The Quran and the Son of God

[Muffled]

Then who was Jesus Father?

By the way, Messiah means a chosen King in the Hebrew Language. The Quran confirms Jesus was the Messiah to the Jews, meaning Jesus was the King of the Jews. Now, one of the reasons that the Jews do not accept Jesus, is because He was not a king. Now, what was intended by the title of Messiah, was not a worldly king. It denotes the Spiritual station of Christ. So, the correct interpretation is the key.

I believe Jesus states that Allah is His Father but that is an attribution of position not a statement of paternity. He has no paternal father.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Where is the Islamic source? From the what the OP is questioning, he is mention ing the Qur'an. You're providing an outside explanation. Now, with respect to the Masih, since we are talking about the meaning of son of God, can you provide an Islamic source to corroborate what you're saying?

The misunderstandings have arisen from ‘both’ Christianity and Islam. Christianity has relied on literal interpretation of text while Islam has wrongly claimed the Gospels are corrupted and obsolete. There appears to be plenty of instances of Muslims examining the text of the Bible with appropriate reverence and providing a metaphysical exegesis of ‘Son of God’.

Jesus Christ - Son of God? (part 1 of 2): The Meaning of “Son of God” - The Religion of Islam

Son of God or God the Son?

An alternative, more esoteric, interpretation is expounded by Messianic Muslims[100][citation needed] in the Sufi and Isma'ili traditions so as to unite Islam, Christianity and Judaism into a single religious continuum.[101] Other Messianic Muslims hold a similar theological view regarding Jesus, without attempting to unite the religions.[102][103][104] Making use of the New Testament's distinguishing between Jesus, Son of Man (being the physical human Jesus), and Christ, Son of God (being the Holy Spirit of God residing in the body of Jesus), the Holy Spirit, being immortal and immaterial, is not subject to crucifixion — for it can never die, nor can it be touched by the earthly nails of the crucifixion, for it is a being of pure spirit. Thus, while the spirit of Christ avoided crucifixion by ascending unto God, the body that was Jesus was sacrificed on the cross, thereby bringing the Old Testament to final fulfillment. Thus Quranic passages on the death of Jesus affirm that while the Pharisees intended to destroy the Son of God completely, they, in fact, succeeded only in killing the Son of Man, being his nasut (material being). Meanwhile, the Son of God, being his lahut(spiritual being) remained alive and undying — because it is the Holy Spirit.[105]

Jesus in Islam - Wikipedia

 

[Hawkins]

The misunderstandings have arisen from ‘both’ Christianity and Islam. Christianity has relied on literal interpretation of text while Islam has wrongly claimed the Gospels are corrupted and obsolete. There appears to be plenty of instances of Muslims examining the text of the Bible with appropriate reverence and providing a metaphysical exegesis of ‘Son of God’.

No, there's no misunderstanding or whatsoever from the Christianity side. In fundamental Jewish concepts only God can forgive. The 4 gospels are eyewitness accounts of testimonies that Jesus forgives. By the records,

Matthew 16:15-17 (NIV2011)
“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.


It is rather Jesus Himself called Himself Son of the living God.

 

[Ellen Brown]

It looks to me like many people, maybe most people including most Christians and Muslims, think that the Quran denies that Jesus was the Son of G_d. I think that the Quran denounces the idea of Mary being the mother of G_d and/or the mother of G_d’s Son, but I don’t think it denies that Jesus is the Son of G_d in the way that the Bible says He is, meaning that He is king of Israel.

In the time when the Quran was revealed people might have been saying or insinuating sometimes, as they do sometimes today, that it is the way Jesus was born that makes Him the Son of G_d, and also that it makes Mary the mother of G_d. There might have been a need for G_d’s purposes at that time to denounce those ideas unequivocally, without confusing the issue by affirming that in a certain way Jesus really is the Son of G_d. That might be why the Quran says repeatedly that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” “G_d does not beget” means that Mary is not the mother of G_d’s Son, and “nor is He begotten” means that Mary is not G_d’s mother. Saying that in a certain way Jesus actually was the Son of God would have been needlessly confusing and distracting.

I think that the king of Israel was sometimes viewed figuratively as the son of G_d. The difference between Jesus as king of Israel and the other kings might be analogous in some ways to the difference between a begotten son and an adopted son. For example, the other kings were anointed by a priest, but Jesus was anointed by G_d Himself. However that may be, the way He was born does not make Mary the mother of G_d, or of His Son, and that might be the whole point of the Quran saying that G_d “does not beget, nor is He begotten.” Not to deny that Jesus was the Son of God, meaning the rightful king of Israel.

I’ll be doing some more research on all that. I would welcome any scripture references that anyone thinks I’m contradicting.

