[arerrurrY]

The term "Son of God" or "God's son" occurs in the synoptic gospels 27 times and the term "the son" occurs 9 times. It is not sufficient, however, to consider the texts in which the title actually occurs. Passages throwing light upon Jesus' conception of the divine fatherhood in general and man's sons must also be examined. Whenever a reputed saying of Jesus is drawn into discussion, it must be tested in a retranslation into the Aramaic dialect spoken by Jesus; and the same applies to utterances concerning him by persons to whom this Galilean speech was the vernacular. It is necessary to bear in mind the fundamental distinction between the the Greek words ascribed to Jesus which we posess, and the Aramaic sentences he spoke which we can only surmise.

The synoptic tradition records no utterance of Jesus in which he distinctly refers to himself as a"son of God." In Mathew 27:43, it is indeed said that mocking high priests, scribes and elders quoted him as saying: "I am a son of God.' but the only ground for such an assertion would be Jesus' answer to the high priests question in Mathew 26-67. The taunt seems to have been made up of phrases from Wisdom 2:16-18 of more importance would be the distinction between 'my father' and 'your father', only if this could be traced back to Jesus himself.

At the time when these accounts were elaborated 'Son of Man', 'Christ' and 'Son of God' had become synonymous and 'Son of God' was understood as 'God,' so that the blasphemy of making oneself equal with God could be conceived of as a charge brought against Jesus, which was the intention of the High priests. The 'Son of God' in Matthew 27:40 is lacking in the parallel passage Mark 15: 29 and the utterance is based on Matthew 26:61 or Mark 14:58, having no more historic value than these improbable testimonies.

On the other hand, "Son of Man" - In the New Testament - is a designation applied to Jesus. It is found only in the Gospels and always on His own lips, where He is referring to himself as "the Son of Man". I wonder as to why he never referred to himself as the "son of god" instead of "son of man"

The term "Son of man" occurs aprox 109 times in the Bible, and carries with it no implication of divinity. Rather the phrase is translated in the Hebrew as "Ben Adam" or in the Aramaic as "Bar Enash". In the Semitic languages the individual is often designated as a son of species to which he belongs, the species being indicated by a collective or plural noun. The fact that Jesus refers to himself as "Ben Adam" to mean Son of Adam as opposed to "Ben Elohim" to mean Son of God, is a border line between monotheism and polytheism. But even then, the term "bnē elōhim" in Genesis 6-24 were understood in some circles to be angels, according to the exegetes as early as 2nd Century BC.

A critical study of the synoptic material leads inevitably to the conclusion that Jesus never called himself 'the Son of God', and never was he addressed by that title. A careful examination of the gospels tends to produce the conviction that Jesus never assumed the title 'Son of God' either to designate himself as the expected king of Israel or to intimate that his nature was unlike that of other men, but that he spoke of men in general as 'the sons of God', figuratively meaning 'The creation of God' and of God as their 'Father', figuratively meaning 'Their Creator'.

"I am a servant of Allah. He will reveal the Book to me and make me a prophet. He blessed me wherever I am. In the rules revealed to me there will be a special attention given to prayers and charity. Allah predestined that I will be kind to my mother and not a tyrant with a bad ending. Peace was on me the day I was born, peace will be on me on the day I will die, and on the day I am raised alive again!"
Qur'an, Sura 19 Maryam, Ayah 30-33

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:

The Old Testament.
the New Testament.
Son of Man and Son of God in modern Theology
Encyclopedia Biblica - Cheyne and Black from page 4690 to 4740
The Oxford Dictionary of The Christian Church - 3rd Edition
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[AgindyMinnife]

for this work.

[AlexBrith]

Wa iyyaki Sister.

