Hi Charlie,

> [Trying to translate the NT in a way that is acceptable to Muslims is
> unlikely to work.

Being Muslim has zip to do with the fact that multiple Prophets are
labeled as the only and even begotten son besides Jesus, even fellow
Christians ask these same questions as I do so skipping over the issue
to me following Islam is evading the question.

> However you translate it, the NT assigns a role to
> Christ that you're not going to find acceptable.

If I was a fellow Christian, how would you explain to me that other
Prophets were called the first/only/begotten son? (not excluding Eve
who was technically also begotten in a Christian sense)

> Certainly the Bible
> refers to others as children of God. Indeed even the NT refers to us
> that way. But the NT sees Jesus as a son of God in a more direct
sense
> than the rest of us, whether it's translated as "only son"
or "only
> begotten son." --clh]

How can Jesus be more direct than Adam since Jesus was diluted through
a human (sinner?) while Adam was purely from God?

If King David (the other begotten son) came back to earth tomorrow,
would you say he was the manifestation of Jesus? If not, then we can't
say he was also Jesus when God called David the begotten son in Psalms
2:7.

Peace

Mohamed Ghounem

   ----

[Adam isn't typically referred to as son of God. Luke 3:37 does it,
but doesn't seem to mean anything other than that Adam was created
directly by God, rather than having a human father. Most uses of "son"
refer to king or prophet, as in Ps 2:7, i.e. to people who have a
specific commission from God. Of course in Hebrew idiom it could also
refer to a godly man.

However the NT obviously means something more specific. There's no
doubt that others had specific roles given them and particularly close
relationships to God.  Thus, as with David in Ps 2:7 they can be
called God's son. However the NT sees Jesus as having a role that is
unique. That's the whole point of calling him the "only Son."  The
term "Son" is used in all of the Gospels, although the phrase "only
Son" is not. But the meaning is there. It's pretty clear that all of
the Gospels use "the Son" as a unique title for Jesus.

For better or worse, Jesus and the NT writers didn't choose a
completely new term. Instead they used "son", a term that had already
been used of others. The NT writers tended to use "typological"
thought. That is, they saw Ps 2:7, which originally referred to David,
as coming to its full meaning with Jesus. Acts 13:3, Heb 1:5, and Heb
5:5 apply this passage to Jesus. That doesn't deny that it applied to
David originally. But it comes into its full meaning with
Jesus. Because of this approach, rather than invent a totally new
term, they took a traditional one and gave it a new and fuller
meaning. The infamous citation of Is 7:14 by Matthew is another
example. In its original context it referred to someone contemporary
with Isaiah. Matthew applied it to Jesus typologically.

[For a brief introduction to various ways in which the NT writers
applied the OT to their time, see 
http://www.abu.nb.ca/courses/NTIntro/OTinNT.htm]

I'm not sure what to make of your comment about being descended from
sinners. Being son of God is something that God does. It's not based
on human ancestry. That's part of the point of the stories about the
Virgin Birth.

I don't expect you to accept the theology, but you should at least be
able to understand what the NT writers intended to say.  It's not
plausible to turn the NT writers into Muslims.

--clh]
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/7/05 10:41:30 AM