Our Father...

[Umar001]

The reason God now objects to be called a father because there are certain sects that have seperated from Islam (the true relgion since the word beand took Jesus as a literal son.
The Son and Father (God) relationship was metaphorical.

Assalamu Aleykum Brother Abu IBraheem,

I was just wondering, is that stated in Islamic sources, that it is the actual reason, or is it just derived from thinking?

Just wondering, please do not feel offended.

Your brother

Eesa.

 

[Grace Seeker]

What exactly do you mean by this statement?

Eesa has expressed some doubt regarding Jesus (pbuh) ever using the term "abba" to refer to God. This despite where you and I have both showed him that it was used. The reason, seems to be that he doubts the credibility of the texts. Why? Well, I don't know he hasn't said. But rather than accept the text at face value, he is applying something outside the text to judge it. In Islam, as I understand it, one does not judge the Qur'an, one accepts the Qur'an and judges one's life by it. But if I were to begin with a belief that Jesus (pbuh) did in fact do XYZ, and then look to see if that was also found in the Qur'an, I would not be accepting the Qur'an, I would be judging it. I would be saying that another authority was higher than the Qur'an, namely my beliefs as to what is or isn't true.

We may disagree with whether or not Jesus should have called God "abba" as a poiint of faith. (Personally I think he did and have not problem with it, but that is not relevant.) But after seeing all of the evidence that other Jews of Jesus' day used the term "abba" in reference to God, that first century Christians used the term "father" in reference to God, and that in the Gospel of Mark that Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as referring to God as "abba", plus that in Matthew and Luke that Jesus (pbuh) is reported as teaching his disciples to specifically address God as "father" in prayer to continue to doubt is simply to be unwilling to accept the witnesses as credible. If one were to apply that way of thinking to the Qur'an -- an unwillingess to accept the witness to it as credible -- it would strike at the very heart of Islam, or at least so it seems to me.

 

[Paul Williams]

Dear Grace Seeker

thanks for clarifying your meaning...

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hey Paul, on this note did you know that Allah loves His creation more than a mother loves her child? Did you know that Allah has sent only 1 mercy from His 99 Mercies in which a mothe loves her child and protects her child? Did you know that nobody can love a child more than its mother... except Allah?
The reason as to why the term father was used was to denote the relationship between God and man, Why father? this is due to grammar, anything without gender is classed as masculine (when in reality its not) if it has no sign of feminine gender. In Arabic a car is feminine whilst a book is masculine. If the word for God happened to be feminine, the Bible would have called God mother! but we all know God doesnt have gender. Its simply for grammar reasons.

Very well illustrated.

The Son and Father (God) relationship was metaphorical.

Precisely. Or perhaps, even better, it was anthropomorphical.

The reason God now objects to be called a father because there are certain sects that have seperated from Islam (the true relgion since the word beand took Jesus as a literal son.

What sects do you refer to? I hope you are not refering to Christians. Sometimes Christians are sloppy with the word choices and they sound like this, but Christians certainly do NOT think of Jesus (pbuh) as the literal son (i.e not the biological son) of God.

When Christians use the term "Son of God" to refer to Jesus, they are using it just like Jews of that era did, as title to refer to the Messiah. Some within Roman Catholic Christendom have gotten more sloppy with their language and even talk of Mary as the Mother of God. They do not mean this to imply that Allah actually has a mother. However, I am sure the Islam would still disgree with what they do mean, namely that Jesus (pbuh) is quite truly God incarnate. Hence Mary as the mother of Jesus (pbuh) is also in a sense the "mother" of God.

 

[Paul Williams]

When Christians use the term "Son of God" to refer to Jesus, they are using it just like Jews of that era did, as title to refer to the Messiah.

I don't want to get picky with what u say, but (!) when Christians use the term 'Son of God' of Jesus they mean a divine being, synonymous with 'God the Son'. Unfortunately very few Christians (outside of academia) know that in the first century Jewish context as u say it meant Messiah. That's how it is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example - written by Jews around the time of Jesus.

