Has God begat a son?

[muhammad_isa]

Why does God have to be logical according to human reason?

It is not about G-d being logical, but about a creed being logical.

Why would G-d expect His creatures to believe in an illogical creed?
How does that help us understand and appreciate His greatness?

It is merely a scriptural tussle that has nothing to do with what Jesus has reported to have said in the Bible.
The opinion of Bible authors, and not Jesus.

Jesus never said I am G-d, or I am divine etc. etc.
As you know, the main verses quoted on this issue come from a pre-amble in the Gospel of John.

 

[RJM]

It is not about G-d being logical, but about a creed being logical.

Nonsense.
The creed outlines the mystery in human words, using the the terms Father and Son, etc
You don't have to accept it
It is what it is

 

[RJM]

Why would G-d expect His creatures to believe in an illogical creed?
How does that help us understand and appreciate His greatness?

Again, you are deciding what God should or should not do

It is merely a scriptural tussle that has nothing to do with what Jesus has reported to have said in the Bible.
The opinion of Bible authors, and not Jesus.
Jesus never said I am G-d, or I am divine etc. etc.
As you know, the main verses quoted on this issue come from a pre-amble in the Gospel of John.

So it comes around to picking and choosing the bits of the New Testament you like, because they support the Quran Jesus, and rejecting those that do not. It's the same ole' circle, and I'm not playing ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Again, you are deciding what God should or should not do

No more than you.
You say that Jesus is G-d's "only begotten son", which effectively elevates a man to "G-d status",
and then suggest by an appeal to authority in order to cancel the Tanakh.

..So it comes around to picking and choosing the bits of the New Testament you like..

That is how the Bible canon was decided upon, so I don't hold it all to have equal value .. no.

 

[RJM]

You say that Jesus is G-d's "only begotten son", which effectively elevates a man to "G-d status",

It's far more subtle than that. As you well know. Sorry you don't like it. But because a person cannot or will not understand, does not negate its validity

I don't hold it all to have equal value .. no.

Not about equal value. What I said: You accept only the parts that go with the Quran Jesus. The Quran mysteries are 'logical mysteries' and those that don't fit the Quran are illogical mysteries

The Christian mysteries are not illogical to billions of people. They have occupied the minds of kings and beggars and from the wisest minds to the most lowly for thousands of years. You would have them all fools. Their symbolism reaches everyone, beyond where words can go.

Trying to confine the Christian mysteries to dictionary definitions just isn't going to work. They are symbolic and intuitive, and God reveals their meaning over a lifetime. They go ever deeper and deeper, to those who are open to understanding.

No-one is required to accept them. But they should respect them. Humans don't know a lot of things; dictionary wrangling goes nowhere, imo – and nor does deciding what God should or should not be able to do

Goodbye @muhammad_isa
Have fun ...

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Christian mysteries are not illogical to billions of people. They have occupied the minds of kings and beggars and from the wisest minds to the most lowly for thousands of years. You would have them all fools. Their symbolism reaches everyone, beyond where words can go.

We are all a product of our environment and life experiences.

Many people believe what they want to believe, regardless of ultimate truth.
Others find it convenient to avoid important issues, much like the Pharisees and Sadducees in the time of Jesus.
..and then there are those who know nothing else than what they were raised as. They have no sure knowledge.

Trying to confine the Christian mysteries to dictionary definitions just isn't going to work..

Well you know, that I'm not a literalist..
I was just asking..

 

[RabbiO]

It's better translated as "I will be what I will be", right?

That would be the better reading. I don’t want to say much more or @Namaste Jesus may accuse me of wanting to split hairs. (Luckily, because rabbits are not kosher so everyone knows I won’t eat them, it is unlikely I will ever be accused of splitting hares.)

 

[RJM]

One God, multiple distinctions. To my wife I'm her husband, to my niece I'm her Uncle, to my mother I was her son. Three independent distinctions within the same being. God however, is far more vast than I and can manifest those distinctions in tangible terms. This video explains it pretty well:

Thanks NJ

 

[Namaste Jesus]

That would be the better reading. I don’t want to say much more or @Namaste Jesus may accuse me of wanting to split hairs.

