sardab wrote:You always leave me perplexed! I have no wish to continue this debate. Just one final note: 6.101 has nothing that would mean "Christians believe God has a son through a relationship," which was the point.
To the contrary it says, "you say God has a son, how would that be possible when He even has no consort. You would have to believe in a consort too". OR "You say God has a son without a relationship, but if He has a son of the same essence then why not He also have a consort of the same essence. That would be more applicable to the idea of having a son." I'm perplexed with the reach of your mind.
Why would God need a consort in order to have a son? Didn't Mary have a son without the need for a consort?