Acts17apologetics find Quran paradox; can Allah beget?

In answer to the video "Why Is Jesus Called "The Son of God"? (Answering Islam Part 20)"

When it addresses the issue of carnal begetting, the Quran explains the incompatibility of that concept, from the point of view of God's majestic status, unique essence, for God to physically beget both sons and daughters as the polytheists claimed throughout time 6:100-101 ascribing to Him even a lineage among the jinn 37:158.

The desire for children is based upon the desire to continue one's own legacy, i.e. it is based upon an inherent weakness within man and this rejects the majesty of Allah, His transcendence, and status as beyond causality and contingency. Why would He need entities besides Himself, sharing His essence? Is He lacking in power, knowledge to rule creation by Himself, or  is He limited in lifespan?

The Quran rejects this concept of progeny and sonship to God, as well as all the implications undermining His supremacy, by for instance pointing to the facts that nothing precedes or outlasts Him 57:3, that nothing is even within the realm of the remotest of comparisons, that He neither begets nor is He begotten 42:11,112:1-4.

WALAD is the term translated as "son" in 6:101 but the word really means a "product of birth". This covers that Allah does not give birth, nor does he have a consort to give birth for Him. It is important to note, the verse does not tie the impossibility for God to beget to the absence of consort exclusively. It says Wa/And He has no consort.

So, the absence of the consort is one of many reasons why Allah does not have a son. Along with the absence of consort, the other reasons for God not having any son are "innovator of the heavens and Earth", "Creator of everything" and so on. It does not befit the One holding sway over all creation to have the need for a son, which entails an inherent weakness.

Why would He need to, when His grasp over creation is so all-embracing, that His will, whatever it may be, is instantly executed

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The Quran treats this assertion as so far removed from reality, that it tells its messenger, had it been true he would have been the first to be instructed to worship such an entity 43:81.

Finally the word ANNA translated as How, is an exclamatory expression through several angles, as in "How" and "why" together, to mean "why should He?!" The primary Quranic argument against God procreating is thus not linked at all the presence or absence of consort, but to the contradiction that notion creates with His uniqueness, supremacy, perfection, self-subsitence and so on.

But had the Quran not refuted the idea of God physically procreating by mentionning the absence of a consort, its argument would have remained incomplete. That is because the very notion of God needing to procreate demotes Him in His self-sustained status, restricts His power and will. This inevitably entails the need for partners in His rule, including a consort to procreate. In such a demoted status, the notion of God doing whatever He wills through His creative word "BE" becomes an impossible proposition.

The Quran is here showing the necessary implications of the polytheists' belief, exposing their flaws and refuting them from every possible angle. The perfect example to illustrate is that of Mary 19:20. Being a human, she was limited in her power and will just as God would have been, had He needed a progeny. Mary was unable by her own will to conceive, just as Allah would have been due to His demoted status. They would have both needed a counterpart to procreate. But the reality is different. God, the Majestic, is free from any need, including that of having children, which necessarily implies Him being limitess in His power and will

19:35"It is not for Allah to take a child; glory to be Him. When He decrees a command, He only says to it: Be; and it is".

The verse makes it clear, the total absence of any need to have a child is linked to His supreme dominion over all things, as encapsulated with the creative word "BE". On the other hand, the need for a child would immidiately negate that absolute power. But Allah is limitless and that is why He was able to impose His creative will upon Mary, making her conceive even in the absence of a male counterpart.

Furthermore, the phrase used in this verse is

6:101"..How could He HAVE (yakun lahu) a son (waladun)..".

The different wording for a physical/carnal son in 6:101 as the pagans claimed and 2:116/39:4 speaking of God TAKING a son from among His creatures as some Christians claim, irrefutably shows that the Quran does not mix the 2 notions.

Acts17apologetics see Quran flaw; Jesus was the carnal son of God in 6:101?

In answer to the video "Why Is Jesus Called "The Son of God"? (Answering Islam Part 20)"

The Quran does not say Jesus is the son of God in a physical/carnal sense, or that Christians believe such. In 2:116 for example,

"And they say: Allah has taken to himself (ittakhadha) a son (waladan)".

