Evidence for God from Science

You can't say Jesus peace be upon him was the Recitation, any more than you can say Jesus literally was a book.

Even Christians are divided on the nature of "sonship" they claim for Jesus. Figurative, biological, whatever, varies from country to country, church to church, even between individuals. So what do Muslims think Christians believe? Who knows? Not even Christians are in agreement.

If you're following the Apology of Justin, it would lead you to believe that yes, the sonship is biological. Reading other apologies would insist the opposite, that it's merely figurative.

I think that at best it's a title, because Jesus peace be upon him does say after all, according to the Gospels, that all men are gods.

The thought I was more getting at was providing an analogy of God's nature found in Muslim thinking which is comparable to that of Christianity. For example, consider the argument that if only God is eternal, then if something is eternal, that something is God.

1) Only God is eternal.
2) The word of God is eternal.

Therefore if Muslim's embrace premises 1) and 2) then the conclusion which follows is:

3) Therefore, the word of God is God.

Thus, we here have has duality of God found in Muslim theology if they accept premises 1 and 2. As such, Muslims are left with a paradox of their own regarding God's nature.

Kurieuo

Aviatrix wrote:Even Christians are divided on the nature of "sonship" they claim for Jesus. Figurative, biological, whatever, varies from country to country, church to church, even between individuals. So what do Muslims think Christians believe? Who knows? Not even Christians are in agreement.

Actually while there may not be widespread agreement at the lay level, certainly amongst Christian theologians there is widespread agreement as to what Son of God does not mean. For example, in my experience I see widespread agreement that Christ is not God's biological offspring in the same sense that a husband has sex with his wife, impregates her, and has offspring.

"Son of God" is a title which reveals something about who Christ is, specifically his closeness to God. Like "Son of the Sword" which would imply something about one's closeness to the sword. And just like the "Son of Man" has Messianic connotations as found in Daniel. The Father/Son portrayal says something of Christ's identity and how His relationship is to be understood within the Trinity. There may be various interpretations as to how to construe this relationship, such as it implies the loving bond and closeness shared between the person of Christ to the Father within God, but no mainstream Christian interpretations would separate God's nature from Christ, or represent Christ as literally being His son in the same sense we are conceived in our mother's womb through sexual union. Jesus was eternally the "Son of God" even before His incarnation, regardless of whether it only became apparent during His incarnation.

Kurieuo

Thanks for the nice replies, guys.

Many things appear to be a paradox, I'll say first of all. I looked into Ibn Taymiyyah's 'Aqidah book (I won't paste it for you because this probably isn't a proper place for it, but I can PM it to you if you like) and found regarding the Qur'an that it is "not created" but it originated with God, and returns to God. That's not, to me, the same thing as "eternal." So I reject the idea of a paradox, here. However, if you don't, that's fine.

Many times things seem to be a paradox when in fact we just don't understand. For example, Jesus peace be upon him being as Christians say "fully God" and "fully man." Since mortality means the absence of divine attributes, that is an apparent contradiction which Christian theologians have their own ways of reconciling. (I don't mean to discuss this particular issue here unless someone else feels it appropriate, I just was using it as an example of a paradox.)

To Kurieuo, I just want to say that more or less I agree with you, that it's a title. I don't think that "son of the sword" for example literally means a sword. For example, daughter of patience, father of peace... it doesn't exactly mean patience and peace *to me* as in I don't see it that way. However, I do see "son of God" as a title, and think that debating "sonship" is just a way to get people riled up.

Nevertheless... you can say that Christian theologians agree or not... I honestly don't know. I won't lie and say I've researched mainstream Christian theology on that particular subject (nature of sonship) when I've done no such thing. However, I will say that Justin's Apology, for one, draws dangerous parallels between the Christian father/son relationship and pagan understandings. Mind you, that's just one person's writing of whom I'm aware, and I'd consider it fairly "traditional" being such an early work.

