babuks said:
If you take 'father' to be biological father, then you have problem. Because there are tons of 'son' of the God and who is their 'father'. Many Prophets are called 'son' by the God in the Bible. So, they are the sons of God too? Actually that is the style of saying in old times. Saying 'father' does not mean biological father. What he quoted out of context? You show the context and prove him wrong. None of the Christian scholars could do that in the past. You may take a look at his debate with Dr. William Campbell on Bible and Quran in the light of science. What does it mean by saying 'Alpha and Omega' (First and the Last)? Jesus is not the first because he was born in a stable in the womb of a woman and there were several Prophets before him. He is not the last because Prophets came after him. This Dr. Zakir Naik is learned of both the scriptures. You have to listen to his lectures in full in order to understand why he does not consider some of the verses to be true. The very scholars of Christianity threw out few verses from the Bible for being corrupt, fabrication and adulteration. So, check out if John 1 is something like that or not. |
Regardless of if Jesus or the bibles meant biological or otherwise, it is clear in the Quran that Allah has no children and that men do not share any associations with Allah aside from being a product of it's entropy.
I'm Unamerica and you can too.
The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: