Is Jesus literally the son of God or is he a prophet like Abraham or Moses?

[Tony Stacks]

Is Jesus literally the son of God or is he a prophet like Abraham or Moses?

[Isaak Brodsky]

A fair question that deserves a thoughtful answer. The following paper, written by Abdul-Maseeh, can be found online with source citations at http://albkristian.com/english/was_jesus_another_prophet.htm
Some patient reading and reflection will likely produce the desired effect - more insight into the uniqueness of Christ.

Because of the length of the post, I've divided it into four parts:

Possibly the greatest debate among Christians and Muslims is that of the identity of Jesus Christ. Is he God's son? Was he really crucified? Is he in essence, God? Did he come to save his people? Or, was he just another prophet?

For Christians, all of the above questions can be answered with an emphatic 'yes', with the exception of the last - the only one that Muslims would affirm.

In this paper, a critical look will be taken into the concept of Christ the Messiah, a belief held by both Christians and Muslims. Also, the Christian belief of Christ the Savior will be considered. Finally, Jesus Christ's relationship to God will be determined as understood by Christianity and Islam. The main sources for each topic will be the Qur'an as well as the Bible.

Jesus the Messiah
Jesus, the son of Mary, is recognized as the Messiah in both Islam and Christianity. Such a common thread would seem sufficient to unify the two religions as to the true nature of Jesus, but that is certainly not the case. In fact, this tremendous commonality between the two has, for the most part, been ignored by both sides. Certainly, if Muslims and Christians fully understood what it is that they agree upon, then many of the walls that divide these two groups of people would come down.

History of the Concept
The term "messiah" is derived from the Hebrew mashiach ("anoint") and denotes a person with a special mission from God. The word mashiach meant the "Lord's Anointed" and referred to the ultimate redeemer, the expected king of the Davidic line who would deliver Israel from foreign bondage and restore the glories of its golden age.

Furthermore, the term Messiah has become descriptive of all the streams of prophecy in the Old Testament of the Bible which speak of one who was to come from God to fulfill the promises of deliverance and of a new state of divine blessing.

The concept of a coming Messiah was such a popular one that Messiahs of several sorts with a variety of descriptive names were expected by those who adhered to differing conceptions in both intertestamental and New Testament times, as well as in the whole Christian era.

The coming Messiah could be seen in other prophetic figures in the Old Testament as well, such as Moses' Prophet "like unto me" (Deuteronomy 18:18), Isaiah's suffering Servant (Isaiah 52:13-53:12), Jeremiah's Branch (Jeremiah 23:5, 33:15), Daniel's Son of Man (Daniel 7:13), and other figures, including the coming of the Lord himself as the deliverer of his people.

Finally, it should be mentioned that the Jews reject Jesus as the Anointed of God and still wait for the coming of the Messiah. He will be a hero and heir to the greatest kings and prophets of old but greater than they. He will put an end to all evils on the earth and will initiate an era of joy. This Messiah will rule in perfect justice and peace.

Thus, the true origins of the concept of Messiah reveal that this would be no ordinary individual. Indeed, he would bring revolutionary change to the entire world, not only for an era, but forever. With this understanding as a foundation, the concept will be further investigated as understood in the Qur'an and in the Bible.

In the Qur'an.
Though the Qur'an does not present a detailed life-story of Jesus, it highlights some significant aspects of his birth, his mission, his ascension to heaven, and his passing judgment on the Christian beliefs concerning him.

In these accounts of the life of Jesus, in the English translations, he is explicitly called Christ, which is the English derivative of the Greek christos, meaning "anointed one", coming from the Hebrew, messiah. In the original Arabic the word used is Masih, also coming from the Hebrew messiah.

In Abdullah Yusuf Ali's English translation, the Qur'an states:

That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah"; - but they did not kill him, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them.
Sura An-Nisaa 4:157 [Italics mine],

and:

Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a Spirit proceeding from Him.
Sura An-Nisaa 4:171 [Italics mine]

Thus, the Qur'an makes no objections whatsoever to the Christian belief in Jesus Christ as the true Messiah of God. Strangely enough, though, the concept seems foreign to most Muslims. Jesus is ascribed the name "Messiah" throughout the Qur'an, but it seems that Mohammed understood it to be nothing more than his last name.

The Bible, on the other hand, gives detailed information as to where the Messiah would be born, how he would be born, from which line he would come, what he would accomplish, and hundreds of prophecies that would be fulfilled throughout his life on earth.

[Isaak Brodsky]

In the Bible
In the Bible, God declared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that their descendants would inherit a land of their own. The Bible foretells of a future redemption that will be brought about through an anointed agent of the Lord. This figure would be a descendant of David, and his throne would be secure forever. The eighth century prophets such as Amos and Hosea predicted the destruction of the nation of Israel because of its sin, yet in accordance with the divine promise, there would also come an ingathering of the exiles and the dominance of the Israelites over surrounding nations. Such suffering was to serve as a means of moral reform: Israel is to endure devastation before such redemption can take place. This message of destruction and restoration continued in the ministries of later pre-exilic prophets, such as Isaiah, Micah, Zephaniah, and Jeremaih. They proclaimed a new redemption, which would bring about a new spiritual life. The theme of a future redemption was echoed in the Psalms. There, too, the promise of a future king became a predominant theme. Finally, the Book of Daniel predicts the coming of a divinely appointed deliverer - the Son of Man is to be given dominion over all the earth.

In Micah, the Bible tells of the birthplace of the Messiah:

"But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times." Micah 5:2

In Isaiah 7:14, the Bible states:

"The Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel."

Further in Isaiah 9:6-7, it states:

"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this."

