Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

The islamists make it a major point of doctrinal contention that God does not have a son. Yet their quran teaches the New Testament definition of Son of God, and that is the virgin birth, clearly shown and defined by Luke:

Luke 1:35 (AV)
And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 1:35 actually defines the phrase "Son of God" and the islamist teaching agrees that Jesus is the Son of God, all their disclaimers notwithstanding. To make their claim, they have to ignore the clear New Testament definition. Often they will emphasize Trinitarian doctrinal confusions about "God the Son", a phrase that simply has nothing to do with the New Testament scriptures.

Read the annunciation from the quran. That is where you see that their actual belief about Jesus is consistent with the New Testament definition of the Son of God. From the Christian side, the emphasis is simply what the New Testament says, not claimed creedal conjectures. Of course, if you have a different definition of 'Son of God' than what is given by Luke, this argument from consistency will be hard to use.

======================

Surah 21:91 is the key quran verse, here are two translations:
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp ... 1&verse=91

And [mention] the one who guarded her chastity, so We blew into her [garment] through Our angel [Gabriel], and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds

And (remember) she who guarded her chastity [Virgin Maryam (Mary)], We breathed into (the sleeves of) her (shirt or garment) [through Our Ruh Jibrael (Gabriel)], and We made her and her son ['Iesa (Jesus)] a sign for Al-'Alamin (the mankind and jinns).

=======================

Surah 66:12 is also very relevant:
http://www.alquranenglish.com/quran-sur ... ranslation

"And Maryam (Mary) daughter of Imran, who kept safe her private parts, (i.e., safeguarded) so We breathed in it of Our Spirit, and she sincerely (believed) in the Words of her Lord, and His Books; and she was one of the devout. - Dr.Ghali

========================

Granted, the islamist annunciation has some differences from the New Testament. That, of course, is not surprising.

There are Christians involved in apologetics and strong in Arabic who would say the quran account implies a sexual component, unlike the New Testament account. This is involving the translation above [garment], An interesting issue, however not really relevant to the question of affirming that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary.

For those interested in more background, there are these two articles can be a reasonable starting point.

The Birth Narratives of Jesus in the Quran
A Christian Analysis
Sam Shamoun
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/ ... eption.htm

Quranic description of Mary's Virginal Conception (2011)
Azhan Ahmad
http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2011/ ... ption.html

========================

SIDENOTE:
Apparently the quran also confused Mary with Miriam, the true sister of Aaron and daughter of Amram. The islamic response is that it was a wider use of the words, e.g. brother is used in a more metaphorical, historical sense. Or maybe she did have a brother name Aaron.

========================

Pure Bible Forum
the islamists actually believe that Jesus is the Son of God
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 72#post972

========================

Facebook
PureBible - Jan, 2018
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebib ... 014769615/

Reformed Pub - Jan, 2018
Are Yahweh and Allah the same God?
(this is where they deleted any discussion of Yahweh==Jupiter)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/reforme ... king={%22t n%22%3A%22R9%22}

New Testament Textual Criticism - 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextu ... al_comment s=4

=================

Other discussions earlier, one is in our skeptic archive. That may have emphasized the sexual component. And I will see if I remember how to search those archives, however http://bcharchive.org does not do anything.

Your thoughts welcome!

=================

Steven Avery

Do you routinely source your info from apologetical websites?

Ironically, the Christian apologists have largely bypassed the main theme of the OP. Their trinitarian perspective focuses on “God the Son”, a phrase nowhere in the NT, and one of three “persons in the Godhead.” So they shrink back from working with the NT definition of the Son of God in any discussions with the islamists.

Overall, I use sources based on the quality and significance of the specific argument.

My overall view of Christian apologists is mixed. Many are hamstrung by corruption versions, late dating, and not searching out the most salient issues like the Theophilus proposal and Mt. Sinai in Arabia and much more.

lol, late dating

Yes, generally 40-50AD for Gospels, 50-65 AD for the rest of the New Testament. This is why the Theophilus element is so significant for setting the table.

"corrupt versions"

which verses are corrupt ?

The extremely corrupt versions are the Westcott-Hort recension (aka the Critical Text.)

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Sep 19, 2019 12:30 pm Yes, generally 40-50AD for Gospels, 50-65 AD for the rest of the New Testament. This is why the Theophilus element is so significant for setting the table.

sam shamoun admitted that the codex sinanaiticus is full of heresies and good for the trash. james white is pissed that shamoun changed his theological position on key christian doctrines

Sam moved to a position of the Authorized Versions as God's pure word. This would upset James White.

Codex Sinaiticus is an 1800s production. I am not sure if Sam Shamoun is aware of that fact. Whatever the date, Sinaiticus is "full of heresies and good for the trash." Porfiry Uspensky pointed out many corruptions in a paper in the 1860s.