Jesus as the Son of God: clarification

This post is especially for Damilola, who asked a good question over on Nashida's Facebook page. I will add to this post (clearly delineating where additions have been made) as I gather more information or better explanations. On Jesus' deity, see this page.

The question:

I think where many Christians go wrong is by taking Paul's view of Christianity! A pity! Where did all this talk of Jesus being the Son of God come from? Have you heard of the Council of Nicea and what happened there? Are you aware that a majority of the early Christians did not believe Jesus was the 'Son' of God but just a prophet?

Many people, especially Muslims, have asked these questions before. Many Christians do not know very well how to answer them, however. An extremely good resource on what exactly "Son of God" means can be found here. The gist of that article's explanation is that the meaning of the phrase is quite different than the concept of a biological son, which is of course heresy. Rather, Jesus Christ, being one and the same with the Father (again, not biological), is of the closest possible relationship to God the Father.

This is a very confusing topic, I admit. But to lessen confusion, it is important to remember the concept of the Trinity - a tri-unity - to which an analogy may be in order. Think of a candle burning. You see its light, taking up the entirety of the flame. It is not one-third light, but all light. In addition, you see its form, taking up the entirety. 100% form. Thirdly, you feel its heat, emanating from 100% of the flame. In the same way, each Person of the Trinity is fully God, and God is fully the Trinity.

Luther and the Word, part 3

Here is the third portion of the paper.

Luther also refused to acknowledge that reason or philosophy could replace Scripture’s authority. Many Protestants could not believe in various teachings of Holy Scriptures concerning the Sacraments because it did not agree with their philosophies or did not make sense to their human reason. Luther once said, “It is most scandalous for us to attempt to defend God’s Word with our reason, whereas we are to defend ourselves against all enemies with the Word of God.”25 Ultimately, it was Luther’s firm conviction that Scripture alone could determine what the Church could and could not teach that separated his theology from the theology of Rome, the enthusiasts, and most Protestants.

In Martin Luther’s theology the content of Holy Scriptures was divided into Law and Gospel. The Gospel was for Luther the center and purpose of the Word. This Gospel was the good news that Jesus died for the sins of the world and the promise that those who believe in Him will have eternal life. Luther said:

“And the gospel should really not be something written, but a spoken word, which brought forth the Scriptures, as Christ and the apostles have done . . . He (Jesus) called his teaching not Scripture but gospel, meaning good news or a proclamation that is spread not by pen but by word and mouth.”[26]

The Gospel is best called the spoken Word. Whenever the Gospel is preached or proclaimed, that which is spoken is the Word. Therefore, when a pastor gives a sermon or speaks the words of Absolution, the words that come from the pastor’s lips are the Word of God. When a Christian forgives another of their sin and proclaims the good news of God’s love to them, they speak God’s Word. For Luther, “wherever there is a manifestation or utterance of the Divine will of love, there is the living Word of God.”[27] God’s spoken Word was God’s own living presence. Luther made this quite clear when he said, “Remember that God has said: I am in your mouth, and I pass with the Word through your ears into your heart. So, then, we have a sure sign and know that when the Gospel is preached, God is present and would have Himself found there.”[28] So, when a person hears a Christian proclaim the Gospel, they hear the Word; in fact, they hear Christ Himself speak to them.

How does your philosophy intersect with this Word of God?

Getting religion

Go read this terrific book review about why the MSM tends not to get things right when covering religious topics. At the risk of putting too much in nutshells, the media would still do well to remember these two points:

1. Islam, despite meaning "peace" and having many peaceful adherents, has a decided propensity for violence. Against non-Muslims.
2. Christianity, despite being vilified and having the occasional militant adherent, has a decided propensity for loving fellow humans.

Cross-posted at The Renaissance Biologist.

Sura 112 and the Trinity, part 6

The following paragraph, as usual.

The third criterion, that God (or Allah) has neither parents nor children, is a very thorny issue, especially since the Qur’an insists that the Jesus of Christianity is the physical or literal son of God. However, this stems mainly from a misunderstanding of Jesus Christ’s conception (especially the Greek for “begotten”), primary title (“the Son of God”), and frequent references to “the Father” (e.g. John 8:18), not to mention the confusion about Mariolatry, as mentioned earlier. The perpetually inadequate (at least in English) translation of the Greek word for “begotten” in such verses as John 3:16 may be ameliorated by noting that the word, monogenes, connotes “unique” or a metaphorical meaning, not necessarily a physical birth (“Does the Bible”). Also, as is clear from a contextual reading of the passages foretelling and narrating Christ’s conception and birth, He has no genetic relation to Joseph (e.g. Luke 1:35), but rather proceeds from His Father (again, a metaphorical, not physical, relationship; see John 8:42). To summarize, the Qur’an looks at the Father-Son relationship of the Christian God as physical and therefore idolatrous, while a Biblical reading supports a more metaphorical relationship, thus fulfilling the third standard.

I think the author handled this issue quite well. There is indeed much confusion about "begotten" when one does not consider the Greek. Do any readers have arguments against this concise treatment of ayah number three?