He did..also in all the many Bible verses that imply Jesus was the Son of God... All the times He was directly addressed as such.. not once is it recorded that Jesus ever said He wasn't the Son of God or denied it. Do you not think if Jesus was the sinless being He is widely believed to be He would have put the record straight on this point? The common understanding is that "Son of God" implies his deity ... which it does ... and that "Son of Man" implies his humanity, which it does. He was a son of man, that is, a human being. And he is the Son of God, in that he has always existed as the Eternally Begotten One who comes forth from the Father forever. He always has, and he always will. Begotten in this instance has nothing to do with the act of procreation.

~15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).~

In the Bible, not only other people are called slaves of God, but also prophets including Jesus are called slaves of God. The Hebrew word from which the Bible was translated is "ebed" which really means "slave"; but the English Bible renders it " servant” an expression of humility used by the righteous before God.

Interesting points, generally when the term "ebed" is used in the Old Testament it refers to servant, there are occasions when it is used to convey the meaning of slave. So I guess it's how you distinguish between slave and servant. A slave I always feel is under another persons obligation.. Whereas a Servant is one who serves willingly usually with some recompense. In terms of obedience before God then either option works. So I don't see this as a big deal particularly. However, saying that I do find the term slave has unpleasant overtones if you view how slavery is viewed in today's world.

I can find no evidence to show the term "Huios" is derived from "ebed". Huios is universally used in the New Testament to mean "Son". Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying here?

Peace

Sarah, Did you even read what I said? It is only muslims when using the term begotten in relation to the birth of Jesus who are committing blasphemy. Because it is the Quran and not the Bible that interprets "begotten" to imply the act of procreation in human terms. Christians have always believed it refers to the uniqueness of Jesus. As in "monogenes". Gennao refers to production through birth when referred to the woman. As the mans role was not involved in the creation of Jesus then only this meaning is applicable.

Honestly, a tip for you. Do not use the King James Version..at least not the original version if you have to use it at all choose the revised version. King James no doubt meant well, but there are many textual errors.. Hence why it's been revised :) you should cross reference with other translations if you wish to compare. I doubt you would find any great degree of difference in the central message. Which is what Gods word is about.. The message.. And that is something that cannot be corrupted by the hands of men. I know that because God makes that claim.

You say the reason Jesus was unique was being created miraculously without a father. Really? Is that the only reason you can see? You totally miss the point, and I can understand why because the Quran does not explain it to you. The point is WHY? Mankind had been witness to Gods greatness through miracles for a millennium before the Birth of Jesus. There was no need for the Messiah to be born this way just to offer another miracle to mankind. The reason is deeper than that. God could have created Jesus in the way of Adam.. With no mother or father!! Would that have seemed a greater miracle if a miracle was needed? But the need for a human mother was required.

You are asking the wrong questions.. As muslims you are so intent on tearing down the previous scriptures because they do not agree with the Quran.. For the only way the Quran can stand by its claims is if the previous scriptures were in error. As the Quran claims the words of God cannot be changed whilst at the same time acknowledging the previous scriptures as from God then claiming they were changed by men.. It seemingly contradicts itself. You cannot prove the previous scriptures were ever changed.. So I really don't know where that leaves you. You get tied up with the minutiae of textual Biblical errors and minor details whilst choosing to ignore the bigger picture. Don't forget the devil is in the detail.

If I were to ask you what is the main aim and objective of Satan? What would your answer be?

Peace.

This is an excellent post. It is interesting to note that no Muslim on the forum have been able to gainsay that the virgin birth of Jesus was borrowed from our NT Bible by Muhammad. He probably learned of it through oral tradition. There is no other place that story was recorded ever before Muhammad's Quran came on the seen. The irony is he rejected the reason for Jesus virgin birth, but accepted Jesus was born of a virgin. That is why Muslim don't have a reason for why Jesus had to have been born of a virgin.

Muhammad could have done more damage to Christianity if he had denied the virgin birth instead of the death and resurrection of Jesus, because if Jesus wasn't virgin born, his death would've been useless. Muhammad didn't understand Christianity and neither did his god. These misconceptions are, IMHO, apparent discrepancies in Muhammad's Quran.

I will say, however, even though Muhammad was unread, he was very intelligent and creative. Had he dug or research a little further he would have own that Christians never considered Allah (God the father) the third of three nor did Christians ever believe Mary was God which would have to have made her one of the three Allah said say not three about.

Too many misconception for a supposedly all knowing god. My comments here prove to me that Muhammad's Quran is contrived and what further lends to it is how Allah abrogates verses to bring one better or like. That is ridiculous. God gets it right the first time, and He never has to change or modify it. That is what humans do. Man does that he has to edit his work, because he doesn't get it right a first. I see the work of a man in the Quran.

God bless you