How can God have a son while he has no companion.

[Link]

Salam

Some people think this in an irrational argument in the Quran. But I think it makes sense. I think "God" as "Creator" if he would have a son, it would only be possible if he has an equal. Equal is only possible, if he is not the absolute big being. If he has an equal, he would have deficiency and need. All limited beings including the most exalted of beings are not created alone, nor do they ascend alone.

If it's the case God has deficiency, than he would have companions and they would have sought a way to reach him (as he would be limited). . Thus if there was a son it's expected it reaches it's status as a companion or that a companion and him raise it.

If he is beyond having a companion in his highest essence and reality, then it follows, he cannot have a son. Of course, from other perspective, if he would have a son, it would choose from those who he created, but he's way exalted from having a son as the type that is a god like him. That is the same genre as him. If he would have a son, than Mohammad (s) is foremost of those who worship him.

Of course, "son" has different contextual meaning in different times. This is not to say in the Torah and Gospels and books between, that there is no concept of sons of God.

With Arabs, they saw it literally that Angels and Jinn were from God's offspring and saw a lineage back to him. In that paradigm, it would not acknowledge the term son and daughter to God.

Another meaning is that a people are more close to God and in a sense his children over other people, as in a chosen people, but this is rejected too since God is close to all his creation and judges them with justice, which is different to how parents prefer their children.

The closest meaning I've seen to ascribing sonship to God is calling Imams (a) 'family of God' in a ziyarat, but that statement is understood in context of Quran "family of the reminder", the reminder being God, the Messenger, and the Quran, and all part of the same coin.

It also came in after generations where Tawhid was solidified enough that no one would see it in a way contradicting his transcendence above all creation.

Another is "And all creation is your family" in a Du'a by Ahlulbayt (a).

However, the verse I'm quoting is saying if he would have a son in the terms polytheists mean, that is only possible if he has companions with him in his realm, otherwise, it makes no sense.

As anything from God is not his equal, but rather all of creation is emanation, it makes no sense to call any creation a son of God.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

He can have a Son, who is Manifestation of Himself.

So, the Son and the Father are one.
Whoever has seen the Son, has seen the Father.

 

[sun rise]

The "son" in some formulations is perfectly God and perfectly Human. God in this view is not separate from creation - he is "one without a second" and any apparent separation is illusion.

Though it might be heresy to some Muslims, this in Islamic terms is the reality of Ana'l-haqq.

 

[McBell]

Salam

Some people think this in an irrational argument in the Quran. But I think it makes sense. I think "God" as "Creator" if he would have a son, it would only be possible if he has an equal. Equal is only possible, if he is not the absolute big being. If he has an equal, he would have deficiency and need. All limited beings including the most exalted of beings are not created alone, nor do they ascend alone.

If it's the case God has deficiency, than he would have companions and they would have sought a way to reach him (as he would be limited). . Thus if there was a son it's expected it reaches it's status as a companion or that a companion and him raise it.

If he is beyond having a companion in his highest essence and reality, then it follows, he cannot have a son. Of course, from other perspective, if he would have a son, it would choose from those who he created, but he's way exalted from having a son as the type that is a god like him. That is the same genre as him. If he would have a son, than Mohammad (s) is foremost of those who worship him.

Of course, "son" has different contextual meaning in different times. This is not to say in the Torah and Gospels and books between, that there is no concept of sons of God.

With Arabs, they saw it literally that Angels and Jinn were from God's offspring and saw a lineage back to him. In that paradigm, it would not acknowledge the term son and daughter to God.

Another meaning is that a people are more close to God and in a sense his children over other people, as in a chosen people, but this is rejected too since God is close to all his creation and judges them with justice, which is different to how parents prefer their children.

The closest meaning I've seen to ascribing sonship to God is calling Imams (a) 'family of God' in a ziyarat, but that statement is understood in context of Quran "family of the reminder", the reminder being God, the Messenger, and the Quran, and all part of the same coin.

It also came in after generations where Tawhid was solidified enough that no one would see it in a way contradicting his transcendence above all creation.

Another is "And all creation is your family" in a Du'a by Ahlulbayt (a).

However, the verse I'm quoting is saying if he would have a son in the terms polytheists mean, that is only possible if he has companions with him in his realm, otherwise, it makes no sense.

As anything from God is not his equal, but rather all of creation is emanation, it makes no sense to call any creation a son of God.

Wait...
Are you claiming that an entity that created the whole of everything in the universe, and the universe it is all in, is powerless to have a son with out an "equal"?

 

[Glaurung]

I don't think Muslims comprehend the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Christianity claims that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God eternal. The Logos (the Son) was not begotten at any point after the Father. Rather the Son has always existed as part of the Godhead. All three persons are one eternal divine reality and not three separate beings in a kind of divine triumvirate.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apparently so, @McBell .

