THE TRUE SHAHADA INDEED: REVISITED [Part 2]
Can Muslims appeal to John 17:3? This is the specific subject that this second installment of True Shahada Indeed series will focus on. Anthony Rogers provides his own reasons as to why Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3. Is he correct in his reasoning? Or is it more of a desperate attempt of Trinitarian(s) to hide himself/themselves from the ignominy of worshipping three gods! In this paper, which is a refutation to Anthony's article, we would, inshallah, examine all the arguments provided by my confused interlocutor to provide him yet another chance to save him from the worship three gods.
Reasons why Christians should trump John 17:3 to continue simmering in worship of 3 gods!
As one of the weakest argument a Christian would ever put forth to defend their polytheism against the monotheism of John 17:3, Rogers writes that since the "text speaks of the Father as God something altogether foreign to Islam" (thus) Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3.
There are more than just a couple of problems with this untenable and ludicrous argument:
Firstly, the term "Father" is not the proper name of the biblical God rather it is the tetragramatton YHWH or Jehovah. "Father" is just a title and not the proper name of the God of Bible. And, we are not discussing whether or not we can call him "Father" rather the point of debate is whether or not the deity who is entitled as "Father" is one or three under the light of John 17:3.
Kindly realize the diversion in the topic from oneness of God who is biblically labeled as "Father" to a new subject - whether or not He can be labeled as "Father" biblically? Such an (illogical) argumentation is engendered either through pulling out red herring or simply ignorance.
Furthermore, such an argumentation tantamount to us discussing how we can save Nature from pollution and somebody coining a new topic (and thus digressing) in between "whether or not we can call Nature as "Mother Nature".
Yet another example would expose the argumentative hollowness in Rogers reasoning (as to Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3 since the "text speaks of the Father as God something altogether foreign to Islam") is by supposing a scenario where we are arguing the divinity of Jesus and all of a sudden Rogers moots that Muslims cannot appeal to Jesus (peace be upon him) since the text speaks of Jesus something altogether foreign to Islam, since in Islam Jesus is called as Isa, peace be upon him.
Just like it does not matter whether we call Nature as Mother Nature or otherwise since the point at hand is to save it from pollution or, similarly, as it does not matter whether we debate divinity of Christ with the name of Isa or Jesus since the pith is to prove the non divinity of Christ similarly it absolutely counts to nothing (at least for this paper) whether God can be called as "Father" or not since the point to be proven (or disproven) is whether or not biblical God is One or Three(!). To summarize then the Muslim appeal to John 17:3 is for the count or number of God and not for His name or title at least for this particular paper.
But because I am such a nice boy I will allow Anthony Rogers to hide behind his flimsy argument and concord with him that "text speaks of the Father as God something altogether foreign to Islam". Now, after this assumption, let us examine Rogers's claims and check how much of this would save my opponent.
When the "text speaks of the Father" in the verse, it does not impute the lowly act of begetting to God (it is the Christians who do so)which is denounced in Islam, nevertheless, the Israelites preferred to entitle God as Father than calling him by His proper name for the reasons of their own.
We may assume that they called God as Father because of the transcendent paternal care which He provides similar to that which a human father provides, same goes with protection, providence, sustenance, love etc.
Rogers, my opponent, would have had a case (actually still not) if Father as used in the text would have implied the filthy act of siring to God, but it certainly does not, rather the use is more metaphorical than literal. And, to elicit this point of ours we quoted verses from Bible which Anthony Rogers responded by saying that those are only "three" verses we provided him (!):
"The first thing to observe here is Mr. Anonymous' hasty generalization. On the basis of three passages of the Old Testament, Mr. Anonymous asserts that the Jews never used the word Father with its literal import when referring to God."
The problems with such weak argument are that Rogers overrides the authority of Bible. That is, if Bible is the word of God then even one so called God - breathed verse would be enough to settle the case but much to his chagrin he has scoffed off three. That being the complaint we would, inshallah, provide Rogers with more verses to digest but before that let us look at the second problem in his argument.
As he is dying hard to prove that Jews did use the word Father with its literal import when referring to God otherwise he would have never made this statement:
".Mr. Anonymous asserts that the Jews never used the word Father with its literal import when referring to God."
This immediately intrigues us to ask him that Sir, what is the "literal import" of the word Father? Since are you not the same person to charge Muhammad (peace be upon him) of thinking in pagan lines when Qur'an denounced the same imputation of literal connotation of Father to God, i.e. begetting act:
"Although Christians do not believe that God is literally a father in the crude way presented in the Qur'an, where divine fatherhood implies a consort, copulation, and possibly even cohabitation with a female deity, one of the signal proofs that the author(s) of the Qur'an couldn't escape thinking in terms of pagan categories"
Let us make a point here that we will again comeback to the aforementioned charge of Anthony Rogers to further see him en messed in his own argument. For now, let us provide him more verses from the Bible where Israelites have used the term Father for God and see whether they were literal or otherwise:
1. "Doubtless thou art our FATHER, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O LORD, art our FATHER, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting." (Isaiah 63:16, King James (1611) Bible)
Anybody visiting the context of the above adduced verse from Isaiah would realize that the usage of the term "FATHER" is metaphorical and figurative than anything else. Nevertheless, we provide more verses:
2. "They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a FATHER to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9, King James (1611) Bible)
Here again we find that the usage of the term Father is precisely not literal but figurative. Till now we have not come across a single verse from the Bible which implies any literal import to the term FATHER which would substantiate Rogers claim to obviate Muslims from the appeal to John 17:3.
Here are few more verses:
3. "I will be his FATHER, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:" (2 Samuel 7:14, King James (1611), Bible)
Gill's exposition on the above adduced verse from 2nd Samuel expressly supports our argument that the Israelites preferred to call their God as Father because of the vicarious sense of protection, sustenance, love, care etc they received from God-Almighty which at some lower level is also found in earthly human fathers (of course, but protection etc as provided by Almighty is unmatchable):
"2Sa 7:14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son,.... That is, I will be as kind unto him, and careful of him, as a father of a son; or he shall be, and appear to be my son, by adopting grace, as no doubt Solomon was, notwithstanding all his failings."
4. "I will be his FATHER, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee:" (1 Chronicles 17:13, King James (1611), Bible)
5. "He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will be his FATHER; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever." (1 Chronicles 12:10, King James (1611), Bible)
The "son" referred to in the above cited verse is Solomon (peace be upon him). However, the verse yet again does not imply anything more than figurative sense to the title "FATHER" as used in the text.
6. "And he said unto me, Solomon thy son, he shall build my house and my courts: for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his FATHER." (1 Chronicles 28:6, King James (1611), Bible)
The article "thy" in the above adduced verse is referring to David (peace be upon him), on the other hand, "my" alludes to God Himself. If we were to think like Anthony Rogers then we would have a serious problem here of two fathers of Solomon (peace be upon him) which we know is not the case. The only way to understand the above usage of the term "FATHER" is that it is used figuratively or metaphorically.
So far we have produced six (more) verses from the Old Testament against the complaint that we generalized the usage of Father upon three verses (only). However, we are yet to see literal usage or import of the term "FATHER". All the NINE verses imply only figurative or metaphorical usage of the term. Now then if biblical usage of the term "FATHER" is metaphorical in most places then Muslims can appeal to John 17:3. Since what is fulminated in Islam is the literal import of the term Father and the subsequent act of Fathering.
And this is not just the end since the so called New Testament also contains similar verses which only points to Fatherhood in a "spiritual" and metaphorical sense. We need to refer to Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6, respectively:
"For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father." (King James (1611) Bible)
"And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (King James (1611) Bible)
The interesting point here is the Aramaic, Arabic and Hebrew word "Abba" used in the text. "Ab" or "Abi", the root from which "Abba" evolved, is the same root used in the nine Hebrew quotations we quoted above, moreover, the same "Abba" was used by (ironically) volunteering (for sacrifice) Jesus pleading his "Abba" to save him from crucifixion!:
"And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:36, King James (1611) Bible)
Therefore, the common usage of "Abba" or Father by Paul and (allegedly) by Jesus (peace be upon him) settles the matter that "Father" as used in Bible (at least in most cases) is "spiritual" and figurative in nature and thus Muslims have all the warrant to call their Christian brethren towards total monotheism through appeal to John 17:3 even if the text speaks of "Father".
But why are we arguing to prove that "Father" is not carnally used in John 17:3 since my opponent expressly states that Father is "spiritually" used and not "carnally"(!):
"As these (and other) passages indicate, God is literally a Father, though in an eternal and spiritual rather than a temporal and carnal sense."