In the time of Muhammad PBUH, did the NT exist? The answer is not universally agreed upon. Some sources say that all the NT books existed in the 1st century, but it appears as if there was substantial editing until the time of Martin Luther. Muhammad is known to have had long discussions with a Christian Priest, but I do not know more.

For me, I leave the Son issue open, being open to what God reveals in the end time. I've been bitterly criticized over that position, to the point that some have questioned my Salvation. The fact that some conservative Christians are so mean and hateful to those who do not fit in their little boxes makes me not care what they think. I am sure that Allah SWT will be just.

 

[Dawnofhope]

No, there's no misunderstanding or whatsoever from the Christianity side. In fundamental Jewish concepts only God can forgive. The 4 gospels are eyewitness accounts of testimonies that Jesus forgives. By the records,

Of course there is misunderstandings. Christianity is so divided amongst itself because there is no agreement.

Most conservative Christians agree that only Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses. Modern biblical scholarship raises serious questions about the identity of all four gospel authors.

It is rather Jesus Himself called Himself Son of the living God.

That’s true but then scripture is clear we are all sons of God. The question is what do the terms ‘Son of man’ ‘Son of God’ and ‘Son of David’ mean? We need to relate the phrases to the Tanakh. A central focus of the gospel authors has been to present Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.

 

[Jim]

In the time of Muhammad PBUH, did the NT exist?

For the point I’m making, it doesn’t matter. I’m just comparing what’s in the Qurans now to what’s in the Christian Bibles now. Considered in its full context, I think that what the apostle Peter says to Jesus in the gospels we have today, with His approval, that He is “the Christ, the Son of the living G_d,” means that He is “the Messiah, king of Israel.” I see the Quran confirming that He is the Messiah that He claims to be, and thus the “Son of G_d” in that sense. When it says that G_d has no son, and that He does not beget and is not begotten, I think it means that He does not mate physically with humans to produce children, like the gods do in Roman lore, and He is not Himself an offspring of any such Union.

Leaders and their followers on all sides of divides between Christians and Muslims have, and have always had, self-serving reasons for wanting to think that their scriptures contradict each other.

 

[RabbiO]

By the way, Messiah means a chosen King in the Hebrew Language.

It does?

Funny, they didn't mention that in rabbinical school.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

It does?

Funny, they didn't mention that in rabbinical school.

It does. Because, this term was used to smear oil on someone as a chosen king or leader. This was the perpose of anoiting someone as per traditions. How else the Jews expected the Messiah to be a king?

 

[Epic Beard Man]

“The Christ Jesus.”

ROTFL!

Thank you! You just filled in a piece of my puzzle!

Ok

 

[Epic Beard Man]

So not only the Quran but the Bible should be relevant to the discourse, with the overall question being does the Quran deny the Biblical idea of a "son of God", different from the Christian, literal take on the term.

The Qur'an is clear Allah has no offspring. The Christian theology is based upon the idea that Allah does have offspring. You guys are interpreting it one way. I'm more interested in what the Jewish idea of Messiah is, since you guys are inferring a new definition of Messiah. If the Jews have an understanding what Messiah is, and if the Messiah does not interpret nor infer, nor relate to anything referencing "son of God" or "Song of God" then this is the Muslim position.

Only you Baha'i's are interpreting it this way. The OP clearly mentions the Qur'an in relation to it being open that the Qur'an does not deny the "sonship" in relation to the Bible.

Let us be clear and the Qur'an is quite clear on Jesus' position. Jesus or Isa, was a prophet, messenger, to the people of Israel in the Roman empire. Jesus had no special relationship with God other than that. The Qur'an says clearly:

"Indeed, the example of Jesus to Allah is like that of Adam. He created Him from dust; then He said to him, "Be," and he was." Surah 3:59

YOU guys seem to be creating these special definitions and implying them as if perhaps Qur'an means it a certain way, because this is pure conjecture on your part. This is why I'm asking you guys to provide a Muslim perspective to support your position and I'm sure you guys can't cause you know this is not the Islamic position.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

It does. Because, this term was used to smear oil on someone as a chosen king or leader.

How are you going to tell a Rabbi what a Hebrew related word means? They study this in-depth from a historical and scriptural position. This is where we get into the discussion of Heterodoxy because I'm beginning to understand why orthodox Muslims consider the position of the Baha'i heretical. what you guys are doing is trying to tell other people what certain concepts truly mean and pass them off as truth despite these concepts having a crystallized position in orthodoxy.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I believe that word does not exist in the Quran. It was inserted by those who wish it to be so.

I believe that is a mistranslation.