Daniel also speaks of the Messiah with similar regard:

"Know and understand this: From the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One, the ruler, comes, there will be seven 'sevens,' and sixty-two 'sevens.'"
Daniel 9:25

The above passages are widely recognized as Messianic prophecies by both Christians and Jews, and they clearly identify the Messiah as having divine characteristics and reigning on a throne that will endure forever. In the passage from Daniel, the Messiah ('Anointed One') is even referred to as a ruler. Furthermore, the Messiah spoken of in these passages could not reasonably be regarded as just another prophet.

Many would claim that the Scriptures have been altered to fit Christian doctrine about Jesus, but one may ask: Why would Jews, who reject Jesus as the Messiah, alter their Scriptures in such a way as to point to him as the
Messiah?

Now with this understanding of what the Qur'an and the Bible say about Jesus the Messiah, another topic will be discussed.

Jesus the Savior

On this topic, Muslims and Christians are not quite as agreed. For Christians, Jesus Christ is the central figure of faith. Without him, there would be no Christianity. Therefore the role of Jesus Christ as Savior must be discussed in order to understand more fully the Christian belief in Jesus Christ as more than just a prophet.

In the Qur'an
Mohammed no doubt came into contact with many individuals who were quite familiar with Christianity. From them, he received certain knowledge and suggestions about the Faith. With this knowledge the Qur'an was produced, and though the belief is not held by followers of Islam, in the pages of the Qur'an exist certain hints of Jesus Christ the Savior.

In Sura Maryam the Virgin Mary is speaking with the angel of the Lord:

He said, "Nay, I am only a messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a holy son." She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" He said: "So (it will be): your Lord says, 'That is easy for me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign to men and a Mercy from us': it is a matter (so) decreed." Sura 19:19-21

Further, Sura Al-'Imran states:

Behold! The angels said: "O Mary! Allah gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the hereafter and of (the company of ) those nearest to Allah." Sura Al-'Imran 3:45

The Muslim commentator Al Jalalan observed:
"Illustrious in the world by the ministry of prophecy and in the hereafter by intercession and position and being one of those brought near unto Allah."

Also in the Qur'an, miraculous powers are ascribed to Jesus that are not possessed by any other prophet, not even Mohammed himself:

"I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave." Sura 3:49.

In the Qur'an, Mohammed even makes references to the death of Christ, though Muslims do not believe this ever could have happened:

"(And remember) when Allah said: O Jesus! Lo! I am gathering thee and causing thee to ascend unto me, and am cleansing thee of those who disbelieve." Sura 3:55.

Jesus is recorded as saying:

"And (hath made me) dutiful toward her who bore me, and hath not made me arrogant, unblest. Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the I shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt." Sura 19:32-33.

Additionally, almost all Muslim scholars are agreed that Jesus will return to the earth and defeat the anti-Christ. 7 After this victory, Muslims believe that Islam will pass into the hands of Jesus, who will reign on earth for forty years, bringing peace to all the lands. At the end of this period Jesus will die a natural death and be buried in Medina between the tombs of Mohammed and Abu Bakr.

Therefore, Islam explicitly teaches that Jesus Christ was of a miraculous birth, had the power to give sight to the blind, cleanse lepers, raise the dead, and perform various miracles, was gathered unto God (where not even the best of Muslims may go), and will return to defeat the Anti-Christ and bring freedom and restoration to the entire world. Even through the eyes of Islam, this man was much more than just a prophet.

With this understanding of how the Qur'an depicts Jesus in regard to his soteriological purposes, the belief will be observed as recorded in its original source, the Bible.

[Isaak Brodsky]

In the Bible
Though Jesus is not fully revealed in the Bible until the New Testament, the prophecies concerning him as the Messiah in the Old Testament clearly present him as a Savior.

A prime example of this can be found in the prophecy of Isaiah, which states:

"The Lord has made proclamation to the ends of the earth: "Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your Savior comes! See, his reward is with him, and his recompense accompanies him.'" Isaiah 62:11

The Hebrew word for Savior is yeshua, and it literally means, "he will save". The Greek translation of this word is iesous, which, in English becomes "Jesus". Therefore, the literal meaning of the name Jesus Christ is "Anointed Savior".

The salvation that was to come through the Messiah would come through hardships, according to the prophet Isaiah. In fact, the entire chapter 53 of the book of Isaiah portrays the Messiah as a suffering servant. It is clear from 52:13 that he will eventually be highly exalted, but in order to achieve this position, he must first be disfigured beyond recognition (52:14). He would encounter many sorrows and would be despised (53:3). He would carry the sicknesses, sins and wounds of the entire world (53:4-6). And he would finally be killed and would not even open his mouth in objection (53:7). He would be buried among the wicked of the world, though he had committed no sin (53:9). But, he would live again to justify many and would receive a portion among the great (53:10-12).

The prophecy of Jeremiah also speaks of this Savior:

"The days are coming," declares the Lord, "when I will raise up to David a righteous Branch, a King who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land. In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety. This is the name by which he will be called: The Lord Our Righteousness." Jeremiah 23:5-6

From this passage, it is evident that the Messiah would bring salvation to his people in the sense that he would deliver them from their enemies, but also in a spiritual sense in his being called "The Lord Our Righteousness". This fact will serve as a tie between the Old Testament record of the Anointed One and that of the New Testament.

Many of the contemporaries of Jesus in the New Testament were expecting a savior who would overthrow the Romans and establish a new earthly government. Indeed, as was mentioned before, this expectation of a great leader made way for the notion of many different Messiahs. Not until Jesus of Nazareth led these different streams of ideas into one could anyone find it possible to link all the messianic prophecies of the Old Testament to one Messiah.