If the "passages indicate" God to be Father in an "eternal and spiritual" sense and not in "temporal and carnal sense" then what is Anthony Rogers fussing about. As already stated that Qur'an criticizes the carnal sense and usage of the term "Father", albeit, the text uses "Father" in a "spiritual sense". So what is the argument about?
If that is the case then why is Anthony Rogers arguing so confusedly. We will analyze it below where we would also take in to account the "proofs" (and attacks) he gave why Muslims cannot to John 17:3 to prove monotheism to the "People of the Book"!
Confused proofs of obfuscated Apologist
In order to respond to our argument that John 17:3 does not use the term "Father" literally, Rogers reposes to Psalm 2. He thinks that Psalm 2 uses the term "Father" in "more than just the narrow metaphorical". Let us quote what exactly he had to say:
"the fact is that the word Father is used for God in the Old Testament in more than just the narrow metaphorical sense that Mr. Anonymous' three carefully (craftily?) selected passages indicate. For example, Psalm 2 uses the word "Father" for God in relation to the Messiah (vs. 7),."
I wonder why and how Rogers chose Psalm 2 to prove his case since entire Psalm 2 just does not contain the term "FATHER" in it! May be in future we expect better verses from Rogers.
However, anybody reading his response would realize that this was not the only occasion when he chose a wrong verse (chapter) as we will expose it further in this refutation.
He claimed that, ".and it is clear from the whole Psalm that the Messiah is more than just an ordinary human being, for He is the Heir of all things and the kings and rulers of the earth are commanded to worship Him (vss. 10-12)."
We would like to ask a question here that how does Messiah being more than ordinary human being and being the heir of all things etc make "Father" and it's import repellent to Muslims. Once again Qur'an criticizes the literal connotation of begetting act of God.
He provided a second proof to prove his claim ".that the word Father is used for God in the Old Testament in more than just the narrow metaphorical. sense that Mr. Anonymous' three carefully (craftily?) selected passages indicate." His proof was:
"As for another example, the concept is clearly present in the Old Testament book of Proverbs where mention is made of God's "Son," which term is simply the correlative of "Father":
Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)"
In response we would only make a query as to how does Proverbs 30:4 prove that the term "Father" is more than metaphorical let alone "narrow metaphorical"?
Begetting the Filth
Certain portions of this section might not go palatable to lay Christians. It might be offensive. However, it must be noted that this section is purely responsive. It is a response to the baseless claim made by Anthony Rogers, which one would read below. It is not our intention to offend any lay, sincere Christian believer through this section, unlike Christian apologists who write vulgar articles against Islam.
It is of paramount importance to take into account to an allegation which Anthony Rogers made on Allah regarding Qur'an 19:88. He said:
"Although Christians do not believe that God is literally a father in the crude way presented in the Qur'an, where divine fatherhood implies a consort, copulation, and possibly even cohabitation with a female deity, one of the signal proofs that the author(s) of the Qur'an couldn't escape thinking in terms of pagan categories,."
Further to elaborate this point he wrote at footnote number two:
"The point here is that the authors of the Qur'an could not hear any mention of things like divine paternity (i.e. the fatherhood) or filiation (i.e. sonship) without interpreting them in the sense that the pagans intended by such words."
Thus, let us analyze who is thinking in pagan lines.
Would Christians including Anthony Rogers explain us what is the meaning of the term "Begotten" which is so oft used in the Bible and in reference to Jesus, peace be upon him. For instance it is used at John 3:16, Psalm 2:7 (according to Christian appeal) etc, respectively:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN (QM: monogenh) Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (King James (1611) Bible)
One possible hackneyed response which we might expect is the Christian appeal to the original Greek word used for "Begotten". It is "monogenh" which, according to Strong's note, means, "only-born". Etymologically "monogenh" also means "one of a kind" or "special" this is exactly how it is used in Hebrews 11:17.
Originality amalgamated with embarrassment of the usage of the dirty term "Begotten" has engendered many recent biblical versions to render it as "only Son" (Holy Bible, Good News Edition, Today's English Version, ISBN 81-221-1082-7)
However, problem still lingers with such an explanation.
· Firstly, if "monogenh" means/t "only" or "one of a kind" of "special" then why did biblical translators chose the abject English word "Begotten" since "Begotten" by no stretch of English language means "only" or "one of a kind" or "special".
To further exacerbate the ill translation of the Greek word "monogenh", the Greek for "Begotten" is not "monogenh" rather it is "UEVVW" (γεννώ) or "PROKALW"(προκαλώ) which is certainly not "MONOGENH".
The only reason for such hard and fast with translation is the literal comprehension and usage of the dirty term "Begotten" in Christiandom. (We would provide more proofs to support this assertion a little later).
· Conversely, if "Begotten" is the correct translation then why are some of the authoritative so called versions doing away from it and replacing it with renderings such as "only son" etc. It looks more like a damage control.
Not just this, the above explanation goes head on against the Nicene Creed which states:
".And in one Lord Jesus Christ, BEGOTTEN of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father." (Jonathan L. Keene, CHHI 521 History of Christianity I). How will you replace begotten with only son here as you have replace it in the Bible?
If "Monogenh" which means "unique", "one of a kind", "only", "especial", "only-born" or "sole" also means "Begotten" then they should be replaceable with each other. Therefore, let us put each of the adjectives into the Nicene Creed, in place of "Begotten" and see what evolves:
".And in one Lord Jesus Christ, unique of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father."
".And in one Lord Jesus Christ, "one of a kind" of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father."
".And in one Lord Jesus Christ, "only" of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father."
".And in one Lord Jesus Christ, "only-born" of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father."
".And in one Lord Jesus Christ, "sole" of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God,
BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father."
As is easily discernable, none of the above rendered substitutions have worked to save Christian dignity. All the renderings are incongruous and fly off to face proclaiming that "one of a kind" or "especial" does not mean "Begotten" or "Sired".
Thus once again "Monogenh" does not mean "Begotten" or "Siring". Subsequently, why did the translators translate "Begotten" for Greek "Monogenh". Obviously the translators used it as per the ecclesiastical tradition and comprehension.
Furthermore, as "Monogenh" means "only" or "unique" or "one of a kind" or "sole" then we should ask how and why is "BEGOTTEN" used in the phrase "...,BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER UNIQUELY"? What is the import of the word "Begotten" in the above cited quotation?
Furthermore, one should again ask the same question what does and how is "Begotten" used in the phrase "BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE"? Christians should state what are they trying to emphasize when they testify that Christ is "BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE".
One may make a possible and logical response to the above queries by considering the construction of the creed. It says that Christ is "BEGOTTEN" of the Father such that Christ is of the same substance (homoousios) of the Father so that we have "God of God", "Light of Light" and "true God of true God".
It tantamount to the same earthily usage of the term begotten when a Father begets a child, S/he is "Flesh of Flesh", "Blood of Blood" etc. No wonder Athanasius, an important Early Church figure, who, was present in the Nicene council, believed the same:
"Athanasius believed ONE DIVINE PERSON WAS BEGOTTEN FROM ANOTHER DIVINE PERSON,." (A History of Christian Doctrine in Three Volumes by David K. Bernard, ISBN 1-56722-036-3, Volume 1, The Doctrine of Christ)
More proofs of god begetting a kid god (?)
When Gabriel informed Mary, "And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS." (Luke 1:31, King James (1611) Bible), he (Gabriel) also informed her (Mary) how this conception would be materialized. Three verses later Gabriel explicitly explained that Mary would conceive in her womb because:
". The Holy Ghost shall COME UPON THEE, and the power of the Highest SHALL OVERSHADOW THEE: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (King James (1611) Bible)
The above adduced verse is composed of different profound euphemisms and it is imperative to analyze each one of them separately to expose how Christianity has been abusing the Most Merciful for centuries together.
Firstly, to "COME UPON (THEE)" was a common phrase amongst the Jews and it explicitly implied the act of COPULATION. Such phrasal use is still extant at Misn. Sanhedrin, c.7,sect. 4. & passim alibi.
John Gill, a reputed Christian scholar and Bible commentator explicitly writes so when commenting on the aforementioned verse. He writes:
"The phrase (QM: That is to "COME UPON (THEE)") most plainly answers to בא על, in frequent use with the Jews (x), as expressive of COITION," (John Gill's commentary)
Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D., further explains the explicit meaning of the verse as follows:
"The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35). By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that GOD WOULD ENTER INTO A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER, CAUSING HER TO CONCEIVE HIS SON IN HER WOMB," (Source)
Thus to "Come upon (thee)" literally and patently means to get into the act of COITION. Firstly to get in to a MARITAL RELATION then through the animal act of COITION God caused Mary to CONCEIVE His son in HER WOMB. This is the "sacred Christianity" inviting you to its "sacredness". Should any sane accept it?
