Evidence of prophecy

[pandora]

Quote

Pandora , I need to answer one point only, why are we desperate to show that Muhammad peace be upon him is in the bible, even though we believe it is corrupted.

Greetings Huria, well you have raised three points..

Quote

1. We are not desperate, it is just there, so many as well not one or two, many even though , your book suffered so many changes and alterations.

As you wish.. yet it does not seem incongruous to you to seek validation of sorts from scriptures that you believe to be corrupted? I would one day like to see some proof of these claims of the scriptures being changed. I have yet to see any. Not only the fact that they were "supposedly altered".. But why do you think it was thought they should be altered? And by whom? Don't forget that the scriptures we have today are the same as the scriptures we had during the time of your prophet Mohammed.

Quote

2. corrupted it does not mean all is falsehood, it may contain some truth, and as I said no matter how much you try, the evidence is overwhelming, if you want we can go through some, but please do not jump from one topic to another.

But this raises a conundrum for muslims I feel.. Because you have no way of knowing what is truth and what was allegedly changed. You could of course say the Quran is your proof, but this would not be proof enough for anyone who doubted the authenticity of the Quran. So you need independent proof, which is harder to find. You raised the points.. I am addressing them. Your overwhelming evidence is not much more than misunderstandings and misinterpretations. I doubt you have anything new. It would, I feel be a rather pointless exercise and one that has been no doubt addressed on numerous previous occasions.

[QUOTE ]3. The third point is a question for you, we Muslims believe that the Enjeel was book of God but what we have now, may hold some truths but it has changed a lot, so we have the right to refer to it to prove anything.[/QUOTE]

You are free to believe what you wish, but you need to convince others of the truth of your statements before asking them to give up their beliefs. There is no proof of any such Book as the Injeel as you believe it to be ever existed. Yet, the proof for the Gospels (New Testament) is incontrovertible. If you feel it is your right to take out the bits you like whilst dismissing the bits you don't like or what's diametrically opposed to Islam.. Well that's fine go ahead, but if you are looking to the Gospels themselves in the hope of disproving Gods divine message contained within.. Then you will be unsuccessful in that. It is not possible to change the Word of God.

Quote

You Christians however do not believe in our book, or our prophet so you have no right to quote from our book, things to support your weak doctrine, and I have seen it myself, in some Christians's scholar websites , using verses of the Quran, to say that Jesus was word of God according to Quran!! What a big joke, you can’t prove divinity to your God, so you use other source that you don’t believe in, or its authenticity to interpret it they way you like it is big hypocrisy do not you think?!

I personally would not quote the Quran in support of the Bible because there is no need to. The Bible is self sufficient and does not or seek support from any source other than God. Why would I need to prove divinity of YHWH? God whom you know as Allah... For surely I would not need to prove Gods divinity to you, a Muslim.. Surely must believe that already. If you refer to the Christ Jesus... Again I would not need the Quran to tell me anything of Jesus.. As muslims do not know Jesus. If you did you would not disrespect Him... Which you do ..every time you refer to Him as son of Mary.

Hypocrisy is a two way street don't you think? You may have heard the saying.. "People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" ...... BTW.. I believe the Quran does refer to Jesus as the Word of God. Muslims just interpret the meaning behind what it means differently. We believe the Word of God is eternal and uncreated... The Bible tells us this Word is Jesus. So on that point we have a similarity of sorts between the Quran and the Bible. Gods Word is no joke.
Peace to you.

[huria]

Quote

As you wish.. yet it does not seem incongruous to you to seek validation of sorts from scriptures that you believe to be corrupted?

.

It is not validation for our message, the message of Islam is very clear in the Quran, Allah made it very clear to us, no vague passages about who we should worship, or ambiguity this mean that or another, it is crystal clear,
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him. (Holy Qur'an 112:1-4)

The message is very clear thought the whole Quran, God does not change his mind between the old or new testament.
So it is not validation for a clear message, it is for Christians who are sincere, most been brought up to hate Islam, so there is no way for them to know the truth, and it is Allah’s mercy, left that door for them to investigate more, as they only believe in their book.

Quote

I would one day like to see some proof of these claims of the scriptures being changed. I have yet to see any.
.

Well then my friend you have been living in your little bubble world. I am not going to direct you to Muslim scholars, but historian and Christians scholars. There are many books and recorded documentary which are unbiased, talked about the history but do not worry I will support all my claims with evidences.