He occasionally made statements that served to unite what were to the people of his time-scattered concepts of the Messiah, such as in the Gospel of Matthew:

"For the Son of man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28

In this passage, Jesus ties the prophet Daniel's concept of the son of man with the prophecy of Isaiah, mentioned above, concerning the suffering servant.

During his lifetime, Jesus fulfilled hundreds of prophecies concerning the Messiah. In Zechariah, the Bible states:

"Say to the Daughter of Zion, 'See, your king comes to you, gentle and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey.'" Zechariah 9:9

In the Gospel of Mark, we find Jesus fulfilling this prophecy:

"They went and found a colt outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it, some people standing there asked, "What are you doing, untying that colt?" They answered as Jesus had told them to, and the people let them go. When they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their cloaks over it, he sat on it." Mark ll:4-7

Also, in the Psalms, we read:

"They divided my garments among themselves and cast lots for my clothing." Psalm 22:18

And the Jesus also fulfilled this prophecy:

"When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. "Let's not tear it," they said to one another. "Let's decide by lot who will get it." John 19:23-24

Also, the Old Testament states:

"Not one of his bones will be broken." Exodus 12:46
"They will look on the one they have pierced." Zechariah 12:10.
Both of these prophecies were fulfilled at the crucifixion of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of John:

"But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water." John 19:33-34

[Isaak Brodsky]

The purpose of the death of the Messiah is very clearly outlined in the Gospels:

"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 3:16

Thus, from a brief overview of the prophecies of the Old Testament and each subsequent fulfillment, it is clear that the Messiah was sent from God to save not only the nation of Israel, but also the entire world.

With a general understanding of the ways in which the Qur'an and the Bible present Jesus regarding his being the Messiah and Savior, one final topic will be discussed which will serve to shed additional light on the inquiry of whether or not Jesus was nothing more than just a prophet.

Jesus' Relationship to God
At this point, it is obvious that Christians and Muslims have two extremely different views concerning the nature of Jesus. The Qur'an and the Bible portray him in ways that are similar in many aspects, but entirely different in others. One such aspect is that of Jesus' relationship to God. More specifically, Muslims believe Jesus to be no more than a prophet, while Christians claim that he is the Son of God. This topic will be discussed further as it is taught in the Qur'an and in the Bible.

In the Qur'an. Concerning the divinity of Jesus, the opinion of the Qur'an is that this is blasphemy and unbelief. This idea is spoken against in many verses of the Qur'an, such as the following:

"They have disbelieved who say 'Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary'. Who can do anything against Allah, if he had willed to destroy the Messiah, Son of Mary, and his mother, and everyone on earth?" Sura 5:17

However, also in the Qur'an can be found a strikingly unique relationship between Jesus and God. For instance, concerning titles, no one in the entire Qur'an was spoken of quite as highly as Jesus. It records that he was the Word of God and his Spirit:

"The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary was only the Messenger of God, and His Word that he committed to Mary, and a Spirit from Him." Sura 4:171

It should be noted that in the Qur'an, no other individual is recognized as both the Word of God and a Spirit from Him. Some Muslim commentators have observed that Jesus was called the "Word of God" because he was called into being by a word without a father; therefore, he is referred to as the Word. However, according to Islam, Adam was called into being in exactly the same way as Jesus, but is never called the Word of God or of his Spirit.

Also, Jesus was given quite a unique capability while on earth, according to the Qur'an: the ability to create. This is recorded in The House of Imran:

"I will create for you out of clay as the likeness of a bird; then I will breathe into it, and it will be a bird, by the leave of God." Sura 3:49

According to Islam, God has allowed certain individuals to share in several of his attributes and has even given to some the ability to perform miracles. However, he has reserved for himself certain things, which he will not share with anyone. One of these things is the ability to create and bring a soul into being. No other prophet in the Qur'an has ever been given the ability to create a living thing, even by the permission of God.

Another verse in the Qur'an which serves to further illustrate the unique relationship between Jesus and God can be found in House of Imran:

"Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a Word from him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honored shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God." Sura 3:45

Thus, Jesus has been given eminence in this world and the next. Al-Kashaf has stated that eminence in this world means prophecy and precedence over men and in the next intercession and exaltation of position in paradise. Again, from a study of the Qur'an, no one has ever been described as being eminent in this world and the next other than Jesus.

This is what the Qur'an says and what Muslims believe about Jesus. Still, they hold tenaciously to the belief that he was no more than a prophet. The Bible, on the other hand, takes quite a different stand concerning Jesus' relationship to God, as will be seen in the following discussion.

In the Bible. According to Islam, the New Testament of the Bible has been thoroughly corrupted. However, Muslims generally put more confidence in the Old Testament, and any of their own understandings stem from its teachings. This being the case, Jesus' relationship to God as taught in the Bible will be based strictly on the prophecies of the coming Messiah in the Old Testament.

In Isaiah 9:6 (quoted above), the Messiah is called "Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace". Also in Isaiah 7:14, he is to be given the name "Immanuel", which, in Hebrew means "God with us".

From these two passages, it is quite clear that the Messiah to come would be none other than God himself. In light of the failure of men to reconcile the world back to God, as recorded throughout the entire Old Testament, it should come as no surprise that the only solution was for God to come and be His own Mediator. This is precisely what the Messianic prophecies teach.

Further in the Old Testament, Daniel also speaks of the Messiah in a way that clearly displays his divinity:

"In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshipped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed." Daniel 7:13-14

Here the Messiah is called a son of man, yet at the same time, is worshipped by all peoples and nations. The primary command given by God, both in the Bible and the Qur'an is that no other god is to be worshipped. Hence, the "Son of Man" spoken of here must be none other than God incarnate, Immanuel.