We move forward in the same verse to encounter another phrase, namely, to "OVERSHADOW (THEE)"
Biblical scholars have provided a variety of interpretations to this word of "overshadowing". Let us analyze each one of them and see which one fits best to the might of God-Almighty (!):
a. In the word, "OVERSHADOW", many suggest that there is an act of sitting over or, to be more specific and technical, the animal act of "brooding" implied. As a hen broods over her eggs :
"In the word, "overshadow", some think there is an allusion to the Spirit of God moving upon the face of the waters, in Gen_1:2 when, מרחפת, he brooded upon them, as the word may be rendered; and which is the sense of it, according to the Jewish writers (y) as a hen, or any other bird broods on its eggs to exclude its young:" (R. Sol. Jarchi, R. Aben Ezra, & R. Levi ben Gerson in Gen. 1. 2.)
As stated above that there are "some" conscientious Christians who do not scruple to impute lowly animal act of brooding (over Mary) to God-Almighty. Ironically, yet there are others who claim that "author(s) of the Qur'an couldn't escape thinking in terms of pagan categories". Nevertheless, we would certainly expose who really is thinking in pagan categories.
Let us move on to other "scholarly" interpretations of the phrase - "OVERSHADOW (THEE)"
b. ".and others have thought the allusion may be to הופת חתנים, (z), "the nuptial covering": which was a veil, or canopy, like a tent, supported on four staves, under which the bridegroom and bride were betrothed;" (Gill's commentary)
If we allow the interpretation of the phrase "OVERSHADOW (THEE)" to be as "The NUPTIAL Covering" then such an interpretation would engender grotesque imports.
In the first place, such an interpretation would transfigure the ghost god of Christianity to transfigure like a marriage "TENT" or "CANOPY". When the spook god of Christianity has so transfigured then he would cover Mary and take her "under" him. Since "the nuptial covering" was one "under" which the bride and bridegroom were betrothed.
The problem does not end here; now when the phantom god has become like a "NUPTIAL covering" or a "TENT" or a "CANOPY" and hovered over Mary to take her "UNDER" him then as the explanation says that under such a "Tent" or "Canopy" the bride would be betrothed. So we ask to whom would be Mary betrothed? The only logical answer one gets is that Mary would be BETROTHED to the "Holy" Spirit or, in other words, Mary would be married to one the gods of Christianity but why would she be married; to beget Jesus, peace be upon him.
As, Br. Anthony Opisso, M.D. writes:
Marriage to the Holy Spirit
We also have to take into consideration that when Mary was told by the archangel Gabriel "Behold, you shall conceive in your womb, and bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus" (Lk 1:31), he also added that this was to come about because "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the Holy one to be born shall be called the Son of God" (Lk 1:35). By stating it in those terms the archangel declared to Mary that GOD WOULD ENTER INTO A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER, CAUSING HER TO CONCEIVE HIS SON IN HER WOMB, FOR "TO LAY ONE'S POWER <(RESHUTH)> OVER A WOMAN"<(TARGUM TO DT> 21:4 WAS A EUPHEMISM FOR "TO HAVE A MARITAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER." LIKEWISE "TO OVERSHADOW"(LK 1:35) Y SPREADING THE "WING" OR "CLOAK" OVER A WOMAN WAS ANOTHER EUPHEMISM FOR MARITAL RELATIONS." (Source)
c. According to Dr. Lightfoot, yet another leading proponent of the Bible, the phrase "OVERSHADOW (THEE)" was a humble euphemism for SPOUSAL HUGGING! And the sacred Christianity teaches its followers (in pagan lines) that in such a SPOUSAL HUGGING the protagonists were GOD Himself and Mary -The MOTHER of god:
"Dr. Lightfoot thinks, it is a modest phrase alluding to the CONJUGAL EMBRACES, signified by a man's spreading the skirt of his garment over the woman, which Ruth desired of Boaz, Rth_3:9 though the Jewish writers say (a), that phrase is לשון נישואין expressive of the act of MARRAIGE, or taking to WIFE." (John Gill's commentary)
At this point we urge readers to think why Dr. Lightfoot has expressed "OVERSHADOW" as a "MODEST phrase". Why the usage of the term "MODEST"? Was he, as a learned man, ashamed of stating bluntly that "OVERSHADOWING" meant "CONJUGAL EMBRACES"? Dr. Lightfoot safeguarded his exegesis with the usage of the term "MODEST" because it would be shameless and immodest to proclaim in Churches that "OVERSHADOWING" meant GOD enjoying marital bliss with Mary and thus "BEGETTING" the infant god Jesus.
Dr. Lightfoot's explanation is supported by Anthony Opisso. Br. M.D. who also asserts that to "OVERSHADOW" someone by spreading one's wing or cloak was representative of entering into connubial relationship with that person.
Both the scholars allude to Ruth's statement to Boaz when she (Ruth) requested Boaz to get into marital relation with her by saying to him "I am Ruth thine handmaid: spread therefore thy skirt over thine handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman." (Ruth 3:9)
Cloak is a translation of the Aramaic-Hebrew word "Tallith". "Tallith" is derived from "Tellal" which means "SHADOW". Thus to "OVERSHADOW" someone by spreading his "Tallith" or cloak signifies to get into a marital relation with that person. More specifically, and according to Kiddushin, 18b and Mekhilta (on Exodus 21:8) to "OVERSHADOW" someone by spreading one's cloak "means to COHABIT WITH HER".
"Likewise "to overshadow" (Lk 1:35) by spreading the "wing" or "cloak" over a woman was another euphemism for marital relations. Thus, the rabbis commented <(Midrash Genesis Rabbah> 39.7; 3.9) that Ruth was chaste in her wording when she asked Boaz to have marital relations with her by saying to him "I am Ruth you handmaid, spread therefore your cloak ( literally, "wing": over your handmaid for you are my next-of-kin" (Ruth 3:9). , another Aramaic-Hebrew word for cloak, is derived from = shadow. Thus, "to spread one's cloak <(tallith)> over a woman" means to cohabit with her <(Kiddushin> 18b, see also ." (Source)
If any uninitiated Christian claims that the text of Luke 1:35 does not state that god "OVERSHADOWED" Mary by spreading his cloak over her and therefore it does not prove that god entered into a marital relation with Mary. In such a case, it would be interesting for us to quote what the god of Christianity did say to his bride Israel that ".I am MARRIED unto you" (Jeremiah 3:14, King James (1611) Bible) and ".thy Maker is thine HUSBAND" (Isiah 54:5). And very surprisingly god of Christianity got ultimately intimate with his bride when he "revealed" that:
"I made you grow like a healthy plant. You grew strong and tall and became a young woman. Your BREASTS WERE WELL-FORMED, AND YOUR HAIR (QM: of course, the god of Christianity is talking about pubic hair) HAD GROWN, but you were naked. As I passed by again, I saw that the time had come for you to fall in love. I covered your naked body with my COAT and promised to love you. Yes, I made a MARRIAGE COVENANT with you, and you became mine." This is what the Sovereign LORD says." (Ezekiel 16:7-8, Holy Bible, TEV)
Observe again that god (of Christianity) entered into a "MARRIAGE COVENENT" and he symbolized this marriage pact by covering her bride's naked body with his coat (or cloak). Thus, when the god of Christianity talks about overshadowing he does not necessarily have to mention that he overshadowed by his cloak. As we have seen before that god of Christianity has "OVERSHADOWED" somebody else with his cloak and entered into a "MARRIAGE COVENANT" with her. In any case god of Christianity enters into a marriage relation with the overshadowed one.
We think that it is imperative to make certain side remarks to the Ezekiel 16:7-8 verse adduced above. It might be that above verse is metaphoric in nature, however, firstly, god choosing a very congenial time to love his bride when her breasts are well - formed and her (pubic) hair had grown tenders more of a literal import or at least vividly picturesque than metaphoric and thus cannot, at least, convince Muslims to be revealed verse from God-Almighty. Observe yet again that when god witnessed that her bride's "breasts are well - formed and her (QM: pubic) hair had grown" then "he saw that the time had come for you to fall in love"(!?).
Secondly, even if we accept that Ezekiel 16:7-8 is metaphoric yet we would be intrigued to enquire why does the so sovereign, pure, holy, good god etc uses such down to earth, lowly, nude, menial phrases like "breasts well - formed", "breasts like towers" (Song of Solomon 8:10), "(QM: pubic) hair",".FLESHLY MEMBER (genitals) is as the FLESHLY MEMBER (genitals) of male asses (donkey) and whose GENITAL ORGAN is as the GENITAL ORGAN of male horses" (Ezekiel 23:1-49, New World Translation), in his inspired and so called "Holy" book.
Yet more proofs.
