sotto voce

There are several uses for the word 'son'. One is of course the plain one of a physical offspring by sexual intercourse. Another is that of a product or creation, as men were called 'sons of God' in Genesis 6:2, and likewise angels in Job 1:6. Another sense is spiritual sonship, as when Paul described Timothy as his son, and indeed all Christians are called children of God in a spiritual sense. Nowhere in the OT/Tanakh is Ezra so described, and nowhere in Jewish literature, and this notion seems to be spurious.

Yet another sense is that of manifestation. This applied to Jesus as manifestation of God- Immanuel, God with us, as understood. Muslims deliberately misrepresent this interpretation of another faith, alleging that the word somehow means offspring by sexual intercourse:

'How can He have a son when He has no consort?' Qur'an 6:101

sotto voce

Any definition of trinity that includes more than one person (English word meaning individual) is polytheism. The Qur'an was right, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

Duvduv

I changed the posting. It wasn't Al-Kathir or Ibn-Kathir. It was others.

sotto voce

An ambiguity.

The author may well have known about the gospel displacing the Law, but may have deliberately made them equivalent. The whole purpose of the Qur'an is legalism, akin to that of Pharisaism.

PhilosopherJay

The Quran seems to me to be eight or nine different documents cut up by an illiterate man and copied to fit inside a codex.
The references to Hebrew and Christian text seem to be incoherent. They seem to be from a simple-minded man who knows nothing of either religion but had listened to some debates and then ordered a scribe to write whatever little bits he remembered of the debates.

It seems to me that the author had never read any Christian or Hebrew Scriptures. Its like the new convert who hasn't read the Bible, but makes up all kinds of crazy story connections based on his remembering what preachers have said in order to prove some point he doesn't understand.

Also it may be compared to the scene in the Ingmar Bergman film "Inn of Sixth Happiness" where the servant Yang starts to tell stories from the bible to Chinese travelers. He finds they're totally uninterested in them when he relates them as written, but when he mixes them up (Jesus with Noah's Arc, for example) and puts in Chinese morals, they start to pay attention.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

mrsonic

i think the quranic authours were telling christians and pagans that god has no need for sons and daughters spiritual wives spiritual sons + daughters .


here is the muslim interpretation



"Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you pairs among yourselves, and pairs of cattle also, whereby he multiplies you. Nothing is as his likeness; and He Hears and Sees all."

Allah has originated everything out of nothing, meaning he is unlike the created things. Reality teaches us that life is carried on through primarily like pairs. Further, this reproduction also leads to the passing on of certain characteristics through one's descendants, striking at the concept of a perfect unity for anything other than Him, who originated everything out of nothing.

Creation also means perfect will, which implies absolute self-consciousness. He Hears and Sees all, meaning he is fully conscious, the perfect embodiment of life.


and


The 'ana' is also expressed in the fact that God has not taken a consort, because He has no need to, which the disbeliever's themselves acknowledged. Companionship and 'children' fulfill needs of the human being, meaning they are a 'weakness'. Such a thing finds no place for the Eternal One, who is beyond all needs. If the disbeliever's acknowledge that God has no consort because it is against his majesty, than the very notion that He would have children is rendered absurd on the same premise.

Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth! How could He have a son when He has no consort, and He (Himself) created everything, and He is the Knower of all things.

Toto

Where are these interpretations? Please give a cite.

sotto voce

Is it meaningless to say that penal substitutionary atonement is the purpose of deity for the salvation of the souls of men? Did the author(s) of the Qur'an think it meaningless, or is the Qur'an an attempt, by man or deity, to counter that notion, that caused so much difficulty that millions of people subsequently died on its account?

sotto voce

'Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God, that He should beget a son.' Quran 19:34-35

Quite so.

And it was the Bible told them so.

mrsonic

the muslims say , " if only they had accepted our version"

"Mainstream Sunni Islam has never required one to take a position here. The issue does not appear in the classical theology manuals. But what is unambiguously significant in this verse is (1) the exoneration of the Jews, even though they themselves claimed to have killed Jesus (Quran 4:157; Peter Schafer, ‘Jesus in the Talmud’). Hence the verse saves the Jews from the Gospel blood curse which has caused them such misery in Christendom. (2) the fact that the entire mass of paradoxical argument about who/what died at the crucifixion, a bone of such contention in Xtian history, is thankfully abolished. (3 – the larger context) God’s love comes about through forgiveness, and vicarious atonement is not really forgiveness. If my neighbour owes me 1000 pounds, I have three options:"