Refutation: If Yahweh alone is the Creator, and Jesus a servant sent by him, how can Jesus be God?


بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Question:

Isaiah 44:24 says that Yahweh was alone when he created the heavens and the earth. Matthew 12:18 quotes Isaiah 42:1 which says that Yahweh will send his servant, who is Jesus. Now if Yahweh was the one true God (Exodus 20:2-3) who alone created the heavens and the earth and he was the one who was to send his servant (Jesus), then that means that Jesus is not Yahweh. Why then do Christians contradict what their own Bible teaches?

Answer:

Shamoun’s response is quite muddled. If you were to read this response, as well as this one, I have demonstrated that his response to all of the questions of this form are presented logically as such:

  1. Claim that the person asking the question does not understand the nature of God.
  2. Claim that God can only exist in a multi-personal form.
  3. Does not prove that God is multi-personal.
  4. Since God is multi-personal, the questioner is wrong.
  5. The answer is that God does have X attribute(s) because questioner is wrong and God is multi-personal.

To get to the crux of this current response, he says two important statements:

The Holy Bible clearly teaches that Yahweh used his Spirit, his Power, his Word and his very Wisdom to create all things

The NT states that Jesus is God’s Word, Wisdom and Power

In doing this, he is attempting to equate Christ Jesus with YHWH, yet this is known as the fallacy of false equivocation. It can be demonstrated as such:

  1. Tom is a man.
  2. Paul is a man.
  3. Tom is Paul.

This is inherently, a logical fallacy – he should try to study a bit of logic. In continuing we read:

This is why the NT authors could speak of Christ in such highly exalted terms without compromising monotheism. The Judaism of Jesus’ day knew that God’s Word, Wisdom and Power were not separate beings but intrinsic aspects of God’s very own Being. Thus, for the NT to describe Jesus as God’s eternal Word, Wisdom and Power meant that Christ was intrinsic to the very identity of the one true God. In other words, Jesus isn’t someone who is other than God, but one who is fully God in essence.

Besides using the faulty logic above, we can even prove from the New Testament, that Christ himself cannot be a God, or that Christ’s wisdom, and power cannot be considered Godly. Our argument is therefore presented as such:

  1. YHWH is omniscient.
  2. Christ is not omniscient (Matthew 24:36, Mark 13:32 –  But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father).
  3. Christ is therefore not YHWH.

If Christ was God, or the God known as YHWH, then he (Christ), must be all knowing, for if God is ignorant, then God is not all knowing and thus not God. In response to the argument that Christ is the ‘arm of the Lord’ and therefore YHWH himself, we must identify what the ‘arm of the Lord’ is, Shamoun says:

“By calling the Servant the Arm of Yahweh, Isaiah indicates that the Servant isn’t only a human being but is also an intrinsic part of God’s very own eternal Being!”

This logic is faulty as Moses and Aaron are also referred to as the ‘arm of the Lord’:

“So the LORD brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm, with great terror and with signs and wonders.” – Deuteronomy 26:8.

“Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the LORD your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.” –  Deuteronomy 5:15.

So unless Jesus + Moses + Aaron are also Gods, then Shamoun has essentially manipulated his own scripture and debunked his own religion as one which is/ was monotheistic. In another great example of the fallacy of false equivocation, Shamoun writes:

The fact that the Servant is exalted to a status that belongs to Yahweh alone provides further evidence of him being an extension, a manifestation, of Yahweh himself. Note how this plays out logically:

Yahweh alone is exalted and lifted on high.
The Servant is exalted and lifted on high.
Therefore, the Servant is Yahweh God.

YHWH who alone is God, is exalted in His nature of being a deity, whereas the servant of God, would also be exalted and lifted on high in his nature of being a servant of God. In simple terms, if I praise a car for its performance and praise a truck for its performance, according to Sam’s logic, the car is the truck, whereas I am saying, I am praising either or, as separate entities according to their independent and respective natures.

Shamoun therefore has been completely demolished and his arguments refuted en toto.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

28 comments

  • Hi Ijaz
    Please answer these questions for me as it obvious you guys think a certain way so here it goes.