In this section we would consider the original Hebrew - Aramaic text of the verses containing the word "Begotten". Inshallah, this section would prove to be shocking evidence against today's neo Christians who are ignorant of what the "Holy" spirit inspired to the "apostles".
Arab Muslims along with their Arab Christian and Jewish counterparts know what their Arabic language means. So with this pre-information, we read Qur'an 112:3,
"He begetteth not nor is He begotten"
The Arabic transliteration of the above adduced verse reads as follows:
"Lam YALID wa- Lam YOLAD"
If observed carefully the English word Begotten (or Begetteth) is translated for the Arabic word "YOLAD" (or "YALID"). So, Allah says in Qur'an 112:3 that He does not "YALID" or was "YOLAD". That is Allah says that He does not "BEGETS" nor was "BEGOTTEN". "Begotten" with whatever it means has been severely condemned in the above noble verse.
With this idea let us move to our Bible. We wait to analyze Psalm 2:7. It says:
"I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN thee."
Things get really interesting, grotesque and literal when we get to the Hebrew text of the above cited verse. The Hebrew transliteration of Psalm 2:7 reads:
"Asphre al chq ieue amr al.i bn.i athe ani e.ium ILDTHI.K"
The above Hebrew word "ILDTHI" is translated as "begotten" in English. Intriguingly, according to Strong's Note, "ILDTHI" is derived from the root "YALAD" or "YAW-LAD" (Number H3205)(!) Strong provides various shades of meanings for the word "ILDTH". They are as follows:
TO BEAR YOUNG; CAUSATIVELY, TO BEGET; medically, to act as midwife;
specifically, to show lineage:--bear, beget, birth((-day)), born, (make to) bring
forth (children, young), bring up, calve, child, come, be delivered (of a child),
time of delivery, gender, hatch, labour, (do the office of a) midwife, declare
pedigrees, be the son of, (woman in, woman that) travail(-eth, -ing woman).
Thus "YALAD" of Psalm 2:7 means "BEGOTTEN". "YALAD" literally means "SIRING". There is no euphemism what so ever, just hard core earthly animal language and act imputed to the "Most Merciful". This time Christians cannot even fret that "BEGOTTEN" is not begotten since the original Greek text talks about "Monogenh" i.e. "one- of- a- kind"; they cannot complaint such a thing because the word in hand is Hebrew -"ILDTH" and not Greek -"MONOGENH".
Another important observation is the close similarity of the root "YALAD" of Psalm 2:7 to "YALID" of Qur'an 112:3, both mean the same, both are pronounced the same with only a subtle dialectical difference of "i" between the Hebrew "Yalad" and Arabic "Yalid". No wonder Hebrew/Aramaic and Arabic are sister languages.
Although not one of the various meanings provided by authoritative Strong would fit to the Majesty of the "Most Merciful" by any stretch of fast and loose yet we can very easily zero down to the exact option because the same Hebrew word "ILDTH" (or its variant) has been used at myriad other places in the Bible.
1 Samuel 4:20
"And about the time of her death the women that stood by her said unto her, Fear not; for thou hast BORN A SON. But she answered not, neither did she regard it." (King James (1611) Bible)
Westminster Leningrad Codex transliteration provides the transliteration of the verse as, "u.k.oth muth.e u.thdbrne e.ntzbuth oli.e al -thirai ki bn ILDTH u.la onthe u.la -shthe lb.e"
Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0, provides the sub-linear of the above cited verse as follows:
"and. as. time-of to-die-of.her and.they-are-speaking the.women-being-stationed on.her must-not-be you-are-fearing that son YOU-GAVE-BIRTH and.not she-responded and.not she-set heart-of.her"
Thus it is perspicuous that "ILDTH"- a derivative from the root "YALAD" or "YAW-LAD", literally means to "GIVE BIRTH". Or in baser words to procreate, sire, beget, bring forth etc.
In order that there remains no room for any fuss about "ILDTH" and its meaning as "GIVING BIRTH" or "SIRING" we provide myriad more proofs from our Bible.
"You have never been able to have children, but you will soon be PREGNANT AND HAVE A SON" (Holy Bible, TEV)
And according to King James version of the Bible, the rendering reads:
"And the angel of the LORD appeared unto the woman, and said unto her, Behold now, thou art barren, and bearest not: but thou shalt conceive, and bear a son." (King James (1611) Bible)
So far it can be easily deduced that the verse is talking about a women turning pregnant and conceiving a son; more technically, as we would soon observe, the verse is talking about the forecast of a pregnant GIVING BIRTH to a son, and to describe it the same Hebrew word "ILDTH" is used.
Westminster Leningrad Codex transliterates a phrase as "ILDTH" and for the same "u.ILDTH", in the same verse, Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0 provides the sub-linear as "AND. YOU-GIVE-BIRTH"
So we have a context in the so called "word of god" where there is a PREGNANT WOMEN who has conceived a "son", and would be DELIVERING him. And all which the ?majestic' god of the Bible found to describe this action was by the same Hebrew word "ILDTH" which he used for himself in Psalm 2:7 when he was about to sire someone.
"Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter," (King James (1611) Bible)
"Westminster Leningrad Codex" provides the transliteration of the above verse as:
"u.thqchi ath-bni.k u.ath-bnuthi.k ashr ILDTH l.i u.thzbchi.m l.em l.akul e.mot m.thznth.k m.thznuthi.k"
Mark that yet again the Hebrew word "ILDTH" is used and we would soon know what it means when we will read Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear.
According to "Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0" the English sub-linear of the above cited verse is:
"and.you-are-taking sons-of.you and. daughters-of.you whom YOU-GAVE-BIRTH for.me and.you-are-sacrificing.them to them to.to-devour-of ?.little from.prostitution-of.you from.prostitutions-of.you"
It needs no further explanation that "ILDTH" means "TO-GIVE-BIRTH" and it is literal as per the context of the verse(s).
"And he shall be unto thee a restorer of thy life, and a nourisher of thine old age: for thy daughter in law, which loveth thee, which is better to thee than seven sons, HATH BORN HIM." (King James (1611) Bible)
We have a "daughter in law" who "HAS BORN" a kid who would be a restorer of life and on and on. Our point of consideration is that a "daughter in law" has given birth to a kid. Unless Anthony Rogers uses his sixth sense to come out with any idiosyncratic reasoning it is absolutely clear that ?giving birth' or ?being born' is literally used in the verse. One may go to the context of the verse to realize that "HATH BORN HIM" means literal birth or begetting of a kid.
Let us now delve a little deeper to check which word has god of Bible used to inspire the act of siring a kid.
Firstly, please have the Hebrew transliteration:
"u.eie l.k l.mshib nphsh u.l.klkl ath-shibth.k ki klth.k ashr-aebth.k ILDTH.u ashr-eia tube l.k m.shboe bnim" (Westminster Leningrad Codex)
And with no surprise "ILDTH.u" as used in the verse means ?she gave him birth':
"and.he-becomes to.you to.one-restoring-of soul and.to.to.-sustain-of grey-hairs-of.you that daughter-in-law-of.you who she-loves.you SHE-GAVE-BIRTH.him who she good to.you from.seven sons" (Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear -idiomatic- version 2.0)
Over and over again we have found that "ILDTH" has meant "TO GIVE BIRTH" literally and biblically.
So much for Anthony Rogers misconception that "author(s) of the Qur'an couldn't escape thinking in terms of pagan categories" while referring to Qur'an's denunciation that God begot a son. There are yet many more proofs still littered in the Bible which we would be using to overwhelm Rogers if he fusses any further. But for now and for brevity of this paper let us move on to his other arguments as we savor to dismantle them categorically.
Therefore the paraphrase of Luke 1:35 according to scholar's interpretation would be:
".The Holy Ghost shall come for COITION ("Shall come upon thee") and CONJUGAL EMBRACES therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God."
Indeed it has been proved that Christians have been abusing the Most-Merciful with the worst swearing so much so that He adjured these abusers once and for all at Qur'an 19:88,
"They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
That they should invoke a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant." (Yusuf Ali Translation)
Exposing Gauche Qur'an exegete
In order to somehow express his Qur'anic prowess Anthony Rogers made an ignorantly overweening statement. To prove his statement that Qur'an never entitled God as father, neither literally nor metaphorically, he chose outrageously wrong verse from the Qur'an and made a mess of his argument. We would be proving all this but first let us read what he wrote:
"As for another example, the concept is clearly present in the Old Testament book of Proverbs where mention is made of God's "Son," which term is simply the correlative of "Father":
Who has ascended into heaven and descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has wrapped the waters in His garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name or His son's name? Surely you know! (Proverbs 30:4)
As these (and other) passages indicate, God is literally a Father, though in an eternal and spiritual rather than a temporal and carnal sense. But all of this is really neither here nor there, for not only does the Qur'an never refer to God as Father, whether literally or metaphorically, but it explicitly rules out any notion of God as Father, even in the metaphorical sense Mr. Anonymous is willing to allow for in order to try to rescue the claim that John 17:3 comports with the teaching of Islam:
"(Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men, - of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)" (Surah 5:18)"
As usual there are fundamental mistakes in the above passage we quoted from Anthony Rogers.