Quote

Not only the fact that they were "supposedly altered".. But why do you think it was thought they should be altered? And by whom?.

By whom and why? We Muslims know why but I don’t think it will benefit you or even believe the reason, why not just show you instead.

Quote

Don't forget that the scriptures we have today are the same as the scriptures we had during the time of your prophet Mohammed.
.

Lol Do you know the history of your book??, have you read how it was collected, and what they put in or left out, and what they changed and altered, many times, until this day. Please do not insult our intelligence

Quote

But this raises a conundrum for muslims I feel.. Because you have no way of knowing what is truth and what was allegedly changed..

But we do, what is right and what is wrong because we have the Furqan (the Qur'an itself as the decisive factor between the Good and the Evil), so for example we share similar names to the prophets but we will not take the accounts of the corrupted book. That God chose the worse of people to convey his message, according to the bible story. For example We share the same name for a prophet Lut peace upon him but we will not accept the incest story in the bible. So how do we know it is corrupted story? The Furqan tell us. And many more stories, if Muhammad peace be upon him was copying these stories he could at least get one exact story!! Not one, as your book now did great blasphemy against all our beloved prophets peace be upon them.

Quote

You could of course say the Quran is your proof, but this would not be proof enough for anyone who doubted the authenticity of the Quran.

..

The Quran is a proof for us muslims, and everyone, no one has challenged it is authenticity, no one!! if that was the case, we will not be here spending our time here refuting lies. The Quran is memorized by it is entirety from the time of the prophet Muhammed peace be upon him until this day.,

“In fact what we have is what is called Mutawatr transmission of the Quran. This concept of Mutawatr, which is essentially it is an idea or it means that so many different people have narrated a particular story or a particular thing from so many different directions it is impossible, it's inconceivable that these people could have gathered together to invent a falsehood. In other words, imagine you have a thousand people, these thousand people, each of them are teaching another thousand people & each of those thousand people teaching another hundred people. Can you imagine how many hundreds of thousands of people that constitutes? And is it possible that these people could have all gathered together & conspired together to invent something? No. It's not something that is possible. And therefore it is considered in terms of the oral transmission, when something is a Mutawatr, there are so many people that have narrated it, that it's impossible that they could have invented something. And this is the case with the Quran, the entire Quran, every verse of the Quran has come to us throughout the ages a continuous Mutawatr transmission of these verses of the Quran.”

Also a leading orientalist whose name is Kenneth Cragg, he said: "The Quran is perhaps the only book, religious or secular, that has been memorised completely by millions of people.This phenomenon of the Quranic recital means the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken line of living sequence of devotion.It can not therefore be handled as an antiquarian thing nor a historical document of the distant past. The fact of hifz (meaning the Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the laps of Muslim time & given it a human currency in every generation never allowing its relegation to bear authority & reference alone."

So as I said above no one can challenge the authenticity of the Quran, to this day, it remain a challenge.

Quote

So you need independent proof, which is harder to find. You raised the points
..

It is not hard, I can prove that you have corrupted books, historically, and by other mean other than the Quran.

Quote

I am addressing them. Your overwhelming evidence is not much more than misunderstandings and misinterpretations. I doubt you have anything new. It would, I feel be a rather pointless exercise and one that has been no doubt addressed on numerous previous occasions...

Let’s cross that bridge when we reach it, shall we? Promise I will not bore you. I have not finished yet, so please no reply until I finish, I need to go out now.

[pandora]

Greetings Huria, now you have graciously given me leave to reply I will endeavour to do so. Although in truth you have not brought much to the table so to speak. :)

Quote

It is not validation for our message, the message of Islam is very clear in the Quran, Allah made it very clear to us, no vague passages about who we should worship, or ambiguity this mean that or another, it is crystal clear,
Say: He is Allah, the One!
Allah, the eternally Besought of all!
He begetteth not nor was begotten.
And there is none comparable unto Him. (Holy Qur'an 112:1-4)

The message is very clear thought the whole Quran, God does not change his mind between the old or new testament.
So it is not validation for a clear message, it is for Christians who are sincere, most been brought up to hate Islam, so there is no way for them to know the truth, and it is Allah’s mercy, left that door for them to investigate more, as they only believe in their book.