You said it's the work of theologians to explain exactly what the relationship is/means. (At least I think that's what you said.) In Islam, the Muslim is supposed to "know God" by the attributes by which He describes himself in the Qur'an. That's a difference--it's not so much up to theologians to explain it.

Once again, thanks for the replies, hope I didn't offend anyone here.

Aviatrix wrote:Thanks for the nice replies, guys.

Many things appear to be a paradox, I'll say first of all. I looked into Ibn Taymiyyah's 'Aqidah book (I won't paste it for you because this probably isn't a proper place for it, but I can PM it to you if you like) and found regarding the Qur'an that it is "not created" but it originated with God, and returns to God. That's not, to me, the same thing as "eternal." So I reject the idea of a paradox, here. However, if you don't, that's fine.

To help me better understand what you are saying, if the word of God is uncreated yet originated with God, then would it not have always been with God during His eternal existence? Let me know if the "word of God" being co-eternal with God (rather than simply "eternal") seems any better to you, since this perhaps better signifies a sharing of eternalness which is dependant upon God.

Regardless, I could not help detect the similarity in Christian theology to Christ. Especially in the Athanasian creed where it says, "The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten." Or even the Nicene Creed: "one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made." I see an interesting resemblence in Christian theology here, that is, when comparing Christ to the "word of God" in Islamic theology which is uncreated, yet originates (or "is begotton") of God.

Aviatrix wrote:To Kurieuo, I just want to say that more or less I agree with you, that it's a title. I don't think that "son of the sword" for example literally means a sword. For example, daughter of patience, father of peace... it doesn't exactly mean patience and peace *to me* as in I don't see it that way. However, I do see "son of God" as a title, and think that debating "sonship" is just a way to get people riled up.

Nevertheless... you can say that Christian theologians agree or not... I honestly don't know. I won't lie and say I've researched mainstream Christian theology on that particular subject (nature of sonship) when I've done no such thing. However, I will say that Justin's Apology, for one, draws dangerous parallels between the Christian father/son relationship and pagan understandings. Mind you, that's just one person's writing of whom I'm aware, and I'd consider it fairly "traditional" being such an early work.

There are usually particular creeds various Christian denominations follow, which were developed out of response to beliefs considered to be wrong surrounding how to understand who Christ was in light of His teachings and the events surrounding His life. One of the beliefs rejected was Ebionitism, which regarded Jesus as an ordinary human being endowed with special gifts. At the other end was Docetism which regarded Jesus as entirely divine who only had the appearance of being human. As for Justin Martyr, in Greek thought Logos ("The Word" as found in John 1:14) was considered to be the ultimate source of all human knowledge. Alister McGrath (a respected Christian theologian) notes in relation to Justin's thinking:

The one and the same Logos is known by both Christian believers and pagan philosophers; the latter, however, have only partial access to it, whereas Christians have full access to it, on account of its manifestation in Christ. Justin allows that pre-Christian secular philosophers, such as Heraclitus or Socrates, thus had partical access to the truth, on account of the manner in which the Logos is present in the world... Justin argue that Christianity builds upon an fulfilled the hints and anticipations of God's revelation which are to be had through pagan philosophy.

Thus, I see no need to be alarmed by understanding of Logos Justin drew from Greek thinking, in order to argue that Christ was the full revelation of that Logos.

Aviatrix wrote:You said it's the work of theologians to explain exactly what the relationship is/means. (At least I think that's what you said.) In Islam, the Muslim is supposed to "know God" by the attributes by which He describes himself in the Qur'an. That's a difference--it's not so much up to theologians to explain it.

Just as Islam would have their theologians who more deeply understand the Quran, and therefore an Islamic understanding of God in a deeper richness; so too Christianity have their theologians who analyse Scripture and pursue a much deeper understanding and richness about God's nature. No doubt when misunderstandings occur between lay Muslims about their own theology or faith (as no doubt happens with Christians), it would be up to Muslim scholars, clerics and elders to set them straight. As I understand, even at a deeper Islamic level, there is much disagreement about how to understand the relationship of God to the uncreated "word of God." Yet, such would not invalidate all understandings of such a relationship, or one's attempt to understand such a relationship.