Firstly, what does his statement mean that "God is literally a Father, though in an eternal and spiritual rather than a temporal and carnal sense." If God is Father (literally) in an "eternal and spiritual sense" then this ought to be a metaphorical sense. The above statement is self contradictory because:
If "God is literally a Father" then he should possess and practice the qualities of a Father that is the act of begetting and co-habiting. That is he would be exhibiting his fatherly traits in "temporal and carnal sense". Now it is grotesque to impute carnality to God-The Most Merciful therefore what does the statement mean that "God is literally a Father, though in an eternal and spiritual. sense."
Once again for the statement that "God is literally a father, though in an eternal and spiritual.sense" God must exhibit his fatherly qualities. Through his fatherly traits he must beget kids, not children made out of flesh and bones and blood, since that would impute carnality to God, but "spiritually". At this point "spiritually" may be interpreted something like "smoky" and "gaseous"-like spirits or "metaphorically".
We know that whether God begets fleshly kids or gaseous beings, may be something like angels, the lowly act of siring still lingers so "spiritual" begetting of kids has to mean "metaphorical". So it seems that Rogers cannot make out the difference between literal fatherhood and spiritual fatherhood. If this is not so then Rogers should further explain what does "Spiritual fatherhood in a literal sense mean"?
Let us now turn to a more important issue of the usage of Qur'an 5:18 to prove that Qur'an "explicitly rules out any notion of God as Father, even in the metaphorical sense Mr. Anonymous is willing to allow for."
We solemnly request Rogers to immediately stop dabbling at The Qur'an since Qur'an 5:18 is not the verse which "explicitly rules out any notion of God as Father", nevertheless, Qur'an5:18 backfires against Rogers to prove our case that terms "Father" and "Sons" are all metaphorical in nature.
When the Jews and Christians used the term "sons" as mentioned in Qur'an 5:18 for themselves they tried to emphasize on their closeness, favor etc of Allah on themselves. They thought that they are the chosen, beloved "sons" of Allah not because Allah begot them but because they assumed to follow His religion, His commandments etc. They also would have thought that they are the heirs of Allah's religion on earth -the inheritors of His remnant true religion and that way they would have boasted themselves to be His "sons".
The term "Sons" of Qur'an 5:18 is used to show nearness, closeness, beloved etc to Allah can be further ratified by the fact that the same Qur'an 5:18 accuses the same Jewish and Christians "SONS" of their iniquities. Qur'an 5:18 explicitly accuses the "sons" in a way that would puncture their boast of being BELOVED "SONS", that is, if as you say that you are "sons" of Allah, beloved ones of Allah, chosen ones of Allah then why does he punishes you. And if Allah-The Most Merciful punishes you so severely then you are not "sons" or chosen people of Allah but haughty transgressors.
Classical commentaries on Qur'an 5:18 make the above points limpid clear:
"(The Jews) the Jews of Medina (and Christians) the Christians of Najran (say: We are sons of Allah) we are the sons and prophets of Allah (and His loved ones) who follow His religion; it is also said that this means: WE FOLLOW ALLAH'S RELIGION AS IF WE WERE HIS SONS AND LOVED ONES; AND IT IS SAID THAT THIS MEANS: WE ARE TO ALLAH LIKE HIS SONS AND WE ARE FOLLOWERS OF HIS RELIGION. (Say) to the Jews, O Muhammad; (Why then doth He chastise you for your sins) due to worshipping the calf for 40 days, if you are like sons to Him; have you ever seen a father torturing his sons with fire? (Nay, ye are but mortals) created servants (of His creating) like all His other created beings. (He forgiveth whom He will) whoever repents of Judaism and Christianity, (and chastiseth whom He will) whoever dies professing Judaism or Christianity. (Allah's is the Sovereignty) the stores (of the heavens and the earth and all that is between them) of created beings and marvels, (and unto Him is the journeying) returning to Him is the end result of those who believe and those who do not." (Tanwir al-Miqbas min Tafsir Ibn Abbas)
Similar points were also expounded by yet another classical commentator:
"The Jews and Christians, both of them, say: ?We are the sons of God, that is, [WE ARE] LIKE HIS SONS IN TERMS OF CLOSENESS AND RANK, AND HE IS LIKE A FATHER TO US IN TERMS OF COMPASSION AND CARE AND HIS BELOVED ONES'. Say, to them, O Muhammad (s): ?Why then does He chastise you for your sins?, if what you say is true. For, the father does not punish his son, nor the loving his beloved; but He has punished you, and therefore you are saying lies. Nay; you are mortals from among, all, those, mortals, He created, you shall be rewarded as they are rewarded and you shall be requited as they are requited. He forgives, him for, whom He wills, forgiveness, and He chastises, him for, whom He wills', chastisement, and there can be no objection thereto. For to God belongs the kingdom of the heavens and of the earth, and all that is between them; to Him is the journey's end, the [final] return." (Tafsir al-Jalalayn)
Another very important point should not be missed in the argument of Qur'an 5:18. The grandiose claim of the Jews and Christians were that they are the "sons of Allah". It would be very interesting to re-consider the response which Allah gave to this overinflated claim. Allah-Almighty (rhetorically) responded (through Mohammad, peace be upon him) that if that is the case, i.e. if you are really my "sons" then why do I "punish you", markedly, so severely.
In other words, if you (Jews and Christians) think that you are really "sons of Allah", i.e. favored, chosen, beloved, righteous, near ones to Allah then why do I punish you. If I punish you the same way as I punish other communities then you are not a chosen, favored, beloved, righteous etc community to me rather you are a wicked community simmering in iniquities since all earlier communities punished by Me were also gloating in their sins.
Kindly note that in the rhetorical reply Allah-Almighty did not state that you are not my "sons" since it is against my majesty to beget sons. He did not say that - rather He put forth the argument that you are not near, favored, beloved, righteous etc to me since I punish you like I punish hardcore recalcitrant.
Thus yet again we can observe that "sons" as used by Jews and Christians in Qur'an 5:18 meant to express their nearness, righteousness etc to Allah. This serves our twofold goal, firstly, it exposes the shallow grasp which Anthony Rogers has of Qur'an much like his own Bible and secondly, the Jews and Christians did used the word "sons" to express nearness, favored, beloved etc, that is, they did use the word "sons" metaphorically.
Dying hard to accompany him in Hell, Anthony Rogers reasoned why I cannot enter paradise according to Islamic sources. I gloatingly proved that I am a person committing the most hideous sin, namely, "Shirk" (!). Such pompous claims are insignificant and can be smoked off as ad hominem, nevertheless, the ill usage and misrepresentation of arguments needs to be given a second thought since this is one of primary tactics of lying missionaries.
In order to land me in Hell Anthony Rogers argued that:
".calling Allah "Father" is to call him something he is not reported to have called himself and is not called by Muhammad. This is contrary to Tawhid, according to Islamic authorities; this is shirk, pure and simple. What is more, this is not only enough to land him at the bottom of a pile of rocks here; it is enough to prevent him from entering paradise hereafter."
According to his understanding of Islamic theology I cannot call Allah as "Father" since Allah never called himself with this label and Anthony is so correct.
Anthony Rogers further labored really hard to quote us several hadith literature teaching that:
"If somebody claims to be the son of somebody other than his father knowingly, he will be denied Paradise (i.e. he will not enter Paradise)." (Bukhari, 5:59:616)"
Along with the above cited Hadith he quoted for us Bukhari, 4:56:711,712; Muslim 1:120,121, which state similar teachings. Then he finally rounded off his argument by stating:
"If it is wrong to call someone our earthly father when they are not, then a fortiori it is wrong for a Muslim to call Allah father when he is not. Since Mr. Anonymous knows that the Qur'an does not call Allah the father of anyone - not of Jesus in a transcendent sense, not of gods and goddesses in a pagan sense, and not of anyone in any sense, including Mr. Anonymous, and he still calls him father anyway, then according to the above Hadith, he will be forbidden to enter paradise. If Mr. Anonymous really believes what he has said above, and if he has the courage to stand by his convictions, then let him go down to his local mosque and call upon Allah as father."
I must admire Anthony's budding knowledge of Islam; he has started to learn. On the face of it Anthony's argument are perfectly correct and in compliance of Islamic theology. However, I would be condemned to Hell only IF I called Allah as "father". Anthony should be sincere and man enough to show us where in my paper did I ever called Allah as "father" or he should produce proofs where I averred that Muslims can also call Allah as "father".
