Page 145 - Prophet Jesus (Pbuh): A Prophet Not A Son, Of God
P. 145

HARUN YAHYA                     143


            Christology, Maurice Casey offers the following interpretations:
                 In John, Jesus uses terms of this kind [the son of God] no less than 23
                 times, in public debate as well as in private teaching. Mark however
                 attributes such a term to Jesus no more than once … If the historical
                 Jesus had used this key term extensively as John says he did, the
                 faithful Christians who transmitted the synoptic tradition would
                 have transmitted it extensively… If "the Son" had been the main term
                 which the historical Jesus used to express his divinity, the earliest apostles
                 were bound to have used it too, and it would have been transmitted to Luke
                 who would not have had reason to leave it out. 42
                 Casey examines why some of the expressions in John, and which
            form the basis of trinitarian belief, are not found in the Synoptic Gospels.

            He concludes that if the claim that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) is the son of God,
            and the belief in the trinity based on that, actually represents the basis of
            true Christianity, then there should be far more evidence of this in
            Prophet Jesus' (pbuh) words and message. Yet it is impossible to find the
            bases of trinitarian belief in the Synoptic Gospels. On the contrary, the
            term the son of Man is used so often in both John and the Synoptic
            Gospels that it seems that Prophet Jesus (pbuh) may well have employed
            it himself. (God knows best.) Biblical scholars who state that the son of

            God was never used by Prophet Jesus (pbuh) think the exact opposite
            about the son of Man.
                 Another noteworthy aspect of the Gospel of John is its relationship
            to Greek philosophy. Biblical scholar James Still says this in his important
            paper "The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus":
                 John was written for the Greek Christian of the beginning of the sec-
                 ond century. These recent converts were more educated, wealthy,
                 and despised the Diaspora Jews who resided in their cities and who
                 enjoyed the respect of Rome. John removes the offensive references to
                 Jesus as a Jewish Messiah that are particular to the earlier gospels ... In so
                 doing, John creates a simulacrum that is barely human. The earlier
   140   141   142   143   144   145   146   147   148   149   150