The evidence presented from the Bible thus far will suffice to support the claim that the Messiah spoken of in the Old Testament was not just an ordinary man, but was divine and, indeed, God Himself.

Conclusion
The Qur'an, as well as the Bible, have much to say about the person of Jesus, far more than was presented in this paper. However, the key passages have been quoted in an attempt to shed light on the topic of whether or not Jesus was just another prophet. Based on the evidence given from both sources, one would have to conclude that Jesus Christ was much more than just another prophet. If he was truly more than a prophet, then one would be forced to take a further step and deduce that he was divine, and if at all divine, then God.

[ja_Patriot]

The answer of a scholar.

What is your personal belief, Ian, in your own words - impromptu, ad-lib?

I've seen belief in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, by people who have no worldly possessions, no scholarly books to study, live hand to mouth and have nothing but hope and prayers to live for.

Like the poor widow who gave alms, they give and trust themselves to God.

For the wealthy to go to heaven, they have to pass through the eye of a needle.

Jesus was right.

We live in relative luxury and comfort from which token pedestal we reckon we have the right to question everything, every single law of nature, the rational of our existence, and especially the belief in a Supreme Being.

"I think therefore I exist." (Rene Descartes)

Had fortune had the Thinker born in the bowels of the Dark Continent, would he have had the luxury to think?

Many are taught that Jesus is a prophet; still others that Jesus is a fraud.

Well, I was taught that Jesus is God. From all I've been fortunate enough to experience, I have no quarrel with and see no reason whatsoever to dispel that personal belief.

[Isaak Brodsky]

I was taught rather early on that God does not exist, that God is no more than an impulse of electricity traveling through man's mind.

My doctoral research in linguistics forced me to revise my views.

I can't possibly ad lib and approximate in my own words what has already been observed by John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.

[ja_Patriot]

"And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us” (John 1:1 and 14)

I respect that. To speak verbatim is safe harbor.

But does deep knowledge beget temerity to express one's gut feeling in plain language lest one deviate from the scrolls?

Wouldn't it be self-defeating if you feel shackled by verses?

After all, as Alexander Pope once said...

[Asshat]

If one can swallow "immaculate conception" then anything is possible right?

[Isaak Brodsky]

Are you familiar with the famous analogy of life emerging on its own through purely accidental, random natural processes to create, organize and perfect the complex code known as DNA, a map that creatures must follow were they to develop and reproduce viable offspring?

The brilliant mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle observed that the chances that higher life forms could develop by random processes were equivalent to the chances that a “tornado [could] sweep through a junk yard [and] might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”

Your question implies, of course, that miracles can be accounted for by nature itself - that nature exhibits the kinds of amazing and miraculous creative powers that believers would ascribe to their Creator.

While not a creationist, Hoyle was a highly respected astronomer and theoretical physicist who held to atheism despite the useful analogy he’d developed. In comparing a bio-genesis and a 747, he was not so much comparing the processes, but the mathematical probabilities that either could occur.

Immaculate conception or immaculate self-organization of atoms?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Are you familiar with the famous analogy of life emerging on its own through purely accidental, random natural processes to create, organize and perfect the complex code known as DNA, a map that creatures must follow were they to develop and reproduce viable offspring?

The brilliant mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle observed that the chances that higher life forms could develop by random processes were equivalent to the chances that a “tornado [could] sweep through a junk yard [and] might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein.”

Interesting, but the comparison doesn't do it for me. The emergence of the higher forms of life were anything but random. The principle of evolution is that adaptive changes are selected for, and will survive to pass on genes to subsequent generations. Success breeds more success, and failure dies. Anything but random. And, that process has been ongoing for billions of years. A vastly different time scale than a single tornado.

[Asshat]

Immaculate conception or immaculate self-organization of atoms?[/SIZE][/FONT]

Nice try there Ian, but no cigar. Your analogy is used to describe the "God vs. Evolution" debate, not the immaculate conception.

We already know evolution exists. It is a scientific fact. We also know that mammal impregnation only happens with the introduction of spermatoza.

[Isaak Brodsky]

The principle of evolution is that adaptive changes are selected for, and will survive to pass on genes to subsequent generations.

This is the sort of persistent category mistake that confuses thinking on the issue of emergent life. Few folks who even talk in this way fail to see that their own words imply a need for agency. No one has propounded a viable theory for causation here. No one has identified the agent who can in fact select besides, of course, the wildly speculative infinite time required for nature to work its magic.

Nature plus time and gravity is not the kind of persuasive alternative miracle to the other explanatory miracle.

Evolution is, of course, a fact, but you fail to say which variety. Micro or macro?

Check out Mae-Wan Ho's "The Rainbow and the Worm: The Physics of Organisims" for more on the points I've raised here.

[Asshat]

Evolution is, of course, a fact, but you fail to say which variety. Micro or macro?

Oops! My bad! Mary got pregnant without having sex, Moses gathered up two of every beast, and there was a flood. And the earth is about 10,000 years old.

Did I miss anything?

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

No one has identified the agent who can in fact select besides, of course, the wildly speculative infinite time required for nature to work its magic.

Nature plus time and gravity is not the kind of persuasive alternative miracle to the other explanatory miracle.

IIRC, much of Richard Dawkin's and Stephen J. Gould's work is directed at the dispelling the myth of some sort of directed evolution. I must research...

[Isaak Brodsky]

Uminchu,

Your responses to my points have merely been cute.

Surely, if you are the sort of expert on life and its emergent causes that you appear to be (given your contempt for my view), then you must have done some sort of research into the matter that you can cite besides these cute remarks.

