Discussion in 'Muslim <---> Christian Dialogue' started by sndos, Jan 15, 2016.
Why Jesus is not Son of God? - Dr. Zakir Naik - Questioner accepts Islam.
I am sorry.. but I missed where the gentleman actually answered the question?
In his opening statement Zakir Naik says that if you say in the context that we as human beings are all the children of God, I can accept that assertion. He then added that if the context is of obeying God than all the Prophets and Messengers of God are children of God.
From 1: 27 onwards he explains the problem is when someone says that Jesus is not a normal son, but a begotten son then that is where the distinction is made. He adds that in biblical language God has 'sons by the tons' [pardon the expression]
He then cites examples of such 'sons' of God in the Bible [not accepted by Islam, but accepted by Christianity and with some variations by Judaism]. They include-
Adam [the first human being]
Israel [Also known as Jacob, the father of Joseph and the twelve tribe of Israel, hence his title 'Israel']
He then explained that in Romans Ch 8 it says that 'all those who are led by the spirit of God, they are the children of God'
He says that the biblical expression means that if you follow the Commandments of God you are a son of God.
Now if I can digress slightly.
'Spirit', if I can add in the Bible has many meanings and depending on context, it can be interpreted in so many ways. One of the meanings of the word 'spirit' in the Bible is 'Prophet', 'Messenger' and 'Apostle of God', hence here the context is of someone sent by God therefore whether the 'spirit' is an angel, a human being or otherwise it still refers to an emissary sent by God. As the expression holds, if a 'spirit' is to be followed, it will be a human being and not an angel as angels are sent to Prophets, to specific individuals and not to the entire human race and are not meant to lead humans but to help in any lesser way or manner.
Returning to the topic, at 1:48 he then added 'today that phrase ('son of God' ) has been misunderstood'.
He asserts that if someone says as an elder to a younger person, 'son, its a very good question' he [the younger man or boy] won't mind. But, if the same elder was to say 'begotten son' in the same context, the same younger man is likely to get angry and perhaps resort to violence as the context is no longer of respect but of the question of progeny between them and one the latter is likely to dispute and be inflamed by.
The Christian, Zakir Naik says, argue that Jesus is not being addressed in the first sense, that of a child of God based on being a human being alone or a good and righteous follower and loyal servant to the Commands of God. The Christian instead says that Jesus is a son of God in a different sense; that of being a begotten son of God and the evidence cited by the religion of Christianity is the Gospel of John Ch 3: 16 where it says 'God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten son [Jesus]... whoever believes in him [Jesus] shall not die but have everlasting life'.
Zakir Naik then said that this is from the KJV [King James Version] of the Bible. The Revised Version [published centuries later by Christian scholars] add that the word 'begotten' is a fabrication and an interpolation inserted into the Bible and is not found in the original manuscripts of the Bible. The Revised Version therefore expunged the word 'Begotten' from the Bible.
From 3: 47 Zakir Naik then focusses on the word 'begotten' as a word itself. He describes it as a sexual and lower animal act and then says 'when you say that he [Jesus] was born to mother Mary, virgin what are you insinuating'.
He then adds the Qur'an disagrees, it instead says in Ch 3: 59-
'The similitude of Jesus before Allah [God] is the same as Adam [the first human being]. He [God] created him [Adam] from dust, then [He i.e. God] said to him: 'Be! -and he was'.
Zakir Naik then asserts that if the Christian argues that Jesus is the son of God because he has no father then Adam in the same line of argument is a greater and more significant god, because he had neither a mother or a father according to the Bible.
Later on from 5: 30 he explains the Qur'an omits the attribute, 'father', as a description or title of and for God. This is because in subsequent centuries in the sending of prophets the term lost its original figurative and actual meaning among the people and became known wrongly with the literal meaning alone. He added the word 'Messenger of God' is what is meant by 'son of God' in which case all the Prophets being His most loyal followers are 'sons of God'.
My personal inference to this [and not the words of Zakir Naik] is that by default in the same manner, 'father' in the spiritual sense is a reference to God as lawgiver, guide and patriarch and not 'father' in the literal sense.
From 6: 20 until the end Zakir Naik addresses different topics within the same framework; that being following the commands of Jesus, following the commands of the original law as given to Moses [hence the name Mosaic law] that Jesus himself followed.
So... he doesn't accept the idea because of the claim of later 'fabrication and an interpolation' of the texts?
Everything else is simply word play.
Talking about creating Adam and trying to rope in the same context as birth? Not quite fair play with words there.
Also, one could thence say that god 'begat' reality, could one not?