I did not say you seek to validate the Quran's message by the Bible. You do however use the Bible to validate Mohammed's credentials as a Prophet... You do this every time you make a claim that Mohammed was mentioned in either the Torah or the Gospels. This despite the fact you make claims of corruption against the very scriptures you erroneously use. Why it is important to you to find prophecies of Mohammed in the Bible is a point I do not understand.

There is no ambiguity or vagueness in the Bible, it's message is also as clear as crystal. I know of no Christians who have been brought up to hate Islam.. That is a strange claim to make but I expect you have good cause and evidence of such a claim.. Or why say such a thing!!! Of course the Bible does tell us we are to test the Prophets.. If anyone brings a different message then we are obliged to question that message.. God placed this obligation upon us. Truth is subjective to the individual, in matters of faith we rely on God to guide us.

Quote

Well then my friend you have been living in your little bubble world. I am not going to direct you to Muslim scholars, but historian and Christians scholars. There are many books and recorded documentary which are unbiased, talked about the history but do not worry I will support all my claims with evidences.

There is no need to be rude or condescending.. I think it's counterproductive... If you have your evidence then bring it on, don't just talk about it. May I please request no You Tube videos. It is not a medium I wish to use. You mention Kenneth Cragg below, it would be good if you knew a but about the author, very often muslims just grab the first favourable quote that suits their purpose. A lot can be learnt from the author and aim of the article in question... Like their motives. No offence, and I have the utmost respect for the right Reverend Kenneth Cragg, first and foremost he was an Anglican priest. He has written many interesting articles on Islam, you should look some of them up.

Quote

By whom and why? We Muslims know why but I don’t think it will benefit you or even believe the reason, why not just show you instead.

I look forward to seeing what you have on this matter, as long as it isn't an interminably boring You Tube clip.

Quote

Lol Do you know the history of your book??, have you read how it was collected, and what they put in or left out, and what they changed and altered, many times, until this day. Please do not insult our intelligence

Yes I do... Do you? It's not my aim to insult anyone's intelligence.. I would be grateful if the same courtesy was shown to myself. If you feel unable to do so, then maybe we should end it here.

Quote

But we do, what is right and what is wrong because we have the Furqan (the Qur'an itself as the decisive factor between the Good and the Evil), so for example we share similar names to the prophets but we will not take the accounts of the corrupted book. That God chose the worse of people to convey his message, according to the bible story. For example We share the same name for a prophet Lut peace upon him but we will not accept the incest story in the bible. So how do we know it is corrupted story? The Furqan tell us. And many more stories, if Muhammad peace be upon him was copying these stories he could at least get one exact story!! Not one, as your book now did great blasphemy against all our beloved prophets peace be upon them.

Lot was never a Bible Prophet, but simply a righteous man. As to why the Quran views the Prophets differently I don't know.. I do see by doing so the bigger picture is lost. But as I have the stories of the Biblical Prophets in what to me is their true colours, then how you view them is entirely your concern. You should be careful throwing such claims as blasphemy about, just because you do not see something the same way. The Bible Prophets each and every one is held in high esteem by all Christians and Jews.

Quote

The Quran is a proof for us muslims, and everyone, no one has challenged it is authenticity, no one!! if that was the case, we will not be here spending our time here refuting lies. The Quran is memorized by it is entirety from the time of the prophet Muhammed peace be upon him until this day.,

“In fact what we have is what is called Mutawatr transmission of the Quran. This concept of Mutawatr, which is essentially it is an idea or it means that so many different people have narrated a particular story or a particular thing from so many different directions it is impossible, it's inconceivable that these people could have gathered together to invent a falsehood. In other words, imagine you have a thousand people, these thousand people, each of them are teaching another thousand people & each of those thousand people teaching another hundred people. Can you imagine how many hundreds of thousands of people that constitutes? And is it possible that these people could have all gathered together & conspired together to invent something? No. It's not something that is possible. And therefore it is considered in terms of the oral transmission, when something is a Mutawatr, there are so many people that have narrated it, that it's impossible that they could have invented something. And this is the case with the Quran, the entire Quran, every verse of the Quran has come to us throughout the ages a continuous Mutawatr transmission of these verses of the Quran.”

Also a leading orientalist whose name is Kenneth Cragg, he said: "The Quran is perhaps the only book, religious or secular, that has been memorised completely by millions of people.This phenomenon of the Quranic recital means the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken line of living sequence of devotion.It can not therefore be handled as an antiquarian thing nor a historical document of the distant past. The fact of hifz (meaning the Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the laps of Muslim time & given it a human currency in every generation never allowing its relegation to bear authority & reference alone."

