اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة صديق عيدروس
ياريت تشير الى مصدر هذا الكلام يامحب ، وهو ان كلمة (ابن) معناها الواحد في الجوهر مع الاب ، حسب اللغة اليونانية ...!؟
لان التبريرات التي يسوقها علماء المسيحية للتنصل من ورطة تعاليم المسيحية التي تقول ان عيسى عليه السلام هو ( ابن الله مولود غير مخلوق ) فتبريراتهم تختلف تماما عما تذكره انت هنا ، وسوف ارفقها لك بعد ان تجيبني
اما قولك ان القران يقرر اشياء لاتقول بها المسيحية فهذا كلام غير دقيق لان القران تكلم عن عقائد المسيحيين المختلفة في المسيح مند القرن الاول ، فالي القرن الرابع كان هناك اكثر من 80 انجيل مختلفة ومتناقضة حول طبيعة المسيح ومجمل العقائد المسيحية الحالية ، وقد تم اعدامها وفرض قانون الايمان المسيحي الحالي ، ومن اشهرها انجيل بطرس وانجيل مريم المجدلية وانجيل توماس
|
عيدروس ..
بهدؤ ..
انا مراجعي ليست علي النت ولكن يتوجب عليك شراء الكتب لو انت عايز اجابه لاهوتيه بحته ..ولكن لكي اساعدك سوف انقل لك من قاموس يوناني ايضا يستخدمه طلاب اللاهوت في الكليات ..
"The Apostle John does not use huios, 'son,' of the believer, he reserves that title for the Lord; but he does use teknon, 'child,' as in his Gospel, Jhn 1:12; 1Jo 3:1, 2; Rev 21:7 (hunios) is a quotation from 2Sa 7:14.
بالاضافه ...
The Son of God
In this title the word "Son" is used sometimes
(a) of relationship, sometimes
(b) of the expression of character.
"Thus, e.g., when the disciples so addressed Him, Mat 14:33; 16:16; Jhn 1:49, when the centurion so spoke of Him, Mat 27:54, they probably meant that (b) He was a manifestation of God in human form. But in such passages as Luk 1:32, 35; Act 13:33, which refer to the humanity of the Lord Jesus, . . . the word is used in sense (a).
"The Lord Jesus Himself used the full title on occasion, Jhn 5:25; 9:35 [some mss. have 'the Son of Man'; see RV marg.]; 11:4, and on the more frequent occasions on which He spoke of Himself as 'the Son,' the words are to be understood as an abbreviation of 'the Son of God,' not of 'the Son of Man'; this latter He always expressed in full; see Luk 10:22; Jhn 5:19, etc.
"John uses both the longer and shorter forms of the title in his Gospel, see Jhn 3:16-18; 20:31, e.g., and in his Epistles; cp. Rev 2:18. So does the writer of Hebrews, Hbr 1:2; 4:14; 6:6, etc. An eternal relation subsisting between the Son and the Father in the Godhead is to be understood. That is to say, the Son of God, in His eternal relationship with the Father, is not so entitled because He at any time began to derive His being from the Father (in which case He could not be co-eternal with the Father), but because He is and ever has been the expression of what the Father is; cp. Jhn 14:9, 'he that hath seen Me hath seen the Father.' The words of Hbr 1:3, 'Who being the effulgence of His (God's) glory, and the very image of His (God's) substance' are a definition of what is meant by 'Son of God.' Thus absolute Godhead, not Godhead in a secondary or derived sense, is intended in the title." *
[* From Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 99, 100.]
Other titles of Christ as the "Son of God" are: "His Son," 1Th 1:10 (in Act 13:13, 26, RV, pais is rendered "servant"); "His own Son," Rom 8:32; "My beloved Son," Mat 3:17; "His Only Begotten Son," Jhn 3:16; "the Son of His love," Col 1:13.
"The Son is the eternal object of the Father's love, Jhn 17:24, and the sole Revealer of the Father's character, Jhn 1:14; Hbr 1:3. The words, 'Father' and 'Son,' are never in the NT so used as to suggest that the Father existed before the Son; the Prologue to the Gospel according to John distinctly asserts that the Word existed 'in the beginning,' and that this Word is the Son, Who 'became flesh and dwelt among us.'" *
[* From Notes on Thessalonians, by Hogg and Vine pp. 46, 47.]
In addressing the Father in His prayer in John 17 He says, "Thou lovedst Me before the foundation of the World." Accordingly in the timeless past the Father and the "Son" existed in that relationship, a relationship of love, as well as of absolute Deity. In this passage the "Son" gives evidence that there was no more powerful plea in the Father's estimation than that co-eternal love existing between the Father and Himself.
The declaration "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," Psa 2:7, quoted in Act 13:33; Hbr 1:5; 5:5, refers to the birth of Christ, not to His resurrection. In Act 13:33 the verb "raise up" is used of the raising up of a person to occupy a special position in the nation, as of David in Act 13:22 (so of Christ as a Prophet in Act 3:22; 7:37). The word "again" in the AV in Act 13:33 represents nothing in the original. The RV rightly omits it. In Act 13:34 the statement as to the resurrection of Christ receives the greater stress in this respect through the emphatic contrast to that in Act 13:33 as to His being raised up in the nation, a stress imparted by the added words "from the dead." Accordingly ver. 33 speaks of His incarnation, ver. 34 of His resurrection.