Jesus was a humble man and expressly rejected anyone ascribing God's attributes to himself. As someone once heard him say...

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't want to get picky with what u say, but (!) when Christians use the term 'Son of God' of Jesus they mean a divine being, synonymous with 'God the Son'. Unfortunately very few Christians (outside of academia) know that in the first century Jewish context as u say it meant Messiah. That's how it is used in the Dead Sea Scrolls for example - written by Jews around the time of Jesus.

I didn't say that Christians do not view Jesus as divine. I said that the use of the term "Son of God" is a Messianic reference. The use of the term "God the Son" is indeed a divine reference. And as I said, many Christians get sloppy with their language, but those are not equivalent terms.

Jesus was a humble man and expressly rejected anyone ascribing God's attributes to himself.

This is a statement expressing an opinion. Some of which we hold in common and some of which we do not.

As someone once heard him say...

As Jesus started on his way, a man ran up to him and fell on his knees before him. "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?"

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone. You know the commandments: 'Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, do not defraud, honor your father and mother.'

I appreciate your quoting one of my favorite stories. However, borrowing from "The Princess Bride", one of my children's favorite movies, "I do not think it means what you think it means." However any discussion of this should probably be in a different thread.

 

[Paul Williams]

Indeed, Christology is the big sticking point between Muslims and Christians.

We can agree to disagree on this. I used to believe in the historic creeds of the church - Nicea, Chalcedon etc, but I came to realise that, to put it mildly, they did not reflect the realities of Jesus' Jewish context and beliefs.

But as u say: this is a deviation from this thread

 

[Grace Seeker]

I do need to make one correction to where I said that the term "Son of God" was a Messianic Title. It is, as you seem to be well aware, however, there is at least one place where it was used, as you said, by a person basically calling Jesus God:

Matthew 27:54
When the centurion and those with him who were guarding Jesus saw the earthquake and all that had happened, they were terrified, and exclaimed, "Surely he was the Son of God!"

And its parallel passage:

Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, heard his cry and saw how he died, he said, "Surely this man was the Son of God!"

Since the centurion would be a Roman and not a Jew, he is unlikely to be making a Messianic reference. One still has to deal with whether one accepts as true Matthew's and Mark's testimony that it was Jesus on the cross, but I suppose that it makes no difference if, as in accordance with Islamic teaching, the Roman soldier would have been just as fooled into believing it was Jesus as everyone else present was.


The other that probably needs to be considered more carefully is

Romans 1:4
and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

Though Paul was a Jew and in this instance writing to a church of mixed Jewish and Gentile Christians, in this case Paul's use of the term if probably not as a Messianic title but is being used to contrast it with his declaration that Jesus is "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the preceeding verse.

 

[Paul Williams]

there is at least one place where it was used, as you said, by a person basically calling Jesus God.

Since the centurion would be a Roman and not a Jew, he is unlikely to be making a Messianic reference. One still has to deal with whether one accepts as true Matthew's and Mark's testimony that it was Jesus on the cross, but I suppose that it makes no difference if, as in accordance with Islamic teaching, the Roman soldier would have been just as fooled into believing it was Jesus as everyone else present was.


The other that probably needs to be considered more carefully is Though Paul was a Jew and in this instance writing to a church of mixed Jewish and Gentile Christians, in this case Paul's use of the term if probably not as a Messianic title but is being used to contrast it with his declaration that Jesus is "as to his human nature was a descendant of David" in the preceeding verse.

Oh dear we are seriously off topic now! But I'm happy to continue till I get my wrist slapped.

Now I'm going to answer your post purely from memory and will not consult the Bible or a text book. So here goes...