So as I said above no one can challenge the authenticity of the Quran, to this day, it remain a challenge.

The authenticity of the Quran is not my concern.. I respect it as your Holy Book. I only wish you could be as respectful towards mine.. But I feel that is a big ask of a Muslim who has always been told the Bible is corrupted. Yet a lie can be authentic.. Can it not? The Bible has much historical and archeological proofs for its authenticity and has hundreds of thousands of manuscripts to call upon for verification... Indeed far more than the Quran has... Yet you would have us believe it is not an authentic Holy Book. Is that intellectually honest?

Quote

It is not hard, I can prove that you have corrupted books, historically, and by other mean other than the Quran.

Again.. I look forward to reading what you have... As above.. No You Tube clips please. :)

Quote

Let’s cross that bridge when we reach it, shall we? Promise I will not bore you. I have not finished yet, so please no reply until I finish, I need to go out now.

I may hold you to that promise...

Peace

[sarah_]

Pandora,
you think Muslims disrespect Jesus, may peace be upon him, because they say he is the son of Mary? Why do you think so? Isn't Mary his mother?!

[pandora]

Quote

Pandora,
you think Muslims disrespect Jesus, may peace be upon him, because they say he is the son of Mary? Why do you think so? Isn't Mary his mother?!

Greetings Sarah, you ask why it is disrespectful to refer to Jesus as "son of Mary". First of all, to the best of my knowledge Jesus was only referred to as Son of Mary once in the Bible, and it was in a disparaging way... "Isn't this Jesus the son of Mary?" Jesus responds, "A prophet is not without honor save in his own town. There were some who referred to Jesus in this way because they doubted He was the Messiah it was a term they used to mock Him. No Prophet has ever been referred to as the son of their mother. Their title always comes through the father.

The Bible is clear on all the titles Jesus was known by, at the annunciation of His birth the Angel Gabriel gave His name He was to be called by.. Yeshua, along with the titles He was to be known by.. Son of God most High, Mighty Counsellor, Prince of Peace, Messiah .. among others. Son of Mary was never one of them, Jesus referred to Himself as Son of God or Son of Man... His disciples referred to Him as Lord but why do or would you refer to the Son of the living God as Son of Mary? Because you do not accept Jesus' claim to sonship. Everyone has a father... Why does the Quran not refer to Jesus as Son of Joseph? After all it like the Bible accepts that Joseph was Mary's husband and as such the earthly father of Jesus. However, as the Quran recognises the virgin birth and Jesus as the Messiah whilst at the same time cannot accept that the father of Jesus was God. Also at this point I need to make very clear to you that this act of creation did not necessitate any physical union between God and Mary. That belief is blasphemous and no Christian has ever believed that ever. The very idea that God somehow would need to take a wife is totally abhorrent as it is ridiculous.

I promise that you do dishonor Him by referring to The Son of God as son of his mother... At least refer to Him as the son of man if it bothers you to call Him the son of God, but those that refer to or call Jesus Son of Mary as a title will be judged for their lack of honor and respect. To be forewarned is to be foreharmed. You are now accountable for what you know.

Peace.

[sarah_]

Referring to Jesus as the son of Mary, is absolutely correct and in no way disrespectful, because Jesus, may peace be upon him had no father. God created him in a miraculous way, without a father. You say // Everyone has a father...// Not true. Adam, may peace be upon him, had no father and no mother. God does what He wills, He just says “Be” and it is.

//However, as the Quran recognizes the virgin birth and Jesus as the Messiah whilst at the same time cannot accept that the father of Jesus was God.//
The father of Jesus was not God. Jesus was created miraculously without a father. The term son of God is used metaphorically in the Bible as an expression to magnify people or to glorify someone on a certain occasion. Other people in the Bible are called sons of God too.
I’ll leave you with these verses from the Quran for now :)

They said, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son"! You have uttered a gross blasphemy. The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear asunder, and the mountains are about to crumble. Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son. It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Every single one in the heavens and the earth is a servant of the Most Gracious. He has encompassed them, and has counted them one by one. All of them will come before Him on the Day of Resurrection as individuals. [19:88-95].

"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" [19:30-35].