    Gen 18:1    And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;
    Gen 18:2    And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,
    Gen 18:3    And said, My Lord, if now I have found favour in thy sight, pass not away, I pray thee, from thy servant:
    Gen 18:4    Let a little water, I pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree:

    Did YHWH appear to Abraham as a man or not?

    And if so is he still in heaven or everywhere depending on how you want to answer.

    Please answer the question as we look at this verse who is the talking about?
    It says that YHWH is speaking with Abraham.
    It also says the brimstone was YHWH in heaven.

    Gen 19:24 📝 Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;
    Gen 19:25    And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

    Please don’t come with the silly answers Ibn Anwar tried to bring to me.

    This is what I sent as my response.

    look at the Jewish Targums, which were interpretive translations in Aramaic of the Hebrew Old Testament, because the Targumin treats God’s word (Aramaic=Memra) as an actual hypostasis distinct from God

    And they heard the voice of the Memra of the Lord God walking in the garden in the evening of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before the Lord God among the trees of the garden. (Targum Onkelos, Genesis 3)

    And the Memra of the Lord God called to Adam, and said to him, Behold, the world which I have created is manifest before Me; and how thinkest thou that the place in the midst whereof thou art, is not revealed before Me? Where is the commandment which I taught thee? (Fragmentary Targum, Genesis 3)

    And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, “If the Memra of YHWH will be my support, and will keep me in the way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again to my father’s house in peace; then shall the Memra of YHWH be my God. (Targum Neofiti, Genesis 28)

    Lets look at Genesis 19:24

    In the Targum of Onkelos it says the following, which accentuates the distinction in its own way:

    “And the Lord rained upon Sedom and upon Amorah sulphur and fire from before the Lord from the heavens, and destroyed those cities and all the plain, and all the dwellers in the cities and the herbage of the earth.”

    Other Targums make the same point by speaking of the first person called Yahweh as “the Word of the Lord” and the second person simply as “the Lord”:

    And the Memra of the Lord had caused showers of favour to descend upon Sedom and Amorah, to the intent that they might work repentance, but they did it not: so that they said, Wickedness is not manifest before the Lord. Behold, then, there are now sent down upon them sulphur and fire from before the Word of the Lord from Heaven. And He overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and the herbage of the earth. (Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, Genesis 19)

  • Hi DC,

    The appearance is known as Mal’ach YHWH who speaks in first person as it is a Shaliah of YHWH, which is what ‘mal’ach’ equivocates to.

    Thanks for your question.

  • Hi Ijaz
    Stop playing games we are not talking about angels or messengers we are talking about YHWH it was YHWH that appeared to Abraham and he rained down the brimstone from YHWH in heaven.

    Let me make myself a little clearer we are not talking about the angels that accompanied YHWH.

    Lets start again…did YHWH appear as a man to Abraham yes or no.

  • Pingback: Refutation: How can Jesus be God when he will be in eternal subjection? | Calling Christians

  • Hi DC,

    The arm of the Lord as you would see refers to humans (in the above article) and also refers to the Mal’ach YHWH (see my articles on this) as well.

    So yes, I have answered the question. YHWH himself did not come to earth, for no man at anytime has ever seen God, or beheld His true nature, rather He is represented by the Mal’ach of YHWH who is Mal’ach YHWH.

    This is known as Shaliah and is a Judaic concept unknown to Christianity as Christendom generally ignores the Judaic context and subtext of the Judaic religion/ scripture.

    Thanks for your comment.

  • Hi Ijaz
    The text plainly says YHWH appeared…not an angel or messenger of God which is what Mal’ach means you are playing games with the text.

  • Hi Ijaz
    I think the problem with some of you guys is you think Christians don’t know anything.

    I have already mentioned to you that the text is NOT speaking about messengers when it mentioned YHWH.

    Then you say Shaliah is a Jewish concept unknown to Christianity…how do you know that?

    Shaliah is Aramaic this word is the equivalent to the Greek word Apostolos which is where we get the word Apostle.

    In 1st century when you spoke about Shaliah you would be talking a member of the Sanhedrin.

    So we are not talking about a messenger.

