Muslim say Unique instead of Begotten in NT

[LittleLambofJesus]

hang on a minute what about this:
Ps 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Who is this refering to, the last time I checked it was David, has there been any changes since, no one informed me that the begotten son has changed,Damn!next time at least send me an email or a text message all this time i been thinking David was the only begotten.Damn, they changed it without letting me know.

peace
yaqovzadeek
aka James the just

That is because you do not read and understand the OT. Please don't quote the OT Scriptures unless you view them as being fulfilled in the Christ. Notice it does not say rebuild the tabernacle of Muhammad. Thanks.

Acts 15:16 'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;

The muslims claim God can not "beget" so Jesus was "unique". Are there any here of other faiths that can explain what is meant by the "only begotten Son of God"? Thanks.

(Young) John 1:18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father--he did declare.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 1:18 qeon <2316> {GOD} oudeiV <3762> {NO ONE} ewraken <3708> (5758) {HAS SEEN} pwpote <4455> {AT ANY TIME;} o <3588> {THE} monogenhV <3439> {ONLY BEGOTTEN} uioV <5207> {SON,} o <3588> {WHO} wn <5607> (5752) {IS} eiV <1519> {IN} ton <3588> {THE} kolpon <2859> {BOSOM} tou <3588> {OF THE} patroV <3962> {FATHER,} ekeinoV <1565> {HE} exhghsato <1834> (5662) {DECLARED [HIM].}

 

[yaqovzadeek]

That is because you do not read and understand the OT. Please don't quote the OT Scriptures unless you view them as being fulfilled in the Christ. Notice it does not say rebuild the tabernacle of Muhammad. Thanks.

Acts 15:16 'After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, And I will set it up;

Why do you go running to the OT Justify Christ but reject the same OT when it come to follow the laws.That is sheer hypocrisy. As a Jew if the Vesrs in the Psalms refers to Jesus see what he says.
Peace
Yaqovzadeek
Aka James the Just

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

(Young) John 1:18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father--he did declare.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 1:18 qeon <2316> {GOD} oudeiV <3762> {NO ONE} ewraken <3708> (5758) {HAS SEEN} pwpote <4455> {AT ANY TIME;} o <3588> {THE} monogenhV <3439> {ONLY BEGOTTEN} uioV <5207> {SON,} o <3588> {WHO} wn <5607> (5752) {IS} eiV <1519> {IN} ton <3588> {THE} kolpon <2859> {BOSOM} tou <3588> {OF THE} patroV <3962> {FATHER,} ekeinoV <1565> {HE} exhghsato <1834> (5662) {DECLARED [HIM].}

Why do you go running to the OT Justify Christ but reject the same OT when it come to follow the laws.That is sheer hypocrisy. As a Jew if the Vesrs in the Psalms refers to Jesus see what he says.
Peace
Yaqovzadeek
Aka James the Just

Because the muslims also use our Scriptures and define them differently than the jews.After all, the OT is about the JEWS. But "gentiles" also share in the same blessings upon belief of the Christ that came to them. Peace.

Ezekiel 37:22 "and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one King shall be King over them All; they shall no longer be two Nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two Kingdoms again.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What does the word "begotten" mean in the OT/NT to the muslims?

 

[Oxy2Hydr0]

To beget is an animal function for procreating in order to produce offspring.

G-d the all mighty does not procreate, He Creates. Procreating is as inferior function and act of the creation, not the Creator.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To beget is an animal function for procreating in order to produce offspring.

G-d the all mighty does not procreate, He Creates. Procreating is as inferior function and act of the creation, not the Creator.

You mean like this "animal"? I believe Jesus was also put in an "animal trough" after birth?

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lambkin standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

(Young) John 1:18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father--he did declare.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 1:18 qeon <2316> {GOD} oudeiV <3762> {NO ONE} ewraken <3708> (5758) {HAS SEEN} pwpote <4455> {AT ANY TIME;} o <3588> {THE} monogenhV <3439> {ONLY BEGOTTEN} uioV <5207> {SON,} o <3588> {WHO} wn <5607> (5752) {IS} eiV <1519> {IN} ton <3588> {THE} kolpon <2859> {BOSOM} tou <3588> {OF THE} patroV <3962> {FATHER,} ekeinoV <1565> {HE} exhghsato <1834> (5662) {DECLARED [HIM].}

 

[Exodus20_4]

The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation throughout the centuries."--Sir Frederic Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1958), 55.