You must know that a number of competing views for the emergence of animal life turn up in the hard sciences. With all of the battles being fought within the scientific community alone, do you really believe that one area of research can nullify the discoveries made in another area?

Science is itself as prone to vein conceit as religion. Please do some more reading in the philosophy of science before you spout any more of these cute anecdotes - that is if you want to actually discuss something worth discussing.

The suggestion that life got its start of its own accord, that proteins suddenly appeared from nowhere is as preposterous as any Bible narrative. Even the Miller-Urey experiment has holes so wide that two of every kind of beast could fit through it on their way into the ark.

[Asshat]

Ian, you are correct. I have been patronizing, or as you say, "cute."

The creativityspeak you keep bringing up in this thread is already old hat, and for those of us who have read your earlier thoughts, almost as tiresome at your attempts to skew away from the OP.

My view of microbes from space hitchiking on the back of a meteor are much more logical than your belief in the emmaculate conception. It doesn't matter how much pratter you want to inject. Fact of life, and I don't know of any biblical discoveries you allude to.

[Isaak Brodsky]

What is this OP about, discussing the implausibility of life getting a foothold on earth from some meteorite, the Immaculate Conception, or the question that Tony Stacks has posed?

Maybe you mean prattle and eluding the question? If so, it was your initial jab that helped produce the diversion.

[Ammoyankee]

Damn Ian, were your parents Einstein and Ghandi? Tell me you didn't format those posts from memory???

[ja_Patriot]

Ian is a learned person astute in these matters. No banal pedestrian prattle will derail his profound arguments.

2000 years AD, technological advances have commenced the cloning of animals. Is the cloning of a human being for whatever reason far beyond?

Hence millennia from today, humans will be relatively an advanced species.

The "Immaculate Conception" could be a very primitive explanation for the birth of Jesus Christ.

After all the discovery of E=MC squared (http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/emc2/emc2.html) isn't even a century old. How many people can even begin to understand that "...matter and energy are really different forms of the same thing. Matter can be turned into energy, and energy into matter..."?

Substitute matter and energy for "God", and viola, the Immaculate Conception is the least of minutiae you and I will never ever understand.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Damn Ian, were your parents Einstein and Ghandi? Tell me you didn't format those posts from memory???

just a long line of physicians and lawyers. guess i'm the black sheep, theist, idealist, optimist.

[Asshat]

[FONT="Arial"][SIZE="3"]What is this OP about, discussing the implausibility of life getting a foothold on earth from some meteorite, the Immaculate Conception, or the question that Tony Stacks has posed?

This is the question posed in the OP: Is Jesus literally the son of God or is he a prophet like Abraham or Moses?

My "prattle" as you call it was to point out that he is/was neither. In addition to creating straw men, you attack those who disagree with you- even using a plethora of verbosity while ignoring syntax as you make yourself appear "learned and well-read."

Minimizing or trivializing my views or beliefs does much to detract from your views. And please, save the philosophical comparisons between philosophy and mystical religions for your 101 students.

ja's cloning comparison also brings about a need for agency. I don't buy that either, but then I do not wholly subscribe to any mystical religion save Buddhism- for it sheds light on the condition of man in a very exact way. I simply must refrain from addressing the Buddha directly.

Jesus was a man, same as you and I.

[Asshat]

I almost forgot: The early Arabs (before Mohammed) believed Jesus was a prophet. Only the Christians ever maintained he was the son of God.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Let’s understand first what it is you accuse me of so that you can, then, level some reasonable charge against me.

I (person A) have position X. You (person B) ignore my position (the main points of the paper I’d pasted in) and substitute for it a distortion or misrepresentation of the issue. Let’s say that your distortion or misrepresentation is Y.

If you can’t remember, then here’s a reminder of the distortion or misrepresentation you’ve introduced to the discussion.

“If one can swallow ‘immaculate conception’ then anything is possible right?”

Your position here ignores the overall point of the article I’d pasted in and redirects my response to your contempt for either the article or the Christian perspective. If you want to explicate a topic related to the overall point, why not let readers know?

If you want to patronize someone for his or her beliefs, that’s one thing, which is cool. It is, after all, a public forum. But, the other thing you may not have noticed is that your contempt for this worldview has concealed from you an apparent fact: both of these views require some measures of belief.

The emergence of life was not an observable phenomenon and, therefore, requires conjecture. The connection I’m making by use of the analogy is fairly simple. This is why I responded to your initial patronizing remark with it, though you may see it as a straw man, (which it incidentally isn’t).

If you want to introduce any other non sequiturs, then why not start another thread that questions the validity of the Immaculate Conception? You could call it something such as “The most preposterous Christian claim yet.”

Onto the other equally interesting observation:

“We already know evolution exists. It is a scientific fact. We also know that mammal impregnation only happens with the introduction of spermatoza.”

I was not aware that a sperm must penetrate the wall of an egg to precipitate impregnation. To me, the Immaculate Conception is not a difficult concept to rap one’s mind around were one to accept the premise that God spoke. By the very Word of God were we and all that is seen and unseen made.

At last, I am not in the business of disparaging anyone but am interested only in ways of negotiating truth.

If you have construed any of my remarks as personal attacks or ways of belittling you or trivializing your beliefs, even in this response, I am really sorry.

I apologize and will do all I can to avoid offending you or anyone.

Sincerely, ib

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

The emergence of life was not an observable phenomenon and, therefore, requires conjecture. The connection I’m making by use of the analogy is fairly simple. This is why I responded to your initial patronizing remark with it, though you may see it as a straw man, (which it incidentally isn’t).

