"Not my God. Not my Jesus."

[Pancho Frijoles]

I have Muslim friends.

I'm very happy to learn that you have Muslim friends.
As you know, the possibility of your friends to die as Muslims, without converting to Christianity, is very high (approximately, the same likelihood you have to die as Christian, without converting to Islam).

So, do you think that your Muslim friends worship the same God you worship? If not, do they worship a false God? If so, do they worship a demon, Beelzebub? If so, how can you be friend of a devil-worshiper?

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Hornets don’t evangelize, and you’ve stirred up a hornet’s nest.

Jesus preached the gospel. That’s not what they’re doing. Not even close.

Please try to solve the scenario of Dr Steinman, the Jewish dentist who deceived you into a costly and unnecessary dental procedure.
You and I have played scenarios before. :)
So far, no Forum member have dared to even give it a try.
What's the use of apologetics, if we don't even dare (or care) to approach an scenario we could face in real life?

 

[Matthias]

Please try to solve the scenario of Dr Steinman, the Jewish dentist who deceived you into a costly and unnecessary dental procedure.

I’m not watching the thread and haven’t seen the scenario. A Jewish dentist who deceives his patient in the manner you’ve described is simply a Jewish criminal. (Replace “Jewish” with “Christian,” Muslim,” “Baha’i,” etc. and the person is still just a criminal.)

You and I have played scenarios before. :)
So far, no Forum member have dared to even give it a try.
What's the use of apologetics, if we don't even dare (or care) to approach an scenario we could face in real life?

Most forum members probably have little interest in the topic. Few members are posting in the thread (I haven’t counted) but once people go into debate* mode war is the way. Everyone will eventually move on to something else and few, if any, will have changed their mind.

* Debate is waging word war.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

I would suggest that rather than convincing anyone by his speech, even though He taught often in the synagogue and the temple precincts, it was His power and authority that convinced others as to Who He truly was.

People recognized Jesus was different, radically different. Somebody to be followed. Perhaps the Messiah.
If all Forum members were transported in a time machine to that time, we all would follow the same Yeshua of Nazareth... even if we kept our own ideas on his metaphysical nature.
So, we would see @Aunty Jane , @Brakelite, @Spyder, @Wrangler and Pancho Frijoles sitting at his feet, listening every single word. We would follow him everywhere. We would love Him.
And in all of this, our theological differences would cease to matter. Do you agree?

Even the demons all with unanimous unity declared Jesus the Son of God, thinking it was their time for their destruction. They totally knew Who He was.

Yes, but Jesus prohibited them to tell others, and even after witnessing those miracles, people were puzzled, not convinced about any particular theological position on who Jesus was. Let´s read:

In their synagogue there was a man with an unclean spirit. 24 And he cried out, “Leave us alone! What do You have to do with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are, the Holy One of God.”
25 Jesus rebuked him, saying, “Be silent and come out of him!” 26 When the unclean spirit had convulsed him and cried out with a loud voice, it came out of him.
27 They were all amazed, so that they questioned among themselves, “What is this? What new teaching is this? With authority He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.” 28 Immediately His fame spread everywhere throughout the region surrounding Galilee.

Jesus asked the disciples, who do people say that I am? Peter knew. The Son of the living God. People Jesus healed may not have been completely aware of Who He was, but Jesus didn't leave them in their ignorance.

Jesus didn't leave them in their ignorance?
Well, the apostles after Pentecost preached very basic things: that Jesus was the Messiah, was innocent, had been raised from the dead and would come again.
However, the point is not how much Jesus revealed about Himself eventually, but whether such knowledge was or not a condition for him to heal, forgive and save.

One thing is to profit from studying Theology at a good University for 5 years, and then get a Master and a Doctorate.
A very different thing is to give such theological knowledge any power for salvation.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

Yes, let's ignore truth in the pursuit of happy feelings of unity! Let's build our unity on a lie, and not on the Rock, Who truly makes us one.

Which lie?
That God is One, our Creator and Sustainer, All Good, All Powerful, All Merciful, All Wise? That He can forgive our sins if we come to Him repented? That we should love each other as Jesus commanded? Do you think this is a lie?
This is the foundation of unity.

****

My friend: In regard to your reference about building on the rock, building on the Rock means practicing what Jesus taught. The rock is not a creed. Please read with me:

Whoever comes to Me and hears My words and does them, I will show whom he is like: He is like a man who built a house, and dug deep, and laid the foundation on rock. When the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently against that house, but could not shake it, for it was founded on rock. But he who hears and does not obey is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation, against which the stream beat vehemently. Immediately it fell, and the ruin of that house was great.” (Luke 6:47-49)

​

So, if you and a Sikh man are doing what Jesus commanded, you are both building on the same foundation.