And you cannot use your God-given ability to question what version of the bible Kenyon was referring to? Does his knighthood make him correct? Maybe he'd be more right with a big, pointy hat? Was he Catholic with 73 biblical books or Protestant with 66 biblical books in "the bible" he refers to?

The Word of God cannot change therefore no bible is The Word of The God without doubt from beginning to end, period. If it is The Word of The God, out of fear that it might be tainted, the original language(s) would be published alongside the translations of the meanings and it would be memorized in its entirety and no addendums would be made, but it is not because it's not The Word of The God and leaves itself open to retranslation since the "original" bibles are the word of man as well...

 

[peaceful soul]

To beget is an animal function for procreating in order to produce offspring.

G-d the all mighty does not procreate, He Creates. Procreating is as inferior function and act of the creation, not the Creator.

I think that your greatest obstacle is that you view the Bible through the eyes of Islam. The Qu'ran gives you the incorrect understanding what Christians believe and practice. Also, your scholards and theologians don't have a sound understanding of the Bible, and whenever you follow what they say and believe it without reading the Bible alone for its content and context, you will almost always be lead to error.

You can not apply a different approach to studying the Qu'ran and then fail to read the Bible with sincerity, humility, and with the attitude that you truly want to understand it in its own context. Your apriori stance needs to be dissolved when you approach another's material. Whether the Bible is true or not should not keep you from reading it in its full context to see what it says.

You are also not understanding that just like in reading the Qu'ran, one comes to understand that some things are not to be taken literal. A lot of the Bible use various kinds of allegorical and other types of descriptive devices to relate God's words to the very ones it was intended for - humans. Begotten is used partly because it shows Jesus in flesh (incarnated) is of the same substance as the Father. Their relationship is of Father and Son. These descriptions help us to relate to the nature of God. Naturally, describing this relationship in terms that humans can understand is the only means by whifch God can relate directly to us. God could not speak in a language or use terms we do not uderstand and expect us to comprhend.

I emphasize: the sooner you let go of the Qur'anic and Islamic understanding of the Bible, the sooner you will learn to undertand the Bible as it has historically been understood by the Church at large. The longer you stay in your quagmire of and ignorance, the longer you will remain ignorant of the Bible.

The Qur'an tells you that God had a son much like the ancient Greeks had gods that gave birth to sons and daughters; but that is not at all what the Bible teaches or has historically taught. The fact is that the Qu'ran is wrong on this issue. The root of Christianity has never held such a postition! But since the Qu'ran states it, that makes it true. That is circular reasoning on the account that it does not allow for any historical records of Christianity to testify against what the Qu'ran claims. The Qu'ran alone tries to tell the very people who follow Christianty what they actually do. Those who follow should have a better understanding of what they do or don't do rather than an account far removed from the source and culture of Christianity which claims to knows better?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

To beget is an animal function for procreating in order to produce offspring.

G-d the all mighty does not procreate, He Creates. Procreating is as inferior function and act of the creation, not the Creator.

You mean like this "animal"? I believe Jesus was also put in an "animal trough" after birth?

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lambkin standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

(Young) John 1:18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father--he did declare.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 1:18 qeon <2316> {GOD} oudeiV <3762> {NO ONE} ewraken <3708> (5758) {HAS SEEN} pwpote <4455> {AT ANY TIME;} o <3588> {THE} monogenhV <3439> {ONLY BEGOTTEN} uioV <5207> {SON,} o <3588> {WHO} wn <5607> (5752) {IS} eiV <1519> {IN} ton <3588> {THE} kolpon <2859> {BOSOM} tou <3588> {OF THE} patroV <3962> {FATHER,} ekeinoV <1565> {HE} exhghsato <1834> (5662) {DECLARED [HIM].}

I think that your greatest obstacle is that you view the Bible through the eyes of Islam. The Qu'ran gives you the incorrect understanding what Christians believe and practice. Also, your scholards and theologians don't have a sound understanding of the Bible, and whenever you follow what they say and believe it without reading the Bible alone for its content and context, you will almost always be lead to error.

You can not apply a different approach to studying the Qu'ran and then fail to read the Bible with sincerity, humility, and with the attitude that you truly want to understand it in its own context. Your apriori stance needs to be dissolved when you approach another's material. Whether the Bible is true or not should not keep you from reading it in its full context to see what it says.............

Hi PS. I wish I had your flair for explaining things. All I can use is Scripture most timse.