Ah, the origin of life. While evolution has gone beyond theory and is generally accepted as scientific fact, the bugbear of how to explain the process by which life first started is still proving quite elusive.

For a primer on the topic, see Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life).

I personally feel that someday science will find better ways to explain the roots of life on Earth, and data to confirm. I don't think that the various religious explanations will advance any further or ever be able to proven or disproven. For me, having faith in the scientific method leading to more and more evidence, solid conclusions being drawn from that evidence, and a unifying theory is greater that believing that religion will accomplish something similar.

[Asshat]

At last, I am not in the business of disparaging anyone but am interested only in ways of negotiating truth.

Ian, Obviously, anything that happens outside of our realm of personal knowledge requires a modicum of faith. Your agency and not a tenant which is lost on me. That Degree of Belief. This discussion will be as pedant as the Mother Nature story- is it nature or is it god?

So you believe God Spoke. Fine. I believe Gaya was populated naturally, and I believe we have evolved.

In your paper, I have seen you wrestle with this. You will not be satisfied attacking the question from a philosophical angle any more than you will satisfy your itch with a scientific one.

Your only choice is to embrace a type of faith based mysticism, and any discussion you need to have concerning the origin of man, or the relationship of Jesus to anyone needs to be from a purely “religious” perspective.

[ja_Patriot]

...ja's cloning comparison also brings about a need for agency. I don't buy that either, but then I do not wholly subscribe to any mystical religion save Buddhism- for it sheds light on the condition of man in a very exact way. I simply must refrain from addressing the Buddha directly.

Jesus was a man, same as you and I.

It was an analogy on the advances of science and technology, 2 millennia after the birth of Christ. Show St. John the Evangelist a flashlight, and he probably would have written about a mystical ray of light.

We may find out in the course of our puny existence that advanced civilizations existed at the time of Christ.

Our concepts of "creation" and "evolution" are nothing but theories. Religious traditions may be primitive expressions of unexplainable phenomena which may ultimately be proven as scientific fact.

The analogy included the theory of relativity. 99.9% of mankind cannot even begin to understand the so-called "mass-energy equivalence: E = mc², that energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable".

A gallon of water has enough energy to incinerate a city!

Einstein proved it. For the rest of us, it is all a question of faith, knowledge of which our brains cannot absorb. How much more unfathomable are the mysteries of God.

[Asshat]

We may find out in the course of our puny existence that advanced civilizations existed at the time of Christ.

I have no doubt they did and do exist, since the universe is too vast for many other species not to exist.

Our concepts of "creation" and "evolution" are nothing but theories. Religious traditions may be primitive expressions of unexplainable phenomena which may ultimately be proven as scientific fact.

Evolution is more than a theory. We have plenty of proof of it. Perhaps we lack proof that we emerged from the primeval ooze, but evolution as a process is here.


The analogy included the theory of relativity. 99.9% of mankind cannot even begin to understand the so-called "mass-energy equivalence: E = mc², that energy and mass are equivalent and transmutable".

I once read a novel called Tau Factor Zero or something like that. A Buzzard drive ship kept accelerating until it's mass was approaching that if the universe, smashing through stars, and the crew watch the galaxy implode, explode, then as they slowed so did their perspective.

[Asshat]

Oh and JA- as far as banal, pedestrian prattle? I suppose I could cut and paste as well as Ian or anyone else here.

It is a common tactic amoung the Christian soldiers to belittle, to name call, and to bring into question the the worth of the "unbeliever."

Ian's cut and pastes do not impress me, nor does the continued use of a theasaurus.

No doubt more banal, pedestrian prattle, but there are some good works on early Islam by the way that more clearly illuminate the relationship between Arabs, Christians and Jews in the "pre Ottoman period.

[okisteve]

Here's my belief system in a nutshell. I think it spans the huge gap between agnosticism and faith. I think we do not know how or why we and the sensible universe came into existence, or what our purpose is here. I have a "rational/scientific" educational background. Our cavedwelling ancestors only knew a millionth as much as we now do about how the universe is made, and in another ten thousand years probably humans or our successors will know a million times more. Maybe that will provide some consistent and satisfying answers, but IMHO we are far from that point now. Therefore I can say I do believe in God, and that he is a mystery to me but I am grateful on a daily basis that I am here to wonder about it.

As for Jesus being the son of God, I think my way of interpreting God eliminates that possibility except insofar as we all are Gods children. I was raised as a Jew and do not accept Jesus' near-divinity. Even accepting him as a prophet was stretching the point as far as Jewish teaching goes, but I figure if the Muslims can accept him as a prophet, so can Jews. He performed miracles, maybe... That was an "age of miracles", when many unexplained phenomena were called miracles. However, I am curious and very uninformed about the evidence of the Resurrection. Apart from an empty tomb, why did his followers believe there was there a Resurrection?

[Asshat]

Even accepting him as a prophet was stretching the point as far as Jewish teaching goes, but I figure if the Muslims can accept him as a prophet, so can Jews.

What a refreshing comment okisteve. Early Arabs were quite jealous of Christians and Jews because they had their own prophets. Also, the Jews and the Christians "shared" many beliefs about God and the prophets. In my studies, I have read that the Arabs were ecstatic when the prophet Mohammed came on the scene because now they had their "own" prophet.

So your comments about accepting or looking past certain traditional dogma is in line with what transpired a thousand years ago by fellow Jews, Muslims and emerging Moslems.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Oh and JA- as far as banal, pedestrian prattle? I suppose I could cut and paste as well as Ian or anyone else here.

It is a common tactic amoung the Christian soldiers to belittle, to name call, and to bring into question the the worth of the "unbeliever."

