Muslims, why would God declare Jesus to be His Son, and then deny this 600 yrs later?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MH84
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MH84

Guest
God declared Jesus was His only begotten Son:

At the Baptism of Jesus
Matthew 3
16 And when Jesus was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; 17 and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
Click to expand...
At the Transfiguration
Matthew 17:
1 And after six days Jesus took with him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain apart. 2 And he was transfigured before them, and his face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as light. 3 And behold, there appeared to them Moses and Elijah, talking with him. 4 And Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, it is well that we are here; if you wish, I will make three booths here, one for you and one for Moses and one for Elijah.” 5 He was still speaking, when lo, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." 6 When the disciples heard this, they fell on their faces, and were filled with awe. 7 But Jesus came and touched them, saying, “Rise, and have no fear.”
Click to expand...
clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm

Why does the Quran say this:
[18.4] And warn those who say: Allah has taken a son.
[18.5] They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers; a grievous word it is that comes out of their mouths; they speak nothing but a lie.
[18.6] Then maybe you will kill yourself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they do not believe in this announcement.
Click to expand...
quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=448502

Muslims believe God told this to Mohammed. Why would God go back on His word?

Some Muslims on this forum claim that the prophecy of Mohanmmed can be found in the Bible, they also have no problems with trying to use the bible to prove Christian doctrine wrong, so please answer why would God call Jesus His “beloved Son” and then tell Mohammed “they (those who claim Jesus is Son of God) speak nothing but a lie”.

Don’t say that the bible is corrupt because you have no problems using the bible to support your theories. Furthermore, even if you do claim corruptions, how is it that you know which parts aer corrupt and which pars arent? You are just using the parts that suit your own belief.
 
Jesus (pbuh) is not the only “son of God” mentioned in the Bible:

Jacob is God’s son and firstborn: “Israel is my son, even my firstborn” Exodus 4:22.

Solomon is God’s son “He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son”: 2 Samuel 7:13-14.

Ephraim is God’s firstborn: “for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn.” Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God’s firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?).

Adam is the son of God “Adam, which was the son of God.” Luke 3:38.

Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: “Ye are the children of the LORD your God” Deuteronomy 14:1. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God” Romans 8:14. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:” John 1:12. “That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;” Philippians 2:15. “Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: … now are we the sons of God” 1 John 3:1-2. “When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?” Job 38:7. “Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,” Job 2:1. “Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD,” Job 1:6. “when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,” Genesis 6:4. “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair” Genesis 6:2

And was Jesus the only begotten Son of God? (with a capital ‘S’ in the word ‘Son’ even!) … Read Psalms 2:7

"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."
 
We are “adopted” sons of God. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:
14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up,
15 that whoever believes in him may have eternal life."
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
17 For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
Click to expand...
clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm

How could the world be saved through a prophet? Jesus is more than a prophet.

I forgot to include: please no attacks on Mohammed or insults to their religion. Let our doctrines and their doctrines speak for themselves. Thanks
 
My question is, how could you trust one man 600 years after the event to give you an accurate account of what happened on Calvary? A man with with a clear agenda who we know had also been in contact with Arian and Gnostic Christians. Trust one man, or 12? I’d rather trust Jesus’ Apostles, than Allah’s Apostle.
 
Semper_Fi said:
Trust one man, or 12? I’d rather trust Jesus’ Apostles, than Allah’s Apostle.
Click to expand...
Christians do indeed trust the testimony of just one man… and his name was Paul.

Assuming that he did indeed see a vision while on the road to Damascus, then how are Christians so certain that it was divine in nature and not something else?
 
hamba2han said:
Christians do indeed trust the testimony of just one man… and his name was Paul.

Assuming that he did indeed see a vision while on the road to Damascus, then how are Christians so certain that it was divine in nature and not something else?
Click to expand...
Jn 1:1
*1:* In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
 
hamba2han said:
Christians do indeed trust the testimony of just one man… and his name was Paul.

Assuming that he did indeed see a vision while on the road to Damascus, then how are Christians so certain that it was divine in nature and not something else?
Click to expand...
No, Paul was just one of the disciples of Jesus.

Please read Acts 14 (look at the humility of Paul, and his desperation to preach the message of God, not himself):
11 And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lycaonian, “The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!” 12 Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, they called Hermes. 13 And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was in front of the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the people. 14 But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying, 15** "Men, why are you doing this? We also are men, of like nature with you, and bring you good news, that you should turn from these vain things to a living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them.**
Click to expand...
In Acts 15, Paul was faced with opposition by Judaising Christians, so he let the decision be decided in the Council of Jerusalem (he didnt just form his own sect):
15 1 But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.
Click to expand...
clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/index.htm
 
hamba2han said:
Christians do indeed trust the testimony of just one man… and his name was Paul.
Click to expand...
Paul was one of the New Testament writers. So it is not just Paul alone that Christians trust.
hamba2han said:
Assuming that he did indeed see a vision while on the road to Damascus, then how are Christians so certain that it was divine in nature and not something else?
Click to expand...
He was blinded in the incident and the priest in the temple corroborate this by healing him. This is in line with the healing of spirtual blindness. He was spiritual blind but was healed because of his encounter with Jesus, and of his accepting him. Healing of spiritual blindness is one of the main themes of Jesus mission. … I come so that the blind can see. … If you may this is a miracle.

The rest of Paul’s writing should be tested and discerned whether they support the Gospels and the other reports of the apostles. Paul’s life after the conversion also must be scrutinized whether he got the fruits of the spirit (for a tree is recognized by its fruit). Whom Paul worked with is also important to note.

All in all he passed these scrutinizations.
 
hamba2han said:
Christians do indeed trust the testimony of just one man… and his name was Paul.

Assuming that he did indeed see a vision while on the road to Damascus, then how are Christians so certain that it was divine in nature and not something else?
Click to expand...
Because we know how Paul lived out the remainder of his life. He preached the word of God and died for doing so.

Mohammed on the other hand spread his word through violent actions.

That’s how we *know.😉 *
 
MH84 said:
God declared Jesus was His only begotten Son:

Why does the Quran say this:

Quote:
[18.4] And warn those who say: Allah has taken a son.
[18.5] They have no knowledge of it, nor had their fathers; a grievous word it is that comes out of their mouths; they speak nothing but a lie.
[18.6] Then maybe you will kill yourself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they do not believe in this announcement.
Click to expand...
Hi

Jesus was a Jew who believed in OTBible which has a common usage of " Son of God" for Beloved One of GodAllahYHWH in symbolic sense not literal or physical, it became wrong when the Catholics/Protestants started taking this up literally and physically. Quran has only reinstated the truth in the NTBible.And that was very reasonable and rational.

Thanks
 
Why does the writer of the Quran reject Jesus’ title as Son of God?

Does he reject it because he thinks it is physical? yes because the writer candidly writes : how can Allah have a son if he has no wife?

hence it is the faulty human reasoning of the Quran’s author that lead to this rejection.
 
Actually, the Qur’an makes no such reasoning; in fact a careful reading of its refutation of the divine sonship (in 4:171) will show that it cannot possibly intend to mean a physical son.

*Say not ‘Three’, cease! That is better for you, (for) God is but one deity. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a Son. (*4:171)

The important part is ‘God is but one deity’; which in Arabic is ‘Allahu ilahun wahid’. *Allah *means God, which I’m sure we all know, but *ilah *doesn’t mean deity in the sense of having divine properties, but rather any object of worship, or object in which divine attributes are ascribed. In the Qur’an it refers to any object that is worshipped separately (such as the three hypostases of the Trinity). And *wahid *means ‘one’, but not one as in ‘only’ (that is, ahad, which is the word the Qur’an uses in every occasion but this one when described God’s oneness (and there’s a very good reason for this), such as 112:1), but rather ‘one’ as in counting (one, two, three).

Now *Allah *is a word which is singular by definition, so you’d be making a very superfluous statement by saying it is one (wahid) ilah, numerically; which is why the Qur’an never says this, it just sounds bizarre. But with Christianity an exception is made, since they happen to have very bizarre beliefs about God (I don’t mean that in a derogatory fashion, just pointing out they’re very unusual), claiming **internal **distinction within One God as they do with the Trinity. Thus in this case saying God is *ahad *wouldn’t be contrary to their claims, since Christians still believe there is only one God, but using *wahid *would contradict that claim.

So to get back to the divine sonship, what this means is that for the Qur’an to vouch for God’s **internal **oneness by saying it’s far beyond God’s transcendent majesty that He should have a Son; shows that ‘Son’ is intended to mean *inside *the Godhead, not outside of it. Thus, the Qur’an must understand that Christians believe Jesus to be part of God’s being Himself, not external to God; therefore it cannot possibly be referring to a physical son.
 
hamba2han said:
Christians do indeed trust the testimony of just one man… and his name was Paul.

Assuming that he did indeed see a vision while on the road to Damascus, then how are Christians so certain that it was divine in nature and not something else?
Click to expand...
Dear Hamba2han and Paarsurrey,

Since you both has the idea that Paul was a fake apostle, can you show us any single teaching of Paul which is inconsistent with the teaching of the apostle? At least Paul’s claim that he saw Jesus and was blinded was confirmed by Ananias who was expressly mentioned as one of Jesus’ apostle, eventhough not part of the inner circle of 12. Definitely, Paul was not a self-proclaimed apostle. Paul’s follower also heard the voice of Jesus but did not see the apparation. Paul wrote a great deal of Christology through his letters, and confirmed by John in both the gospel and the letters.

On the other hand, since you both has the same idea about Paul. Please tell us the source in which you conclude that Paul was a fake apostle. It will be interesting to see how many people try to make money by publishing “unusual” topics knowing that it would not change anything, but trigger people’s attention and ultimately money. Geez… I guess you guys believe that Dan Brown had seen the angel of Gabriel before publishing his book.
 
Kadaveri said:
Actually, the Qur’an makes no such reasoning; in fact a careful reading of its refutation of the divine sonship (in 4:171) will show that it cannot possibly intend to mean a physical son.

*Say not ‘Three’, cease! That is better for you, (for) God is but one deity. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a Son. (*4:171)

The important part is ‘God is but one deity’; which in Arabic is ‘Allahu ilahun wahid’. *Allah *means God, which I’m sure we all know, but *ilah *doesn’t mean deity in the sense of having divine properties, but rather any object of worship, or object in which divine attributes are ascribed. In the Qur’an it refers to any object that is worshipped separately (such as the three hypostases of the Trinity). And *wahid *means ‘one’, but not one as in ‘only’ (that is, ahad, which is the word the Qur’an uses in every occasion but this one when described God’s oneness (and there’s a very good reason for this), such as 112:1), but rather ‘one’ as in counting (one, two, three).

Now *Allah *is a word which is singular by definition, so you’d be making a very superfluous statement by saying it is one (wahid) ilah, numerically; which is why the Qur’an never says this, it just sounds bizarre. But with Christianity an exception is made, since they happen to have very bizarre beliefs about God (I don’t mean that in a derogatory fashion, just pointing out they’re very unusual), claiming **internal **distinction within One God as they do with the Trinity. Thus in this case saying God is *ahad *wouldn’t be contrary to their claims, since Christians still believe there is only one God, but using *wahid *would contradict that claim.

So to get back to the divine sonship, what this means is that for the Qur’an to vouch for God’s **internal **oneness by saying it’s far beyond God’s transcendent majesty that He should have a Son; shows that ‘Son’ is intended to mean *inside *the Godhead, not outside of it. Thus, the Qur’an must understand that Christians believe Jesus to be part of God’s being Himself, not external to God; therefore it cannot possibly be referring to a physical son.
Click to expand...
Im sorry Kad, but none of this really applies to Christianity does it? What your stating is in the Quran, which we deem to be full of lies, therefore why would we believe anything in it?
Clearly, we dont believe in the quran, so why do muslims keep pushing it on us as the truth?
 
I’m sorry, but to claim that the Catholics doctored the New Testament is totally unsubstantiated.

First off, there’s no evidence from a credible historical source within the 1st century AD that suggests that the Apostles preached the wrong message. No one has ever found a document earlier than even the Gospel of John which posits a ‘correct’ view of Jesus’ life (the Gospel of Thomas and Peter, for example, are later forgeries). In fact, the first major heresy that the early Church faced was Docetism. The Docetists believed that Jesus was GOD but that He couldn’t have also been human - He just took the illusion of a body. So the very first people to disagree with the Christians disagreed with Jesus’ humanity and NOT His divinity!

And within the Gospels themselves Jesus claims to be God - literally. He have the authority to forgive sins and he claims to be “YHWH” in John 8:58. So, you’re forced to believe that the Gospel writers were lying about Jesus’ identity.

But clearly to believe that presupposes an enormous deal of arrogance. Are we really to say that the men and women who knew Jesus personally - who were so touched by His life and ministry - were the ones that spread terrible blasphemous lies about Him? He must have been a pretty terrible prophet and teacher then, if His own disciples went around preaching that He was God!
 
Also, in response to Paarsurrey’s comment that the Quran reinforces the New Testament, that’s simply not true. As I showed in a little detail below, Jesus claimed to be God in the New Testament, whereas in the Quran it is explicitly stated that he was nothing more than a prophet.

Also, the men that Jesus sent out to preach about Him - his closest friends - taught that he was divine. So the Quran is in direct conflict with the New Testament and with the testimony of the early Christian Church, and it’s also written hundreds of years later. I’d put my money on the New Testament for being more historically accurate, and so would any objective historian.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Please access and read:
comparative-religion.com/…ne_conspiracy/

by Mr.A. Victor Garaffa on Paul. He is a Christian research scholar .

A lot of interesting reading material.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Dear Paarsurrey,

Geez, I really need your help in playing with the internet. Could you just type the exact web address of your source. I could not get into.

Let us suppose to take Victor Garaffa’s work. Please tell us why do you think that Garaffa is correct, on top of hundreds other Christian scholars. What is your conclusion comparing Garaffa’s idea against hundreds of other? Do you think that Garaffa is correct only because he said different things than others? Objectively, you must see both sides of the story before making conclusions. Therefore, I always open to your reference, eventhough other members consider you were spamming, I do not.
 
paarsurrey said:
Hi

Jesus was a Jew who believed in OTBible which has a common usage of " Son of God" for Beloved One of GodAllahYHWH in symbolic sense not literal or physical, it became wrong when the Catholics/Protestants started taking this up literally and physically. Quran has only reinstated the truth in the NTBible.And that was very reasonable and rational.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Paarsurrey, thanks for your post. I have two questions about your post:

1 Why then does the Quran reject the title of Son of God in relation to Jesus, if the title is merely “symbolic”? In other words, why is the Quran so defensive about not using the title in relation to Jesus?

2 How can the term “only begotten Son” or “only Son” not be taken literally (also remember Jesus says this about Himself from His own mouth in John 3:16)? If Jesus was only a prophet Jesus would be a son of God, not **the only **Son.

Please respond
 
swariffin said:
Dear Paarsurrey,

Geez, I really need your help in playing with the internet. Could you just type the exact web address of your source. I could not get into.

Let us suppose to take Victor Garaffa’s work. Please tell us why do you think that Garaffa is correct, on top of hundreds other Christian scholars. What is your conclusion comparing Garaffa’s idea against hundreds of other? Do you think that Garaffa is correct only because he said different things than others? Objectively, you must see both sides of the story before making conclusions. Therefore, I always open to your reference, eventhough other members consider you were spamming, I do not.
Click to expand...
Hi

I thank you for appreciating me and having good opinion for me. I also thank others who disagree with me. We all believe what we have found to be truth according to our own mindset and are researching for still more truth, sitll more truth, sitll more truth …never ending truth, as truth is an attribute of God.

If you have not been able to access, please try the following:

wapipedia.org/wikipedia/mobiletopic.aspx?cur_title=Paul_of_Tarsus

The Pauline Conspiracy

comparative-religion.com/articles/pauline_conspiracy/

I think the rest of your question should be answered when you have read the article.

Thanks
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top