This is saying that Christians claim Allah has TAKEN a human being "as his son". This subtle wording represents the mainstream "declared" Christian belief concerning Jesus' sonship. But in reality, in the minds of the hellenistic converts that shaped Christianity, Jesus is literally "begotten by God, not made". The early translations of the Bible where the Greek monogenh occurs, represents that ecclesiastical tradition.

When The Quran says "ittakhadha" (to take) for God taking Jesus as a son, it uses the same word in other places too without any carnal or biological connotation. For example

4:125"..and Allah took (ittakhadha) Ibrahim as a friend".

39:4 elaborates on the meaning of "taking a son" when refering to God

"If Allah desire to take (yattakhidha) a son (waladan) to Himself, He will surely CHOOSE those He pleases from what He has created".

This proves that the meaning of "TAKE a son" when it refers to God as in 2:116, is to CHOOSE one from among His creatures NOT to physically conceive one. Jesus must have been taken by God the Father as his son at some point in time, regardless of the sophistries trinitarians conjure so as to make sense of their doctrines. Jesus, the incarnate word of God, as a human being with a human soul did not exist from eternity, even according to their creeds. This man/god creature came took shape some 2000 years ago, which is when he was "taken" as a son by God. Whatever the speculation on the pre-incarnate form or nature of the son of God, it was different than the form he took on the earth, and the form he has now in heaven. This results in further problems, including a God to whom things are added or substracted.
In the Quran, although this hypothetical scenario is given, the reality of the matter is rejected alltogether, as is found elsewhere

23:91"never did Allah take to Himself a son, and never was there with him any (other) god"  

21:26-29"Glory be to Him. Nay! they are honored servants. They do not precede Him in speech and (only) according to His commandment do they act. He knows what is before them and what is behind them, and they do not intercede except for him whom He approves and for fear of Him they tremble. And whoever of them should say: Surely I am a god besides Him, such a one do We recompense with hell; thus do, We recompense the unjust".

The remotness of such a notion is thus rooted in that all these eminent persons are, along with all things, obedient creations of His. An interesting observation is the statement that those nearest to God

21:19"are never too proud to worship Him and never grow weary".

Contrary to wordly ownership and mastership, the closer a servant is to his master the more benefits he gains in terms of power, material gains and personal freedom. But as regards to God's ownership which is the true and absolute one, the closer the servant is drawn to Him the more humbled and submissive the servant becomes, aware of his insignificance in relation to the Supreme Being. That is how complete and intricate the Quran is, in its argumentations for perfect monotheism. Elsewhere the Quran depicts the notion of God's absolute sway over all things, including those the polytheists claim are His physical descendants

19:92-5"And it is not worthy of the Beneficient that He should take a son. There is no one in the Heavens and the earth but will come to the Beneficient as a servant. Certainly He has a comprehensive knowledge of them and He has numbered them a comprehensive numbering. And everyone of them will come to Him on the day of Resurrection, alone".

These entities who are supposed to share some of the divine essence are in fact so lowly before their Creator and far removed from any sort of divinity and intrinsic power, that they are numbered like slaves are. Their provisions decided, their tasks assigned and ultimate purpose defined. This reality will become manifest when all of creation is resurrected and brought to its Creator empty handed. It is further important to understand the psychology behind the notion of "taking a son" for a ruler, let alone a regular human being. Kings used to resort to this practice when they chose among their subjects an individual that fit their subjective/desired/missing criteria when their own progeny wasnt satisfying, in order to fulfill a certain purpose, most often their succession. The taking of a son reveals an inherent weakness, whether it be the desire of continuity or association in accomplishing a task. The Quran refutes these needs from various angles

2:116-7"Glory be to Him/subhanahu; rather, whatever is in the heavens and the earth is His; all are obedient to Him. Wonderful Originator of the heavens and the earth, and when He decrees an affair, He only says to it, Be, so there it is".

First and foremost He is far above any concept in terms of exaltedness, perfection, as denoted with subhaanahu. This necessarily precludes any need or weakness. Then, all of existence is fully encompassed by His grip meaning He does not need to pick and choose something if He already owns everything, even moreso when all things are submissive to Him. This submissivness began since the origin of the creation of the heavens and the earth

41:11"willingly or unwillingly",

a process that will be reproduced on the resurrection 84:2. What would then be the purpose of declaring an entitiy His son, when all reasons for which He would hypotheticaly need one are already covered? Finally, God does not require searching through His own creation for an entity endowed with qualities needed for the accomplishment of a supposed need of His, when He is

2:117"badeeu/Innovator and initiator of the heavens and the earth".