[Erossycuc]

In the Semitic languages the individual is often designated as a son of species to which he belongs, the species being indicated by a collective or plural noun. The fact that Jesus refers to himself as "Ben Adam" to mean Son of Adam as opposed to "Ben Elohim" to mean Son of God, is a border line between monotheism and polytheism. But even then, the term "bnē elōhim" in Genesis 6-24 were understood in some circles to be angels, according to the exegetes as early as 2nd Century BC. Can some of the 'Aalims shed some light on this issue, insofar as the Qur'an in Surah at-Tawbah says that the Jews and Christians were repeating the phrase of the disbelievers of the past in naming their Prophets and leaders as "Son of God", so it would seem that even the uttering of the phrase is akin to prostrating to idols or the like (i.e. something which only disbelievers do, and if a Muslim does that it invalidates his Islam; also if such were the case we can never even imagine a Prophet saying such a thing, regardless of cultural or other temporal considerations).

[salomal-qask]

No Prophet or Angel referred to himself or themselves as "bnē elōhim", except that their scriptures were tampered with such falsehood. So there is no issue to begin with.

[Quality4Qty]

Can some of the 'Aalims shed some light on this issue, insofar as the Qur'an in Surah at-Tawbah says that the Jews and Christians were repeating the phrase of the disbelievers of the past in naming their Prophets and leaders as "Son of God", so it would seem that even the uttering of the phrase is akin to prostrating to idols or the like (i.e. something which only disbelievers do, and if a Muslim does that it invalidates his Islam; also if such were the case we can never even imagine a Prophet saying such a thing, regardless of cultural or other temporal considerations).

Throughout the Bible, the term "son(s) of God" usually refers to one who is spiritually close to God, whereas "son(s) of man" refers to the carnal, flesh nature of man. The terms often distinguish the spiritual condition of a man.

Edit: I was going to add that in my current Qur'an and tafsir readings, Yusuf Ali states in his commentary that we are all spiritually God's sons, and Maariful Quran states that it was acceptable in the shari'ah to call God "father," but it is now no longer allowed due to misuse of the term.

[BypeVupyide]

Maariful Quran states that it was acceptable in the shari'ah to call God "father," but it is now no longer allowed due to misuse of the term. Is the exact Ayah number where this is said known by you (or anyone else)?

[lovespellszz]

Is the exact Ayah number where this is said known by you (or anyone else)?

Ma'idah:18 and Tawbah:30

[letmelogin]

Ma'idah:18 and Tawbah:30

But to say such a thing now is kufr, yes?

[Qutlsilh]

But to say such a thing now is kufr, yes?

Think it's along the lines of what pouringrain posted.

I remember reading back in those days it was permissible in their shari'ah, because it was used to describe a person being close to Allah, but now it would be impermissible. I'm on my way for jumu'ah now but when I get back I can check up in ma'ariful Qur'an .

[Peptobismol]

Ma'idah:18 and Tawbah:30

Thank you for posting. I was called away on business all morning.

I am still in surah 2 in my reading. Later today, insh'Allah, I will look up the exact page number from the pdf English version of maariful where it states this point.

[frkksptn]

Ma'idah:18 and Tawbah:30

I just looked up the commentaries of both these ayat but could not find the statement. Are you sure these are the correct verses?

[GWRIeEQp]

Since I had time now, I looked it up. It is on page 301 or pdf page 317 of the English translation of Maariful Quran (the pdf pages are not the same as the pages listed within the text).

Directly quoting from Maariful:

"The commentator al-Baydawi has remarked that, Allah being the First Cause of the things, the earlier Shari'ahs had allowed the use of the title "Father" for Him, but that the ignorant misunderstood and distorted the sense of "Fatherhood" so badly that to entertain such a belief or to apply this title to Allah has now been declared to be an act of infidelity (Kufr). As this practice can lead to all kinds of doctrinal disorders, it is no longer permissible to employ this particular word or a similar expression with reference to Allah."

[Peabelilt]

Later today, insh'Allah...

Are you saying Insha-Allah as a Muslim, or following James 4:13-15 or as an outside observer?