Aviatrix wrote:Once again, thanks for the replies, hope I didn't offend anyone here.

Not at all. At first I did not know what to make of your posts, but I have found them respectful so far.

Kurieuo

Aviatrix wrote:I think that at best it's a title, because Jesus peace be upon him does say after all, according to the Gospels, that all men are gods.

Where does he say that? I don't believe he does.

Anyway, about the Sonship of Jesus -- some theologians believe He was God's Word and Wisdom. This means Jesus is 'eternally begotten': He proceeds from God and cannot exist without the Father, but the Father has never existed without Him (there's never been a time when God didn't have Wisdom...in fact you could say the Father can't exist without the Son, because a God without Wisdom is hardly a god anymore).

And I agree Jesus wasn't the biological Son of God, contrary to what some atheists believe -- once I heard an ex-Christian calling the Holy Spirit by a very disrespectful name because He impregnated Mary.

Aviatrix wrote:You can't say Jesus peace be upon him was the Recitation, any more than you can say Jesus literally was a book.

Even Christians are divided on the nature of "sonship" they claim for Jesus. Figurative, biological, whatever, varies from country to country, church to church, even between individuals. So what do Muslims think Christians believe? Who knows? Not even Christians are in agreement.

If you're following the Apology of Justin, it would lead you to believe that yes, the sonship is biological. Reading other apologies would insist the opposite, that it's merely figurative.

I think that at best it's a title, because Jesus peace be upon him does say after all, according to the Gospels, that all men are gods.

This is a fine article explaning the Son of God:

http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/son.htm

Could you please give us a link to the part of the Apology of Justin that leads you to believe that the sonship of Jesus is biological. I believe that you might be misunderstanding what is being said.

Thanks.

Turgonian wrote:

Aviatrix wrote:I think that at best it's a title, because Jesus peace be upon him does say after all, according to the Gospels, that all men are gods.

Where does he say that? I don't believe he does.

I am not sure but I think he is referring to: John 10:34-36

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, 'I said, “You are gods”'? 35 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

I have seen this misunderstanding of what Jesus is saying coming from many Muslims on discussion boards.

Turgonian,

And I agree Jesus wasn't the biological Son of God, contrary to what some atheists believe -- once I heard an ex-Christian calling the Holy Spirit by a very disrespectful name because He impregnated Mary.

This is pure ignorance on the part of the ex-Christian. Does God have a penis? Since Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin then common sense should tell anyone that if God were capable of having sex with a human woman then that woman would no longer be a virgin.

Muslims will tell you that Allah said "Be" and Jesus was which is similar to the Holy Spirit "coming upon Mary." God simply made it happen by His power.

However, the Qur'an does say that Allah needs a consort (wife) in order to have a son.

Interesting. So Muslims believe in a virgin birth also? Is this a commonly held belief amongst Muslims?

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:Interesting. So Muslims believe in a virgin birth also? Is this a commonly held belief amongst Muslims?

Kurieuo

Yes. I know of no Muslim who does not believe in the virgin birth. It's in the Qur'an.

She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is (Qur'an 3:47).

Aviatrix,

If you're following the Apology of Justin, it would lead you to believe that yes, the sonship is biological.

Is this what you are looking at Aviatrix?

"And hear again how Isaiah in express words foretold that He should be born of a virgin; for he spoke thus: "Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a son, and they shall say for His name, 'God with us.'"...This, then, "Behold, a virgin shall conceive," signifies that a virgin should conceive without intercourse. For if she had had intercourse with any one whatever, she was no longer a virgin; but the power of God having come upon the virgin, overshadowed her, and caused her while yet a virgin to conceive." (St Justin the Martyr, First Apology, 33; c. 150 AD)

Thanks.

Thank you for referring to the correct text. John 10:34-36 is a reference to Psalm 82:6-7: 'I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.'

Thanks again for the courteous replies.