This term badieeu means that in His case, contrary to all creative endeavours, He creates without any blueprint, preexisting inspiration, experience, simply through His word

"and if HE decreed an order done, He only says be and it is".

This is why God is the

"best of creators".

Acts17apologetics hijack Judaism; What is son of god in the Bible?

In answer to the video "Why Is Jesus Called "The Son of God"? (Answering Islam Part 20)"

The concept of a divine fatherly figure typically is a Hebrew one, with God calling the nation of Israel His firstborn and referred to in the book of Jeremiah as their father. Jews are very much attached to that concept and dispute Christian appropriation of that title through their mistranslations of the Hebrew texts. 

The Hebrew understanding of the notion of God as a fatherly figure has nothing to do with the Christian one. 

In their monolatrous concept of God, Jews are the preferred sons above all nations charged with being the torch bearers of the truth, and their father is in charge of educating them throughout that process, sometimes in the harshest of ways. This is a notion which the Quran refutes. 

The Quran rebukes the people of the book for their misappropriation of the phrase "son of God" metaphorically on themselves 5:18. Here the verse is not making a sweeping condemnation of the usage of that terminology, rather its abuse. They were making that claim in the context of moral accountability. Being the sons of God implied them being His "beloved", honored among the nations, His favoured. Forgiveness was thus their due and will always eventually be restored to their station of nearness to God despite their sins. If that is the case then the Quran reminds the Jews more particularly, of the destructions that befell them throughout their recorded history.

Each of those, as related in their own books were the result of divine disapproval. None is immune in this life to hardships, whether the most righteous or the sinners. These difficulties are either meant to strengthen one's spiritual resolve, make him mend his ways, or utterly destroy him, not leaving him any chance to even repent 

3:140-1"and We bring these days to men by turns, and that Allah may know those who believe and take witnesses from among you; and Allah loves not the unjust. And that Allah may purge those who believe and eradicate the unbelievers". 

The violent hardships that befell those very ones claiming to be God's favored among the nations, were neither meant at improving their non-existent spirituality, nor to make them mend their ways and forgive them. God, their "father" meant to eradicate the sinners off the face of the earth. They knew this reality and could not offer an answer in defence of their claim of being God's "beloved". Their history of punishments, down to our recent times, is no example of a father-son relationship where the child is being lovingly raised and corrected. Further, because the verse does not forbid the notion of sonship to God, it does however make sure that anyone using it does not think of himself in any way intrinsically superior to other human beings 

5:18"you are mortals of His creating". 

Nowhere here or elsewhere does the Quran accuse individual Jews of claiming divinity, rather it seeks to blot out that notion even on a subconscious level.

In 19:34 following the story of Jesus' nativity and infancy, the Quran addresses 2 issues. First in a statement from God rejecting any notion of sonship to Him 19:35 and then in a quote from Jesus stressing the basic monotheistic principle that 

19:36"indeed, Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him; this is a straight path". 

In light of Jesus' clear statement, which happens to be quoted almost verbatim in the NT although in a different context Jn20:17, the Quran then continues by condemning as disbelievers those that contended, and still do, with these 2 principles 19:37. Jesus during his time among his people did not forbid the expression "son of God" since it did not carry ambiguous connotation to the Jews, as regards the relationship between the person whom the expression was applied to, and God. A "son of God" was neither an extension of God, nor shared in the divine essence. It is thus God who took it upon himself to reject the notion once it became perverted and loaded with polytheistic significance after Jesus. As a prophet however, Jesus, like his predecessors, always stressed the basic monotheistic tenets to his addressees, and hence the verse 19:36 rightly quotes him doing so. The whole passage from 19:30-7 in defence of Jesus aims at condemning people for different reasons and at different times during his life and prophetic mission. Where the Jews in Jesus' time transgressed in their use of that metaphorical appellation, was in the implicit notion of intrinsic honor due to them, the "children of God". Jesus in the NT condemns this Jewish self-conceit in no uncertain terms, whether it pertained to their abuse of the notion of sonship to God Jn3:10,8:42-44 as the Quran does in 5:18 quoted earlier, or whether that conceit was due to their Abrahamic ancestry Matt3:9,Lk3:8. When Jesus himself, the prophet in their midst could not in anyway be compared in greatness to the One that sent him Jn13:16 then why would they, the sinful ones boast of them being God's sons? This was no false humility from Jesus and when he asked to be honored as the father is Jn5:22-23, he meant in terms of recognition 

"Whoever does not honour the Son does no honour the Father who sent him". 