[pandora]

Greetings Sarah, you asked why a Christian believes you disrespect Jesus by referring to Him as son of Mary. I gave you an answer according to the Bible why it is so disrespectful. You do not like or agree with the answer that is your choice and one upon yourself to pay for. The Bible is the authority on Jesus weather you like it or not.

Quote

Referring to Jesus as the son of Mary, is absolutely correct and in no way disrespectful, because Jesus, may peace be upon him had no father. God created him in a miraculous way, without a father. You say // Everyone has a father...// Not true. Adam, may peace be upon him, had no father and no mother. God does what He wills, He just says “Be” and it is.

It may seem correct to you because you have always believed it. May I ask how many other prophets in the Quran are referred to as sons of their mothers and not sons of their fathers? The fact Adam was created without a mother or father is totally irrelevant to the point in hand. To infer by the fact that because God created Adam without any parents somehow elevates him in importance to Jesus who had a human mother shows a lack of understanding about why the virgin birth was necessary or why Jesus was born of a human mother. I can understand your confusion because the Quran does address this most important issue. It recognises the fact of the birth but does not tell you why it had to be this way. Do you think God could have created Jesus as Adam was created as a fully grown man without recourse to either man or woman? Of course He could, because we understand that nothing is impossible with God. There's is a lot more behind the birth of Jesus than God just saying Be and it is.

Quote

//However, as the Quran recognizes the virgin birth and Jesus as the Messiah whilst at the same time cannot accept that the father of Jesus was God.//

Quote

The father of Jesus was not God. Jesus was created miraculously without a father. The term son of God is used metaphorically in the Bible as an expression to magnify people or to glorify someone on a certain occasion. Other people in the Bible are called sons of God too.

yes of course there are :) However, that does not detract from the way the term Son is used in relation to Jesus. Or even Jesus' own claims by speech and actions.

Quote

I’ll leave you with these verses from the Quran for now :)

Quote

They said, "The Most Gracious has begotten a son"! You have uttered a gross blasphemy. The heavens are about to shatter, the earth is about to tear asunder, and the mountains are about to crumble. Because they claim that the Most Gracious has begotten a son. It is not befitting the Most Gracious that He should beget a son. Every single one in the heavens and the earth is a servant of the Most Gracious. He has encompassed them, and has counted them one by one. All of them will come before Him on the Day of Resurrection as individuals. [19:88-95].

You do indeed utter blasphemy by making this claim. Begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible. I am at least grateful that you did not share Sura 72:3 where it mentions wife in relation to God...!!!! That is blasphemy, and no Christians have ever believed it. Which strangely I think God would have known that fact.

Quote

"He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" [19:30-35].

That's why I believe the words of Jesus in the Bible over the Quran. Unless the translation suffers from Arabic to English, this sura makes no sense why Jesus would say such things. Jesus and Isa in the Quran bear no resemblance to each other that I can tell. Jesus was the only sinless being to walk this earth... As lying is a sin we can take it as read that Jesus never lied and always told the truth. So I will have to go with the words of Jesus Himself on this one. :)

Anyway, this thread is about the evidence of prophecy... I feel we have gone off on a tangent here.. Oops .. I'm always doing that. My bad. :)

blessings

[sarah_]

Quote

yes of course there are :) However, that does not detract from the way the term Son is used in relation to Jesus. Or even Jesus' own claims by speech and actions.

You do indeed utter blasphemy by making this claim. Begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible.

Dear Pandora,

this tells me that you don’t know much about the Bible :) . It’s ok, this forum will be a good opportunity to learn :). "Jesus own claims"? Jesus never called himself the son of God in the Bible. Find one verse where Jesus says “I am the son of God” You can’t! There is NONE!!!

Also Jesus in the Bible tells us that his father is also our father, :
[John 20:17] Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

Now let us check about the word “begotten” .
You say: “begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible.” Here I bring you information from the dictionary for what does the word “begotten” mean:

Adj. 1. begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child".

I hope you realize how wrong and blasphemous is to use this word. The Greek word, from which this was translated is “monogenes” and it means, one kind, special unique etc. This word “monogenes” is used in other verses in the Bible such as in Hebrews 11:17 where Abraham’s son is mentioned. Abraham had two sons and if we were to translate the word “monogenes” that is used here to “begotten” we can see it doesn’t make sense because Abraham had two sons. The correct translation is “unique"or "one kind", meaning unique in a way. Jesus may peace be upon him was unique in many ways, one of those is that he was created without a father and also he will come back again before the judgment day etc.