Readers should take note, all I said was that if Jews called Allah as their "Father", not in a literal sense, but in a metaphorical sense then I as a Muslim would have no problem with that.
I challenge Anthony Rogers to provide me my words where I said that Muslims can also refer to Allah as "Father" if he is not able to produce it and of surety he will not be able to produce it (inshallah) then his grandiloquent demands such as: "If Mr. Anonymous really believes what he has said above, and if he has the courage to stand by his convictions, then let him go down to his local mosque and call upon Allah as father" has not weight.
Time and again we have proved Anthony's mishandling of my argument. We have yet another instance of it. He said:
"Having said that Muslims have no problem using the word "father" for God in a metaphorical sense, which we just saw is patently false, at least according to the Qur'an and the systematic understanding of Tawhid that has been hammered out by Muslim authorities, Anonymous goes on to say:
However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word "Father" when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it.
Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny. If this is the kind of fatherhood that Muslims anathematize, then it is proof positive that my first and second contention are true: 1) John 17:3, in context, does not teach any kind of Islamic unitarianism, all specious, undefined, unproven distinctions between Islam and Tawhid notwithstanding, and 2) it teaches that Jesus is the divine Son of God. After all, it is just this special use of the terms "Father" and "Son," which anonymous eschewed as blasphemous, that is found in John 17 and throughout John's Gospel."
Kindly catch the subtle and surreptitious maneuvering of what I originally wrote and how Anthony Rogers has misrepresented it. I wrote that Muslims have no problem with JEWISH usage of the term "Father" for God if used in the right and pertinent way not profaning but withstanding His Majesty. However, our sincere Anthony Rogers wrote that I, "said that MUSLIMS have no problem using the word "father" for God in a metaphorical sense,". So here we have an instance where Rogers mistakenly claims something about me which I never claimed! So we again solemnly request Anthony Rogers to support his claim, namely, where did I say that "Muslims have no problem using the word "father" for God" and prove to us that he is man enough to be sincere and truthful.
Furthermore, Anthony Rogers "unbelievably" carps:
"Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny. If this is the kind.that is found in John 17 and throughout John's Gospel."
To paraphrase Anthony's complaint, he niggles that on one hand we use John 17:3 which, according to him, contains "father-son" relationship and comport it with Islamic monotheism, while on the other hand, we repel John 3:16 which also contains "father-son" relationship.
The important point that Anthony Rogers missed is that the "father-son" relationship of John 17:3 (if it is there) is totally different from the "father-son" relationship of John 3:16.
We explicitly wrote (and much to the chagrin of Anthony Rogers he even quoted it) that John 3:16 and the relative terms "father" and "son" alludes to the abusive and literal interpretations of the word "father" unlike John 17:3 which might be speaking about the "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship" :
"However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word "Father" when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it."
It should be noted that we did not object to the "special, unique, eternal and transcendent father-son relationship" rather, as we already wrote, Muslims abhor the LITERAL import of the word "father" which is implied in John 3:16.
We have to call the careful blend and bluff from literal "father-son" relationship of John 3:16 to "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship" as Anthony tried to put forth. No wonder this Christian is shying away from the filthy word "Begotten" of John 3:16.
A step further and very importantly, Anthony Rogers, claims variety of meanings for John 3:16, namely, "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship", however, he did not include all important word "Begotten" which is present in the text. Was Anthony Rogers shy of what the holy-spirit inspired to some John or was he playing fast and loose with our argument because we already wrote that we repel the abusive literal import of John 3:16 on one hand and endorse seemingly sound monotheism of John 17:3. Thus, although John 17:3 and 3:16 are present in the "in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author." yet they are poles apart.
He also argued:
"2) it teaches that Jesus is the divine Son of God. After all, it is just this special use of the terms "Father" and "Son," which anonymous eschewed as blasphemous, that is found in John 17 and throughout John's Gospel."
If we are not mistaken then the "special use of the terms "Father" and "Son,"" Anthony Rogers is talking about is "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship", however, in Islam we abhor the "LITERAL understanding"(!) which we explicitly mentioned! How then Anthony Rogers claimed that I eschewed "this special use of the terms "Father" and "Son," where once again, "THIS" refers to "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship".
Therefore, let me once again call Anthony Rogers to produce his proof and show us where did I eschewed the "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship". This is yet another instance where he has been caught lying flagrantly.
Son of God
Basing the arguments on unfounded, unsupported claims Anthony Rogers moves forward to provide us three points - points which according to him would establish that Muslims cannot appeal to John 17:3. This response in many senses would be redundant in nature because we have already responded to a similar argument above. But because Rogers may not complain that we have left his "crucial remarks" unattended thus we analyze this as well.
He wrote that:
"After all, it is just this special use of the terms "Father" and "Son," which anonymous eschewed as blasphemous, that is found in John 17 and throughout John's Gospel. Consider the following points:.
The Prologue: "In the beginning was the Word [i.e. Jesus], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.. And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.. No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known..." (ESV, John 1:1, 14, 18)"
Kindly notice how subtly my opponent has tried to blend the questionable "Father" and "Son" relation implied through "BEGOTTEN" of John 3:16 with ""special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship" " found in John 17".
He did not have courage to write the truth that I eschewed the earthly father-son relation implied through the "begotten" word used in John 3:16. To quote my words:
"However what a Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word "Father" when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it."
The proof that he gave under the heading of "The prologue" does not support his case. The verses cited under "The prologue" are more metaphorical and/or symbolic in nature than literal and he helped my case by explicitly citing phrases from those verses, for instance, "the only Son from the Father" and "who is at the Father's side"
As already mentioned and ample number of times that Muslim repels the LITERAL understanding, nevertheless, the above verses are not literal in nature: "only Son from the Father" and "who is at the Father's side" I assume does not imply that God-The Father was fathering, siring, bringing forth, delivering god-the son! If that is the case then Anthony has no ground why he should write, "Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny.", and then try to support through sub-headings like "The Prologue".
(Side remark: Very interestingly the verse that he quoted, namely John 1:14, to prove that it has the same import as that of John 3:16 (which is evidently mistaken) DOES NOT contain anything even in the remotest to show any so called father-son relationship! The verse reads:
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (King James (1611) Bible)"
Notice that the phrase containing "Father" has been bracketed which is an implication to the fact that it is not the part of the manuscript but an addition by say the translators. If this were not true then Anthony Rogers should explain us that why did the doctors of divinity who mulled hard before publishing "King James (1611) Bible" bracketed the part of verse containing all important word "Father" of Christianity.
The problem with the ?word of god' does not end here; observantly, John1:14 of "King James (1611) Bible" (bracketed words included) contain the controversial word "begotten" in it however, the prudes of the version which Rogers referred to evaporated it and came out with "Only Son from the Father". Thus, Rogers should explain how does "only BEGOTTEN of the Father" fits in the shoes of "Only Son from the Father"! What was the authority behind messing with god's word?)
To further elasticize his already refuted argument he wrote another subheading, namely, "The Thesis Statement". Under it he wrote:
"Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name." (John 20:30-31)"
According to the verse Bible thumpers have to believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, was "the Son of God" - but we ask in what capacity? How we are to interpret the title "Son of God"? If "the Son of God" of John 20:30-31 has a "LITERAL understanding and import" then he might have a case, however, as we would see the particular verse does not necessarily has a literal import and thus no case for Anthony Rogers.
Firstly, we presume to receive a unanimous NO from Christians when asked whether Jesus (peace be upon him) has been called as "the Son of God" because God-The Father (!) has sired, begotten God-The son (!). If "no" is the answer then my opponent's proof (i.e. John 20:30-31) does not support his case that we unbelievably pointed "to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny."
Mind you once again that John 20:30-31 might imply "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship", however, John 3:16 apparently does not show any ".transcendent father-son relationship".
Moreover, myriad biblical verses only point to metaphorical, figurative or symbolic nature of the title "Son of God". For examples:
"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." (Daniel 3:25, King James (1611) Bible)
Interestingly, in the above adduced Daniel verse the title of "Son of God" has been given to an "ANGEL" of God. To infer that the fourth one was an angel we will have to cross refer to Daniel 3:28 which reads:
"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God."
Moreover, the respected JFB commentary also comments on Daniel 3:25 that "Son of God", in the verse, means ONLY to an angel from heaven:
"like the Son of God ? Unconsciously, like Saul, Caiaphas (Joh_11:49-52), and Pilate, he is made to utter divine truths. "Son of God" in his mouth means ONLY an "angel" from heaven, as Dan_3:28 proves."