  • Hi DC,

    I reiterate that you should read my article(s) on Mal’ach YHWH. For a moment, forget Christian Theology, in Judaism God is Unseen, thus when He is ‘seen’ in their texts, it contravenes His nature, therefore what is ‘seen’ is a Shaliah as in what we saw in the Burning Bush, similarly, when a person speaks as YHWH, they are also a Shaliah and as the Old Testament teaches, YHWH Himself has a dedicated Shaliah known as the Mal’ach YHWH.

    I hope I’ve expressed myself clearly, and again, thank you for your insightful comments.

  • Hi , DC

    Regarding your doubt on Genesis 18 , Ijaz has answered it rightly : the appearance of 3 men in that passage is not God himself . In Judaism it is called Shaliah , i.e the agent of God is speaking on behalf of God . The agent will speak the direct words of God in 1st person as if God himself is speaking .

    Scholar Gerhard von Rad say :

    “In the narrative ch. 18.1-16 the notion that Yahweh appeared with two messengers is not the only one possible; it is not even the most likely. That the three men accepted the invitation together, if we were to think of the two as only a guard of honor to Yahweh, would be just as strange as their common question about Sarah (v.9). One is therefore rather inclined to think that Yahweh appeared in all three…”

    He continues:

    “The interpretation given by the early church that the trinity of visitors is a reference to the Trinity has been universally abandoned by recent exegesis.”

    Protestant minister and scholar Walter Brueggemann (In ‘Genesis’) writes: “There is no need either to harmonize the two versions or to divide into sources or to seek a Christian statement of the Trinity here. The story is an unreflective account of a revelatory disclosure. That is enough.”

    In the ‘International Standard Bible Encyclopedia,’ he writes:

    “These three men had “appeared” to Abraham as a “sign” of the appearance or presence of the Lord. Even though they conveyed His Word, they were certainly not the Lord Himself.”

  • The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion on ‘ shaliah ‘ :

    ” Agent (Heb. Shaliah): The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself” (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability on the part of the agent. “

  • Defendchrist, you do realize that trying to demonstrate that YHWH appeared in the form of a man is completely irrelevant, right? Appearing in the FORM of a man, and INCARNATING into a man are completely different categories of things, you clearly have not been acquainted with even basic christian theology.

  • Hi Ali Hussain
    Can you find for me in my response where I said the three men were YHWH? That’s not what I said and secondly the text says YHWH it doesn’t say the Angel or messenger of The Lord.

    Gen 18:13    And the LORD said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old?

    This says YHWH said unto Abraham not someone else.

    Gen 18:22    And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD.

    Who is Abraham standing in front of?

    You can quote from whatever book you want because it wont change what the bible says.

  • Hi semsav12
    I think i know the difference between an appearance in a form and incarnation.

    Where did you see me mention that they were the same.

    And now that you mention it what does John 1:14 mean?
    Who came in the flesh? What human has ever been born without a father?

    Jesus was born of a virgin how do you explain that?

    The bible says the word was with God and was God the same was with God in the beginning.

    This same Word that was with God and is God verse 14 says became flesh.

  • So you wasting Ijaz’s time for no reason at all? What point were you annoying Ijaz then, seriously.

    What Human has ever been born without a Father? Adam was without Father And mother, what possible point are you trying to make.

    Adam was created by God, Jesus created by God, not much explanation necessary.

    Regarding John 1:1

    Well let’s get some trinitarian scholars on board shall we!

    “The predicate [theos) stands emphatically first, as in v.24. It is necessarily without the article (theos not ho theos) inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person… No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.”
    (B.F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Eerdmans, 1958 reprint, p. 3.)

    “Perhaps the clause could be translated, ‘the Word had the same nature as God.” This would be one way of representing John’s thought, which is, as I understand it, that ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.”
    (Philip B. Harner, Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1,” Journal
    of Biblical Literature, 92, 1, March 1973, p. 87.)

    So there are scholarly disputes regarding the missing definite article in the second theos, as well as if the Word should be described as an “it’ or a “he”

    Most scholarship considers the four Gospels anonymous, hell, some consider John to be composed by several different authors, I’m not sure how this is of any real re valence to a muslim.

