Can Allah be called Father?

[StBenMom]

It means a lot of them do ritual out of fear and obligation but don’t really love God in their hearts. I thought the meaning of this was clear to most Christians.

Please stop being a “smart alec”, OK? I know VERY well what those lines of Scripture mean. I want to know what they have to do with the question in the original post and you know it. Not only do you copy and paste portions of Scripture to fit your agenda, but now, you’re doing with my posts, too.
Is it even possible for you to give us a straight answer??? “Can Allah be called Father??” Yes or No will do.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Please stop being a “smart alec”, OK? I know VERY well what those lines of Scripture mean. I want to know what they have to do with the question in the original post and you know it. Not only do you copy and paste portions of Scripture to fit your agenda, but now, you’re doing with my posts, too.
Is it even possible for you to give us a straight answer??? “Can Allah be called Father??” Yes or No will do.

I was responding to this question:

“Would you say that most Muslims love Allah as much as they respect and fear him? Christians above all love God, then respect and fear him, I think.”

And I gave an answer from the Bible as to nature of the worship practices among many of them. So of course God can be called Father, I was simply explaining why Muslims don’t often do it.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

Please stop being a “smart alec”, OK? I know VERY well what those lines of Scripture mean. I want to know what they have to do with the question in the original post and you know it. Not only do you copy and paste portions of Scripture to fit your agenda, but now, you’re doing with my posts, too.
Is it even possible for you to give us a straight answer??? “Can Allah be called Father??” Yes or No will do.

Maybe, not being Christian, FaithofAbraham doesn’t comprehend how we understand these lines. He sees the words themselves and to him they explain what he means but using them in this way confuses us more.??

 

[ralphinal]

If Jesus was only a prophet, why not call God Father as he taught? Even the Jesus Seminar people claim that “Our Father” are the only two authentic words of Christ in the Gospels.

If Allah has 100 names, and 99 are listed, and father is not one, why not?

This flies in the face of Jesus. He told the Apsotles that they were NO LONGER SLAVES (Allah’s favorite term for men) but friends. He taught us to see God as Father, and even more, as Daddy.

Why is there a divergence of doctrine?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Maybe, not being Christian, FaithofAbraham doesn’t comprehend how we understand these lines. He sees the words themselves and to him they explain what he means but using them in this way confuses us more.??

I understand how Christians use the verses, same way I use them. It’s like when you pray and go through the ritual and Praise God/Allah! and all that, but don’t really feel it in your heart, you are just doing it out of obligation or for show to be seen of men.

 

[inJESUS]

Where did the flesh and **seed of David **

come from if not from Mary’s body? seed in lineage, not sperm.

If Jesus created Mary’s flesh, and Mary’s flesh was used to **create **

orthodox

and **David’s flesh was used to **create ****Jesus, innovation.

Not David’s sperm and Mary’s egg, but David’s sperm and Bathsheba’s egg.

Lord have mercy…how many people gave birth to Jesus? 3?

the same applies here, it meas He is created. Innovation.

[/QUOTE]

 

[FaithofAbraham]

seed in lineage, not sperm.

 

[inJESUS]

who said the flesh was taken from anyone in the first place?why do yu assume that God cannot come as a man without taking the flesh of someone?

Two gave birth to Jesus, Bathsheba and Mary.

giving birth is orthodox. Creating is not.

John 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

no, says Jesus.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

who said the flesh was taken from anyone in the first place?why do yu assume that God cannot come as a man without taking the flesh of someone?

What do you suppose this means then, if flesh was not taken from David?

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

[inJESUS]

What do you suppose this means then, if flesh was not taken from David?

so you agree that God can come as a man without taking someones’ body?

Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

 

[FaithofAbraham]

so you agree that God can come as a man without taking someones’ body?

seed of David : i already gave my interpretation in the other thread. Add to it the interpretation of Mary’s lineage.

according to flesh does not mean “daddy”. It means in humanity. the Word came to Mary, David’s dauther, in humanity/as a human/according to humanity.

Flesh in scriptures, especialy the NT, is talken about in terms of humanity.

God either dwells in an existing human from David’s seed or creates a new human from David’s seed to dwell in, I don’t see a whole lot of other options left. David was promised that his son would be king, either immediate or later generations, so you have to have some flesh taken from David or his progeny. It’s unavoidable to fulfill prophecy, you can’t bypass it.

But aside from all that, I think the doctrine as you describe it makes the human body and nature of Jesus sound like a Golem and minimizes him as a man, like his human nature is just there for some temporary role-playing then Jesus goes back to being God and the human nature is thrown aside. That’s what really turns me off Trinity, far more than the idolatry concerns.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

God either dwells in an existing human from David’s seed or creates a new human from David’s seed to dwell in, I don’t see a whole lot of other options left. David was promised that his son would be king, either immediate or later generations, so you have to have some flesh taken from David or his progeny. It’s unavoidable to fulfill prophecy, you can’t bypass it.

But aside from all that, I think the doctrine as you describe it makes the human body and nature of Jesus sound like a Golem and minimizes him as a man, like his human nature is just there for some temporary role-playing then Jesus goes back to being God and the human nature is thrown aside. That’s what really turns me off Trinity, far more than the idolatry concerns.

