Has God begat a son?

muhammad_isa said:
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" ???
Click to expand...

That's how it's put. The incarnation/human/son prays to his source/father/god.

Same essence...one spirit and the other human. There's only one god in trinitarian thought not two.

If going by the OP, trinitarians believe God/father incarnated/became flesh so -how I understand it:-he/father can "walk among the people as the Christ to come to him/father.

To say there are three gods means the bible doesn't mention incarnation. Since it does there's only one god. It's the same person just humanized so christians can relate to him/god.

There's so many interpretations of non-trinitarian thought that if I shared my opinion it would be just that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Unveiled artist said:
Off ball question. Did Jesus teach others how to pray to himself or his father?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you are talking about..
If "the son" was an incarnation of G-d, we would have a walking and talking G-d, that would be omniscient and have no need of praying to the Father. It is gibberish, to me, to say that the son and the Father are one person, but the son worships the Father.
It has become tradition, and evolved during the first couple of centuries after the ascension.

The Bible is a collection of scrolls which was not chosen by Jesus. It is a collection of accounts, from various authors about Divine matters, and the NT did not even exist until after the ascension. There are numerous creeds. Some make logical sense and do not deviate from common sense, whilst others revolve around concepts which diverge from the shema which Jesus proclaimed.

It is too easy to claim that G-d has a number of parts / persons .. and the shema is designed to protect us from such pitfalls.
"Nobody is good except for our Father" does not translate to Jesus claiming to be part of a trinity. It is a "mystery" invented by men.
 
Nobody forcing you to believe anything you don't want to believe, muhammad_isa. Not even God. Attempting to discredit another's faith because you don't understand it or don't want to understand it serves no purpose. Just stick with what you feel is correct and allow others to do the same.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Just stick with what you feel is correct and allow others to do the same.
Click to expand...
But the points he makes are open to discussion and rebuttal? A lot of people believe the same as does @muhammad_isa

However, having been in these discussions before, I find they end up going in a circle.
 
muhammad_isa said:
It is too easy to claim that G-d has a number of parts / persons .. and the shema is designed to protect us from such pitfalls.
Click to expand...

Well God has several names in the Hebrew Bible, the translations tend to gloss over them, but even in the English version, there is "the Lord" and "God" and "The Lord of Hosts" and so on. Isn't there a tradition of different divine names in Islam, as well? Islam doesn't have 99 gods even if there are that many beautiful names? I understand there are other matters such as the incarnation being discussed here, but to an external observer such as me, "the heir/inheritor" and "the son" are not that far apart...

(edited to add) and "the manifest" and "the unmanifest" are both names of God in Islam, and they sound hard to reconcile at first glance; I believe there are good arguments which resolve this, but it does look no less mysterious than "the father" and "the son" both referring to the same god.

Not trying to be contrarian, just pointing out what I see from my spot right here.
 
It always come back to:

-- Jesus is not God. Only God is God
-- Yes but the (eternal) Christ is God as man -- Emmanuel: God with us
-- But Christ just means Messiah
-- Yes but the incarnation has come to mean more
... etc, etc ...

Back to word definitions
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
However, having been in these discussions before, I find they end up going in a circle.
Click to expand...
That's the point. Questions asked, answers given multiple times, multiple ways, keeps insisting the same thing regardless. Obviously has no interest in anyone's response, only aim of the OP was to discredit. Failed at that so went back to the same tired speech we've seen on other threads. Enough is enough.
 
Namaste Jesus said:
That's the point. Questions asked, answers given multiple times, multiple ways, keeps insisting the same thing regardless. Obviously has no interest in anyone's response, only aim of the OP was to discredit. Failed at that so went back to the same tired speech we've seen on other threads. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...
I know. It's trying to move water with a sieve. Got better things to do with my life, lol
 
How to get out of such a treadmill?

Sometimes, it is useful to examine the roles of those involved. There seems to be a sense that the question being discussed here is asked in bad faith. There is also a sense that the answers given are unsatisfactory.