    Could you explain this DC?
    Malachi 3:6 “”I the Lord do not change.”

    Number 23:19 “God is not a Man”

    Acts 2:22 “Jesus of Nazareth, a man”

  • Hi semsav12

    The reason why Adam doesn’t have a dad is because he WAS the FIRST person.

    The point I was trying to make about the WORD coming into the world without a father, is WHY was he born in that way what was the purpose.

    According to John 1:1 the word was not created but always was and the name given to the WORD who BECAME flesh is JESUS.

    There is nothing in this text about the WORD being CREATED it says the word that ALREADY existed BECAME flesh and dwelt among.

    You think about quoting scholars that somehow you are correct or proves your point. I can quote many scholars that agree with me.

    You Muslims have had since the 10th century to prove your case that the Christians are wrong and you are no nearer than you guys first started.

    Through your desperation you run to people like Bart Erhman who as good as he there are guys out there that have gone toe to toe with him men like Dr Dan Wallace.

    1Co 1:26    For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
    1Co 1:27    But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    1Co 1:28    And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    1Co 1:29    That no flesh should glory in his presence.

    Do you know what is happening in this scripture?

    There is something in Christianity called REVELATION this is something that the apostles which why they confounded the great scholars and teachers of the day.

    Then you quote scriptures like somehow I am going to be afraid to answer you.

    Mal 3:6    For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
    What does God mean?

    The first thing you did wrong was quote half of the verse, and we also have to look at the context of the scripture…what’s actually happening here?

    This is speaking about God’s covenant with his people and the fact that he has not changed towards and that he is still a God of judgement.

    In the previous verses he is talking about sins of the people and judgement verse 5

    If you think this talking about anything let know but the important thing here is covenant…sons of Jacob.

    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?
    Num 23:20    Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.

    Here again you mention a small part of a verse and try to make it what you want it to say.

    The previous verses are dealing with Balak trying to get Balaam to curse the people of Israel and the verse you quote is God sending Balaam back to Barak with a parable.

    The point…God will always keep his word and carry through what he said he would do. Which is something man is not very good at, we break our word sometimes without thinking.

    Act 2:22    Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

    What about it? We believe Jesus to be fully God and fully God that’s the miracle please note…

    Act 17:31    Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.

    Act 10:42    And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.

    Joh 5:27    And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.
    Joh 5:28    Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    Joh 5:29    And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

    This same Jesus the man is the very same one whose voice will raise YOU from the dead.

  • Hi semsav12
    This is what you said to earlier…
    Appearing in the FORM of a man, and INCARNATING into a man are completely different categories of things, you clearly have not been acquainted with even basic christian theology.

    your pride is showing for you say I don’t even understand basic Christianity theology is quite sad you don’t even know me.

    I will see how you cope with my last response.

  • Hi Semsav12
    What happened? I gave a response but you haven’t come back.

