JESUS – SON OF WHOM?

JESUS – SON OF WHOM?

The first major hurdle we will address is the parentage or alleged parentage of Jesus. The
fundamental belief in present day Christianity is that Jesus is the literal begotten son of God
and is second in the Divine Trinity of God’s being. If this is somehow disturbed, then as this
is the foundation of the Christian belief, Christianity itself collapses. If the foundation is
solid and the ‘testimony’ is consistent, the Christian religion has in fact proven its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. Before I begin quoting from the Bible I would like to point out
that these verses from the Bible are written in English. The Gospels themselves were first
written down in Greek and not in Jesus’ tongue of Aramaic. This is generally known
amongst Bible scholars. There are no original Aramaic or Hebrew texts that exist to crossreference
the Greek and English translations with. As anyone who studies languages will tell
you, a language can either lose or gain many meanings in a translation. This is critical when it
comes to scripture. The word ‘son’ may have a totally different connotative meaning when
translated from Aramaic to Greek to English. It is quite difficult to convey the meanings of
Eastern languages to English without losing something or gaining something that is not
intended. The same goes for the word ‘lord’.
The verse most quoted amongst Christians to support the notion of Jesus being the
literal divine son of God is of course John 3:16 in which it is written…
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life.”(John 3:16) KJV.
6
Now this is a straight forward verse that is clear in its meaning and what in what it is
trying to convey. The first thing that should be noted, however, is that this verse is not
attributed to Jesus nor is it a quote from Jesus. This is a verse written by someone else. The
verse is attributed to a man named John. John was the last of the Gospels to be written and
no one is sure of exactly which John this is supposed to be. The Gospel of John was written
around 100 C.E. at Ephesus. That is approximately seventy years after the time of Jesus. As
Adolf Harnack points out in his book, What is Christianity?:
“the fourth Gospel does not emanate or profess to emanate from the apostle John, who cannot be taken as an
historical authority…the author of the fourth Gospel acted with sovereign freedom, trans-posed events and put
them in a strange light. “
The Gospel of John is considered to be the most beautifully written of the Gospels.
According to Acts 4:13, however, Peter and John were both ignorant and unlearned men.
The Gospel of John is written as a drama of sorts, unfolding layers of measured resolution
and emotion. Not something unlearned men are known to produce. ‘He was divinely
inspired by God…’ can be heard as an argument. ‘Look at your Qur’an and its masterly
prose. Muslims claim Muhammad was unlearned yet look at the Qur’an…’. The problem
with that argument is that Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) is a fully realized and documented historical
figure. History recognizes Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) as a man who definitely lived, taught, and
revolutionized his society. His sayings have been documented to the letter. The Qur’an was
memorized by not only by the Prophet himself but also by his followers. Even the most
secular historians must admit this. The personality and person of John, however, cannot be
substantiated with historical documented evidence. Bible historians debate over whether or
not John the Apostle was the same John who is credited with writing this Gospel. According
to Blacks Bible Dictionary, John was beheaded before 70 C.E., and a connection to the first
manuscript of ‘the Gospel of John’ at Ephesus around 100 C.E. would be difficult to
establish. So let us revisit the passage.
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should
not perish, but have everlasting life.”(John 3:16) KJV.
The real test of the verse is in its consistency with the rest of the Bible whom the
Christians claim to accept as a whole. As you can see, it reads “…only begotten son…” but
when we look at Psalms 2:7 David says, “…the Lord said unto me, Thou art my son; this day have I
begotten thee.” This is a serious discrepancy for the sincere Bible reader. Who is telling the
truth, David or the mystery John? Can we rely on the Psalms for the truth or ‘The Gospel of
John’? Is the Gospel the literal and the Psalms the figurative or vice versa? Jesus is given
many ‘fathers’ in the N.T. The first line in the New Testament reads, “ The book of the
generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matt. 1:1). Are we to accept the
literal meaning of this or the figurative? And if we are to assume that the verse only means
that he was a spiritual son of David, then why can’t we assume the same thing is meant when
Jesus refers to God the “Father”? For according to the N.T. statements attributed to Jesus
he says, “…Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48). As
well as, “After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father…”(Matt 6:9). And to confirm the
spiritual connection of the righteous, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in
heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother (Matt 12:50). This verse uses the word ‘Father’
7
but Mark 3:35 reads, “ For whosoever does the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and
mother.” How many times in the N.T. is the word ‘Father’ used to describe God? If ‘Father’
has substituted the word ‘God’ in this verse, how many other verses have been tweaked?
That this is not a literal relationship is plain to see and comprehend. Another verse is
describing David as being Jesus’ father, “…And the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his
father David (Luke 1:32). Now if God was Jesus’ literal physical father, wouldn’t it have made
sense to distinguish the difference in this verse which presents Jesus along with David as his
father? Let’s assume that Jesus is understood to be God’s son in this verse and rewrite the
verse stating that idea. It would read, “…And his father, the Lord God shall give unto him the throne
of his father David…”. This makes absolutely no sense at all and the authors knew this. The
author of this verse knew that in order for it to make any sense, only one could be
connected to Jesus as a ‘Father’. And since the legitimacy of Jesus’ mission must come
through David, according to the Bible, it was more prudent to connect Jesus as an heir to
David than to infuse the verse with ‘son of God’ dogma. The curious thing is that in
Matthew and Luke, the genealogy of Jesus is traced through Joseph as if Joseph had some
blood relation to Jesus. Jesus is supposed to have been divinely conceived within Mary
without the husbandly help of Joseph. How then can Jesus’ genealogy be logically traced
back to David through Joseph? In Luke 2:41 it reads, “Now his parents went to Jerusalem every
year at the feast of the Passover.” His parents being Mary and Joseph? The only person that
anyone can be sure of about Jesus’ parentage is Mary yet no where is Jesus explicitly called
son of Mary in the Bible. The Qur’an is consistent and clear on this matter. Jesus is referred
to as Al-Maseeh ‘Isa ibn Maryam or The Messiah (Christ) Jesus, son of Mary.
(Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you
the glad tidings of a Wo rd ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Isa (Jesus) the son of Maryam
(Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Isa (Jesus), the son of Maryam
(Mary), held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those
who are near to Allah." (3:45)
According to the Bible God had even more sons. The Book of Job 2:1 reads, “Again there
was a day when sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord…”. This is yet another
contradiction of the “…only begotten son…” notion of John 3:16. But wait, there is more. In
Luke, after tracing the so-called genealogy of Jesus all the way back to Adam it reads,
“…Which was the son of Enos, Which was the son of Seth, Which was the son of Adam, Which was the
son of God”(Luke 3:38).
8
So will real the real father of Jesus and the real sons of God please stand up! This is
confusing as well it should be for the average Bible reader. The problem lies in the
interpretation of lost manuscripts that have been roughly translated or mistranslated through
the ages. There is an allegorical message in these books that has been interpreted and taught
as literal. There have also been concessions made by the Early Pauline Church to make the
simple teachings of Jesus palatable to the pagans of Europe and western Asia. Throughout
ancient forms of worship there have been religions of divine offspring of a great god. These
areas of Syria, Greece, and Rome were practicing pagans who worshipped human beings
whom they thought were god incarnates. The ancient rites of Mithraism, Attis, Adonis,
Diana, Dionysus and many more all were practiced in the so called gentile lands that the
Pauline church longed to bring into their fold. These pagan religions all contained elements
of what now compose Christianity. That, however, is another topic.