Let me try to go in order of the responses so I don't have to make multiple posts. A few things I said were not clear, unfortunately, and I take the blame for that. I don't have my notes with me regarding the point I was making about Justin's Apology, and I didn't look at them before posting. (Sorry.) So a few things could have happened: I imagined what I said, I didn't remember what I was talking about entirely, or I was right but didn't articulate myself clearly. God willing I will explain my point later if you want, but for now I'm just going to say no, the responses you gave me (while interesting to read) did not address the claim I was trying to make. God willing I'll clarify it later, but that's the reason I'm not responding to your replies now--they don't deal with the issue I had in mind.

The Qur'an is the word of God. There is similarity to the way the author of John uses this phrase and the understanding in Islam. But we don't understand "the Word" of God to have any power on its own, consciousness, awareness, omniscience and omnipresence and power over the world like we say God has. I can't say I fully understand the idea of "uncreated Word" but it's probably similar to your understand with the exception that it does not make it God. The Word doesn't create; God creates. The Word was with God I agree, but not that the word was God. And if that doesn't make sense, it's my fault and I'm sorry.

I'd like to add, though, a reference to a Psalm where David calls to God, "Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path." (Didn't look it up, so if I mixed up the words it's my fault.) I take this to mean that the word is the guidance or a means of maintaining the straight path. As in the Qur'an, This is the Book; in it is guidance sure, without doubt, to those who fear Allah; . Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that it's also John's Gospel where Jesus peace be upon him says, I am the way, the truth and the light. And of course it's this Gospel which calls Jesus peace be upon him the Word . So of course there is a similarity in the understanding. (And it's beautiful, isn't it?) But not identity, and Islam is actually clear that the Qur'an is not God, nor is God Jesus pbuh. And the Qur'an rejects the Christian understanding of sonship. (Not to debate the issue, just stating the perspective.)

Next, when I said that Jesus pbuh reportedly said that all men are gods... I screwed up again. The Bible reference given was what I had intended (I'm sorry I botched it). Christian2 called it a misunderstanding, and perhaps it is. Don't go too heavy on me, I don't know too much about this verse, its commentaries, or misunderstandings by Muslims. I wrote more but just it just now. The only reason I brought this up was to support my opinion that "Son of God" is a title. I think we agree Jesus is not biologically a son, so the relationship is more metaphorical than literal. If we don't agree, I'm sorry I misrepresented you. I don't mean to quote Muslim arguments at you here, that's not my intention at all, but just to explain what I know/believe, and to get a better understanding of what you know/believe.

The Qur'an does not say God needs a wife to have a son. Adam pbuh was created without one, certainly. It says that God is exalted above such necessities of man in order to create what He will.

Muslims do believe in the virgin birth (as shown, it is in the Qur'an) and, that Mary (may God be pleased with her) and Jesus peace be upon him were not touched by sin at their births. There is a hadith that says the shaytaan touches all children at birth, except for Jesus the Messiah pbuh and his mother (ra). Shaytaan doesn't literally mean what you think of as "Satan" in Christianity, but more like the disobedience and rebellion of this world. Mary (ra) is one of 4 women named to be in Heaven, and is without a doubt the most respected woman in Islam. She even has a Surah named after her in the Qur'an (19). The Qur'an describes her as a pious and devoted servant of God.

Now again, I didn't reply to the Justin stuff. Inshallah I'll write later what I meant when I brought it up, and you can then reply. I understand it doesn't make sense right now. (And maybe it won't later either... )

Once again... I really appreciate the courteous replies. I'm not trying to offend here (with this post) or spark a debate, just lay some things on the table for mutual benefit.

Turgonian wrote:Thank you for referring to the correct text. John 10:34-36 is a reference to Psalm 82:6-7: 'I said, 'You are "gods"; you are all sons of the Most High.' But you will die like mere men; you will fall like every other ruler.'

Answering-Islam did a good article about what Jesus meant in John 10:34-36.

http://www.answering-islam.org.uk/Shamo ... _34-36.htm