One of the many problems that I see with Abrahamic conceptions of god is that inherent self-contradiction.

They are defined as all-powerful and all-transcendental. Yet the very people that find their existence important and even necessary find the need to state rather emphatically that they are subject to all sorts of strange limitations, cravings and needs. On top of that, for some reason it would be Very Important Indeed that we humans understand and accept - and even spread awareness - of those deities' latest news.

All that while the believers in those gods can't even agree on the basics of what those conceptions of their deities need - or even disagree peacefully.

I just don't see the point.

 

[Link]

I don't think Muslims comprehend the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Christianity claims that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God eternal. The Logos (the Son) was not begotten at any point after the Father. Rather the Son has always existed as part of the Godhead. All three persons are one eternal divine reality and not three separate beings in a triumvirate.

I think we do. I think Quran sees it is as a contradiction in terms. Jesus (a) would be God from one perspective also God as in the Creator would be 1 of 3 from another, it's a contradiction in terms. You can define it from one angle and it would contradict it from another angle of the same statement.

 

[Link]

Wait...
Are you claiming that an entity that created the whole of everything in the universe, and the universe it is all in, is powerless to have a son with out an "equal"?

Yes, just as he can't create square triangles, it makes no sense to say can have a son when he has no companion with him. If he had a son, he would be the type with equals and companions, because it's only possible if he is limited.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't think Muslims comprehend the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Christianity claims that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are all God eternal. The Logos (the Son) was not begotten at any point after the Father. Rather the Son has always existed as part of the Godhead. All three persons are one eternal divine reality and not three separate beings in a kind of divine triumvirate.

To the best of my understanding, Trinitiarian Christianity tends to adopt an emphasis on God The Eternal Mystery, meaning that they have a self-nurtured cultural tendency to simply accept that much about God is logically contradictory and should be accepted as a Greater Mystery that humans are not expected to make sense of.

That may be a consequence of Trinitarianism itself, a prerequisite for it, or most likely some of both.

Meanwhile, Islam (whose name literally translates to "Obedience") is built around a conception of God The Leader. The focus here is in providing a source of divine authority to be accepted without challenge, presumably because that would result in social stability and constructive, reliable social roles for the believers.

For Trinitarianism, God transcending yet somehow also not violating uniqueness is a feature, a miracle for the benefit of humanity even. It may even be seen as a manifestation of supreme transcendence in and of itself.

Personally I just see the idea as not making too much of a difference either way.

But for Islam and probably some other groups (including some non-Trinitarian Christians) the idea of a god with many hats may well be blasphemous, simply because their conceptions of god are anathema to that versatility of divine roles. In Islam's case, I have seen claims that God must be one and only because... well, to the best of my understanding simply because the doctrine teaches that God would have a hard time being at peace with others of comparable power.

 

[Glaurung]

I think we do. I think Quran sees it is as a contradiction in terms. Jesus (a) would be God from one perspective also God as in the Creator would be 1 of 3 from another, it's a contradiction in terms. You can define it from one angle and it would contradict it from another angle of the same statement.

There is nothing contradictory about it. One God in three divine persons.

Christians hold it as a revealed truth that cannot be understood within the categories of human reason. Which is fitting. God is rational but God is not ultimately definable. There is no reason to expect God to make "sense" within the confines of human reasoning. God is a god of revelation not of philosophical reason.

 

[Link]

There is nothing contradictory about it. One God in three divine persons.

And each person is a god, which makes it a contradiction.

 

[Link]

The "son" in some formulations is perfectly God and perfectly Human. God in this view is not separate from creation - he is "one without a second" and any apparent separation is illusion.

Though it might be heresy to some Muslims, this in Islamic terms is the reality of Ana'l-haqq.

The people who worshiped Imams saw them as incarnations of God. I believe God is truthful and would not act limited while unlimited.

 

[LuisDantas]

Please consider clarifying your rationale in this latest post to me, @Link

Is it that you consider that God would be untruthful if he had or created incarnations that would not reflect his full omnipotence?

I think I can follow it, but there is IMO a genuine case to be made that an incarnation should not count as a lie.

 

[sun rise]

The people who worshiped Imams saw them as incarnations of God. I believe God is truthful and would not act limited while unlimited.

Then how do you explain Surah Al-Kahf - 65-82 - Quran.com which starts "There they found a servant of Ours, to whom We had granted mercy from Us and enlightened with knowledge of Our Own.". Khzir automatically acted with Allah's knowledge. He would and could do nothing other than what Allah willed.

To me at least, Ana'l-haqq is the state of Khzir who has no will outside of what God wills and whose every thought, word and deed is according to the will of Divinity.

Of course such individuals are extremely exceedingly rare. But they do exist and blessed are those who come across them.

