DOES GOD HAVE MANY SONS IN THE BIBLE,

AS MUSLIMS CLAIM?

YES AND NO.

    Muslims try to downplay that Jesus Christ was a Son to God, since -they say- many were called sons of God. So Jesus Christ being His Son, is nothing special
It is true that there were the angels and people called "sons of God", but figuratively, in the sense, that there existence was brought by a father figure, God; however, nowhere do we find any connection to them literally being born of Him as we do for Jesus. Even Christians are considered children of God, through a spiritual adoption, not a “biological” birth.

    Having said that, I don’t understand why people call Jesus Christ “Son of God”, unless they have never read the New Testament and just repeat what ignorant or lying people say. Haven’t they at least have heard that Jesus Christ was special, that He came from the Father, that He was divine, that He emptied Himself from all His glorious attributes to become human??
    Now, if He was called “son of God”, yes, this can imply there were other sons as well. This is not the case of the Jesus Christ of the New Testament texts. Are you not aware of this?

In the Greek (I am Greek by the way), Jesus is not called “Son of God” but “THE Son of God” (with the article). Do you know what this means?

It means that:

a) God did not have any other sons hence,

b) Jesus was His only Son, this is why He is called repeatedly “The Son of God” (“Ο Υιός του Θεού). And this, is why we also literally read in John that God:

John 3:16

a) “His OWN

(note it doesn’t simply say “His” (“του”), but the emphasized “αυτού”, that is, not just “His”, but “His own”)

b) Son,

c) the only one given birth too,

d) he gave”

---The sentence in Greek/English-à

ὥστε τὸν υἱὸν (the Son) αὐτοῦ (of His/His own) τὸν μονογενῆ (the only One given birth to) ἔδωκεν (gave).

Some like to claim that the word begotten (which is a frivolous translation) translated from μονογενή (correct translation àonly one given birth to) in 3:16, is not found in earlier manuscripts, but they forget or are not aware of the fact that Jesus is called that again just after two verse in v.18:

because he did not believe (ὅτι μὴ πεπίστευκεν) in the name (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα) of the only given birth to Son of God (τοῦ ΜΟΝΟΓΕΝΟΥΣ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ).

The compound word μονογενής is still used today by Greeks to denote the same thing: the only one given birth to.

But I will take it further. For the discussion, even if I remove from the text the two uses of the word “μονογενή”, nothing changes!! The fact that Jesus is -everywhere in the NT – called THE Son of God (with the article) still stands as proof that He was -according to the writers- THE only Son of God, implying His literal connection to the Father, hence His birth of Him. Logic says that being the literal Son of God, means that He too had the eternal nature of existence that the Father had; this means He was also God in nature, it can’t mean anything else.

    Indeed, as our earthly father is human in nature, likewise, the Son of God the Father, is also God in nature.

© www.ipertisalithias.gr