the average Joe has to have his soul created at the time of conception when he also gets his body, does not make Jesus any less "true man" because His soul already existed and all He got at the time of conception was His earthly body.

See above - just because you don't teach this, doesn't prove that it isn't so. Ideas and designs (Intelligence) all exist before they are made manifest here. You 'think' it and then build it... always in that order. Always.

Wrong again. He died for our sins. You know that; I'm sure I don't need to give you all the verses on that. His mortal body was sacrificed as "the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). His soul, some say, also experienced a sort of death (if death can be defined as separation) when He bore all the world's sins and in that instant was "separated" from the Father, as He (the Son) was paying for our sins.

Any human being would do that. For even less than that. If God came to me and told me my death would wipe cancer off the face of the planet, I'd be out of here in a heart beat. Does that make me some divine being? Jeesh :uuh:

Do you hear?

Yea, but I can't believe what I'm hearing! Apart from your most excellent demonstration of Christian education, you hit a glass ceiling when you limit the title ben elohim to Jesus. There are records that pre-date Jesus. For instance Ezra was said to have been resurrected from death, and some speculate that is how he came to receive the title, ben elohim, but in all honesty here, that title, in it's original context, referred to the Zerah Kodesh... men of a certain lineage... plural.

You also fail to recognize that the records concerning the sons of God became tangled up with a certain Persian deity, Mithras. That confusion was courtesy of Constantine, who worshipped Sol Invictus (Romanized version of Mithras) before he converted to Christianity (on his death-bed). For instance, it was Mithras (records predate Jesus by 300 years) who:

Was born on December 25
Of a virgin
Birth was witnessed by the Magi
Formed his influence around 12 disciples
Was called Savior of the World, Lord of Light
Was sacrificed, returned to have at Vernal Equinox (days from Easter)
Before leaving, had a Last Supper (Midz - a special bread marked wit a cross)

It's not that I'm angry, just perplexed by what I've seen happen to what began as a simple Book of Generations.

Ninth Scribe

 

[`Abd al-Azeez]

Is Jesus (as) God's [i]only[/i] begotten son? [astagfaar]



Well after reading the Psalm of David (as) I came across this verse:

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (Psalms 2:7 [KJV])​

But John 3:16 says Jesus is the only begotten son:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(John 3:16 [KJV])​

So is Jesus (as) the only begotten son? Can someone explain this?

 

[QuranStudy]

Re: Is Jesus (as) God's [i]only[/i] begotten son? [astagfaar]

The Bible is poorly written fiction. It is riddled with contradictions.

 

[dougmusr]

Re: Is Jesus (as) God's [i]only[/i] begotten son? [astagfaar]

Well after reading the Psalm of David (as) I came across this verse:

I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee (Psalms 2:7 [KJV])​

But John 3:16 says Jesus is the only begotten son:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.(John 3:16 [KJV])​

So is Jesus (as) the only begotten son? Can someone explain this?

Heb 1:1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; 3 who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
4 having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?

Ps 2:4 is prophecy about the coming Messiah. These refer to the same Son.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Re: Is Jesus (as) God's [i]only[/i] begotten son? [astagfaar]

Please make use of existing threads discussing the same topic:

http://www.islamicboard.com/447148-post12.html

Regards

:threadclo

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Since this issue is being repeated in other thread, please make use of older threads so that discussion points are not being repeated.

Regards

 

[Grace Seeker]

Since this issue is being repeated in other thread, please make use of older threads so that discussion points are not being repeated.

Regards

Can you point me to these other threads please?

I found this one "Jesus in the Bible, does it teach that he's God?", to which I would say, of course it does.

But this thread asks a different question, it asks if the peculiar title "Son of God" is the equivalent of saying that Jesus is God, and the answer to that is -- no, it does not. That phrase was used many different ways in the scripture itself, and more important had a special meaning at the time of Jesus by which as a title it referred to the Messiah. And though I also do think that Jesus was God the son, it is a mere accident of the English language that has those phrases appear so similar.

 

[brenton]

Once again, the divinity of Jesus is not because of one verse or one concept (like sonship). It is the reality of the early church, explained theological a few generations later, and central to Christian faith before and since.

Nice to see Ansar using the Greek.

The way Philippians 2:5-11 takes up Isaiah may be one ver that is helpful.

On sonship:
1. Israel is called God's son.
2. David is called God's son.
3. Jesus takes up that sonship, and Colossians, it is used as a symbol of Jesus' preeminence and special status.
4. In the gospels, especially John, it seems to be more of a "divine" idea.

"Son of God" is used differently throughout the Bible. We read it in its own contexts. So while I respect the opening post, it only points out the obvious.