The Geneva Bible commentary also confirms that the "Son of God" title of Daniel 3:25 refers to angel(s) of God:
"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the (k) Son of God.
(k) For the angels were called the sons of God because of their excellency. Therefore the king called this angel whom God sent to comfort his own in these great torments, the son of God."
All above proofs establish that the title "Son of God" was not specific to Jesus, peace be upon him, alone rather it was also used for angel(s) of God. This implies that "Son of God" meant for the servants of God, righteous followers of God. In this sense, Muslims have no objection to the Jewish usage of "father-son" terms; however, we would like to state again that:
". Muslim seriously repels is the LITERAL understanding and usage of this blasphemous word "Father" when used for ALLAH (John 3:16 abuses ALLAH with the same. Kindly read John 3:16 in conjunction with Quran 19:88). This kind of rendering is anathematized in Islam and we will continue to eschew it."
If the title "Son of God" is not literal in nature but metaphorical (as has already been established through Daniel verses) then Anthony Rogers ill chosen verse of John 20:30-31, where the father-son relation is metaphorical in nature does not comply with John 3:16 where the father-son relationship is abusive and literal in nature. Thus, John 20:30-31 does not support Anthony's niggling that we appealed to John 17 and rejected John 3:16. Once again the imports of the father-son relationship were/are entirely different at the two places. Let us again explicitly remind that John 3:16 is abhorred by Muslims for its literal and earthly imports.
Scholars of authority have already stated that the title "Son of God" in the biblical and Jewish settings implied metaphorical, symbolic or figurative meaning:
"The Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have given the term a meta-physical and dogmatic significance. Many hold that the Alexandrian Logos concept has had a formative and dominant influence on the presentation of the doctrine of Jesus' sonship in the Christian writings. The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12; "De Profugis," § 20). In all probability these terms, while implying the distinct personality of the Logos, carry ONLY A FIGURATIVE MEANING." (Source)
"MANY biblical scholars hold that in the Synoptic Gospels, JESUS NEVER STYLED HIMSELF THE SON OF GOD IN A SENSE OTHER THAN THAT IN WHICH ANY RIGHTEOU PERSON MIGHT CALL THEMSELVES "SONS" OR "CHILDREN OF GOD. However Christians believe the Resurrection vindicates Jesus's claim to a unique relationship to the Father. (Source)
Note that the SCHOLARS are not few but MANY who hold that Jesus NEVER presented himself in a way other than what a righteous person might portray when referring to oneself as "son of God". On the same corollary if a righteous person was entitled as "son of God" more so with prophets of God as Jesus certainly was; prophet and obviously "righteous" at the same time. This also establishes that "Jesus NEVER styled himself the son of God in a sense other than that in which any ?prophet' ("righteous person") might call themselves "sons" or "children" of God.
We have yet again proved that the "Son of God" title which Anthony Rogers gleaned from John 20:30-31 is metaphoric, figurative in nature, however, we complained about the earthly and literal presentation of the same "son-father" relationship - two totally different connotations; yet Anthony Rogers tried to blend them together in order to deceptively argue that we endorsed the "father-son relationship" of John 17:3 while disregarding the "father-son relationship" of John 3:16. He thought readers would not be able to call his bluff that we execrated the LITERAL import of John 3:16 and not the metaphorical or figurative connotation of John 17:3.
To prove that the title of "Son of God" is metaphorical or figurative in nature we provide readers with a BIBLICAL PROOF that the title "SON OF GOD" is synonymous to "SERVANT OF GOD" exactly as prophets were servant or righteous people of God:
"Unto you first God, having raised up his SON Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities." (King James (1611) Bible)
Compare the above verse with:
"To you first, God having raised up His SERVANT Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities." (Acts 3:26, The New King James Version, The Open Bible)
"Son of God" - a title of paramount importance in Churches yet the "doctors of divinity" and "scholars of sacred scriptures" did not hesitate to relegate Jesus (peace be upon him) from Son to Servitude. The transformation from son to slave is the only truth to exist; as the Qur'an says:
"Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a SERVANT."(19:93, Yusuf Ali, Al-Alim CD-Rom Version)
John 5:30, "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." This particular verse clearly exposes the "Son of God's" impotency, contrary to a True God, to take decisions and to things.
Mark 13:32, "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Yet again the "Son of God" has generalized himself with common man, angels etc (let alone a claimant of Godhood) for the knowledge of the "hour", thereby establishing that the title "Son of God" is purely figurative.
Peters confession of Acts 2:22 that is, "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:" clearly generalizes "Son of God" with every other agent of God or more technically, a prophet. Kindly mark that the verse says that Jesus was a man (NOT A GOD), approved by God(!) yet again Jesus cannot be God approving himself and that his miracles were not his by God's which again establish that he was not God but just another agent of God -a prophet.
John of Damascus on of SAINTLY authority emphasized on the Jesus' total submission and dependency on the greater God -the Father:
"Whatsoever the Son has from the Father, the Spirit also has, including His very being. And if the Father does not exist, then neither does the Son and the Spirit; and if the Father does not have something, then neither has the Son or the Spirit. Furthermore, because of the Father, that is, because the Father is, the Son and the Spirit are; and because of the Father, the Son and the Spirit have everything that they have. (Source)"
Kindly realize with equanimity that St. John of Damascus clearly wrote that the "Son of God" has NOTHING of his own but has been given to him by the Father who consequently is more powerful and more authoritative. There is no mention of the converse that is, whatsoever the Father has from the Son. In fact, if the Father does not EXIST then the "Son of God" will also cease to exist; once again the converse is not mentioned.
A step further St. John of Damascus ends the passage by emphasizing once again that it is only because of the Father that the Son (and the spirit) has everything that they have. Carefully mark that St. John does not says that because of the "Son of God" that the Father has whatever he (Father) has. Such statements prove beyond any tri-theistic explanation that Jesus is not on the same podium with God-Almighty. It also establishes that "Son of God" in these contexts only mean righteous servants, prophets or messengers of God.
Therefore, the biblical verses such John 5:30, Mark 13:32, Peter's confession of Acts 2:22, St. John of Damascus's teachings and interpretations clearly establishes that the biblical title "Son of God" was purely figurative and metaphorical in most verses. That being the case then Anthony Rogers should know that we abhorred the literal understanding and import of John 3:16 and not the figurative renderings of John 17:3 or John 20:30-31. Therefore, Anthony's claim that, "Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny." , is totally unwarranted and absurd if not guileful. By the way at this point we would again enquire Anthony Rogers to explain us how do the apparently offensive import of John 3:16 turn out to be "special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship" to him.
To further corroborate our point that the terms "father" and "son" of John 17:3 (if they exist there) are figurative, symbolic or metaphorical something totally different from the repellent "father-son relationship" where the import is more literal, earthly and animal like; we provide readers with behind the scripture translators dexterities:
"Translators usually choose to use the word "father" because of the intimacy implied by the word which is not carried in other English word like "ancestor" though this is a much more precise translation. The word translated "son" has a similar problem. Any male descendant to any number of future generations is still just a son. Discovery of this translation choice can be found by looking up the underlying meaning of the root words, or by reading footnotes in certain translations. In this article we take a different approach and look at how the word is actually used in some ways that define the way the word father (or son) really means ancestor (or descendant)." (http://www.bibletime.com/theory/father)
We observe from the above citation that the translators of the so assumed "sacred scriptures" translated the original Greek or Hebrew word(s) with "father" which more technically should have been "ancestor". They assert that "ancestor" is "much more precise translation" than not so perfect translation "father".
If the translators would have translated God as "ancestor" (rather than "father") of Jesus (peace be upon him) then there have to have been more "sons" in between Yahweh and Jesus (peace be upon him). As the scholars they noted (above):
"ANY MALE DESCENDANT TO ANY NUMBER OF FUTURE GENERATIONS IS STILL JUST A SON"
Consequently, it proves that Jesus is not the only son or more precisely "descendant" from God of Bible. There were/are other sons or "descendents" of God preceding Jesus (peace be upon him). This conclusion in turn would generalize Jesus' "Son of God" title with other "descendents". Subsequently, it will again revert back to our 1400 year old appeal that Jesus was a righteous man and messenger of God like other (biblical) "Sons of God".
Returning back to our main argument; we have yet again proved that "Son of God" title was by and large general in nature except for a few places like John 3:16 (according to Christian perception). Subsequently, if metaphorical "Son of God" of Bible is different from literal "Son of God" of John 3:16 then Anthony's fuss that,
"Unbelievably, in an attempt to prove that John 17, where Jesus, the Son, calls God His Father, is not contrary to the Islamic conception of God, Mr. Anonymous points to a verse in the same Gospel, recorded by the same author, and spoken by the same Jesus, which affirms the special, unique, eternal, and transcendent father-son relationship that exists between the first and second persons of the Trinity, as an example of what Muslims deny."
is totally unwarranted.
