Evidence for God from Science

John 3:16 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Footnotes:
John 3:16 Or his only begotten Son

The word is monogenes.

We know that God does not beget like humans.

We say that the Christ or the Word was begotten from all eternity.

What does that mean exactly?

Thanks.

Christian2 wrote:John 3:16 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Footnotes:
John 3:16 Or his only begotten Son

The word is monogenes.

We know that God does not beget like humans.

We say that the Christ or the Word was begotten from all eternity.

What does that mean exactly?

Thanks.

I do not believe John 3:16 means Christ was created, which would clash with John 1:3 which states all things were created through Christ, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. Rather, I take it to mean of the same substance as God (i.e., divine).

I also just performed a Google and came across this article which aligns with my thoughts.

Don't forget to paste your final response.

Kurieuo wrote:

Christian2 wrote:John 3:16 (New International Version)

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Footnotes:
John 3:16 Or his only begotten Son

The word is monogenes.

We know that God does not beget like humans.

We say that the Christ or the Word was begotten from all eternity.

What does that mean exactly?

Thanks.

I do not believe John 3:16 means Christ was created, which would clash with John 1:3 which states all things were created through Christ, and without Him nothing was made that has been made. Rather, I take it to mean of the same substance as God (i.e., divine).

I also just performed a Google and came across this article which aligns with my thoughts.

Don't forget to paste your final response.

From the article:

"The analogy breaks down if you try to take it too far and teach, as some Christian cults (such as the Jehovah's Witnesses), that Jesus was literally "begotten" as in “produced” or “created” by God the Father."

This is what I am dealing with now, but not with a JW, but a Muslim.

They take Luke 1:

35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[c] the Son of God.

To mean that the text is saying God beget Jesus via some sort of sex -- begotten.

I have read that a better translation of monogenes is unique, or one of a kind. I am aware the same word is used for Isaac. He was one of a kind of unique because he was the child of promise.

Thanks.

Well... if he is interested to know what Christians believe, then he will find we are likeminded in strongly believing God did not have sex with Mary. He can push this belief all he wants, but he is not dealing with orthodox Christian beliefs in doing so.

As I understand, Muslims are repulsed in general by the idea that God would lower Himself to be associated with humanity at all. So there are a strong set of beliefs to confront here.

To help this person understand the title Son of God, you might want to put forward certain "son of" titles given to people in history. For example, I've heard Abu Bakar was called "son of sword" or to that effect. Does this mean a sword copulated with a woman, or is such a title more telling something about the nature of this person?

Kurieuo wrote:Well... if he is interested to know what Christians believe, then he will find we are likeminded in strongly believing God did not have sex with Mary. He can push this belief all he wants, but he is not dealing with orthodox Christian beliefs in doing so.

As I understand, Muslims are repulsed in general by the idea that God would lower Himself to be associated with humanity at all. So there are a strong set of beliefs to confront here.

To help this person understand the title Son of God, you might want to put forward certain "son of" titles given to people in history. For example, I've heard Abu Bakar was called "son of sword" or to that effect. Does this mean a sword copulated with a woman, or is such a title more telling something about the nature of this person?

Well, Kurieuo, I have probably tried every approach to reach Muslims. I don't know that I or any other Christian has had much success. I try the gentle approach; being harsh does not work no matter who you are trying to reach.

One thing that surprises me -- yes, I still get surprised, LOL -- is the way they talk about Jesus in a negative way.

I made a comment to a Christian that we have an awesome God. This is what a Muslim said in reply:

A god that was born, what an awesome god!!!
A god before he was born he used to live in his own urine and excretion, what an awesomegod!!!
A god that was not supposed to have a father has two geneologies in Bible, what an awesomegod!!!
A god that was disrespectful to his elders, what an awesome god!!!
A god that was disrespectful to his mother, what an awesome god!!!
A god that had come to create division between father and son, what an awesome god!!!
A god who had no power to do anything, what an awesome god!!!
A god who had no knowledge of hereafter, what an awesome god!!!
A god who did not know seasons, what an awesome god!!!
A god that wept, what an awesome god!!!
A god that got thirsted, what an awesome god!!!
A god that was tempted by the Devil, what an awesome god!!!
A god that prayed to God, what an awesome god!!!
A god that was racist, what an awesome god!!!
A god who was a man, what an awesome god!!!
A god who was dependent on others, what an awesome god!!!
A god who died, what an awesome god!!!
Dead god??????

I answered all of his points above, but he rejected them all.

What surprises me is that Muslims are not supposed to put down a prophet. The way they get around it is to put down the "Biblical" Jesus, thinking that Jesus in the NT is not the real Jesus, so they see nothing wrong with it.

But nothing stops me from trying.

Thanks for your response, Kurieuo.