 

[Link]

Then how do you explain Surah Al-Kahf - 65-82 - Quran.com which starts "There they found a servant of Ours, to whom We had granted mercy from Us and enlightened with knowledge of Our Own.". Khzir automatically acted with Allah's knowledge. He would and could do nothing other than what Allah willed.

To me at least, Ana'l-haqq is the state of Khzir who has no will outside of what God wills and whose every thought, word and deed is according to the will of Divinity.

Of course such individuals are extremely exceedingly rare. But they do exist and blessed are those who come across them.

Oh I thought you meant it literally. Khidr (a) is still stated to be a servant of God. So he is not his equal.

 

[Tomef]

Salam

Some people think this in an irrational argument in the Quran. But I think it makes sense. I think "God" as "Creator" if he would have a son, it would only be possible if he has an equal. Equal is only possible, if he is not the absolute big being. If he has an equal, he would have deficiency and need. All limited beings including the most exalted of beings are not created alone, nor do they ascend alone.

If it's the case God has deficiency, than he would have companions and they would have sought a way to reach him (as he would be limited). . Thus if there was a son it's expected it reaches it's status as a companion or that a companion and him raise it.

If he is beyond having a companion in his highest essence and reality, then it follows, he cannot have a son. Of course, from other perspective, if he would have a son, it would choose from those who he created, but he's way exalted from having a son as the type that is a god like him. That is the same genre as him. If he would have a son, than Mohammad (s) is foremost of those who worship him.

Of course, "son" has different contextual meaning in different times. This is not to say in the Torah and Gospels and books between, that there is no concept of sons of God.

With Arabs, they saw it literally that Angels and Jinn were from God's offspring and saw a lineage back to him. In that paradigm, it would not acknowledge the term son and daughter to God.

Another meaning is that a people are more close to God and in a sense his children over other people, as in a chosen people, but this is rejected too since God is close to all his creation and judges them with justice, which is different to how parents prefer their children.

The closest meaning I've seen to ascribing sonship to God is calling Imams (a) 'family of God' in a ziyarat, but that statement is understood in context of Quran "family of the reminder", the reminder being God, the Messenger, and the Quran, and all part of the same coin.

It also came in after generations where Tawhid was solidified enough that no one would see it in a way contradicting his transcendence above all creation.

Another is "And all creation is your family" in a Du'a by Ahlulbayt (a).

However, the verse I'm quoting is saying if he would have a son in the terms polytheists mean, that is only possible if he has companions with him in his realm, otherwise, it makes no sense.

As anything from God is not his equal, but rather all of creation is emanation, it makes no sense to call any creation a son of God.

If there were a god, as described in the Bible, only literally impossible things like creating a square circle or an un-liftable stone would qualify as not possible for him/it. So any arguments against what such a hypothetical god could or couldn’t do need to start from that basis. If, as the Bible has it, making a man from dust and a woman from a rib is possible for this god, then making a woman pregnant with a divine child would present no problems. The notion that she would have to be an equal is meaningless. Why? It’s just a random idea that happens to make sense to you. If there were such a thing as an omnipotent god he could put his essence in any form he wanted to. In the Bible he appears in various guises, in flames, a wind, the appearance of an angel, and so on. If he wanted to appear as a human baby then that would present no obstacle. Your argument fails as it has nothing to do with the object it is directed at; you think god would have to have an equal, god (if he existed) would have no need of your idea.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I personally would clarify that the Son is the Manifestation of the Attributes of the Father/God, this is an Annointed Station, given of God.

For when the Father comes, as promised by the Son, the Father is also a manifestation of the Attributes of God.

Both the Son and the Father are not the Essence of God, which is unknowable to us. These are annointed stations, given by God, the Father.

Regards Tony

 

[Laniakea]

And each person is a god, which makes it a contradiction.

The Trinity is God in 3 different manifestations. They can all be God, while being of the same Spirit, which makes them all God.

 

[Link]

The Trinity is God in 3 different manifestations. They can all be God, while being of the same Spirit, which makes them all God.

Which manifestation is the Creator? Seems there is two manifestations (holy spirit, and human form) of the Creator. The Creator is never seen,. Anyways, this has same problem of incarnations in other religions, God would be deceiving us and untruthful acting as a human.

 

[Laniakea]

Which manifestation is the Creator? Seems there is two manifestations (holy spirit, and human form) of the Creator. The Creator is never seen,. Anyways, this has same problem of incarnations in other religions, God would be deceiving us and untruthful acting as a human.

They are all the creator, being the same entity.
The English language isn't as specific as it could be, so it's not easy to explain it using English words. The Bible is mostly Hebrew-written.

As for God manifesting as human, it wasn't a deception. It was God taking on human form to die as a human for the sins of humanity while still being sinless as God. If anyone was deceived, it was Satan.