  • Response to Defend Krishna
    DC said
    “he reason why Adam doesn’t have a dad is because he WAS the FIRST person.
    The point I was trying to make about the WORD coming into the world without a father, is WHY was he born in that way what was the purpose.
    According to John 1:1 the word was not created but always was and the name given to the WORD who BECAME flesh is JESUS.
    There is nothing in this text about the WORD being CREATED it says the word that ALREADY existed BECAME flesh and dwelt among.”
    I said
    Time for to teach you a lesson in basic knowledge that you not surprisingly are not aware of. The Gospels, catch this, WERE NOT WRITING IN ENGLISH. One more time? The gospels were not WRITING IN ENGLISH. You did not respond to my argument or facts in the slightest, all you did was repost the English and interpret it, how does this constitute as a an answer? Oh ya! It doesn’t. You have just glanced over any nuance because everything is black and white in your mind, even if your interpretation if John 1:1 is correct(which it most likely is not), it has no bearing on a muslim, because these are not the words of Jesus but on an anonymous author decades after him, but, you can’t think in any sort of nuance, so I don’t you will grasp this.
    Regarding the point about Adam, yes that’s the whole damn point, not having a Father doesn’t equal Diety, I’m glad you grasped that simple point.
    DC Said
    “You think about quoting scholars that somehow you are correct or proves your point. I can quote many scholars that agree with me.
    You Muslims have had since the 10th century to prove your case that the Christians are wrong and you are no nearer than you guys first started.
    Through your desperation you run to people like Bart Erhman who as good as he there are guys out there that have gone toe to toe with him men like Dr Dan Wallace.
    1Co 1:26    For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
    1Co 1:27    But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
    1Co 1:28    And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are:
    1Co 1:29    That no flesh should glory in his presence.
    Do you know what is happening in this scripture?
    There is something in Christianity called REVELATION this is something that the apostles which why they confounded the great scholars and teachers of the day.
    Then you quote scriptures like somehow I am going to be afraid to answer you.”
    I say
    I think quoting scholars who are TRINITARIAN gives much weight to the point since they are YOUR scholars LOL. Quoting from paul and the Erhman comment has not relevance to anything so I’m not going to waste my time on it.
    DC said.
    “ Mal 3:6    For I am the LORD, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
    What does God mean?
    The first thing you did wrong was quote half of the verse, and we also have to look at the context of the scripture…what’s actually happening here?
    This is speaking about God’s covenant with his people and the fact that he has not changed towards and that he is still a God of judgement.
    In the previous verses he is talking about sins of the people and judgement verse 5
    If you think this talking about anything let know but the important thing here is covenant…sons of Jacob.”
    I say
    So you affirm God changes and is this not immutable? Is that what your trying to argue? God does not change period, the context is covenantal, Okay? So because the context is covenantal you are going to deny the Immutability of God? You have got to be kidding me, do some basic research on the immutability of God before posting such a stupid reply.
    DC said
    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?
    Num 23:20    Behold, I have received commandment to bless: and he hath blessed; and I cannot reverse it.
    Here again you mention a small part of a verse and try to make it what you want it to say.
    The previous verses are dealing with Balak trying to get Balaam to curse the people of Israel and the verse you quote is God sending Balaam back to Barak with a parable.
    The point…God will always keep his word and carry through what he said he would do. Which is som ething man is not very good at, we break our word sometimes without thinking.”
    I say
    Wow, God clearly and explicitly explains he is NOT a man, and this is your response? You know that the gods of the other nations around Israel were anthropomorphic and “man-like” so God is clearly not affirming he is like the False Deities are the nation. Secondly, the context has the example about mind changing…so what? God clearly and explicitly declares he IS NOT A MAN. I mean really, just posting information about the context isn’t going to someone help you on your point, learn to argue.
    DC says
    “Act 2:22    Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
    What about it? We believe Jesus to be fully God and fully God that’s the miracle please note…”
    I say
    Please note how utterly confused and insipid you really are. In this sermon that supposedly happened after Jesus left the scene, Peters affirms that Jesus was a man approved of God which had his miracles from God, if Peter thought Jesus was YHWH and radically changed his thought of Jewish monotheism, he would not be saying Jesus was “a man” buy YHWH himself, you can’t see this basic point? Jesus was A MAN.
    So no DC you have failed to do anything but
    1. Deny the immutability of God
    2. Believe that when the bible says “God is not a man” if Actually means “God is a man”
    3. Waste everyone’s time with your stupidity
    God does not Change. God is not a Man. Jesus is a Man. Deal with it.
    Who was dead on the Cross DC? YHWH? Yes or no. Time to embarrass yourself once again.

  • Hey Semsav12
    You guys and so intent on finding faults and mistakes that you don’t even read the responses of some Christians and then because you are filled with religious pride you make silly comments.

    I will explain my comments again hopefully we can have a decent discussion.

    1. The Malachi text
    Where did you read that I said God changes?

    I said God was dealing with the people of God about their sin and the fact he will judge and he makes the comment about sons of Jacob are not consumed.

    He is speaking about covenant.

    2. The Numbers text.
    You clearly don’t know how to read the opposition responses if you did you have followed the story in the text and understood what was happening and the context but you are too busy trying to sound clever.