That Jesus was born of Mary and there was nothing to be done/had by Joseph would seem pretty clear from the general reading.
If not from Joseph, then when came Jesus?
Of course... if there was nothing to be done by Joseph... then the whole genealogy of Jesus is kind of broken, isn't it? Since, is it not by Joseph's heritage that there are all these other claims?
So... while it sets to solve/extablish one issue... it raises another.
The Questioner who was Christian at the time asked for the Christian and Islamic perspectives.
Though, listening to the reply, my opinion is that the gentleman (Dr Maik) was not necessarily using the language the right/correct way.
As far as I can gather, his salient point was the interpolation of the passages over time.
I disagree. I thought he answered the question to the satisfaction of the questioner. The interpolation was only part of the answer and was mentioned only once. If however, you are referring to 'begotten' as a word/concept then your context is different from both the questioner or Dr Naik. The question is on the point of Jesus as the son of God on account of his personal greatness and not on the issue of physical paternity which is rejected by both religions.
If your opinion is over who is the father, then you have missed the point of the belief in both religions. Christianity rejects Joseph or any other human being as the physical father of Jesus and says he had only one parent, Joseph being the stepfather alone. Islam similarly rejects Joseph as the physical father but goes further in saying he was not married to Mary either and that she remained a virgin throughout her life. Both religions nonetheless accord Mary a virgin status and believe in a miraculous birth.
gazak allah khiran brother
أقوى 8 أسباب تنفي كون المسيح ابن الله | د. لورنس براون
*Bows* Fair enough.
So.. if both religions agree that there was a miraculous birth... to what is the point of such?
Also, who then is the father of such a miracle?
I am sorry I do not follow/understand your post.
Thank you for your question. The purpose for Christianity is to show Jesus is different and distinct from all humanity, how he is special, the chosen one and the only and last representative of God to be followed on account of his unique nature and life. For Islam its one of many signs to show Allah's Greatness as the Creator of different forms, things, circumstances, etc. Jesus is one of many representatives as was Moses, Abraham, Adam before him and the Prophet Muhammad after him.
The special sign of Adam and Eve was to show they were created without parents and as full adults without being born, without going through adolescence and childhood. The special sign of John the Baptist was to show a healthy and fully able bodied and formed person being born to very elderly parents and from a mother who was actually barren at the time. Other special signs in things and circumstances have been the ability to walk on water for Moses and his followers over the sea at the time of the exodus, the ability of the people of the cave to be made to sleep for 300 years and wake up in a different era without having decayed, grown old and died, the ability of the Prophet Daniel to be thrown into a pit of lions and not be touched by them at all. The point for all miracles is to show the existence of God, to follow Him and to work for the Hereafter. As such God is the father of such miracles. He uses the Prophets as His Representatives to demonstrate His power over nature and all things.
The word only begotten was not an interpolation or even really a fabrication, but rather a poor translation of the original greek word monogenes. Monogenes means unique or one of a kind, and that's what christians see for Yeshua, He is unique and there was none other like Him. The only two agents concerned in the conception of Yeshua - God and Mary. If any person would think that Almighty God would ever need to resort to human act of procreation to "beget" a son, needs their head examining! Or even that God would have a need for a son. It's like a mind fitting in a tiny box and not able to see the possibilities outside the box. Or putting limitations upon God. Because something is beyond our understanding or it doesn't conform to our logic therefore it cannot exist. Christians see there is more to God than we can ever fully understand and it is not for us to place limits upon Him or question His ways. We know from scripture that Yeshua is Gods word made flesh, of God. Yet there is nothing in the Bible scriptures to ever suggest what muslims say we believe. .. Like God having a son. That is blasphemy.
It was necessary for Yeshua to be born of a woman, otherwise God could just have created Him in the same manner as Adam. The Bible gives this reason, the Qur'an does not so you just take it as like a sign of prophethood or something.
Mary had other children with Joseph after Yeshua. She did not remain a virgin all her life, that is Catholic Church tradition not Bible teaching. How strange to me that Islam sees Mary stayed Virgin all her life in line with church tradition??
Thank you for your reply and for a Christian interpretation of the thread and questions by P Thulhu. As confirmed by Cariad, the word 'begotten' is not as essential a feature of the NT or of Christian dogma. Second, as she argued there were only two parties involved; Mary and God and as she said, no human father or a need for it to give birth or become pregnant was necessary at all.
Gen ? Explain please.
Jazak Allahoo khiran.
This is very simple... Allahu Akbar.
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
gazana wa iyaak brother
see here identified with Jesus Chris
Separate names with a comma.