I believe anything in parentheses is not in the original text and reflects the improper ideas of the translator.

I believe this is not in the original Arabic. The original Arabic reads "Allah his son".

Show it to me then since you "believe."

 

[Epic Beard Man]

I've never heard of any interpretation of "Son of God" in relation to the Messiah. I'm curious to what @RabbiO has to say on this matter as I'm sure he is more knowledgeable than any one of us on the Jewish understanding of Messiah as it relates to the Jewish people.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

How are you going to tell a Rabbi what a Hebrew related word means? They study this in-depth from a historical and scriptural position. This is where we get into the discussion of Heterodoxy because I'm beginning to understand why orthodox Muslims consider the position of the Baha'i heretical. what you guys are doing is trying to tell other people what certain concepts truly mean and pass them off as truth despite these concepts having a crystallized position in orthodoxy.

So, you always agree with Rabbi's understandings? the Rabbis don't see Jesus as the fulfilment of the Messiah. Do you as a Muslim agree with them?

 

[Jim]

I've never heard of any interpretation of "Son of God" in relation to the Messiah. I'm curious to what @RabbiO has to say on this matter as I'm sure he is more knowledgeable than any one of us on the Jewish understanding of Messiah as it relates to the Jewish people.

“Messiah” comes from a word meaning “anointed,” referring to the kings of Israel being anointed. There are passages in the Old Testament where G_d speaks of a promised king of Israel as His son. That’s all that Peter, a Jewish person, could possibly mean, when he says that Jesus is the Christ (anointed one), the Son of the living G_d. It would be inconceivable for a Jewish person to imagine that G_d mated with a human to father a son, like some Roman god, which is what the Quran is denouncing.

 

[Ellen Brown]

For the point I’m making, it doesn’t matter. I’m just comparing what’s in the Qurans now to what’s in the Christian Bibles now. Considered in its full context, I think that what the apostle Peter says to Jesus in the gospels we have today, with His approval, that He is “the Christ, the Son of the living G_d,” means that He is “the Messiah, king of Israel.” I see the Quran confirming that He is the Messiah that He claims to be, and thus the “Son of G_d” in that sense. When it says that G_d has no son, and that He does not beget and is not begotten, I think it means that He does not mate physically with humans to produce children, like the gods do in Roman lore, and He is not Himself an offspring of any such Union.

Leaders and their followers on all sides of divides between Christians and Muslims have, and have always had, self-serving reasons for wanting to think that their scriptures contradict each other.

Yes, and in my 33 years as a devout Christian, it really tried my patience to have so called "Big Gun" Christians defying the words of Jesus Christ to tear at Islam and anyone else they didn't agree with. In the end, that was the largest reason that I fled Christianity. Now days It is not so easy to arouse my ire. I will let God deal with it.

 

[Ellen Brown]

It does?

Funny, they didn't mention that in rabbinical school.

OK, Mr. Smarty Pants, would you deign to tell us what it does mean if it is not too much trouble, please?

 

[Jim]

" FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God. - 4:171 (Asad)

"The Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could it be that He should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him - since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything?" - 6:101

These verses confirm what I’m saying. The Quran is denouncing Christian trinity doctrines, and the idea that God has mated with a human to father a son, like some Roman god. At the same time it is endorsing Jesus as the Messiah that He claimed to be, and the Messiah that Jesus claimed to be was one that God called “my Son.”

 

[Ellen Brown]

These verses confirm what I’m saying. The Quran is denouncing Christian trinity doctrines, and the idea that God has mated with a human to father a son, like some Roman god. At the same time it is endorsing Jesus as the Messiah that He claimed to be, and the Messiah that Jesus claimed to be was one that God called “my Son.”

I'm not a Trinitarian, and some other denominations aren't either. To think that some Christians in the Middle Ages were burned at the stake over it.

 

[Dawnofhope]

YOU guys seem to be creating these special definitions and implying them as if perhaps Qur'an means it a certain way, because this is pure conjecture on your part. This is why I'm asking you guys to provide a Muslim perspective to support your position and I'm sure you guys can't cause you know this is not the Islamic position.

We all have our perspectives. If we believe the Jews then Jesus wasn’t the Messiah and both Christianity and Islam are wrong. If we believe the Muslim orthodox position then the gospels are corrupted and Christians couldn’t even get it right about the crucifixion of Christ. If we believe the Christians then the Jews and Muslims are wrong. So if you want to extol the orthodox position of each faith being representative we have three contradictory and irreconcilable positions. The Baha’i Faith attempts to cut through these entrenched inconsistencies. Whether or not we make better sense of it all or add to the confusion of tongues is a matter of opinion. However we’re entitled to our POV just as much as everyone else here.