​

​

 

[Wrangler]

Please indicate where and when I'm playing word games, so that I can stop doing that.
I remember you once indicated that by saying that "son" had at least two meanings, I was playing with words.

Yes. I already indicated several ways you do this. Regarding word games of son, you added qualifiers that were not part of the question, which was unqualified.

“Do you have a son?” is a general question. Inserting qualifiers “legal” or “biological” was done for the game of falsely answering no. Let’s play.

You ask if there is a dog in the room that I am now typing. I insert a qualifier - but don’t share it with you. I intellectualize and internalize the qualifier. Convince myself I am answering (the qualified) question honestly.

“No, there is no (white) dog in the room I am now typing.” It is a lie because there is a dog in the room. She happens to be a black dog. The white dog is sick and staying in her kennel. Poor baby. Nothing like a sick dog. She’s been eating grass to make herself sick.

Christianity prides itself on truth and Christians pride themselves on having divine discernment of truth. The simple truth is there is a dog in my room. I’m sure you understand this. It’s just that the simple truth gets in the way of what you believe.

 

[Wrangler]

No, because as I have demostrated clearly, "son" has more than one meaning.
If you or @Wrangler can deny that "son" has more than one meaning, please present your argument.

You are invoking the fallacy of Strawman in logic. No one is denying that words have different senses. However, antonyms are not synonyms. In this context, the question is about existence.

Does a son of God exist?

The question is general, encapsulating ANY sense of the word.

Christian’s say yes. Muslims say no. Again. antonyms are not synonyms. Yes is not the same as no. They are essentially different.

 

[Wrangler]

I was taking about God's mercy towards you and me.…not talking about Jihadi terrorists

Essential difference?

 

[Wrangler]

If all Forum members were transported in a time machine to that time, we all would follow the same Yeshua of Nazareth... even if we kept our own ideas on his metaphysical nature.
So, we would see @Aunty Jane , @Brakelite, @Spyder, @Wrangler and Pancho Frijoles sitting at his feet, listening every single word. We would follow him everywhere. We would love Him.
And in all of this, our theological differences would cease to matter. Do you agree?

IF

If things were different they wouldn’t be the same. As it is, things are different, so they are not the same.

 

[Aunty Jane]

People recognized Jesus was different, radically different. Somebody to be followed. Perhaps the Messiah.
If all Forum members were transported in a time machine to that time, we all would follow the same Yeshua of Nazareth... even if we kept our own ideas on his metaphysical nature.
So, we would see @Aunty Jane , @Brakelite, @Spyder, @Wrangler and Pancho Frijoles sitting at his feet, listening every single word. We would follow him everywhere. We would love Him.
And in all of this, our theological differences would cease to matter. Do you agree?

No I personally do not agree because those who followed Jesus as his disciples accepted his teachings and followed them…..that creates no theological difference, since all would be on the same page (1Cor 1:10)….none would be called Muslims, Siks, Buddhists, Hindus or any other label…all would identify as “Christians”.

There is no unity without agreement…..in all these faiths, there is no agreement…..so don’t we have to ask why all these “religions” exist if there is just one God, teaching one truth, through a promised Messiah about whom he had foretold many details…..all of which clearly identified him. The Messiah was Jewish and he came once to lay a foundation of truth…..when he was to come again, it was to change the world.

Your prophet barely made a ripple….and only in his own land. Jesus said his followers would be “witnesses of him to the most distant part of the earth”…..there was one Jesus, who was sent to earth as a human to die for the sins we inherited from Adam. He was not to come again in the flesh and die a second time.

When he comes as judge…..the whole world will know that they will be accountable for what they have done…or what they failed to do…..and with the rulership of his Kingdom, Rev 21:2-4 will have its fulfillment.

 

[Brakelite]

People recognized Jesus was different, radically different. Somebody to be followed. Perhaps the Messiah.
If all Forum members were transported in a time machine to that time, we all would follow the same Yeshua of Nazareth... even if we kept our own ideas on his metaphysical nature.
So, we would see @Aunty Jane , @Brakelite, @Spyder, @Wrangler and Pancho Frijoles sitting at his feet, listening every single word. We would follow him everywhere. We would love Him.
And in all of this, our theological differences would cease to matter. Do you agree?

