Our learned friend R H Kelkar, who has translated New Testament into Marathi, a language in South India, has made following observations in his write-up titled “The Meaning of ‘Nava Karar “which could be viewed in entirety at :
We only give here only one point mentioned by him:
The New Testament or ‘Nava Karar’ portrays God as a loving and forgiving father, who sent His son Jesus Christ to this world in human form with an offer of salvation for all humanity.
The above point is not correctly derived by him from the OTBible; and hence it is not supported by Quran- the pristine and most secure Revealed Book among the Revealed Religions and hence incorrect. God is not a physical being; He has rather created the whole physical phenomenon as He willed. Nobody shares this or other of his attributes. Hence God is nobody’s physical or literal father.
God is father of the humans in a metaphoric sense, nothing could get created without his order/will; and this is the theme of the OTBible. God has no literal wife or He needs no sex that his off-shoots are called Sons of God. This is only in the metaphoric sense otherwise it does not carry any meaning literally and physically. GodAllahYHWH needs no wife or son; this is only a phenomenon of the mortal beings and a sort of extension of life given by the Creator to one’s species. GodAllahYHWH is immortal. Quran is very clear in this aspect:
[112:1] In the name of Allah, the Gracious, the Merciful.
[112:2] Say ‘He is Allah, the One!
[112:3] Allah the Independent and Besought of all.
[112:4] ‘He begets not, nor, is He begotten,
[112:5] And there is none like unto Him.
We can agree with R H Kelkar if he reconciles to the above explanation.
Jesus did not pay any debt of any human beings as maintained by R H Kelkar. Jesus never died a cursed death on Cross as incorrectly invented by Paul at Rome to misguide the Christian sheep. Jesus was not a scapegoat of Paul and his associated i.e., the Catholic Church.
If anybody has any debt, he shall have to pay it himself. When Paul propounded this philosophy, Jesus was at that time traveling in India, happily among his Jewish lost sheep of which he was also a shepherd. He was never a shepherd of the Gentiles; this is a concept wrongly ascribed to Jesus; this debt Paul shall have to pay for.
Son of God
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life. JOHN 3.16
A DESCRIPTIVE TERM:
And they made a proclamation in Judah and Jerusalem unto all the children of captivity. EZRA 10.7
Then said he, These are the two sons of oil, that stand by the Lord of the whole earth. ZECHARIA 4.14
Behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial [satin], beset the house round about. JUDGES 19.22
The good seed are the children of the kingdom. MATTHEW 13.38
JESUS NOT THE FIRST BORN SON:
Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan was among them. JOB 1.6 & 2:1
When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy. JOB 38.7
CHILDREN OF RIGHTEOUS:
That the sons of god saw the daughters of men that they were fair. GENESIS 6.2
And thou shalt say to Pharaoh. Thus said the Lord, Israel is my son, even my first born. EXODUS 4.22
And I say unto thee, Let my son go, that he may serve me. EXODUS 4.23
You are the children of the Lord, your God. DEUTERONOMY 14.1
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea. Ye are the sons of the living God. HOSEA 1.10
Ahmadiyya under guidance of the PromisedMessiah 1835-1908 Says:
• The Term “Son of God”
While the term “Son of God” has been used in reference to Jesus, it should be noted that God has used this title for many of His chosen ones.
For example, God, in the Old Testament refers to David: “I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: He said to me, ‘You are my Son; today I have begotten you’” * (Psalm 2:7)
Furthermore, in a New Testament genealogy, Adam is listed as the “Son of God” (Luke 3.38).
In fact, some may argue that Adam could have a greater claim over the “Sonship of God” because, unlike Jesus, he had neither an earthly father nor mother.
In order to reconcile these references and many others, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that the Biblical usage of the term “Son of God” does not necessarily connote a literal “sonship to God” but a metaphorical one instead.
The Nature of Jesus
This metaphorical understanding is furthered by Jesus’ own words and actions. Jesus is known to have engaged in many human devotional activities such as fasting and praying. But perhaps the most significant evidence is that Jesus claimed to lack knowledge of the future because, as he claimed, only the Father possessed perfect knowledge. (Mark 13:32).
This is especially notable since Christian doctrine holds the view that Jesus’ nature is a “hypostatic union”. That is, he was “fully divine” and “fully man” at the same time. If this were true, then he should have at no point denied his own omniscience.
These, in addition to other philosophical considerations, lead one to question the biblical term “Son of God” and its literal application to Jesus.
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim