One of the more puzzling of Mushtaq’s objections to the teaching of God’s Church is his comment on St John’s use of the word ‘Logos’ which because it originates outside Christianity – ‘Logos is a pagan Greek term, not teaching of Prophets from Adam till Moses’ – he seems to think inadmissible. The word ‘God’ originates outside Judaism and Christianity, and we use that word, so I don’t see what point he is making. ‘Hellenistic Judaism’ is still part of Judaism, and St John uses the word. I don’t see what the point of this objection is.
Mushtaq’s comments – Answer 3 – that: (Blessed Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God). He cites a series of passages showing that God called others ‘son’:
Long before Blessed Jesus was born, God said to David (Psalm 2.7): “I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me (David), Thou art My son; this day have I begotten thee.” So David is also God’s begotten son, and he was before Blessed Jesus. It proves Blessed Jesus is not the only begotten Son of God, as Madam Jessica claims here.
This is surely not serious? The Text of the OT makes it clear that God is saying that he has become David’s father, not that He begets him by a Virgin. If Mushtaq cannot see the difference between an adoption in this matter and the Incarnation, then I am surprised, as it is obvious to most of us. If he wants to read more about the orthodox understanding of what it means to be ‘a son by adoption’, he should read Chalcedon’s piece here. If he wants to see how the Church developed its thinking, he should try those here and here.
I do wonder if Mushtaq knows how to read Holy Scripture, as he keeps chopping it up rather than reading it as a whole. Here’s an example. I quoted:
John 5:17-19 – “But Blessed Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is still working, and I also am working.’ / For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God. / Blessed Jesus said to them, ‘Very truly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing on his own, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.’ “
If anybody is working along his own father? Then does it mean that they are forming one unit? Answer is no. Working of father or Son doesn’t mean Trinity. Blessed Jesus here is telling his obedience to God, Blessed Jesus is not claiming here his Second membership in Triune God.
Since the Johannine passage says specifically that the Jews thought he was claiming to be the Son of God, Mushtaq’s analysis fails on a simple reading of the texts. The Jews understood what Jesus meant and they wanted to stone him. They did not argue as Mushtaq does because, unlike him, they understood Jesus was claiming to be the equal of God – it says so in the text.
Mushtaq offers equally unconvincing eisegesis of other NT passages I provided. He simply does not know how to read the Christian Scriptures, and it is a waste of my time to go through every one of his misunderstandings.
I ask, again, him to explain how it is he thinks he can read the book the Church canonised better than the Church?
I’d recommend setting John 1:1 alongside Genesis 1:1 🙂
Me too 🙂 x
Pingback: A God between many gods « Stepping Toes
Pingback: The Word made flesh? | All Along the Watchtower