What about Judas? He believed. In fact he believed so much he wanted to hasten Jesus's rise to the throne and take an active part in the inevitable rebellion... As did most of the other disciples. It wasn't until after the resurrection and Pentecost that they finally realized His true identity and purpose.

Yes, but Jesus prohibited them to tell others, and even after witnessing those miracles, people were puzzled, not convinced about any particular theological position on who Jesus was

That's wasn't the reason Jesus was more inclined to hide Who He was. Read what happened after the leper "blazed abroad" (KJV) what Jesus had done. He wasn't able any more to openly enter town and minister to those who needed His healing power. One may ask, why heal and not just go ahead and die for them? Because very few people can think clearly and intelligently about spiritual truth when battling with crooking disease, possession by demons, and other emotional and physical crisis. Jesus knew what He was doing, but it wasn't too hide Who He was because it didn't matter. It mattered alright, truth always matters.

Jesus didn't leave them in their ignorance?
Well, the apostles after Pentecost preached very basic things: that Jesus was the Messiah, was innocent, had been raised from the dead and would come again.
However, the point is not how much Jesus revealed about Himself eventually, but whether such knowledge was or not a condition for him to heal, forgive and save.

It wasn't a condition for healing. You are right. And He even died for the sins of the whole world, "for while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us". But it absolutely is a salvation's issue, that we know precisely Who He is.
KJV John 4:23-24
23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

KJV 1 John 1:1-3
1 That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
2 (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us;)
3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.

KJV 1 John 1:5-7
5 This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
6 If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth:
7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

KJV 1 John 2:3-5
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.

Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out the Almighty unto perfection? Job 11:7.
We cannot by searching find out God, but He has revealed Himself in His Son, who is the brightness of the Father's glory and the express image of His person. If we desire a knowledge of God we must be Christlike.... Living a pure life through faith in Christ as a personal Saviour will bring to the believer a clearer, higher conception of God....
Eternal life is the reward that will be given to all who obey the two great principles of God's law—love to God and love to man. The first four commandments define and enjoin love to God; the last six, love to our fellow men. Obedience to these commands is the only evidence man can give that he possesses a genuine, saving knowledge of God. Love for God is demonstrated by love for those for whom Christ has died. While enshrouded in the pillar of cloud, Christ gave directions regarding this love. Distinctly and clearly He laid down the principles of heaven as rules that His chosen people were to observe in their dealings one with another. These principles Christ lived out in His life of humanity. In His teaching He presented the motives that should govern the lives of His followers.

"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory." Colossians 1:27.
One cannot expect the true Christ to abide in him without a true knowledge of Who He is. Just any random guesswork or compromised and confused view of reality will not do.
There are many mysteries in the Word of God that we do not comprehend, and many of us are content to stop our investigation when we have just begun to receive a little knowledge concerning Christ. When there begins to be a little unfolding of the divine purposes to the mind, and we begin to obtain a slight knowledge of the character of God, we become satisfied and think that we have received about all the light that there is for us in the Word of God. But the truth of God is infinite. With painstaking effort we should work in the mines of truth, discovering the precious jewels that have been hidden.... Jesus meant just what He said when He directed His disciples to "search the Scriptures" (John 5:39). Searching means to compare scripture with scripture, and spiritual things with spiritual. We should not be satisfied with a superficial, random, generic, majority opinion as to what the knowledge of the true God should understand.

 

[Brakelite]

I have already explained the differences, but I will do it gladly again, and again as much as needed.
Literally speaking, God has no sons, and you know it.
When the Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, it is metaphorically.
Same when the Bible calls the angels "sons of God" in Job. Literally speaking, the angels are not sons of God.
Same when the Bible calls humans "gods" or "children of God". Literally speaking, we are not gods, nor sons of God.

Conclusion: In the Bible, "son of God" or "sons of God" are titles meant to be understood spiritually, metaphorically. In the Quran, God speaks against a literal interpretation of that. God has no sons. So, there is no contradiction.

The Son of God, Jesus, is not a metaphor.
Should we be surprised that "modern scholars" would downgrade the literal begotten status of the Son of God to nothing more than a metaphor?

The Bible refers to Christ as God’s Son at least 120 times. Forty-eight times using the phrase “Son of God.”
Regarding the genuineness of Christ’s Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” four times, “the firstbegotten” once and God’s “holy child” twice.
Not once does the Bible even so much as hint that Jesus is only a Son in a metaphorical sense. The Bible means what it says and says what it means.
Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. These verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.

The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation.
The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was brought forth/born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.
“I Came Out from God”
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:
G1831 (ἐξέρχομαι-exerchomai) – To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.
G2064 (ἔρχομαι-erchomai) – To come from one place to another.
John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] AND came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.”
John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831-exercomai] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.”
Compare:
Matt 12:43-44 “When the unclean spirit is gone out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) ; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.”

So beware of anyone trying to deceive you and trick you into thinking Jesus merely "came out from the presence of the Father", but did not truly originate from the Father.
This is a lie from the devil.
It is true that the Son obviously left the presence of His Father and went out from His presence, but that is included. The focus is on Christ's origin in heaven, and that is His Father. The message here encompasses BOTH Christ originating from His Father, AND leaving the presence of the Father to be sent into this world.
Both concepts are clearly presented.


There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).
The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on.
Some say that Christ is a son only because of the virgin birth at Bethlehem, but if this were true, then John, when writing his Gospel (to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), made a serious mistake. This is because he did not even mention the birth of Jesus or the events of Bethlehem. The only thing in this respect he did say was that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). This must be the briefest of references to Christ’s incarnation that it is possible to make. If John had wanted to show that the only reason why Christ was called the Son of God was because of the virgin birth then surely he would have at least mentioned where the angel Gabriel visited Mary saying that the child she was going to bear would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). As it was he did not even mention it. The prime reason therefore for Christ being called the Son of God cannot be His birth at Bethlehem. There must be another reason.
The “signs” that John gave were signs of Christ’s divinity. Anyone can claim to be a son of God as a result of creation. The above overwhelming number of references to Jesus being not just a son, but the only begotten Son of God, must encompass far far more than a created being such as are angels.

 

[Johann]

The Son of God, Jesus, is not a metaphor.
Should we be surprised that "modern scholars" would downgrade the literal begotten status of the Son of God to nothing more than a metaphor?

The Bible refers to Christ as God’s Son at least 120 times. Forty-eight times using the phrase “Son of God.”
Regarding the genuineness of Christ’s Sonship, He is called the “only begotten” six times, “the firstborn” four times, “the firstbegotten” once and God’s “holy child” twice.
Not once does the Bible even so much as hint that Jesus is only a Son in a metaphorical sense. The Bible means what it says and says what it means.
Four verses say He was “begotten” prior to His incarnation so this cannot be applied to His birth on earth from Mary as some have chosen to believe. These verses say that He “proceeded forth from,” “came out from” or “camest forth from” the Father.

The evidence on this subject is overwhelming. Christ truly is the literal begotten Son of God who was brought forth from the Father before all creation.
The example verses below with the help of the Thayer dictionary also reveal that Jesus was brought forth/born of the Father before the world was, then much later, He came into the world.
“I Came Out from God”
Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon:
G1831 (ἐξέρχομαι-exerchomai) – To come forth from physically, arise from, to be born of.
G2064 (ἔρχομαι-erchomai) – To come from one place to another.
John 8:42 “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, you would love me: for I proceeded forth [G1831] AND came from God; neither came [G2064] I of myself, but he sent me.”
John 16:27-28 “For the Father himself loveth you, because you have loved me, and have believed that I came out [G1831-exercomai] from God. 28 I came forth [G1831] from the Father, and am come [G2064] into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.”
John 17:7-8 “Now they have known that all things whatsoever you have given me are of you. 8 For I have given unto them the words which you gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out [G1831] from you, and they have believed that you did send me.”
Compare:
Matt 12:43-44 “When the unclean spirit is gone out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest, and findeth none. 44 Then he saith, I will return into my house from whence I came out (G1831, ἐξέρχομαι exerchomai ) ; and when he is come, he findeth it empty, swept, and garnished.”

So beware of anyone trying to deceive you and trick you into thinking Jesus merely "came out from the presence of the Father", but did not truly originate from the Father.
This is a lie from the devil.
It is true that the Son obviously left the presence of His Father and went out from His presence, but that is included. The focus is on Christ's origin in heaven, and that is His Father. The message here encompasses BOTH Christ originating from His Father, AND leaving the presence of the Father to be sent into this world.
Both concepts are clearly presented.