In Hbr 1:5, that the declaration refers to the Birth is confirmed by the contrast in verse 6. Here the word "again" is rightly placed in the RV, "when He again bringeth in the Firstborn into the world." This points on to His Second Advent, which is set in contrast to His first Advent, when God brought His Firstborn into the world the first time (see FIRSTBORN). *
[* The Western text of Luk 3:22 reads "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," instead of "Thou art My beloved Son, in Thee I am well pleased." There is probably some connection between this and those early heresies which taught that our Lord's Deity began at His Baptism.]
So again in Hbr 5:5, where the High Priesthood of Christ is shown to fulfill all that was foreshadowed in the Levitical priesthood, the passage stresses the facts of His humanity, the days of His flesh, His perfect obedience and His sufferings.
Son of Man
In the NT this is a designation of Christ, almost entirely confined to the Gospels. Elsewhere it is found in Act 7:56, the only occasion where a disciple applied it to the Lord and in Rev 1:13; 14:14 (see below).
"Son of Man" is the title Christ used of Himself; Jhn 12:34 is not an exception, for the quotation by the multitude was from His own statement. The title is found especially in the Synoptic Gospels. The occurrences in John's Gospel, Jhn 1:51; 3:13, 14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28 (Jhn 9:35 in some texts); Jhn 12:23, 34 (twice); Jhn 13:31, are not parallel to those in the Synoptic Gospels. In the latter the use of the title falls into two groups,
(a) those in which it refers to Christ's humanity, His earthly work, sufferings and death, e.g., Mat 8:20; 11:19; 12:40; 26:2,24:
(b) those which refer to His glory in resurrection and to that of His future advent, e.g., Mat 10:23; 13:41; 16:27, 28; 17:9; 24:27, 30 (twice), Mat 24:37, 39, 44.
While it is a Messianic title it is evident that the Lord applied it to Himself in a distinctive way, for it indicates more than Messiahship, even universal headship on the part of One who is Man. It therefore stresses His manhood, manhood of a unique order in comparison with all other men, for He is declared to be of heaven, 1Cr 15:47, and even while here below, was "the Son of Man, which is in Heaven," Jhn 3:13. As the "Son of Man" He must be appropriated spiritually as a condition of possessing eternal life, Jhn 6:53. In His death, as in His life, the glory of His Manhood was displayed in the absolute obedience and submission to the will of the Father (Jhn 12:23; 13:31), and, in view of this, all judgment has been committed to Him, who will judge in full understanding experimentally of human conditions, sin apart, and will exercise the judgment as sharing the nature of those judged, Jhn 5:22, 27. Not only is He man, but He is "Son of Man," not by human generation but, according to the Semitic usage of the expression, partaking of the characteristics (sin apart) of manhood belonging to the category of mankind. Twice in the Apocalypse, Rev 1:13; 14:14, He is described as "One like unto a Son of man," RV (AV," . . . the Son of Man"), cp. Dan 7:13. He who was thus seen was indeed the "Son of Man," but the absence of the article in the original serves to stress what morally characterizes Him as such. Accordingly in these passages He is revealed, not as the Person known by the title, but as the One who is qualified to act as the Judge of all men. He is the same Person as in the days of His flesh, still continuing His humanity with His Deity. The phrase "like unto" serves to distinguish Him as there seen in His glory and majesty in contrast to the days of His humiliation.
هذه اجابه شامله لسؤالك ودليل من مرجع وقاومس اسمه Vines
ابن الله لها معني محدد وهو ان الابن يسوه واحد في الجوهر مع الاب وهو ليس ولد وليس مولود بسبب علاقه جسديه نشات بين الاب وصاحبه له كما يعلم القران بالنيابه عن المسيحيه ..
كلامك الانشائي الاخر حول المسيحيه والاناجيل والخ ..سوف اتجاهله بتعمد ..ادرس بنفسك وكل شئ متاح في المسيحيه ..
لو انت عايز اسماء المرجع الذي استخدمه في دراستي اليونانيه ممكم اعطيك كتاب متخصص فقط بالكلمات في العهد الجديد وقام باعداد الدراسه
Spiros Zodhiates
وهو يوناني ..وعالم معروف في النطاق المسيحي ...
مجدي ..
عزير هذا ليس عزرا ..
واليهود لم يجعلوا عزير او شخص اخر ولد لله او ابن له ..فمن اين جاء القران بهذه الافكار عن اليهود ..
لماذا يصعب عليك الاعتراف بان القران غير دقيق وغير صحيح عندما يتحدث عن المسيحيه واليهوديه ..
اليهود حاولوا رجم يسوع لانه قال لهم بانه (ابن الله) ائ انه واحد معه في الجوهر وهذا ادعاء بانه لاهوت في الجسد فكيف يقول لنا القران بان اليهود جعلوا شخصا ابنا او ولدا لله ..
فكر في الامر وادرس بنفسك ...