I wasn't accusing you of splitting hairs. I was acknowledging your perspective and saying, I wasn't challenging that, just using the translation that went with the KJV link I used.

 

[Unveiled artist]

No. Then there would be two gods.

No. Incarnation isn't a separate god than what's incarnated. It's like saying your mirror reflection is you separate than the person reflected ... Two yous.

The idea is people see God through his incarnation. One god. One reflection.

That's the trinitarian logic of it. Jesus would be a human if non trinitarian. No two gods.

 

[Cino]

That would be the better reading. I don’t want to say much more or @Namaste Jesus may accuse me of wanting to split hairs. (Luckily, because rabbits are not kosher so everyone knows I won’t eat them, it is unlikely I will ever be accused of splitting hares.)

I'm vegan, so I don't eat rabbits either. Split away, I'm always interested in the fine distinctions!

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. Incarnation isn't a separate god than what's incarnated..

..so how is "the son" begat?
Why are the words 'son' and 'begotten' used to describe the relationship?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

..so how is "the son" begat?
Why are the words 'son' and 'begotten' used to describe the relationship?

As RJM has explained, those are just human terms used to describe the relationship.

Jesus was a special case, born of woman for a specific purpose, believed by Christians to have been first mentioned all the back in Genesis 3.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..those are just human terms used to describe the relationship..

...so "the son" was begotten, as in born of the virgin Mary, but had always existed?
Did Jesus always exist instead of G-d, or at the same time as G-d?
How can Jesus have ascended to heaven to "sit at the right hand" of the Father, if they are one and the same person?

 

[Namaste Jesus]

How can Jesus have ascended to heaven to "sit at the right hand" of the Father, if they are one and the same person?

Sounds like you may be taking right hand of God a bit too literal. To me it simply means, that which manifest through Mary returning from whence it came. Think of it like God reaching his hand to earth to do his work, than drawing it back when he was through.

 

[Unveiled artist]

..so how is "the son" begat?
Why are the words 'son' and 'begotten' used to describe the relationship?

The incarnation is begotten. Son is in reference and relation to his father as other Christians are sons and daughters of God as well.

Human incarnation of god. It's talking about a human not spirit in reference to son and beget.

In trinity theology it's the same god just flesh/carnated. Monotheism.

 

[Unveiled artist]

..so how is "the son" begat?
Why are the words 'son' and 'begotten' used to describe the relationship?

Say you are god and for people to recognize you, you make your reflection human looking. Trinitarians see the human-your chosen reflection (or how you want them to see you). They say you can't see God face to face so that's how you choose to interact with them.

The reflection is not you by definition but in trinitarian theology it is you because it's your reflection.

 

[Unveiled artist]

No more than you.
You say that Jesus is G-d's "only begotten son", which effectively elevates a man to "G-d status",
and then suggest by an appeal to authority in order to cancel the Tanakh.


That is how the Bible canon was decided upon, so I don't hold it all to have equal value .. no.

Actually, think of Muhammad...if he is just a regular human just like us no one would give him any time or day. However, he is elevated as a means to understand God that no others (outside prophets) can uphold that status.

The difference is trinitarians hook up with god via an incarnation and Muslims do by prophets.

Both status are elevated. Same logic in regards to using a go-between to understand god.

One As god in flesh and the other a human prophet Of god.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The difference is trinitarians hook up with god via an incarnation and Muslims do by prophets.

Both status are elevated. Same logic in regards to using a go-between to understand god.

One As god in flesh and the other a human prophet Of god.

Hmm, but it is illogical. The Son prays to the Father .. but you say it is the same person.
The Son teaches us to pray to the Father in the Lord's prayer.
..but Jesus wants us to recognise Him as "G-d in the flesh" ???

 

[Namaste Jesus]

The Son prays to the Father .. but you say it is the same person.
The Son teaches us to pray to the Father in the Lord's prayer.

Kind of answered your own question. Jesus taught us how to pray and he led by example.