Rebuttal to Silas’s article JESUS THE "SON" OF GOD.

He Wrote

INTRODUCTION

Jesus called Himself the "Son of God" throughout the Gospels, (John 3:16-18), and the disciples also identified Him as the Son of God in their writings, (Rom 1:3).

Further, Jesus identified Himself as God revealed in the flesh, (John 8:58), and His disciples identified Him as God, (John 1:1, Phil 2:5-11). How could Jesus be The Son of God, and God at the same time? What does this term - "Son of God" mean? And if Jesus is the Son, in what way is Jesus God's Son? Did God have physical relations with Mary and get her pregnant?

My Response

Jesus and his disciples did claim he is the son of God, so did Jesus. However so, Jesus never claimed he is God, not even once. Also, the term son of God does not mean God, it never meant son of God. So hopefully Silas can tell us why his disciples explicitly stated he is the son of God, not God.

He Wrote

Many Muslims do not understand what this term, according to Christian theology, actually means. They have asked me these or similar questions. This paper focuses on what the term "Son of God" signifies in Christian theology with respect to Muslim understanding.

My Response

Hopefully you will be able to teach us then.

He Wrote

MUSLIMS AND THE SON OF GOD

Muhammad, the founder of Islam, misunderstood what the term "Son of God" meant with respect to Christianity. He thought of it only in terms of sexual reproduction, i.e. that God fathered a child through sexual intercourse with Mary. Therefore he spoke out against it.

My Response

Actually, not really, there are Quranic passages that do refer to conception of son of God as a sexual thing, while others verses refer to the term son of God in the sense that Christians mean. The Quran attacks it from both sides. Here are verses from the Quran that refer to the son of God without implying a sexual act:

005.017
YUSUFALI: In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things.

009.030
YUSUFALI: The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (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!

So the Quran does not always refer to Jesus being the son of God implying a sexual act.

He Wrote

Christians also reject that God had physical intercourse with Mary, but we understand Christ being God's Son as an analogical term. We believe that the eternal Son of God, one with the Father from all eternity, united to Him in one Spirit, "became flesh and dwelt among us" (John 1:14), and took "the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). We believe in the incarnation of the Son of God.

My Response

Well can you confidently say that there are no Christians who believe in a physical intercourse with Mary? I can tell you some Christians have interpreted the Bible to show a physical intercourse that took place.

He Wrote

Muhammad did hear the Christians proclaim Jesus the Messiah as God's Son, but understanding or not, he specifically denied that Jesus was the Son of God. He said in the Quran,

Sura 2:116 - "They say: "God has begotten a son". Glory be to Him. No, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him."

and,

Sura 9:30 - "The Christians say the Messiah is the Son of God, that is a saying from their mouths."

Muhammad was unable to distinguish between the Christian belief in Jesus as the Son of God and the Arab Pagan belief in idols as offspring of God, i.e., Al-Lat, Al-Uzza, and Manat, (these were idols worshipped around Mecca as daughters of the supreme God - or Allah). Muhammad misunderstood that Christians in no way consider Jesus - the Son of God, in the same way the Arab Pagans understood their idols.

My Response

Actually, at the end of the day you have the same belief, just slight differences. Allah the true God rejects all forms of claiming he has a son, whether threw physical intercourse, or methophorical language ascribed to him in such an issue. This is God we are talking about, not some normal man across the street who you can ascribe whatever you like to, God is above ascribing a son and children to him. In fact the Quran attacks the quraysh people for referring to their wives as their mothers:

God has heard the words of her that disputes with thee concerning her husband, and makes complaint unto God. God hears the two of you conversing together; surely God is All-hearing, All-seeing. Those of you who say, regarding their wives, 'Be as my mother's back,' they are not truly their mothers; their mothers are ONLY those who gave them birth, and they are surely saying a dishonourable saying, and a falsehood. Yet surely God is All-pardoning, All-forgiving. S. 58:1-2 Arberry

The Quran also attacks people who refer to their adopted sons as their own sons while also attacking people for referring to their wives as their mothers:

God has not assigned to any man two hearts within his breast; nor has He made your wives, when you divorce, saying, 'Be as my mother's back,' truly your mothers, neither has He made your adopted sons your sons in fact. That is your own saying, the words of your mouths; but God speaks the truth, and guides on the way. Call them after their true fathers; that is more equitable in the sight of God. If you know not who their fathers were, then they are your brothers in religion, and your clients. There is no fault in you if you make mistakes, but only in what your hearts premeditate. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. S. 33:4-5 Arberry

So as you can see, the Quran attacks such analogical language towards people’s wives and their adopted sons. So if Allah doesn’t allow such analogical language to be spoken to people’s wives or adopted sons, do you think he will allow you to use such analogical terms towards him? Such as calling yourselves the son of God, offcourse he will not accept such things, as the Quran says, these are your own inventions.

If Allah attacked people for referring to their adopted sons as their real sons, you think he will allow you to call yourself the son of God? Offcourse not!

He Wrote

Because of Muhammad's misunderstanding, Islam places limits on God's power. In view of this, a Christian writer commented that "to assert that God has no Son because He has no wife is like saying that God is not living because He does not draw breath." Daniel, "Islam and the West, p.182.

My Response

Actually, it is you who places limits on God. You claim Jesus is God, however so when we read the Bible we find that:

A- He is not all-knowing

B- He doesn’t own anything, he is given everything he has

C- He doesn’t teach or say anything of his own, he hears from the Father and speaks

D- He cannot save himself, he asked the Father to save him, therefore Jesus does not control life nor death

So as we can see, it is your God who is limited, and it is you who limits God not us. We respect God and do not ascribe such rubbish to his name.

He Wrote

WHAT THE TERM "SON OF GOD" SIGNIFIES

The expression "Son of God", is an analogical term. It indicates origin, a close association, or identification. In Christian theology it describes the relationship of two persons of the triune God. It expresses an intimate relationship between two persons: God the Father, and God the Son - Jesus the Messiah.

My Response

The son of God describes the relationship of the persons of the triune God? I suggest you go learn a bit before you want to spread your lies around, maybe you could fool your own Christian readers, but not us Muslims. The term son of God has nothing to do with being God, the term son of God existed long before Jesus, in fact the NT also calls people the children of God, so you are very wrong. Since it seems you have no idea what the son of God means, I will help you out:

THE MEANING OF THE SON OF GOD

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son%5Fof%5FGod

In the Tanakh

In the Tanakh, the phrase "sons of god" has multiple meanings:

The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "The Sons of God", describes angels, demigods or immensely powerful human beings. See Genesis 6:2-4. Many Bible scholars believe that this is a reference to pre-Biblical near-eastern mythology.

It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28).

The phrases "sons of God" and "children of God" are applied to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1), the Jewish people, and also to all members of the human race.

In the Tanakh the term does not connote any form of physical descent from, or essential unity with, God. The Hebrew idiom conveys an expression of godlikeness (see Godliness).

In Judaism the term "son of God" is rarely used in the sense of "messiah."

Taken from http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=son+of+God

son of God

One entry found for son of God.

Main Entry: son of God
1 often capitalized S : a superhuman or divine being (as an angel)
2 capitalized S : MESSIAH 1
3 : a person established in the love of God by divine promise

So note, the term son of God does not mean God. As you can see, Jews had already been using this term, and they never took it to mean God now did they?

Secondly, Jesus was sent to these very same Jews, so hence when Jesus called himself the son of God, he was defintly referring to the same definition the Jews had, which is that the son of God does not mean God, and that it just means someone special or someone in power.

So I suggest Silas does not try to lie next time like he just did, he tried to pull a trick on the readers but clearly failed. Silas as a Christian believes Jesus has a special relation ship with the Father, however so the definition of the term son of God has nothing to do with that. We are not asking what the son of God’s relationship was, we are asking what the term son of God means. Silas has just told us what the son’s relationship is, not what it means to be the son of God.

He Wrote

Here are several scriptures illustrating this facet of their relationship:

John 17:5 - "And now Father, glorify me in Your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

Here Jesus stated that He was with the Father before the world began.

Colossians 1:13-20 "For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead so that in everything He might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him and through him to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

Here, we see the term "Son of God", brought to light: "the image of the invisible God".