Ian's cut and pastes do not impress me, nor does the continued use of a theasaurus.

No doubt more banal, pedestrian prattle, but there are some good works on early Islam by the way that more clearly illuminate the relationship between Arabs, Christians and Jews in the "pre Ottoman period.

Dear Uminchu,

firstly, please identify whatever you feel I've surreptitiously pasted in from other sources and have palmed off as my own work as well as expressions you perceive I've consulted a thesaurus for.

Secondly, your "claim" that Christians resort to belittling others is a hasty generalization. What support can you cite from this thread that verifies your claim?

I've been teaching rhetoric for the past thirteen years, and your approach to public discussion illustrates a range of logical fallacies at work.

p.s. If you see this comment here as a personal attack, I'd suggest consulting a grammar text because you've confused the subject in the second clause.

[Isaak Brodsky]

However, I am curious and very uninformed about the evidence of the Resurrection. Apart from an empty tomb, why did his followers believe there was there a Resurrection?

I'm a Jew who was raised agnostic. My doctoral research in linguistics, particularly in language acquisition and production, forced me to re-think my views.

I read "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig followed by "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis. These two tipped me over the edge, so to speak. The Gospels became open books, as lucid and clear as spring water, especially the resurrection.

[Asshat]

Dear Ian,

Since you mentioned logical falicies, how about your and ja's fallacious argument ad hominem? The terms "cute, banal, and prattle" in this thread for example. And let's not forget fallicies of presumption as you repeatedly quote the bible.

p.s. If you see this comment here as a personal attack, I'd suggest consulting a grammar text because you've confused the subject in the second clause.

Nah, I am secure enough in my own intellect to realize who you are in relation to me. I'll let you have the last word in this Ian because I just don't have the energy to keep up with you and the meta conversation has burned me out.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Since we're recommending books, I'd like to mention one by Kenneth Miller - Finding Darwin's God. Excellent dismantling of intelligent design hypotheses.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Since you mentioned logical falicies, how about your and ja's fallacious argument ad hominem? The terms "cute, banal, and prattle" in this thread for example. And let's not forget fallicies of presumption as you repeatedly quote the bible.

Nah, I am secure enough in my own intellect to realize who you are in relation to me. I'll let you have the last word in this Ian because I just don't have the energy to keep up with you and the meta conversation has burned me out.

Labels such as "cute" and "banal" attached to discourse cannot be counted as ad hominem.

You're confusing the message here for the messenger. The message is that your comments were merely "cute," Ja's statement was "banal," and my words were (and apparently still are) "pratter." If you can't recall, I'll remind you that you first found my words to be "pratter."

As to fallacies of presumption, how can one not consult and cite quotes from the Bible if one were actually discussing the Bible? If we were discussing the plausibility of an asteriod hitting earth, would we not consult astronomers? Would you call it a fallacy of presumption were I to repeatedly cite, say, Robert Jastrow's work in astrophysics to support some claim I make about the danger of asteriods??

Don't want to beat a dead horse either, but you must see that your propensity to simply swoop into a discussion with disparaging remarks meant more to stirr up some sh*t than to engage in a rational dialogue won't flush with me.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Since we're recommending books, I'd like to mention one by Kenneth Miller - Finding Darwin's God. Excellent dismantling of intelligent design hypotheses.

Great!! Have you checked out "Dawkins' God"??

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Great!! Have you checked out "Dawkins' God"??
I have read a synopsis of the book. I did agree with Dawkins' thoughts on McGrath's assertation that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology:

Yes, I have, of course, met this point before. It sounds superficially fair. But it presupposes that there is something in Christian theology to be ignorant about. The entire thrust of my position is that Christian theology is a non-subject. It is empty. Vacuous. Devoid of coherence or content. I imagine that McGrath would join me in expressing disbelief in fairies, astrology and Thor's hammer. How would he respond if a fairyologist, astrologer or Viking accused him of ignorance of their respective subjects?
The only part of theology that could possibly demand my attention is the part that purports to demonstrate that God does exist. This part of theology I have, indeed, studied with considerable attention. And found it utterly wanting.
As for McGrath's book, I read it with genuine curiosity to discover whether he had any argument to offer in favor of his theistic belief. The nearest I could find was his statement that you cannot disprove it. Well, that may be true, but it isn't very impressive, is it?

[Asshat]

but you must see that your propensity to simply swoop into a discussion with disparaging remarks meant more to stirr up some sh*t than to engage in a rational dialogue won't flush with me.

Indeed I was the first shit stirrer- not realizing that Christian people were taking this thread seriously. Perhaps it is my absence from America, or my long-found distance from all things therein, but rational diaologue was no more possible for me than had the OP read:

"I was impregnated by aliens." I simply thought there was no way in which someone could take this seriously. Perhaps I hang with too many eggheads.

By the way, do you find it difficult to teach fallicily knowing that the acumen for it's classification sprung directly from the intelligent design debate?

I remember a prof. Male. Had a bumper sticker that said "God is coming soon, and boy is she pissed." I didn't realize any of that of course until I made a comment on the unsurpassed beauty of a fellow student. I never worked so hard for a B in my life.

I will remember yours and ja words, and though I can assure you I have no intention of reading the bible again, nor (shudder) having anything to do with a religeon created by humans, I will contemplate both aspects of agency.