There is an alternative variation in the NT text which says 'surely this man was a son of god' I believe the NRSV at least cites this alternative reading. In the Graeco-Roman world all sorts of people and deities were call sons of God. Emperors, holy men, mythological characters in literature were all given this title. To assert that the Roman soldier must have seen Jesus as God is, in my opinion, highly speculative. He probably thought Tiberius was divine too. What does this prove?

As to the passage in Romans you cite. We are in deep water here. There are some technical exegetical points I'd like to make but this is not the right place to do it. It would be rude to others to go off into NT scholarship issues. But I'll just say this: Paul's use of 'Son of God' has a different meaning from the synoptic Gospels. He seems to have moved some way to exulting Jesus as divine. This of course doesn't mean Jesus was divine. Christians must never forget that Paul never met Jesus. Paul never ever calls Jesus by the name Jesus used most often of himself :son of man. And Paul was deeply at odds with the apostles as to the meaning of being a follower of Jesus and God...

 

[Grace Seeker]

Oh dear we are seriously off topic now! But I'm happy to continue till I get my wrist slapped.

hahahah Yes, we are. But I am so enjoying this conversation with you. Though a "thread", or at least a filament, of a connection remains with the original topic in that we are discussing the relationship between Jesus and God. (I know it is a stretch, but you did start the topic, so maybe we won't get our wrists slapped to hard.)

Now I'm going to answer your post purely from memory and will not consult the Bible or a text book. So here goes...

There is an alternative variation in the NT text which says 'surely this man was a son of god' I believe the NRSV at least cites this alternative reading. In the Graeco-Roman world all sorts of people and deities were call sons of God. Emperors, holy men, mythological characters in literature were all given this title. To assert that the Roman soldier must have seen Jesus as God is, in my opinion, highly speculative. He probably thought Tiberius was divine too. What does this prove?

Yes, though it isn't from a variant text, but just an alternate rendering of the text "θεου υιος". But you are correct, it can also be translated "a son of god." I wasn't citing it because I thought this proved anything. I had just earlier stated that the phrase "Son of God" was used as a Messianic title, which it generally was. But then later I recalled some instance where it would not have been used that way. So, for integrity's sake, I thought I should correct myself.

As to the passage in Romans you cite. We are in deep water here. There are some technical exegetical points I'd like to make but this is not the right place to do it. It would be rude to others to go off into NT scholarship issues. But I'll just say this: Paul's use of 'Son of God' has a different meaning from the synoptic Gospels. He seems to have moved some way to exulting Jesus as divine. This of course doesn't mean Jesus was divine. Christians must never forget that Paul never met Jesus. Paul never ever calls Jesus by the name Jesus used most often of himself :son of man. And Paul was deeply at odds with the apostles as to the meaning of being a follower of Jesus and God...

Actually we are nearly agreed on this too. As I said, I wasn't trying to prove anything, just correcting myself. But let's start another thread to discuss how Paul and the synoptics used these terms differently. It might be an interesting discussion.

 

[Abu Ibraheem]

The question was

I was just wondering, is that stated in Islamic sources, that it is the actual reason, or is it just derived from thinking?

No worries bro, i am not offended in the slightest. Our doctrines clearly refute the deviations of the people of the book. From Trinity, Sonship, Crucifixion to blood sacrifice and atonement for the "original sin." As Jesus did the action of submission to God, he therefore was Muslim (active participle denoting one who sunmits to God or even the action of submitting to God). It is safe to conclude that Jesus was upon Islam whether or not the linguistic term existed or not. Christianity, was indeed a ofshoot of the pure religion of all the Prophets in which Jesus was not the founder. Christianity to Islam is simlpy what mormonism is to Christianity, i dont intend to offend any sincere Christian reading this. In fact if a Christian wishes to speak with me then please do through private mail as i find it more effective and sincere when we have a personal discussion than a public debate. With public disscussions pride can too easily creep into the conversation and all of a sudden we have this urge that we have to proove to the people that we are right under all circumstances.
i hope i clarified , if not then please ask for further clarification.