    I said…
    The previous verses are dealing with Balak trying to get Balaam to curse the people of Israel and the verse you quote is God sending Balaam back to Barak with a parable.
    The point…God will always keep his word and carry through what he said he would do. Which is something man is not very good at, we break our word sometimes without thinking.”

    THE POINT IS GOD WILL ALWAYS KEEP HIS WORD…IN THAT RESPECT HE IS NOT LIKE US…WE BREAK OUR PROMISES ETC.

    God didnt say HE CAN’T BECOME A MAN.

    The context is dealing with telling the truth and keeping promises vs lying and breaking promises.

    3.The Acts text

    This is what you said right?

    Please note how utterly confused and insipid you really are. In this sermon that supposedly happened after Jesus left the scene, Peters affirms that Jesus was a man approved of God which had his miracles from God, if Peter thought Jesus was YHWH and radically changed his thought of Jewish monotheism, he would not be saying Jesus was “a man” buy YHWH himself, you can’t see this basic point? Jesus was A MAN.

    Utterly confused…and insipid..Semsav12 you don’t sound that interesting yourself but I am not on this blog to make silly comments about people.

    Mat 16:16    And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    Mat 16:17    And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

    If Jesus was simply a man why would the father have to reveal his identity supernaturally?

    What about the high priest.

    Mar 14:61    But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?
    Mar 14:62    And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    Mat 26:63    But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
    Mat 26:64    Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

    He sees the Christ and the Son of God as the same person right?

    David in the Psalms says…

    Psa 2:11    Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
    Psa 2:12    Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.

    Who this Son that if you put your trust you are blessed?

    In proverbs

    Pro 30:4    Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son’s name, if thou canst tell?

    You spend so much time trying sound eloquent in speech but this about revelation something being revealed to us by God.

    If you don’t believe the bible is true then that’s ok but don’t try make out I’m saying something that you know that I’m not

    So forget all the I’m confused…insipid and embarrassing myself stuff

  • So you agree God does not change? Great. Thanks for conceding that point.
    So you agree God is not a man as the verse states? Great. Thanks for conceding that point.
    So you agree that Jesus is “a man”? Great. Thanks for conceding that point.

    Yes DC by saying that God does not change and is not a man, means logically, that God cannot become a man. Anyone looking at this honestly can see this.

    I don’t know what the hell you are trying to convey with your proof texts, does trusting someone make them God? Physically decending makes one God? Identity being revealed makes one a God? None of these logically have the conclusion that one is God. Again, not very difficult to see.

    Who was dead on the Cross DC?YHWH(So God died)?
    Was it someone else(heresy of nestorianism)? Or just impersonal flesh that stopped biologically functioning for your sins? Thanks.

  • Semsav12
    You haven’t even answered what I posted to you this is not proof texts, if you are going to deal with a scripture then you must explain what you are talking about with scripture.

    if you can’t explain what the scriptures mean stop posting them trying to sound like you know what you are talking about.

    When the scriptures call the Jesus a man we must explain what this means…is this man the Son of God?

    We find out who Jesus is not by quoting scholars but by revealing what the scripture say about Jesus.

    Joh 5:39    Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

    Thiis is what you said to me.

    I don’t know what the hell you are trying to convey with your proof texts, does trusting someone make them God? Physically decending makes one God? Identity being revealed makes one a God? None of these logically have the conclusion that one is God. Again, not very difficult to see.

    Firstly how do you come to the conclusion that Muhammad is a prophet isn’t by a text in the koran? Because if it is not by scripture then how do you prove it? Isn’t it not by scripture?

    1. Does trusting someone make them God? If the person is God yes.

    2. Does descending to earth make a person God? Name someone that has come from heaven who existed before they came to earth? The bible reveals this to us but you refuse to believe.

    Joh 1:1    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.Joh 1:2    The same was in the beginning with God.

    Joh 1:14    And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    3. Does the revealing of ones identity make them God?
    Why does the Father need to reveal Jesus identity to Peter who had been with him 3 years?

    I haven’t used a big wigs scholars I’m just coming to you on a basic level because if you can’t debate on the scriptures what’s the point of calling on scholars to prove your point when you can’t explain your point yourself.

