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

[Link]

If you read the OP, I said:

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.

 

[Kathryn]

I feel like the Nicene Creed says it well:

The Nicene Creed​

We believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
begotten from the Father before all ages,
God from God,
Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made;
of the same essence as the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven;
he became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the virgin Mary,
and was made human.
He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered and was buried.
The third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures.
He ascended to heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again with glory
to judge the living and the dead.
His kingdom will never end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life.
He proceeds from the Father and the Son,
and with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified.
He spoke through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We affirm one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look forward to the resurrection of the dead,
and to life in the world to come. Amen.

 

[Link]

My perspective is that God is "One without a second" - non-dualism. My comment was from that perspective but I was trying to illustrate the to me the Quranic story of Khizr and Moses illustrated that it limits God to say that there is God and servants.

There is that perspective, and Quran says similar "You did not throw when you threw but God threw" "God is the light of the heavens and the earth".

The following is from Du'a Jawshan Al-Kabir and I think has the sentiment you are trying to show:


يَا نُورَ النُّورِ
O Light of lights,
ya nuran-nur

يَا مُنَوِّرَ النُّورِ
O Illuminator of light,
ya munaw-wiran-nur

يَا خَاِلقَ النُّورِ
O Creator of light
ya khaliqan-nur

يَا مُدَبِّرَ النُّورِ
O Planner of light,
ya mudab-biran-nuri

يَا مُقَدِّرَ النُّورِ
O Estimator of light,
ya muqad-diran-nur

يَا نُورَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light of all lights,
ya nura kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً قَبْلَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light that precedes in existence every light,
ya nuran qab-la kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً بَعْدَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light that will survive all lights,
ya nuram ba`a-da kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً فَوْقَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light that is above every light,
ya nuran faw-qa kul-li nur

يَّا نُوراً لَّيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ نُورٌ
O Light like of which there is no light.
ya nural-laysa kamith-lihi nur

سُبْحَانَكَ يَا لا إلَهَ إلاّ أنْتَ
Praise be to You, there is no god but You,
subhanaka ya la ilaha illa anta

الغَوْثَ الغَوْثَ
[I beseech you for] relief, relief
al-ghawth al-ghawth

خَلِّصْنا مِنَ النّارِ يا رَبِّ.
Protect us from the Fire, O Lord.
khallisna minan-nari ya rabb



However,

"
يَّا نُوراً لَّيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ نُورٌ
O Light like of which there is no light.
ya nural-laysa kamith-lihi nur"

Is as important to keep in mind as:

"
يَا نُورَ كُلِّ نُورٍ
O Light of all lights,
ya nura kul-li nur

"

Both perspectives are needed to see God. That God lives within us, but also beyond us and in our absence.

 

[I Am Hugh]

In most cases in the Quran, polytheists imagined the spiritual beings who were unseen that they experienced things with to be daughters of God (and sons, less the latter).

Is the Quran divinely inspired? Is the Bible? Perhaps more accurately than are they perceived as such but rather do they make that claim? If both then they would agree. This brings to my mind two questions. Is Jehovah Allah? And again, in what sense are sons and daughters contextually? In the Bible spirt beings are always linguistically masculine. That doesn't mean male.

Quran says if these beings were as you alleged, it would be Angels who would be close servant God.

In the Bible angel means messenger, when the Hebrew/Greek is applied contextually to men they are translated as messenger, and if to spirit beings they are translated angel. Does the Quran agree?

They would not be gods nor to be ascribed lineage to God.

The metaphoric application in context, Biblically, isn't lineage, ancestry or pedigree, but rather created. To create doesn't apply literally to give birth.

It furthermore argues in reality, the polytheists have been deceived, and have they are in fact not saints, but Jinn, and really mostly under Satan and Satanic beings themselves.

There's no question about being under Satan though I don't agree with the reasoning you use to conclude that. First of all, the Bible writers were henotheistic, secondly Saint and Jinn are vague religious terms. Mythical and mythological.

God being the absolute being, he cannot be ascribed such beings as daughters or sons even if say they were saints (Angels) and truthfully guiding them.