Hebrews 1:1-3 "In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son whom He appointed heir of all things and through whom He made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being, sustaining all things by His powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven."

Again, we see the relationship between the Father and the Son disclosed, "the exact representation of His being".

John 1:1-3, 10, 14, 18 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him, nothing was made that has been made......(10) He was in the world and though the world was made through Him, the world did not recognize Him....(14) The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father full of grace and truth......(18) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side has made Him known."

John 14:8, 10 "Don't you know me Phillip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me?"

Jesus plainly told Phillip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father".

From these verses we see that in Christ, the invisible God is revealed. Jesus was with the Father before the world began. Christ, as God the Son, is the Creator of all things. God in all His fullness, dwelt in Christ, reconciling the world. We see that Christ, as the Son of God - God's representation, is God manifest and revealed to the world. Angels, prophets, and things can reveal to us something about God. But God alone can reveal God. It takes God to reveal Himself to mankind. What better way for the eternal revealer to be revealed to mankind on earth than by clothing His self-expresion in human form?

My Response

So basically you cannot answer what the term son of God means. All Silas can do is talk about the relation ship between the son of God and God, that is a totally different case, and everyone knows this.

As for what Silas said concerning:

Jesus plainly told Phillip, "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father".

This doesn’t mean much, all this means is that if you see Jesus you see the Father meaning you see God’s power and so on. The reason being is because all the miracles Jesus performed were given by the Father, so hence you were looking at a greater being who was helping Jesus out, as Jesus himself stated:

Jhn 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.

Jhn 13:3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

John 17:6-8: 6 I have manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me out of the world: thine they were, and thou gavest them me; and they have kept thy word. 7 Now they have known that all things whatsoever thou hast given me are of thee. 8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me

So as you can see, the Father gave Jesus everything, and Jesus himself stated that he who believes in Jesus believes in the one who sent him which is God. So you put it together, and you see that when Jesus said that when you see him you see the Father, this wasn’t literal and Jesus was not claiming to be God at all. You see the power of God when you see Jesus since he is his prophet, the same with all other prophets. The Father gave Jesus EVERYTHING so hence when you saw a miracle from Jesus, you saw a work from the Father, not Jesus, the Father just gave Jesus the miracle to perform, Jesus did not own it.

As for John 1:1, the translation should actually read that the word was a god, not GOD.

As for Colossians and Hebrews, these are the words of Paul, a man we cannot trust at all:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/problem_of_paul.htm

Also there are a few problems with the verses Silas posted:

How were all things created through or by Jesus when Jesus couldn’t create anything of his own while on earth? Does anyone else see the problem with that? How were all things created for Jesus when Jesus is a servant to another person? So these are just a few inconsistencies that come up.

The same with the other verse:

How is Jesus the EXACT representation of the Father when Jesus is given everything and the Father isn’t? How is Jesus exact representation of God when Jesus is not all knowing and God is? Does anyone else see a problem with that? If Jesus is the exact representative of God, then this means the Christian god is not all knowing since Jesus was not all knowing!

Also why does Jesus sit at the right hand of God? Usually people who sit beside the right hand of God are men of honor and prophets, why doesn’t Jesus sit on the same throne of God? Why on the right hand of God? The right hand of God represents and honorable position indeed, but it is an honorable position that is given to men and prophets, you would think Jesus who is God, would sit on the same throne as his Father, who is also God.

He Wrote

JESUS AS THE WORD OF GOD

Muslims believe that the Quran - their Word of God - is eternal. The Quran also calls Jesus the Word of God. Since Muslims believe that the Quran is eternal, yet is able to enter into the limitations of time and space, and become available in book form, could not Jesus as the Word of God, be made manifest in human form? If on earth, Muslims believe that the uncreated Word of God - i.e., the Quran - is found as a book making it both uncreated and created, then cannot the uncreated Word of God be revealed as a human, if God willed it? That God has willed this is revealed in the testimony of the Gospels - God's eternal self-expression, His Word, His Son, has entered human form as Jesus the Messiah.

My Response

No, God cannot do that, in fact your own book testifies to that:

Num 23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Malachi 3:6: For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

So your own Bible says no he cannot do that. Now before you attack a straw man, I am not using those verses to show that God cannot become a man, because I agree with you, those verses do not say God cannot become a man.