What to do? Is it about acknowledging that each view point has its validity within its domain? Is it about establishing an absolute point of view - but that would not fit well within the interfaith dialogue paradigm? Is it about being heard, or about being enabled to speak?

Or just about stepping out of it?
 
Last edited:
Cino said:
There seems to be a sense that the question being discussed here is asked in bad faith.
Click to expand...
I actually don't see it that way. It's the need to prove the Quran Jesus. The Quran has to be right -- regardless. So (seemingly) contrary responses must be wrong. Even if they are as bright as the sun. In that sense it's driven by the need to convince not only others but perhaps myself as well?

So no, I personally don't see the question as posted in bad faith ...
 
Last edited:
It ends up in over simplification and dictionary wrangling about profound ideas, imo

But it might be interesting to anyone not familiar with the detailed nature of 'the great divide'
 
Last edited:
Namaste Jesus said:
That's the point. Questions asked, answers given multiple times, multiple ways, keeps insisting the same thing regardless. Obviously has no interest in anyone's response, only aim of the OP was to discredit. Failed at that so went back to the same tired speech we've seen on other threads. Enough is enough.
Click to expand...
You mean you think that you should have the last say? :)

It really doesn't bother me. This is the first thread that I have created for a long time.
The last was in April '21.

I know you find the subject irritating .. yet we both believe in G-d .. pray to G-d.
Oh well .. perhaps you prefer discussing with atheists. :)
 
Namaste Jesus said:
Well, like the prayer says, Our Father which art in heaven... That is, though Jesus and the Father are one, the Father dwells in heaven.
Click to expand...

If the father is Jesus (as how most trinitarians I've speak with refer) than it would be teaching them to worship him/Jesus. If it were God/father he'd still be talking about himself, no?
 
muhammad_isa said:
I don't know what you are talking about..
If "the son" was an incarnation of G-d, we would have a walking and talking G-d, that would be omniscient and have no need of praying to the Father. It is gibberish, to me, to say that the son and the Father are one person, but the son worships the Father.
It has become tradition, and evolved during the first couple of centuries after the ascension.

The Bible is a collection of scrolls which was not chosen by Jesus. It is a collection of accounts, from various authors about Divine matters, and the NT did not even exist until after the ascension. There are numerous creeds. Some make logical sense and do not deviate from common sense, whilst others revolve around concepts which diverge from the shema which Jesus proclaimed.

It is too easy to claim that G-d has a number of parts / persons .. and the shema is designed to protect us from such pitfalls.
"Nobody is good except for our Father" does not translate to Jesus claiming to be part of a trinity. It is a "mystery" invented by men.
Click to expand...

I was speaking to Nameste in your first commenI. I understand both trinitarian and no trinitarian thought. It just depends on your definition of incarnation and it's role.

I'll come back to comment on the rest
 
muhammad_isa said:
Oh well .. perhaps you prefer discussing with atheists. :)
Click to expand...

Want me to go on and on about how the concept of God makes no sense to me? It's kind of a given, why dwell on it?
 
All the different uniforms and rituals, all believing the same one God supreme -- it's quite weird, really

Is it really concern for your soul that requires me to convince you to switch to my religion?
 
Last edited:
RJM said:
All the different uniforms and rituals, all believing the same one God supreme -- it's quite weird, really

Is it really concern for your soul that requires me to convince you to switch to my religion?
Click to expand...
No. I participate in forums because social interaction is part of life.
"Wish for yourself what you wish for your brother" also springs to mind.

That to me means that, in a spiritual context, I should not hide what I understand to be truth in order to collect wealth.
..nor should I be too concerned of people's scorn .. I expect it really.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
muhammad_isa said:
nor should I be too concerned of people's scorn .. I expect it really.
Click to expand...
Ah no look, I follow you on another forum (lurking) and I understand the abuse you put up with from some. But that is never my own intention here, brother. There should be respect from both sides?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top