 

[bless_sins]

I think that your greatest obstacle is that you view the Bible through the eyes of Islam. The Qu'ran gives you the incorrect understanding what Christians believe and practice. Also, your scholards and theologians don't have a sound understanding of the Bible, and whenever you follow what they say and believe it without reading the Bible alone for its content and context, you will almost always be lead to error.

No, he is viewing the Bible in terms of common sense that God has endowed all of us (regardless of belief) with.

To beget is an animal or natural act. Since God created nature, how can He be subject to it?

However, the Bible may use te word "son" as a metaphor to symbolize the love between God and Jesus (pbuh).

That does not at all contradict Muslim teachings.

Muslims believe that God truly loved Jesus, so much so that God saved Jesus from the cross.

God was so merciful he wouldn't allow Jesus to suffer on the cross, just a loving father wouldn't allow his precious son to undergo torture.

Saving your loved one from torture is only natural. Whether the parent is Muslim, Jeiwsh, Christian, Hindu etc... they will NEVER allow their child to undergo such torture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You mean like this "animal"? I believe Jesus was also put in an "animal trough" after birth?

John 1:29 The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and behold, a Lambkin standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred [and] forty-four thousand, having His Father's name written on their foreheads.

(Young) John 1:18 God no one hath ever seen; the only begotten Son, who is on the bosom of the Father--he did declare.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) John 1:18 qeon <2316> {GOD} oudeiV <3762> {NO ONE} ewraken <3708> (5758) {HAS SEEN} pwpote <4455> {AT ANY TIME;} o <3588> {THE} monogenhV <3439> {ONLY BEGOTTEN} uioV <5207> {SON,} o <3588> {WHO} wn <5607> (5752) {IS} eiV <1519> {IN} ton <3588> {THE} kolpon <2859> {BOSOM} tou <3588> {OF THE} patroV <3962> {FATHER,} ekeinoV <1565> {HE} exhghsato <1834> (5662) {DECLARED [HIM].}

No, he is viewing the Bible in terms of common sense that God has endowed all of us (regardless of belief) with.

To beget is an animal or natural act. Since God created nature, how can He be subject to it?

However, the Bible may use te word "son" as a metaphor to symbolize the love between God and Jesus (pbuh).

That does not at all contradict Muslim teachings.

Muslims believe that God truly loved Jesus, so much so that God saved Jesus from the cross.

God was so merciful he wouldn't allow Jesus to suffer on the cross, just a loving father wouldn't allow his precious son to undergo torture.

Saving your loved one from torture is only natural. Whether the parent is Muslim, Jeiwsh, Christian, Hindu etc... they will NEVER allow their child to undergo such torture.

Yes, the atheists keep telling us how "mercifull" God is in the OT.

zeph 1: 7 Be silent in the presence of the Lord GOD; For the day of the LORD [is] at hand, For the LORD has prepared a sacrifice/slaughter; He has invited His guests. 8 "And it shall be, In the day of the LORD's sacrifice/slaughter, That I will punish the princes and the king's children,

(Young) Hosea 13:14 From the hand of Sheol I do ransom them, From death I redeem them [Israel/Judah], Where [is] thy plague, O death? Where thy destruction, O Sheol? Repentance is hid from Mine eyes.

zeph 1:2 " I will utterly consume everything From the face of the land," Says the LORD; 3 "I will consume man and beast; I will consume the birds of the heavens, The fish of the sea, And the stumbling blocks along with the wicked. I will cut off man from the face of the land," Says the LORD. 4 "I will stretch out My hand against Judah, And against all the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

No, he is viewing the Bible in terms of common sense that God has endowed all of us (regardless of belief) with.

To beget is an animal or natural act. Since God created nature, how can He be subject to it?

However, the Bible may use te word "son" as a metaphor to symbolize the love between God and Jesus (pbuh).

That does not at all contradict Muslim teachings.

Muslims believe that God truly loved Jesus, so much so that God saved Jesus from the cross.

God was so merciful he wouldn't allow Jesus to suffer on the cross, just a loving father wouldn't allow his precious son to undergo torture.

Saving your loved one from torture is only natural. Whether the parent is Muslim, Jeiwsh, Christian, Hindu etc... they will NEVER allow their child to undergo such torture.

As a parent, I would have a hard time with that also

 

[razeontherock]

"Whether the parent is Muslim, Jeiwsh, Christian, Hindu etc... they will NEVER allow their child to undergo such torture."

What then do you do with Job?