However so, the verses do say that God is not LIKE a man, basically what that means is that God does not share the same characteristics as us humans do in general. So those verses basically establish that God is not LIKE a man, that he is different than us, in the way he acts and does things.

However so, if Jesus limited himself and so on, then this mean he became LIKE a man, he became exactly like all us humans, he ate, he slept, he cried, and finally he died. This totally contradicts the OT as it says God is not LIKE a man, meaning God does not eat, does not sleep, nor does he die. The fact That Jesus became LIKE a man ( not became a man), proves he cannot be God since the God is not LIKE a man and never will, he is above that.

He Wrote

God the Father and God the Son are both God, but they are different persons. They are equal in essence, indeed of one essence, yet one is subject to the other's authority. The human analogy goes no further than this - an earthly father and his son are both human to the full, yet the second must bow to the authority of the first. Jesus is subject to the Father's authority. When He came to earth He came as the Father's ambassador to redeem men from sin and, being found in human form, took His subjection to the Father's authority to the point of a son to a father's relationship.

As the Son of God, Christ, the second person of the Trinity, possesses the same essence as the Father, yet is subject to the Father as an earthly son is subject to his father. Jesus is not the Son of God because of His mighty works and miracles, but He did those works because He is the Son of God.

The prime duty of a son is to honor and obey his father, to serve him freely and fully. The ideas of being a servant and a son are found throughout the Bible. Jesus as God the Son, served God the Father not out of compulsion but because of His unity with the Father, served out of love.

My Response

Well we are not asking what the son’s mission is, nor are we asking what the son’s relationship with God is. We are asking what does it mean to be called THE SON OF GOD. Here is what it means again:

THE MEANING OF THE SON OF GOD

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Son%5Fof%5FGod

In the Tanakh

In the Tanakh, the phrase "sons of god" has multiple meanings:

The Hebrew phrase Benei Elohim, often translated as "The Sons of God", describes angels, demigods or immensely powerful human beings. See Genesis 6:2-4. Many Bible scholars believe that this is a reference to pre-Biblical near-eastern mythology.

It is used to denote a human judge or ruler (Ps. lxxxii. 6, "children of the Most High"; in many passages "gods" and "judges" seem to be equations); and to the real or ideal king over Israel (II Sam. vii. 14, with reference to David and his dynasty; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 27, 28).

The phrases "sons of God" and "children of God" are applied to Israel as a people (comp. Ex. iv. 22 and Hos. xi. 1), the Jewish people, and also to all members of the human race.

In the Tanakh the term does not connote any form of physical descent from, or essential unity with, God. The Hebrew idiom conveys an expression of godlikeness (see Godliness).

In Judaism the term "son of God" is rarely used in the sense of "messiah."

So many others were called sons of God in the Bible, this term is not specifically used for Jesus. As can see, the term son of God does not mean God.

Silas may object and say this is according to judaism and Jews, however so Jesus was a jew according to the NT, and he was a rabbi, and he was sent to the Jews who had this belief. This all means he also had the same belief as them, if he did not then we have grounds to argue he was a rebel who went against the system, something Silas doesn’t want. Now I am only reffering to the NT here. I am only bringing forth the problems that could result for Jesus because of the NT.

The Quran makes no trouble for Jesus since it speaks the truth on him.

He Wrote

MUSLIM ARGUMENTS AGAINST JESUS BEING THE SON OF GOD

Muslims frequently ask that if Jesus were really God's Son, or God in the flesh, why didn't Jesus know the date of the hour of judgment? Ref. Matthew 24:36.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only."

Or if Jesus were God in the flesh, why did He say,

"The Son can don nothing of his own accord but only what the sees the Father doing,.....The Father is greater than I,.... I can do nothing on my own authority." John 5:19, 14:28, 5:30.

Muslims will ask rhetorical questions such as, "Wouldn't God know the last hour of Judgment?" Or, "If Jesus were God, why did He say, "the Father is greater than I"?"

The answer lies in what Christ's Sonship on earth entails. The passage that best addresses it is Philippians 2:5-8. "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man He humbled Himself and became obedient unto death, even the death on the cross."