    Proof texts! Semsav12 you do better than that.

  • Hi Semsav12
    I forgot to answer your other questions.

    Who was dead on the Cross DC?YHWH(So God died)?
    Was it someone else(heresy of nestorianism)? Or just impersonal flesh that stopped biologically functioning for your sins? Thanks.

    Firstly as a Muslim you don’t believe anyone died on the cross, but I will give you one scripture for you to study properly and come back and tell me what you think.

    Zec 12:9    And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.Zec 12:10    And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

    1. Who so speaking in these verses is YHWH.

    2. Who is going to pour on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem the spirit of grace and supplications is it YHWH?

    3. Who says they shall look upon me whom they have pierced is it YHWH?

    4. Who is the HIM they shall mourn for?

    The problem with some of you guys you just generalise all Christians and tar us with the same brush, maybe you need to connect with us with a little bit more respect and not imply that I believe in any heresies.

    I await your response.

  • It is oh so incredibly tedious having to refute and correct your arguments, since they have been repeated to me so many times that it’s causing me to become numb.
    Most of your first post was about your belief in your scripture, bravo, too bad it’s irrelevant.
    You tried to respond to my refutation of your arguments that Chrits was Deity, but anyone can see that you assume Jesus is God and the pre-existent creator in all of them, assume that John 1:1 has any relevance as it is the anonymous authors opinion, and assume a certain interpretation of the text that even Trinitarian scholars dispute. Again, anyone can see the obvious presuppositions you have.
    For example you said,
    “1. Does trusting someone make them God? If the person is God yes.”
    First of all, this makes no logical sense, how can someone make someone something if they already are that thing? Secondly, you are assuming Jesus is God, so in this one example with have a logical incoherence and an assumption. I’m not going to labour through every time you did this.
    Regarding Zachariah 12:10, I actually refuted you on this on Paul’s blog a while ago, and then you disappeared for a long time, you are really wasting my time that I have to go over this again. I am going to point out his your claims are logically, and textually groundless.
    First of all, let’s look at what your trying to sell, shall we?
    “shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him,”
    Now just look at how incoherent this is, YHWH is speaking from first person to third person in the SAME sentence? The “me” and the “him” in this are clearly two different persons.
    There are many textual problems with what you stated, the first being that The author John uses this a prophecy to Jesus, but the way he quotes it says “They shall look to him whom they pierced.” (John 19:37). So even the person who you believed wrote John, whom you believed was inspired had a different reading then what you are proposing, so…what? Are you trying to say that John made a mistake? The holy spirit erred?
    Even more evidence is two of the church fathers quote this and use the reading proposed above,
    Then also does the prophet in vain declare, �They shall look on Him whom they have pierced, and mourn over themselves as over one beloved. (Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians (Long Recension), X).
    “Tribe by tribe they shall mourn, and then they shall look on Him whom they have pierced; and they shall say” (Justin Martyr, First Apology, 52).
    The author of John, and these two Fathers use the reading mentioned above, this is more evidence to support that the original reading has a “him” instead of a “me”.

    Here are some various Christian and Jewish translation

    they shall look on him whom they have thrust through, and they shall mourn for him (NAB)
    they will look at the one whom they stabbed to death (TEV: Todays English Version)
    they will look at the one whom they have pierced (The Jerusalem Bible)
    they shall look on him whom they stabbed (Moffatt)
    they shall look at him whom they have stabbed (American Translation, Goodspeed)
    when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him (RSV/NRSV)
    These various jewish translations also have a different reading due to a different way of translating et asher.
    And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. Jewish Publication Society.