Mary and her husband Joseph (he was not Jesus’ natural father but in Jewish law Jesus was considered his son) were of the ‘house of David’. Therefore Jesus was a son (descendant) of David. God the Son, called ‘the Word’ in John’s gospel, took on a human nature in Mary’s womb. After Jesus rose from the dead, his body was ‘glorified’, changed in some way, but Jesus, who is a divine person, still has his human nature.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Mary and her husband Joseph (he was not Jesus’ natural father but in Jewish law Jesus was considered his son) were of the ‘house of David’. Therefore Jesus was a son (descendant) of David. God the Son, called ‘the Word’ in John’s gospel, took on a human nature in Mary’s womb. After Jesus rose from the dead, his body was ‘glorified’, changed in some way, but Jesus, who is a divine person, still has his human nature.

In what way is God’s Word considered to be Son of the Father God?

 

[ralphinal]

In what way is God’s Word considered to be Son of the Father God?

Simple, follow the Gospel of John

In the Beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God
Through him God made all things
There is nothing that was made without him

Skip to John 1:14
The word became man and dwelt among us. We saw his glory the glory which he received as the Father’s only Son.

We understand fully that Jesus is the Word and the Son. Same person, different title.

 

[inJESUS]

God either dwells in an existing human from David’s seed or creates a new human from David’s seed to dwell in, I don’t see a whole lot of other options left.

so you believe God cannot come to earth unless He takes somebody’s body. He is just unable right? He decides to come to earth and finds Himself in need of a dead body otherwise He cannot come right?

David was promised that his son would be king, either immediate or later generations, so you have to have some flesh taken from David or his progeny. It’s unavoidable to fulfill prophecy, you can’t bypass it.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

Simple, follow the Gospel of John

In the Beginning was the Word
And the Word was with God
And the Word was God
Through him God made all things
There is nothing that was made without him

Skip to John 1:14
The word became man and dwelt among us. We saw his glory the glory which he received as the Father’s only Son.

We understand fully that Jesus is the Word and the Son. Same person, different title.

I know it says it, but I want to know how you think Jesus is Son of God. Is he just a spiritual child of God like other believers? Is he product of a Zeus-like god mating with a mortal woman? Or if something else, how?

 

[FaithofAbraham]

so you believe God cannot come to earth unless He takes somebody’s body. He is just unable right? He decides to come to earth and finds Himself in need of a dead body otherwise He cannot come right?

yes you can bypass the biology you are focusing on and i gave many examples…and if you insist, then it was fulfilled through Mary. If you can prove beyond a doubt she does not fit, then we’ll discuss again. 2 options so far, yet you prefer God taking the body of a dead child created by a couple, resurrecting some centuries later in a yet another womb, and so God being created by David and a woman. At least my 2 choices do not oppose scriptures, yours do in addition to questioning His omnipotence.

God has to create a new body according to the flesh of David, and God had to create a new human spirit while in that body in order to be tempted of sin as we are. The Bible is saying all that, I didn’t invent it. So you can’t bypass it unless you say the Bible is wrong and your tradition is right.

If Jesus got the flesh of Mary his mother to live in it as her son, why couldn’t he get the flesh of David his father to live in it as his son? See, there is no difference.

 

[ralphinal]

I know it says it, but I want to know how you think Jesus is Son of God. Is he just a spiritual child of God like other believers? Is he product of a Zeus-like god mating with a mortal woman? Or if something else, how?

He is more than a spiritual child. He was not created like we were. It is not as base as Zeus raping Europa, either. The essence of Christ is begotten of the Father from the beginning of time. He is begotten as the Son. As a flame is created when one candle is touched to the flame of another.

His humanity was created through a unique event in human history. By the Power of God using a mechanism that no man can comprehend, a virgin conceived a child. It was a miracle. There is no way to explain it.

Here is the catch. If you deny the miracle of the Virgin birth, you are either denying the power of God to do such a thing or you are denying the existance of Christ. If he existed, and God is not a liar, then the means by which he was concieved are a mystery.

 

[FaithofAbraham]

He is more than a spiritual child. He was not created like we were. It is not as base as Zeus raping Europa, either. The essence of Christ is begotten of the Father from the beginning of time. He is begotten as the Son. As a flame is created when one candle is touched to the flame of another.

His humanity was created through a unique event in human history. By the Power of God using a mechanism that no man can comprehend, a virgin conceived a child. It was a miracle. There is no way to explain it.

Here is the catch. If you deny the miracle of the Virgin birth, you are either denying the power of God to do such a thing or you are denying the existance of Christ. If he existed, and God is not a liar, then the means by which he was concieved are a mystery.

I don’t deny the Virgin Birth. If you say “The essence of Christ is begotten of the Father from the beginning of time.” then Christ did not exist before the time he was begotten, only God did, so he is not the same as God.

So I am asking, how can there be a Son who is God but was begotten of God therefore did not always exist as God?

 

[ralphinal]

I don’t deny the Virgin Birth. If you say “The essence of Christ is begotten of the Father from the beginning of time.” then Christ did not exist before the time he was begotten, only God did, so he is not the same as God.

So I am asking, how can there be a Son who is God but was begotten of God therefore did not always exist as God?

Now I understand the question better. When we say that he was begotten of the Father, we do not mean to imply that there was a time that he was not in existance. That means that he is of essence with the Father but he is Son, not Father. He is not a creation. Before time was, the Son was. This is part of the Trinitarian nature of God. No one can really explain it.