A number of biblical verses have been quoted under point number "2)". All the verses support a false notion. These verses try to prove the "father-son relationship" of Jesus (peace be upon him) and God which delights Anthony Rogers to argue that we cannot appeal to John 17:3 while spurning John 3:16. However, as already argued above, the "father-son relationship" sense in the two verses is quite different.
Nevertheless, Anthony has provided two verses explicitly, namely, John 5:18 and John 10:30. We would analyze each one of them lest Anthony might fuss that we did not consider his "crucial remarks". He wrote:
"It was this practice of Jesus that so irked the Jewish religious leaders; not because Jesus said God had a divine Son, which we saw the Old Testament itself teaches, but because Jesus, standing before them as a man, claimed to be the Son.
"For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God." (John 5:18)"
Anthony claims that the Jews were galled at the very reason that Jesus (peace be upon him) referred to God as "Father". Even if we consider this biblical referral yet it does not support his claim since Jesus, in John 5:18, did not call God as "Father" in a crude, literal sense, nevertheless, the author of John did exactly the same in John 3:16. We did not complain about the metaphorical biblical referral to God as "Father" but the complaint was against the literal "Fatherliness" as elicited through John 3:16.
If at this stage Anthony has made his mind to argue that John 5:18 express God as personalized father of Jesus (peace be upon him) through the usage of the phrase His "own" Father; then yet it does not support his claim. The point to be noted is that a personalized father could yet be referred in metaphorical, figurative and/or symbolic way.
On the other hand the appeal to John 5:18 has further aggrandized Anthony's problem since Anthony's John 5:18 try to personalize God as Jesus' (peace be upon him) father (through the usage of the word "own") not so with the "King James (1611) Version Bible" or "The New King James Version". They render respectively:
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God."
"Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God."
Notice that in both the biblical renderings the star studded custodians of God's word did not include the word "OWN". That is they did away with Anthony's rendering "God His own Father" unceremoniously. Could we know which holy-spirit is inspiring these translators to play fast and loose with the so assumed word of god.
Anthony's John 10:30 reads:
"I and the Father are one." The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, "I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?" The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God." (John 10:30)"
Here again the problem is the same. We do not think that Jesus (peace be upon him) referred as "Father" with a literal sense in his mind something strongly opposed by Qur'an. Jesus (peace be upon him) being a Nazarene only emulated his ancestors and his Jewish custom and tradition:
"Do you thus deal with the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is He not your Father, who bought you?" (THE OPEN BIBLE, DEUTERONOMY 32:6, NKJV).
"Doubtless You are out Father,.." (THE OPEN BIBLE, ISAIAH 63:16, NKJV).
"Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?"(THE OPEN BIBLE, MALACHI 2:10, NKJV).
Moving on, we analyze Anthony's point number "3)"
"Finally, one of the ways John points up the uniqueness of Jesus in his Gospel is by exclusively using the word "Son" (Gr. huios) for Jesus in relation to God the Father, the same word that Jesus uses twice in the immediate context of John 17:3 (i.e. verse 1). Though as the rest of the New Testament writings bear out, there is a sense in which others can be called "sons" of God - having been created and redeemed through Jesus Christ, God's true Son, and having the Spirit of His Son, the Spirit of adoption, poured out upon them - when the apostle John speaks of others as God's "children" (e.g. 1:12; 11:52), he uses a different Greek word altogether (Gr. teknon). Even when the rest of the New Testament is considered, believers are only referred to as "sons of God" in the plural, never is anyone exclusively singled out as the Son of God in this way."
Let us not make this response a reading tyranny for the readers. There is nothing as such in his point number "3)" which needs to be responded afresh. We keep in mind that Anthony has provided point number "3)" ("2)" and "1)") to support his baseless and ill-argued claim that we cannot appeal to John 17:3 while doing down with John 3:16 because, according to Anthony Rogers, the same "son" has referred to the same "father" at both the places in the same Gospel.
He did not pause to realize that even though (for the sake of argument) the same "son" and "father" had been referred to in the same Gospel yet the imports are poles apart. The point of contention is whether the "father-son" referral is same or not but whether the imports and understanding are same or different; which of course is different.
Thus, as a response to Anthony's point number "3)" we rhetorically ask him what does his proof number "3)" prove or disprove. What purpose is his "3)" serving?
First Lie then Hide
Anthony outrageously and childishly claimed once again:
"Having said that it is okay to call Allah a father of believers, especially for informed Muslims like himself,."
Firstly, and as the name of this sub-heading reads, Anthony lied blatantly when he attributed to me that I Okayed Allah as "father" of Muslims ("believers"). Therefore, we challenge Anthony Rogers to provide us proof and establish his credence to his flamboyant.
Secondly, and as the name of this sub-heading reads, Anthony ran away from our "Mother Nature" analogy and the danger one would run into if the phrase it taken in the literal sense.
As one could read his response, instead of responding to our "Mother Nature" analogy he made a beeline through off-topics such as "circling the Kaaba, throwing rocks at the Devil, and kissing the black stone," insinuating that there are pagan incorporations in them. He also made some "psychological assessments", unfortunately, they do not even deserve a response. There are two points to be made here firstly, we are not discussing whether Islamic rites have pagan ingredients in it or not and secondly, if we embark to discuss it then Anthony has not provided any proof to support his gasconade that "ALL of Islam's religious rites were picked up from pagans like crumbs off a table,".
We challenge Anthony Rogers to prove us that "ALL of Islam's religious rites were picked up from pagans like crumbs off a table," and establish his manliness. Come on prove us that we are pagans. We invite him for our next series.
The only place where he came close in responding to our "Mother Nature" analogy is when he wrote:
"So, although I certainly do not take the phrase "Mother Nature" literally, I do UNASHAMEDLY and confidently confess, along with my believing brothers and sisters in the present and throughout all ages, "God the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and Jesus Christ HIS ONLY SON", and would say, with all due respect, if anyone was in need of psychological help, it was Anonymous' self-proclaimed prophet."
Very interesting! Although Anthony confessed "confidently" that he along with his tri-theist brothers and sisters are unabashed and "UNASHAMED" into believing that "Jesus Christ HIS ONLY SON". Nevertheless, the embarrassing point is that ?god's scripture' does not say that Jesus (peace be upon him) was "HIS ONLY SON" rather it says that Jesus was "HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON":
· "For God so loved the world, that he gave his ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16, King James (1611) Bible)
· I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I BEGOTTEN (ildthi.k) thee. (Psalm 2:7, King James (1611), Bible) ("Unashamed" Christians interpret the "son" to be SIRED according to Psalm 2:7 is Jesus, peace be upon him.)
Why did the god breathed word "BEGOTTEN" turned Anthony's cheek red! We do not expect him to blush here. Notice that Anthony Rogers had qualms in using the BIBLICAL word "BEGOTTEN"- we ask why?
What is more, Anthony did not even regard the creed of his ancestral "brothers" and "sisters" which clearly stated that Jesus was "BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE". As you would carefully mark that their creed did not state that Jesus was "His ONLY Son" rather they believed in cruder form, namely, "BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE":
".And in one Lord Jesus Christ, BEGOTTEN of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE, consubstantial with the father." (Jonathan L. Keene, CHHI 521 History of Christianity I)"
For more on this discussion kindly refer "Begetting the Filth" section of this paper.
All prophets from Adam to Mohammad, Jesus included, came for to promulgate Islamic monotheism and nothing else. Their sole mission was to call people from Idolatry, hero - worship, prophet - worship etc towards worship of their Creator, namely, Allah (SWT) and Allah alone.
Since we do not have the original scriptures of the prophets today yet we can discern and glean the Islamic monotheism taught by prophets prior to Mohammad (peace be upon him) from whatever the followers of those prophets have saved for us, say Bible and John 17:3 is one such case.
This verse is enough for proof and guidance for the innate monotheism in humans which Allah (SWT) has bestowed withstanding the dissuading arguments that "text speaks of the father" which as we have observed does not stand any sincere analysis.
The call is for the worship of Allah and Allah alone, call Him Jehovah if that is what your texts teaches you, call him father (in a transcendent way) if that pleases you, however in the end, worship him alone. Do not associate his biblical "son" in worship with him since as John 17:3 teaches that "father" alone is "the only true God"
Nevertheless, personally, the most important thing to be learnt here is the truth of Qur'an. When Qur'an asserted that Christians have abused the "Most Merciful" it has to be so and we have already found it to be exactly in the same manner. No matter how much the prudes of Christianity try to prove themselves Semitic; they have diverted to the lines of the pagans to abuse that Allah begot a son. Allah forbid.
Note: Emphasize wherever found is ours.