What is the premise for that conclusion?

Of course a lot of Quran is arguing if they would be gods (set aside semantic debate), they would have to be from God and have proof.

Proof? Why? To whom?

In the case of Christianity, the Quran says those who said Jesus is God have disbelieved and furthermore argues it's a contradiction in terms when he says they say God is third of a three (one of three components).

I agree with that. The trinity isn't Biblical, it's pagan. But Jesus was prophetically a mighty god. (Isaiah 9:6)

I say these are logical arguments in Quran. I furthermore believe it's rational that if God was limited and had equals that sought a way to him, there would be no absolute morality, ascension would have no truth, and the order of the heavens and earth would be in turmoil as the highest beings would be at dispute, things would be chaotic in the world we live and it would be politics who is in power, not based on the truth. This all because they would be limited beings and have no guidance to truth in absolute way.

Is it not customary to cite the Quaran in such arguments? How do I know it isn't just your interpretation? I don't think there can be a rational argument that the creator God of the Bible, Jehovah, is without equal, though as I said, limited is a subjective term. Morality is subjective as well.

What do you mean by ascension and truth? The earth is in turmoil and there is dispute.

 

[Link]

What is the premise for that conclusion?

I feel like we are going in circles, when you ask this. Perhaps a good thread as well:

Me vs. Link: One God vs. many gods

This thread is a One-on-One debate between me and Link only. @Link : Thank you for taking the time to talk. I subscribe to Smartism as reality. This is a more traditional view in Hinduism of there, of course, being multiple gods. Smarta tradition - Wikipedia However, I believe that if one...

www.religiousforums.com

 

[Link]

In the Bible angel means messenger, when the Hebrew/Greek is applied contextually to men they are translated as messenger, and if to spirit beings they are translated angel. Does the Quran agree?

The term in Arabic is related to kingdom and authority more so, but the Quran rather says God chooses Messengers from Angels, so he does make Angels into Messengers, but not all.

 

[I Am Hugh]

I feel like we are going in circles, when you ask this. Perhaps a good thread as well:

Me vs. Link: One God vs. many gods

This thread is a One-on-One debate between me and Link only. @Link : Thank you for taking the time to talk. I subscribe to Smartism as reality. This is a more traditional view in Hinduism of there, of course, being multiple gods. Smarta tradition - Wikipedia However, I believe that if one...

www.religiousforums.com

The question was intended to establish a premise regarding sons and daughters rather than divinity. I don't perceive a conflict as God being the absolute being, but rather see a possible misogynistic inclination. What surprises me about this is that you say daughters are more likely angels, closer to God than sons. That threw me off.

 

[Link]

I was talking in context of polytheistic beliefs among the people of Mohammad. They believed most of the gods were females and daughters of God.

 

[I Am Hugh]

The term in Arabic is related to kingdom and authority more so, but the Quran rather says God chooses Messengers from Angels, so he does make Angels into Messengers, but not all.

They're pretty much the same in meaning. Not surprising since Hebrew and Arabic are both Semitic. Muhammad, Jesus and Adam were messengers mentioned in the Quran. So, in that regard they are the same in the Bible and Quran. The difference, as presented in your quote above is that not all angels are messengers, whereas in the Bible it is the very definition of angel, though in Hebrew not exclusive.

 

[Laniakea]

How does he take human form? Does he cease to be God and make himself limited temporarily? Care to explain? Does he disappear from ruling the universe and Angels and appear in Jesus in limited form? What's maintaining the universe at this point? What is creating everything?

He took human form when he was born of Mary after she became pregnant from the Holy Spirit. He didn't cease being God.


If it's still God, then it's just mind games pretending to suffer in Jesus while he is beyond creation and not afflicted.[/QUOTE]

You could be correct in the "mind games" part in that Satan wanted to kill Him, but in doing so he caused the sacrifice of a perfect man (Jesus) which meant that the sin of people was paid for through that sacrifice. Satan was "tricked".

And why would God going back to being God be a "sacrifice".

Jesus still bears the marks of the sacrifice He made, and He always will.