[Imagimifouxum]

Since I had time now, I looked it up. It is on page 301 or pdf page 317 of the English translation of Maariful Quran (the pdf pages are not the same as the pages listed within the text).

Directly quoting from Maariful:

"The commentator al-Baydawi has remarked that, Allah being the First Cause of the things, the earlier Shari'ahs had allowed the use of the title "Father" for Him, but that the ignorant misunderstood and distorted the sense of "Fatherhood" so badly that to entertain such a belief or to apply this title to Allah has now been declared to be an act of infidelity (Kufr). As this practice can lead to all kinds of doctrinal disorders, it is no longer permissible to employ this particular word or a similar expression with reference to Allah."

Thank you for the reference.

@ those with knowledge: just to clarify - does this refer to the shariah of previous prophets?

[UltraSearchs]

I just looked up the commentaries of both these ayat but could not find the statement. Are you sure these are the correct verses?

Thank you for posting. I was called away on business all morning.

I am still in surah 2 in my reading. Later today, insh'Allah, I will look up the exact page number from the pdf English version of maariful where it states this point.

Thanks for posting the excerpt in your last post. I knew I remembered reading it somewhere.

Bro as, I looked in ma'ariful Qur'an for the verses I posted and just like you, I couldn't find what I was looking for lol. But to add to what PouringRain posted, here's Tafsir Uthmani's commentary of verse 18 in Surah Ma'idah:

The Jewish and Christian claim of being the son of Allah: they probably call themselves sons, i.e. children of Allah because in their Bible Allah referred to Isra'il (Ya'qub 'alaihis salam) as His firstborn son and Himself as his father. On the other hand, the Christians believe that Isa 'alaihis salam is the son of Allah. Due to their [Jews] being the progeny of Isra'il and the Christians being the followers of Isa 'alaihis salam, they most probably refer to themselves as the sons of Allah. It is also possible that the purpose of calling themselves sons is that since they believed that they were the favored and beloved ones of Allah, they were like His children. In such a case the meaning of "sons" will be similar to the word ahbar (bishops).

Because it is absolutely impossible and baseless for anyone to be the son of Allah in reality, and it is possible to become His beloved - "Allah loves them and they love Him" (Surah Ma'idah verse 54), this verse therefore first rejects the claim of their being the beloveds of Allah. That nation which has been subjected to various humiliations and punishments in this world and is also eligible for internal punishment in the hereafter because if its open rebellions and serious sins - can any judicious person ever think for a moment that such a rebellious and disobedient nation is the beloved and favorite of Allah? No one has any genealogical relationship with Allah. Being His beloved and acquiring His love can only be attained through obedience and good deeds. Such hardened criminals who are eligible for the severest of punishments and have already become the target of indictments should be ashamed of claiming "We are the sons of Allah and His beloved." Despite the son of Nuh 'alaihis salam being his blood son, Allah said to him: "He is not from you household. His actions are evil." (Surah Hud, verse 46)

Linguistically, Bashar refers to surface of the skin. Because of some connection between the two, man is also referred to as Bashar. The underlining reason for choosing this word in this context is most probably to show that let alone your not being eligible of being referred to as the son and beloved of Allah, you cannot even be referred to as a noble and excellent human. It is only by your skin, form and appearance that you can be referred to as an insignificant human who has been created by Allah in a manner that all other normal humans are created. Therefore, how can this claim of being His son ever be valid?

It is only He who knows who is eligible for pardon and who is to be punished.


Who can object to His pardoning, through His mercy and wisdom, whomever He wills or punishing, through His justice and equity whomever He wills? It is not possible for any criminal to go beyond the jurisdiction of His heaven and earth, nor is it possible for anyone to escape somewhere else after death.

[Nothatspecial]

Thanks for posting the excerpt in your last post. I knew I remembered reading it somewhere.

