"Only-begotten" son of God - Part One - Deedat and Islam's perspective

A_Son_of_God

Forum Reasoner - Nemesis of the Trolls
Joined
Feb 25, 2023
Messages
339
Reaction score
94
In these two articles, we'll look at the statement of being "only begotten". It is written in many Bibles, and has had both representatives of Islam and Christendom comment on it, relating to Jesus, as to who he is or isn't.

Firstly, no wonder Deedat had such fun with this word, due to the confusion of Christendom in their explanations of how words that mean something must mean something else. I've posted a video for you to consider, showing the self-taught Muslim scholar Deedat's response to the claims of Christendom. You'll though have to excuse the Arabic singing throughout it. I had to turn the volume down often, in between. Unless of course, you enjoy that kind of stuff.

Here is the video for those of you interested in watching it.

So, let's address Deedat's - and Islam's - claims about this "Begotten", as the video used tries to demonstrate that the Bible is to blame, and how the Qur'an is pure. Then we'll look at these church claims.

Islam and this "begotten" issue
In Deedat's discussion, you will notice he talks to many church leaders, and they state that "begotten" means many things. Many things are presented. Things such as "one and only", "unique", etc etc.

The video then asks a question as to who was authorised to change the word from begotten to these things. The answer is simple. It is God and Jesus who give authority to it. The holy spirit isn't a person though, and is God's active force that he uses to allow what men may be trying to block.

What Deedat doesn't seem aware of, and the majority of Islam, is that the Bible was MADE for translation. It was made to be preached to every nation, tribe and language. Therefore, translation was necessary. Unlike the claims of Islam, who claim that the Qur'an is watered down because of translation, and instead the whole world need to learn Arabic, the Bible is to be translated, and the word spread through the earth, of which it is. The fact that Islam has had to instead write translations shows that this is the best way that works. Not trying to convert the world to speak some language that one nation thinks is best. Why, it is said that 80% of Muslims do not speak Arabic, nor can they read it. So, basically speaking, God gives the authority for people to translate words into other words, so that people understand. The word in Greek is translated into English. I didn't see Deedat arguing with any Greek-speaking people about the meaning of "begotten" either, nor the Jewish who spoke Hebrew, for those words he claims are meaning the same thing.

But Deedat hooks onto something reasonable. What is this "Begotten, not made" that the churches are trying to say? It is this kind of drivel that confuses people.
Deedat's issue is with the comments of church people. Not specifically the word begotten. "Begotten, not made" is not what the BIble is saying. Deedat is right when he says, "Adam was made by God...metaphorically, he's the father of EVERYTHING".

Although I laughed when Deedat mocked the representatives of Christendom for saying, "I don't believe that", the exact same thing can be said about Islam. There are many muslims who will sharply deny things being in the Qur'an, and then beg off from an explanation when shown that it is there.

So there are three errors I see with this video and their point of view with regards to "Begotten".

1)
The Qur'an states that God does not beget, nor is he begotten. (Suwar The Believers 23:91, Sincerity 112:3) But the Bible of which Muhammad ten times tells people to go back to, to confirm that the Qur'an is truthful with, says it clearly. (John 3:16, John 1:18, Hebrews 11:17).

2)
At 9:53 of the video, it incorrectly mixes up firstborn with begotten. Admittedly a firstborn CAN mean an only begotten, due to the use of the names, but not necessarily so.

3)
The video claims, as does Deedat, that "begotten" refers to a sexual act. This is a mistake on his and their part. This will be explained in the next part, regarding the church' claims.



 

A_Son_of_God

Forum Reasoner - Nemesis of the Trolls
Joined
Feb 25, 2023
Messages
339
Reaction score
94
In these two articles, we'll look at the statement of being "only begotten". It is written in many Bibles, and has had both representatives of Islam and Christendom comment on it, relating to Jesus, as to who he is or isn't.

Firstly, no wonder Deedat had such fun with this word, due to the confusion of Christendom in their explanations of how words that mean something must mean something else. I've posted a video for you to consider, showing the self-taught Muslim scholar Deedat's response to the claims of Christendom. You'll though have to excuse the Arabic singing throughout it. I had to turn the volume down often, in between. Unless of course, you enjoy that kind of stuff.

