From: mughal@iago.caltech.edu (ASIM M MUGHAL)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Jesus did not claim Godhood
Date: 8 Oct 1992 04:00 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
Reply-To: ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (Shakil Waiz Ahmed)
NNTP-Posting-Host: iago.caltech.edu
Originator: Mughal@Romeo.Caltech.Edu (Asim Mughal -Moderator)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    



This is from Dr. Habib Siddiqui (RBNXHS@rohvm1.rohmhaas.com):

Roland Watson writes:
>May I quote John 5:17-18 as regards the equality of Jesus with God:

>"But Jesus answered them,my Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 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."

These verses have been explained in my article (A rebuttal of missionary
theology). Please, read that article for the explanation.

>I have never heard or read of anyone in my eight years of studying theChristian
>faith who proposed that the term"son of man" indicated the deity of Christ.
>Rather the opposite is true,the term speaks of the humanity of Christ just as

You are obviously unaware or ignorant of views made by gospel-thumping,
born-again Xians. In my last *14 years* of study of your faith, I have
come across several of those hard-core Xians. In their zealous attempts
to prove the divinity of Jesus, they have left very few prophetic verses
untouched, no matter how irrational and idiotic these arguments may have
been in support of such a claim. (You may like to browse at 180+ cita-
tions that your fellow Christian, John Emery, posted in the Net and the
ensuing debate with Tim O'Neill to refresh your memory.) How about the
reference to "Son of Man" (Bar Nasha) in the book of Daniel 7:13? I know
most Christians claim that this refers to Jesus, although the identity
of this person is not explicated by Daniel.

The Qur'an mentions Jesus as a son of Maryam (which is equal to son of a
woman) thus signifying his humanity. Contrasted with the non-use or very
limited use of "son of God" (in gospel according to John) by Jesus
himself, we find him using the expression "son of Man" many times in the
Christian Bible. You are right, an expression like this automatically
negates any literal interpretation of "son of God" (for *God* is not
equal to *Man*). In our opinion the phrase truly emphasizes that Jesus,
the son of Mary, thought of himself as a *man* only and nothing more
than this. Further, scholars determined that Jesus's usage of this very
term for himself was meant to be a reminiscent of that of the Prophet
Dhul'Kifl (Ezekiel), i.e., a nabi or a rasool (messenger) of God. (Ref:
J. Hastings, The dictionary of the BIBLE, Scribner's Sons, New York,
Rev. Ed., (1963))

In my original article what I have tried to explain is that the usage of
such terms "son of God", "son of Man", 'saviour','messiah', etc. are not
unique for Jesus, and that there are several candidates for each of
these. In none of these cases, divinity was ever attributed. These
terms became the symbols of divinity for Jesus only through the
fertile imagination and wilful interpretations by the Trinitarians.

>The word "son" has several Greek counterparts.The Greek word "paidos" used
>above does indeed mean child or servant,which of the two meanings to use can
>normally be adduced from the context of the verse.
>Your implication that "son of God"means "servant of God" is incomplete. The
>other Greek word for "son" - "yios", rarely if ever means "servant".
>  Moreover, if Jesus of Nazareth was only claiming to be one figurativeson
>amongst many,then why did he call Himself the "only" Son of God? For example,
>  John 3:16
>  "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 1:18
> "No man hath seen God at any time; the ONLY begotten Son, who is in the bosom
>   of the Father, he hath declared Him."
> These sample verses would indicate that Jesus of Nazareth was claiming a form
> of sonship which was unique and higher than what was generally conceived and
> given to members of the human race.

The King James Version uses the term "begotten" for sonship of Jesus.
This is based on an inaccurate translation of the NT manuscripts. In the.
Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1954, the word "begotten" has altogether
been expunged (for translations in the English language only). Biblical
scholars now don't value KJV for its accuracy but only for its archaic
literary style. (See my previous article where I showed how the meaning
of the verse in Isaiah 9:6 was changed to suit Trinitarian theology.)

The use of such verses can only be found in the gospel according to John
(the most favourite gospel for Trinitarians; written around the beginning
of the second century), and not in any of the earlier Synoptic gospels
(composed after the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 C.E.). The verse merely shows
how the writer(s) of this gospel, writing mainly to a gentile audience
many years since the failed Revolt in the heartland of pagan Hellenistic
world looked at things quite different from the rest of the authors of the
socalled canonical gospels. Remember, by then the Temple had been grounded
by Titus and the Jews banned from entering or residing in Jerusalem
city. The remnants of early disciples and their followers were either
dead or killed, while the followers of the self-appointed disciple- Paul
were having  much success in converting the goyims of the Hellenistic
world. (Note: the Paulines did not participate in the Revolt.)

In Psalms 2:7, David is called a "begotten" son of God ("I will declare
the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art *My Son*; this day
have I *begotten* thee.") Thus, Jesus's claim of being a begotten son
of God is *not* unique, and as the Psalm shows he was definitely not the
ONLY such begotten son.

> I object to the use of the adjective "Pauline" for it implies that the early
>church experienced schism at the Apostolic level which is not borne outby the
>scriptures.
> Any potential for schism was resolved at church councils such as the council
>of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15.On the Apostolic unity of the church read

You are wrong, again. Read Acts 15:36-39 which clearly shows that the
division within the early christians was too great to be mended by the
church. READ also the book: The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth by Prof. S.
Brandon (Dorset Press, N.Y.). (I strongly recommend you and other
Trinitarians to read this well-researched book to defog your mind about
the early history of Christianity of which you are so ignorant.)
Whether you or other Trinitarians like it or not, the fact of the matter
is what you call Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of
Jesus or his early followers (James, Peter and others), but it is about
what became of it in the hands of Paul - the innovator and his gentile
followers who saw to it that their new faith might no longer be linked to
the Jews and the Judeo-Christians (the Monotheists), esp. after the Revolt.
It is because of this schism with the early Nazarenes (Christians)
that we are now left with the NT canonical books containing mostly views
expressed by Paul (in 14 out of 27 books). We are never told as to what
happened of Barnabas in his mission with Mark in the Acts (following
the verse 15:39). Why the book of Acts (author(s): unknown; possibly
Luke, a gentile follower of Paul) is also silent about rest of the
original disciples of Jesus (see chapters 16-28)?

>I have never heard or read of anyone who proposed that the term"messiah"
>indicated the deity of Christ.
                        ======
 Which Christ? Cyrus (Isa. 45:1) or Jesus?
 You probably intended to write "... messiah indicated the deity of
 Jesus" and not "Christ", for the root of the Hebrew word Masiach/Messiah
 is derived from the word 'masah' meaning to rub or anoint. The Greek
 translation would make it equivalent to the word Chirstos (for mascu-
 line). In English, Christians dropped the letters 'os' at the end to
 reduce the term to "Christ".

 You are either totally ignorant of views made by gospel-thumpers as to
180+ reasons (or verses) for the divinity of Jesus or are deliberately
trying to hide these facts. Please, read my rebuttal article where it
shows how Trinitarians use Mark 14:61 to equate divinity with Messiah-
ship (the rebuttal was written against a number of verses brought forth
by a sympathiser of the Trinitarian doctrine).

--------------------------------------------------------
I wrote in my original article: (explanations in parentheses added) -
 My conclusion is that Jesus never claimed divinity. His prime message
 was : "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)
 Jesus also is reported to have said -
 "I do nothing of myself." (John 14:28) (i.e., Jesus is *not* self-
 sufficient.)
"My Father is greater than I." (John 14:2) (i.e., Jesus is subordinate,
 and not *co-equal* with God.)
 "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which
 are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) (i.e.,
 Jesus is *not* Omniscient.)     ==============