Here Christ emptied Himself. The Sonship of Christ is revealed in this: He was revealed as God in the flesh, and yet submitted to God the Father. He was limited as a man, and He glorified God the Father. The analogical term "Son" best describes Christ's relationship with God the Father.

My Response

Actually, WRONG. It seems you cannot even read your own Bible carefully, let us read the passage again:

32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh: 33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors. 34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled. 35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. 36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only

Note, Jesus says that ONLY the Father knows meaning no one else. This also includes the Holy Spirit since the Holy Spirit is not the Father according to Silas! Secondly this also refers to the divine Jesus, Jesus says ONLY the Father, and this means nobody else, so logically this includes the divine Jesus. If you say ONLY this person knows, then this means no one else. So as we see, even the divine Jesus does not know the last hour, therefore Jesus is not God.

Also Silas caused further problems when he said:

If Jesus did really do that then he cannot be God, his own Bible says so:

Num 23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Malachi 3:6: For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

His own Bible says God is not LIKE a man, so Jesus emptying himself and becoming like a man proves he is not God. Now again, I am not saying God cannot become a man, I am saying his Bible says God is not LIKE a man characteristic wise. Jesus could have become a man, but if he did, he would have to come as super man. J

So Silas seems to help further prove Jesus is not God rather than prove Jesus is God. So thank you Silas.

He Wrote

Christ's exalted relationship is even seen in the very verse Muslims choose to attack His Sonship... In Mark 13:32 Christ says, "But of that day and hour knows no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Here, Jesus places Himself above men, and above the angels. Jesus describes Himself alone in a category in relation to God.

My Response

Actually, Jesus places himself on the same level as man and angels, just like man and angels don’t know the last hour, neither does Jesus.

Secondly, your argument is just an assumption.

He Wrote

Likewise, Christ when saying that He does nothing of His own accord, states that "whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise." Christ establishes His Sonship and puts Himself in perfect harmony with God. Even Muhammad is declared in the Quran as a sinner in Sura 48:2, but Christ walked in perfect harmony with the Father.

As Muhammad failed to understand what "Son of God" signified, so today, many Muslims continue to misunderstand. The term "Son of God" does not mean that God had intercourse with Mary, or created sons for Himself, but that Jesus, as God, is the image of God, made manifest to men. As Muslims believe that the Quran is eternal, uncreated, and is the Word of God found in physical book form, they should be able to understand that Jesus is eternal, uncreated, and is the Living Word of God in physical living form.

My Response

Yes, the prophet Muhammad is a man, so there no sin on him sinning here and there.

As for Muslims being confused about the son of God, I think you are the confused one as you never told us what it means; I had to do your homework for you.

He Wrote

CONCLUSION

Jesus manifested his eternal abiding glory to John - as opposed to the veiled form of a humble servant he had while he walked this earth - while John was imprisoned on the isle of Patmos, revealing himself as what he truly was and will forever be, God Almighty -

Revelations 1:8 "I am the Alpha and the Omega, says the Lord God, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.

Revelations 22:13, 16. "I am the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.".....(16) I Jesus have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches.

Jesus is the Son of God. This means that He is God, revealed to man. The term "Son of God" is an analogy, describing the relationship between two persons of God. Christ is the image of God to mankind. God - omnipotent, revealed Himself to mankind, in Christ.

Jesus is Lord. Amen, come Lord Jesus.

son2.htm
Rev A: 11-4-98

My Response

Jesus never said he is the alpha and omega, that is bad reading on your part.

https://www.answering-christianity.com/rebuttaltosamshamoun24.htm

If Jesus is the son of God which makes him God, then so is David, and so are the people who are called children of God in the NT. So Silas has now shown us he believes in hundreds of Gods, not just three. Secondly Silas bring no proof that the term son of God means God. He is just giving his desires.

Jesus is not lord, Ameen, Jesus is a prophet of Islam. Ameen

I end this rebuttal with the Noble Quran:

004.171
YUSUFALI: O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

004.172
YUSUFALI: Christ disdaineth nor to serve and worship Allah, nor do the angels, those nearest (to Allah): those who disdain His worship and are arrogant,-He will gather them all together unto Himself to (answer).

019.035
YUSUFALI: It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.