Bro as, I looked in ma'ariful Qur'an for the verses I posted and just like you, I couldn't find what I was looking for lol. But to add to what PouringRain posted, here's Tafsir Uthmani's commentary of verse 18 in Surah Ma'idah:

The Jewish and Christian claim of being the son of Allah: they probably call themselves sons, i.e. children of Allah because in their Bible Allah referred to Isra'il (Ya'qub 'alaihis salam) as His firstborn son and Himself as his father. On the other hand, the Christians believe that Isa 'alaihis salam is the son of Allah. Due to their [Jews] being the progeny of Isra'il and the Christians being the followers of Isa 'alaihis salam, they most probably refer to themselves as the sons of Allah. It is also possible that the purpose of calling themselves sons is that since they believed that they were the favored and beloved ones of Allah, they were like His children. In such a case the meaning of "sons" will be similar to the word ahbar (bishops).

Because it is absolutely impossible and baseless for anyone to be the son of Allah in reality, and it is possible to become His beloved - "Allah loves them and they love Him" (Surah Ma'idah verse 54), this verse therefore first rejects the claim of their being the beloveds of Allah. That nation which has been subjected to various humiliations and punishments in this world and is also eligible for internal punishment in the hereafter because if its open rebellions and serious sins - can any judicious person ever think for a moment that such a rebellious and disobedient nation is the beloved and favorite of Allah? No one has any genealogical relationship with Allah. Being His beloved and acquiring His love can only be attained through obedience and good deeds. Such hardened criminals who are eligible for the severest of punishments and have already become the target of indictments should be ashamed of claiming "We are the sons of Allah and His beloved." Despite the son of Nuh 'alaihis salam being his blood son, Allah said to him: "He is not from you household. His actions are evil." (Surah Hud, verse 46)

Linguistically, Bashar refers to surface of the skin. Because of some connection between the two, man is also referred to as Bashar. The underlining reason for choosing this word in this context is most probably to show that let alone your not being eligible of being referred to as the son and beloved of Allah, you cannot even be referred to as a noble and excellent human. It is only by your skin, form and appearance that you can be referred to as an insignificant human who has been created by Allah in a manner that all other normal humans are created. Therefore, how can this claim of being His son ever be valid?

It is only He who knows who is eligible for pardon and who is to be punished.


Who can object to His pardoning, through His mercy and wisdom, whomever He wills or punishing, through His justice and equity whomever He wills? It is not possible for any criminal to go beyond the jurisdiction of His heaven and earth, nor is it possible for anyone to escape somewhere else after death.

You're probably thinking of the wrong verses, which is why we couldn't find the statement.

anyway, for the tafseer.

[alenbarbaf]

...just to clarify - does this refer to the shariah of previous prophets?

Yes. There are many examples of such laws in previous shari'ahs but according to Islam, they would now be impermissible.

[velichay]

Since I had time now, I looked it up. It is on page 301 or pdf page 317 of the English translation of Maariful Quran (the pdf pages are not the same as the pages listed within the text).

Directly quoting from Maariful:

"The commentator al-Baydawi has remarked that, Allah being the First Cause of the things, the earlier Shari'ahs had allowed the use of the title "Father" for Him, but that the ignorant misunderstood and distorted the sense of "Fatherhood" so badly that to entertain such a belief or to apply this title to Allah has now been declared to be an act of infidelity (Kufr). As this practice can lead to all kinds of doctrinal disorders, it is no longer permissible to employ this particular word or a similar expression with reference to Allah."

Under which surah and ayat is this written? Im asking because Im not reading off the pdf version so our pages will be differently numbered.

Thank you for the reference.

@ those with knowledge: just to clarify - does this refer to the shariah of previous prophets?

I was wondering the same thing. Although it makes sense that this would be talking about the shariah of the previous Prophets. Can anyone confirm?

[wMceqj7F]

Under which surah and ayat is this written? Im asking because Im not reading of the pdf version so our pages will be differently numbered.

It's in Surah Al-Baqarah ayahs 116-117 in Ma'ariful Qur'an.