Click here for previous session
Given nonconformity in understanding, one comes to grasp the survivalbased
need of the early church to define a belief system, whether true or not. And this is exactly
what was done in 451 CE at the Council of Chalcedon, which declared the dogmatic
definition that has dominated Christology ever since: “One and the same Christ, Son,
Lord, onlybegotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without
division, without separation.”
102
Anyone who embraces the evidence of this chapter recognizes the above quote as
a statement, but not a truth. Even if the church fathers conceived the nature of Jesus to be
“without confusion,” the same cannot be said of his followers. Confusion, division and
separation have plagued the seekers of truth in Christianity since the time of Jesus.
As Johannes Lehmann points out in The Jesus Report,
So the concept of “the son of God” led to a misunderstanding
which had undreamedof consequences. Anyone with only a superficial
knowledge of the East knows that the Orientals like picturesque speech …
A simple liar is a son of lies, and anyone who can go one better becomes a
father of lies. The phrase “son of God” is on the very same level of speech
and thought.
In Semitic linguistic usage this description says nothing more than
that a bond exists between a man and God. A Jew would never even
dream of thinking that the son of God meant a genuine relationship
between a father and a son. A son of God is a blessed man, a chosen
vessel, a man who does what God wants. Any attempt to take this image
literally and so deduce the divinity of the son contradicts the facts. 103
Understanding “son of God” to be metaphorical rather than literal permits
resolution of a multitude of Christian doctrinal difficulties. In addition, recognizing “son
of God” to mean a prophet or a righteous individual, and nothing more, challenges the
Christian with the focused Qur’anic teachings. Allah specifically teaches, “the Christians
call Christ the Son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths; (in this) they but imitate
what the Unbelievers of old used to say. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded
away from the Truth!” (TMQ 9:30)
But lest a person misunderstand, the point is not that one book has it right and the
others wrong. No, not at all. The point is that all three books—Old Testament, New
Testament, and the Holy Qur’an—have it right. All three books teach the Oneness of God
and the humanity of Jesus, thereby reinforcing one another. So all three have it right. What has it wrong is not the books of scripture, but the doctrines which have been of
such illegitimate origin as to have been derived from “nonbiblical categories.”
English 