There is overwhelming evidence in Scripture showing that Jesus claimed to be the Son of God. It would be far too much to comment upon in detail here. Suffice it to say that certain of the Jews regarded His claim as blasphemous (Mark 14:60-65 John 10:36). They said He was claiming to be God (John 5:18, 10:30-33). It was this claim of Sonship that He was challenged with at His trial (Matthew 26:63, Luke 22:70). The Jews said His claims made Him worthy of death (Mark 14:64, John 19:7, see also John 8:56-59). Jesus was mocked for claiming to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:40-43). It was on this point of Sonship with God that Satan challenged Christ in the wilderness (Matthew 4:3-6, Luke 4:3-9). Peter, when confessing Christ to be “the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16), was told by Jesus that it had not been “flesh and blood” that had revealed this to him but His Father in Heaven (Matthew 16:17). Jesus said very clearly that He was the Son of God (Matthew 16:16-17, John 3:16, 5:25-26, 9:35, 10:36, 11:4, 19:7). At His trial he claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 26:64, Mark 14:62, Luke 22:70-71). It was this claim that brought about the sentence of death against Him (Mark 14:64, John 19:7).
The demons also addressed Jesus as the Son of God (Matthew 8:29, Mark 3:11, 5:7, Luke 4:41). The man in the tombs possessed of a devil also called Christ the Son of God (Luke 8:27-29). The Roman centurion said he believed that Christ was the Son of God (Mark 15:39). The disciples confessed Christ to be the Son of God (Matthew 14:33, 16:16, John 1:49, 11:27). Philip (the evangelist) explained to the Ethiopian eunuch that Christ was the Son of God (Acts 8:37). The first thing Paul taught after his 'blindness' was that Christ is the Son of God (Acts 9:20). Paul’s continuing theme was that God had sent His Son into the world to die (Romans 1:4, 8:3, 32, 2 Corinthians 1:19, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:13 etc.). Not surprisingly, John's little letters, as does the book of Hebrews, constantly refer to Christ as the Son of God (1 John 3:8, 4:15, 5:5, 5:10, 5:12-13, 5:20, Hebrews 4:14, 6:6, 7:3, 10:29). That Christ is the Son of God was also the testimony of John the Baptist (John 1:32-34) – and so the list goes on.
Some say that Christ is a son only because of the virgin birth at Bethlehem, but if this were true, then John, when writing his Gospel (to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God), made a serious mistake. This is because he did not even mention the birth of Jesus or the events of Bethlehem. The only thing in this respect he did say was that the Word was made flesh (John 1:14). This must be the briefest of references to Christ’s incarnation that it is possible to make. If John had wanted to show that the only reason why Christ was called the Son of God was because of the virgin birth then surely he would have at least mentioned where the angel Gabriel visited Mary saying that the child she was going to bear would be called the Son of God (Luke 1:35). As it was he did not even mention it. The prime reason therefore for Christ being called the Son of God cannot be His birth at Bethlehem. There must be another reason.
The “signs” that John gave were signs of Christ’s divinity. Anyone can claim to be a son of God as a result of creation. The above overwhelming number of references to Jesus being not just a son, but the only begotten Son of God, must encompass far far more than a created being such as are angels.

The guy is promoting Islam on this Forum as a religion of "peace"

JESUS AS GOD’S SON: THE BIBLICAL DATA

In this post I will be listing all of the verses where Jesus is described as the Son of God. The purpose isn’t to exegete the meaning of the texts, but to simply provide a handy list of all the per…

answeringislamblog.wordpress.com

 

[Jesusfollower]

I have already explained the differences, but I will do it gladly again, and again as much as needed.
Literally speaking, God has no sons, and you know it.
When the Bible calls Jesus the Son of God, it is metaphorically.
Same when the Bible calls the angels "sons of God" in Job. Literally speaking, the angels are not sons of God.
Same when the Bible calls humans "gods" or "children of God". Literally speaking, we are not gods, nor sons of God.

Conclusion: In the Bible, "son of God" or "sons of God" are titles meant to be understood spiritually, metaphorically. In the Quran, God speaks against a literal interpretation of that. God has no sons. So, there is no contradiction.

Read John 17 full chapter, is clear Jesus is the son of God also a surprise in it for you if you read correctly, and understand the implications. the wisdom in the book of John is unsurpassed or equal to some books of the old testament. A lot is revealed in this chapter but people understand it not.

Peace

 

[Spyder]

It is good to consider the perspective of others….but the Jews in particular have an anti-Christ agenda….
They have a vested interest in alternative renderings, concerning the messiah. Hezekiah just doesn’t fit…

Strongs gives the definition of the word “āḇ” (father) as…..

1. father of an individual
2. of God as father of his people
3. head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan
4. ancestor

A father can be “head or founder of a household, group, family, or clan”…..so as the one who offered his life for those who would be his brethren, he fits the definition of a “father”…..and Christ‘s sacrifice gave eternal life to all who accept him as their savior….in that way he is an eternal father.

If you read my other post, I mentioned why there is no peace when Christ begins his reign…..King David prophesied that he would begin his rulership “in the midst of his enemies”……when he said the words of Matt 10:36, he was speaking about the conflict of divided families. Those who followed Christ, especially from Jewish households, received a hostile response. It took courage to stand up to such family opposition.

The peace that Christ brings to redeemed mankind comes after the final showdown between his father and his adversary. God’s kingdom of a thousand years will bring lasting peace to the whole human race.

It is good to research things, but sources are also important. Why consult sources that you know are hostile to Jesus as Messiah? Wouldn’t you expect those sources to be biased?

I pray the spirit leads you to a correct conclusion in this my friend. Sticky notes can be rewritten…

My dear Sister,

I expect bias from every opinion I see. That is a human trait that few can escape.

I see bias in translator's word choices, and I see bias in Strong's Dictionary as it focuses on how the KJV translators defined the source words rather than how the words were used by the original writers. Since context is king, some different words could have been used.

In the end, the written translation is not conclusive proof until God gives me the conviction which becomes my belief. My sticky note are rewritten when I realize they are questionable. I imagine I'll always have questionable ones.

There was a time when I was one of those "the bible said it, I believe it, and that settles it." God showed me my error in that. After studies of the culture of Israel, of the development of our bibles, and the beliefs of those who translated the words for us; I discovered I was placing far too much faith in man. My only resource for my beliefs was the Spirit of God. I still have the letters that I wrote to myself back when it happened the first time. I was so shocked by getting the answer that I had to document it for myself.

I went from being a "bible expert" back to a student again. Now, I appreciate those who cause me to ponder - whether atheist, Jew, or some other denomination. The bible is still a resource, but a certain translation is a subset of "the bible."

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

You are invoking the fallacy of Strawman in logic. No one is denying that words have different senses. However, antonyms are not synonyms. In this context, the question is about existence.

Does a son of God exist?

The question is general, encapsulating ANY sense of the word.

Then such question, as many others that encompass ANY sense of a word, can be answered "Yes" and "No".
This is not a word game, but a wise and candid answer.
The Bible has plenty of examples of this (see below). So, we must dig into the context, and add qualifiers in our question or answer, as demanded by the context.

• Should we love the world? Yes and No. It depends on what "world" means.
• Are the wages of sin death? Yes and No. It depends on what "death" means
• Does God hates the wicked? Yes and No. It depends on what "hates" means.
• Has someone seen the Father? Yes and No. It depends on what "seen" means.
• Is the fire of hell eternal? Yes and No. It depends on what "eternal" means
• Can man achieve righteousness? Yes and No. It depends on what "achieve" means.
• Is the Holy Spirit a Person? Yes and No. It depends on what "Person" means.
• Are we justified by faith, without works? Yes and No. It depends on what "justified" means.
• Can we lose our salvation? Yes and No. It depends on what "salvation" means.
• Is @Wrangler a son of God? Yes and No. It depends on what "son" means.

 

[Wrangler]

There is no unity without agreement

That's a great point AJ!

@Pancho Frijoles takes the position that people are united even though they disagree. He continues to take theory as primary over reality. In theory, it'd be great if people were united. It's an ideal. But it is not reality.

Hell, even people who agree in theory cannot agree in practice. See Democrat Party and who should be their nominee for President.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

The guy is promoting Islam on this Forum as a religion of "peace"

JESUS AS GOD’S SON: THE BIBLICAL DATA

In this post I will be listing all of the verses where Jesus is described as the Son of God. The purpose isn’t to exegete the meaning of the texts, but to simply provide a handy list of all the per…

answeringislamblog.wordpress.com

All big religions are religions of peace.

If you think that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, you are misinformed.... and your misinformation can be dangerous to peace.

 

[Pancho Frijoles]

That's a great point AJ!

@Pancho Frijoles takes the position that people are united even though they disagree.

Even though they disagree in many things.
Is that so difficult to understand, Wrangler?
You do it every day at work, at school, within your own family. So, what troubles you?

 

[Johann]

All big religions are religions of peace.

If you think that Islam is NOT a religion of peace, you are misinformed.... and your misinformation can be dangerous to peace.

I am not stupid, and can give you factual info that Islam is NOT a religion of peace and don't tell me my factual information can be dangerous to "peace"
YOU are the danger to peace we have as sisters and brothers IN Christ Jesus on this Forum.