[Isaak Brodsky]

I have read a synopsis of the book. I did agree with Dawkins' thoughts on McGrath's assertation that Dawkins is ignorant of Christian theology:

I have read and still read many synopses but don't pay their contents much heed until I read the original work. An author's words set against his intentions can be twisted to represent any reviewer's ideological stance, even if that reviewer is the most famous atheist on earth.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

I have read and still read many synopses but don't pay their contents much heed until I read the original work. An author's words set against his intentions can be twisted to represent any reviewer's ideological stance, even if that reviewer is the most famous atheist on earth.
I think that goes without saying. Original sources are always the best bet. I did consider reading that particular book, but every review I could find seems to stress the "god can't be disproven" angle. I do hope McGrath has more of an argument than that, as Dawkins has already stipulated to that in many of his other works that predate McGrath's. I'll give it a look when time allows, and see if McGrath does indeed have any substance behind his writing.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

From a McGrath article discussing his book:

As a former atheist myself, though, I wonder how much longer it can rely on recycling the weary and increasingly unconvincing cliches of yesteryear while overlooking the shocking legacy of institutional atheism in the 20th century.
http://www.thes.co.uk/search/story.aspx?story_id=2016613

I'm wondering where his sense of irony was when he wrote that.

[Isaak Brodsky]

Do you mean, like, irony in the sense that he actually means the opposite of what he says in this quote? or irony in the sense that he's just trying to be funny?

I have read Dawkins theory of memes elaborated in the Selfish Gene and have also read two of Grath's works.

I like the healthy war of words being waged between them, interested bystanders come out on top, whichever camp you are in.

[DougP]

Labels such as "cute" and "banal" attached to discourse cannot be counted as ad hominem.

You're confusing the message here for the messenger. The message is that your comments were merely "cute," Ja's statement was "banal," and my words were (and apparently still are) "pratter." If you can't recall, I'll remind you that you first found my words to be "pratter."

As to fallacies of presumption, how can one not consult and cite quotes from the Bible if one were actually discussing the Bible? If we were discussing the plausibility of an asteriod hitting earth, would we not consult astronomers? Would you call it a fallacy of presumption were I to repeatedly cite, say, Robert Jastrow's work in astrophysics to support some claim I make about the danger of asteriods??

Don't want to beat a dead horse either, but you must see that your propensity to simply swoop into a discussion with disparaging remarks meant more to stirr up some sh*t than to engage in a rational dialogue won't flush with me.

Must admit If we were discussing Harry Potter we should be able to site quotes from the books. It only makes sense to do so when discussing books.
Although I do feel citing quotes from the Bible when discussing things outside of the book(like non biblical history) itself can be quite presumtuous at times.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

Do you mean, like, irony in the sense that he actually means the opposite of what he says in this quote? or irony in the sense that he's just trying to be funny?

I have read Dawkins theory of memes elaborated in the Selfish Gene and have also read two of Grath's works.

I like the healthy war of words being waged between them, interested bystanders come out on top, whichever camp you are in.
Yes, we can both agree that it is healthy and interesting for both sides to vigorously debate the issues. We are all richer for it.

By irony I meant that in the quote he seemed to be accusing Dawkins of the very things which drive/drove many people away from organized religion, especially in a time of increasing separation between church and state.

[Isaak Brodsky]

yeeeeeeeaaaaaahh, i see your point.

it does come off as ironic. ideologies really do color our perspectives.

i thought that given bush's efforts to publicly support religion through his utterly moronic "faith-based" initiatives that uneasy relationship between state and religion is growing closer.

[Asshat]

i thought that given bush's efforts to publicly support religion through his utterly moronic "faith-based" initiatives that uneasy relationship between state and religion is growing closer

The wedges driven by such groups as the Christian Coalition and the Zionists have increased the political divide in the US. Bush has made it worse by playing to them.

It is safe to say that I feel I am constantly under attack from the religious right. I am not alone, and as you may have alluded to above Ian, Bush has helped make Christians look....like zealots or extremists. People to be feared.

[ja_Patriot]

Great!! Have you checked out "Dawkins' God"??


I almost took that as a spoof of Darwin.

No, but I read write-ups on Christopher Hitchens' "God is not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything". Haven't gotten hold of the book though.

Hitchens, as you're surely aware, is part of the so-called "Unholy Trinity" of prominent Antitheists, whose views are several degrees above relatively passive Atheism.

The ex-Brit, being considered a "conservative" (which Hitchens denies despite his support of neocon perspectives), angered the conservative establishment drawing vociferous retorts from writers at American Thinker, Spectator, Red State & World Review when his book was published.

Never thought of it as important. But now that you mentioned it, along with Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion", both should be good reads. Thanks for the tip.

[ja_Patriot]

Oops! My bad! Mary got pregnant without having sex, Moses gathered up two of every beast, and there was a flood. And the earth is about 10,000 years old.

Did I miss anything?


Sorry and I hope you're not offended but that is banal and pure prattle. BTW, Noah's Ark has nothing to do with Moses.

[OCanadaOurHomeAndNativeLand]

i thought that given bush's efforts to publicly support religion through his utterly moronic "faith-based" initiatives that uneasy relationship between state and religion is growing closer.
Yes, I can see the point that in the US things are perhaps a bit too cosy between the current admin and fundamental Christian sects. On the other hand, places like Ireland have finally shed the yolk of the Catholic Church and are governing without interference/allowed to think for themselves for the first time in centuries.

[Asshat]

Sorry and I hope you're not offended but that is banal and pure prattle. BTW, Noah's Ark has nothing to do with Moses.

It's banal and prattle to you perhaps because you believe this. Noah's Ark has to do with the rest of the biblical falacy.

As far as labeling, what I wrote it would be considered by most to be "sarcasm."

Edit: This thread and some of the comments made to me are exactly why I do not allow myself to have missionaries in my home, attend church, or other wise participate in any form of organized religeon. In other words, I hope no one here is harboring ideas of evangelism. :)