This is very similar to the Quranic statement that rejecting the messenger (dishonoring him) is the same as rejecting the One that sent him. Jesus in fact desired for his followers the same honor and glory that were due to him Jn17:21-22. It is remarkable to note how the Quran who, had it been the product of its historical milieu, should have followed the example of its predecessors in claiming the honorific sonship title to the Muslims. Instead it emphatically states that no one has any unconditional right or privilege against Allah. The only ones honored and privileged by Allah are those of correct faith and righteous deeds, regardless of their claim of belonging to a religious group or specific ancestry. And the highest distinction God may confer among His creatures, is that of obedient slaves. Such distinction does not cause an increase in relation to God, rather in relation to the rest of creation. Further, contrary to the "son of God" terminology, it does not carry the misleading notion of special privilege with God, nor of particularity in terms of essence and lineage.

The concept of a divine fatherly figure is different in Christianity. To Christians, God is the father firstly in relation to the son/Jesus whom he has "begotten not made" and of whom he is the head in the trinity. The Jewish and Christians concepts have nothing to do with oneanother and Jews loath that misappropriation of the term by trinitarian Christians. Even the extension of God as a paternal figure to regular Christians has nothing to do with the notion as described in relation to the Jewish nation.

This father-son connection is only used in Hebrew scriptures for the Jews themselves and all other instances where "sons of elohim" is translated "sons of God" in Christian Bibles is considered erroneous, not only from a Jewish theological perspective, but also from a contextual one. The word elohim although may apply to God, primarily means a powerful entity like for example judges, rulers or notables Ex7:1,4:16,22:6-7,20,1Sam28:12-13,Ps82:6.

One famous Christian rendition of "sons of elohim" as "sons of God" is in Gen6. With their "fallen angel" concept in mind, Christians prefer the "sons of God" rendition due to the mention of "nefilim" in v4 whom they speculate are the progeny of fallen angels/sons of God with sons of adam. Yet "sons of elohim" obviously is in reference to the progeny of men with great power, who rather than using their position for justice, committed crimes against their fellow men, abusing the "daughters of Adam", indulging in lawlessness to their benefit. Follows God's decision to destroy the world and everything in it, explicitly because of the human race's injustice, nothing is said about angels.

Everything is destroyed, since all this world was created for man to rule over it Gen1:29-31, except those chosen to survive in the ark. But again, nothing about angels or do Christians mean that mankind was destroyed because of the angels´ wickedness?

Now regarding the nefilim, the v4 says they were already on the earth in those days and they continued to be so afterward. They were not the result of mating between fallen angels and humans.

This race of people had the peculiarity of counting giants among them, who even survived the flood Numb13:22,33,Josh12:4. In proportion, these giants were to the Israelites what a grasshopper is to a regular human being. 

The Quran being the supreme protector of monotheism, never refers to God with such imperfect appellations, as it easily paves the ground for polytheistic beliefs, similar to the ones that polluted Christianity 17:110"HE has the best names". Interestingly, in Islam the closest one comes in parallelling God's relationship to His creatures, to that of human parent-children connection, is a hadith where the prophet compares the mercy of Allah towards the people with that of a mother to her infant. One of Allah's names, al-Rahman, stems from the root of rahm/the womb, evoking the nurturing, loving care of the mother.

Even when the masculine pronoun HE/HUWA is used in reference to Allah, it does not denote gender. In literature this masculine can either be the grammatical or biological masculine. Also, singular neutrality in Arabic is expressed with the masculine (not biological) pronoun. There is no IT in Arabic hence the use of the grammatical masculine HUWA to denote neutrality of gender (for a singular entity, while the feminine is used for a couple like the eyes). In the HB/NT, the title of "Father" has gender as well as sexual connotations. That notion of fatherhood associated with God may easily lead to polytheism, or at the least false, exclusivist, monolatrous notions as one finds throughout the Hebrew writings. Christians however took that misleading appellation to a more crooked level, as seen above.