Here is the video for those of you interested in watching it.

So, let's address Deedat's - and Islam's - claims about this "Begotten", as the video used tries to demonstrate that the Bible is to blame, and how the Qur'an is pure. Then we'll look at these church claims.

Islam and this "begotten" issue
In Deedat's discussion, you will notice he talks to many church leaders, and they state that "begotten" means many things. Many things are presented. Things such as "one and only", "unique", etc etc.

The video then asks a question as to who was authorised to change the word from begotten to these things. The answer is simple. It is God and Jesus who give authority to it. The holy spirit isn't a person though, and is God's active force that he uses to allow what men may be trying to block.

What Deedat doesn't seem aware of, and the majority of Islam, is that the Bible was MADE for translation. It was made to be preached to every nation, tribe and language. Therefore, translation was necessary. Unlike the claims of Islam, who claim that the Qur'an is watered down because of translation, and instead the whole world need to learn Arabic, the Bible is to be translated, and the word spread through the earth, of which it is. The fact that Islam has had to instead write translations shows that this is the best way that works. Not trying to convert the world to speak some language that one nation thinks is best. Why, it is said that 80% of Muslims do not speak Arabic, nor can they read it. So, basically speaking, God gives the authority for people to translate words into other words, so that people understand. The word in Greek is translated into English. I didn't see Deedat arguing with any Greek-speaking people about the meaning of "begotten" either, nor the Jewish who spoke Hebrew, for those words he claims are meaning the same thing.

But Deedat hooks onto something reasonable. What is this "Begotten, not made" that the churches are trying to say? It is this kind of drivel that confuses people.
Deedat's issue is with the comments of church people. Not specifically the word begotten. "Begotten, not made" is not what the BIble is saying. Deedat is right when he says, "Adam was made by God...metaphorically, he's the father of EVERYTHING".

Although I laughed when Deedat mocked the representatives of Christendom for saying, "I don't believe that", the exact same thing can be said about Islam. There are many muslims who will sharply deny things being in the Qur'an, and then beg off from an explanation when shown that it is there.

So there are three errors I see with this video and their point of view with regards to "Begotten".

1)
The Qur'an states that God does not beget, nor is he begotten. (Suwar The Believers 23:91, Sincerity 112:3) But the Bible of which Muhammad ten times tells people to go back to, to confirm that the Qur'an is truthful with, says it clearly. (John 3:16, John 1:18, Hebrews 11:17).

2)
At 9:53 of the video, it incorrectly mixes up firstborn with begotten. Admittedly a firstborn CAN mean an only begotten, due to the use of the names, but not necessarily so.

3)
The video claims, as does Deedat, that "begotten" refers to a sexual act. This is a mistake on his and their part. This will be explained in the next part, regarding the church' claims.



A further explanation that is necessary here is that in Islam, it is interpreted that - at least by the majority of Muslims, but not all - God having "sons", or a son, means he had to have a partner, or have some form of sexual relations.

The problem is with this, is it is denying that God can call "sons" whoever the heck He wants. What right do we have - us puny humans, as the Hulk calls us - to tell God what to call things?

In fact, in Arabic, there is an expression "ibn al-sabeel", which means wayfarer. But literally, it means "son of the road". So, to the Arabic-speaking muslim should be well aware of this.

Is this though acknowledged by Muslims themselves, or is it just non-Muslim Arabians? Here is a link, showing the expression used when talking about Zakat - or Islamic charitable giving.

Based on this, it is unreasonable for a Muslim to deny God having sons, due to their insistence that it must mean a sexual act. God can call sons who he wants to call sons. In fact, it is wise to read Psalm 2:12 on this, in the Zabur. I have added it as a link for you.
 

Moriarty

UKChat Celebrity
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
1,524
Reaction score
768
Deedat also quoted:-

“invite all to the ways of the Lord with wisdom, the sword of the intellect … and with beautiful preaching; and reason with the destractors, in the ways that are best and most gracious. This is the sword.”

Islam is a beautiful religion, just as most are, in theory.
It is when they are taken to extremes they become ugly.
 
Back
Top