May Allah guide you :)

[pandora]

Quote

Dear Pandora,

this tells me that you don’t know much about the Bible :) . It’s ok, this forum will be a good opportunity to learn :). "Jesus own claims"? Jesus never called himself the son of God in the Bible. Find one verse where Jesus says “I am the son of God” You can’t! There is NONE!!!

Greetings Sarah, first off, just to say being patronising will get you nowhere.. :) in order to understand what Jesus claimed, you have to know Jesus through His mission. You will not find this in the Quran, because Isa of the Quran is a pale imitation of Jesus... Has none of His charisma or qualities. There are many ways making a declaration of something than just coming out with a bold claim or direct statement. A selection of verses for your perusal.. If you check the web site link you can view the verses in more detail.. Or not as you prefer.

Does Jesus in fact say that He is God’s Son, not just infer it?


Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).


The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).... (Btw .. This was Gabriel.. The very same angel that brought Mohammed his revelation.. Are we to assume that this Angel of The Lord is a liar and deceiver? )


John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).


Nathanael said it (John 1:49).


Martha believed it (John 11:27).


The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).


Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).


Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4.


The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).


The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).


The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).


Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17: ... (I think I like this one best.. :) )


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).


Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching.

https://bible.org/question/does-jesu...-just-infer-it

Quote

Also Jesus in the Bible tells us that his father is also our father, :
[John 20:17] Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'

and.. ? Your point is? Jesus taught that through Him we are adopted into Gods "family". We are all sons and daughters of God. Not slaves like you.. ;)

Quote

Now

Quote

let us check about the word “begotten” .
You say: “begotten as it implies the term here is not how the term begotten is understood in the Bible.” Here I bring you information from the dictionary for what does the word “begotten” mean:

Adj. 1. begotten - (of offspring) generated by procreation; "naturally begotten child".

I hope you realize how wrong and blasphemous is to use this word. The Greek word, from which this was translated is “monogenes” and it means, one kind, special unique etc. This word “monogenes” is used in other verses in the Bible such as in Hebrews 11:17 where Abraham’s son is mentioned. Abraham had two sons and if we were to translate the word “monogenes” that is used here to “begotten” we can see it doesn’t make sense because Abraham had two sons. The correct translation is “unique"or "one kind", meaning unique in a way. Jesus may peace be upon him was unique in many ways, one of those is that he was created without a father and also he will come back again before the judgment day etc.

May Allah guide you :)

It's good that you have brought this up.. Begotten and monogenes .. "only begotten" translates the Greek word monogenes. This word is usually translated into English as "only," "one and only," and "only begotten." It's the "only begotten" translation that gives the wrong impression that Jesus was begotten in the human sense of procreation.. When it is very clear that no one ever thought it meant this.. As that would not have been construed from the term "monogenes". You could ask yourself why the Quran admonishes Christians of the time for believing Jesus was " begotten" when they certainly would not have inferred that idea from the scriptures. They would have inferred from the term monogenes the uniqueness of Jesus in that their was no one like unto Him.
In early Christian Literature, monogenes has two primary definitions. The first definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship." You are correct in your information about is its meaning in Hebrews 11:17 when the writer refers to Isaac as Abraham's "only begotten son". Abraham had more than one son, but Isaac was the only son he had by Sarah and the only son of the covenant. So it is the uniqueness of Isaac among the other sons that allows for the use of monogenes in that context.


The second definition is "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind." This is the meaning that is implied in John, which was primarily concerned with demonstrating that Jesus is the Son of God (John 20:31), and he uses monogenes to highlight Jesus as uniquely God's Son—sharing the same divine nature as God—as opposed to believers who are God's sons and daughters by adoption. Jesus is God’s “one and only” Son.

You are correct when you say Jesus was unique in many ways.. Where you are maybe in error is that you don't ask the important question... Why? Why was only Jesus out of all the prophets unique? Could it be He was the promised Messiah? The one sent to redeem mankind and correct the fall of Adam.. So making us once more right before God.. I believe He was... Jesus was everything He said He was. Never a lie was found on His lips, do you think He would have accepted worship as God and let people believe He shared a unique relationship with God if it were not so?

May God guide you.