    And I will pour out upon the House of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem with a spirit of grace and supplications. And they shall look to me because of those who have been thrust through [with swords], and they shall mourn over it as one mourns over an only son and shall be in bitterness, therefore, as one is embittered over a firstborn son. Judaica Press NACH Series; translation by R’ A. J. Rosenberg.
    But I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Yerushalayim the spirit of grace and of supplication: and they shall look towards me, regarding those whom the nations have thrust through. And they shall mourn for him (that is slain) as one mourns for an only son, and shall be in bitterness over him, as one that is in bitterness for a firstborn. The Jerusalem Bible, Koren Publishing.
    And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplication; and they shall look unto Me, because they have thrust him through; and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his first-born. Soncino Books of the Bible; edited by R’ Dr. A. Cohen.
    I will pour upon the house of David and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplications. They will look toward Me because of those whom they have stabbed, they will mourn over him as one mourns over an only [child], and be embittered over him like the embitterment over a [deceased] firstborn. ArtScroll Stone Edition Tanach; ArtScroll/Mesorah.
    “the reading “him” (or “whom”) instead of “me” also appears in some Hebrew manuscripts (F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, pages 199, 200, Lutterworth Press, 1979, third edition).”(trin del)
    So there you have it, the passage you are selling makes no logical sense for a person in the same sentence to talk in first person and then to third person.
    You kept of talking about how you think the bible is inspired and blah blah blah.
    Well guess what, the “inspired” John said “They shall look to him whom they pierced.” (John 19:37) so the “inspired” John disagrees with your reading of the verse, this preety much totally refutes your claims now, because you just ranted on how you think the bible is “revelation” and now that revelation contradicts your argument what will you take?
    There are variant manuscripts that read “him” instead of “me”
    The word et asher can be translated as concerning whom, as you have seen in the Jewish translations.
    LOL try harder defend Christ.
    (Almost all information is from Trinity delusion)
    So no Defend Christ, YHWH does not literally get pierced so answer number 3, if you don’t accept the reading, then reject John.
    So you have failed and shot yourself in the foot. What a joke. You know what is going to happen DC, you are going to read the refutation, not take any of it in, not even acknowledge that you have been refuted on this point before, and use it again.
    You didn’t answer my question.
    Can YHWH be dead? Yes or no.
    Is Jesus YHWH? Yes or no.
    Who was dead on the Cross?
    Was it YHWH?
    You believe in a dead God. That’s the fact, or maybe you’re a hell bound Nestorian.

  • Hi Semsav12
    Here you go again you are trying to accuse and calling me a Nestorian is not going to help your cause. the reason why you Muslims can’t debate Christians properly is because you don’t fully understand what the real Christians believe which is why you accuse me of being a heretic.
    I don’t believe in Docetism, Apollinarianism, Ebionism, Eutychianism, and Nestorianism so you better keep guessing.

    I’m not assuming anything you need to understand WHERE I am coming from before you can even try to correct me, you are the one that is assuming which is why you attack by calling me a Nestorian.

    Now the questions were quite simple I asked who was speaking in the verses is it YHWH? And if it YHWH in the text when was he…thrust through or pierced or stabbed whatever word you want to use?

    This is what you said…

    First of all, let’s look at what your trying to sell, shall we?
    “shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him,”
    Now just look at how incoherent this is, YHWH is speaking from first person to third person in the SAME sentence? The “me” and the “him” in this are clearly two different persons.

    Incoherent? That is not my sentence its what the bible says!

    Babylonian Talmud Sukkah 52a:

    It’s well according to him who explains that the cause (of the mourning) is the slaying of the Messiah the son of Joseph, since that well agrees with the Scripture verse: ‘And they shall look upon me, whom they have pierced; and shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son’.1

    Rabbi Moses Alshech:

    ‘They shall look unto Me, for they shall lift up their eyes unto Me in perfect repentance, when they see Him whom they have pierced, that is Messiah, the Son of Joseph; for our Rabbis, of blessed memory, have said that He will take upon Himself all the guilt of Israel, and shall then be slain in the war to make atonement in such manner that it shall be accounted as if Israel had pierced Him, for on account of their sin He has died; and, therefore, in order that it may be reckoned to them as perfect atonement, they will repent and look to the blessed One, saying that there is none beside Him to forgive those that mourn on account of Him who died for their sin; this is the meaning of ‘They shall look upon Me’.5

    Its quite funny you running around using different translations and scholars but Christians can’t do the same to prove their point.

    So are you Semsav12 saying there is a TRUE text and bible?

  • Hi Defend Christ
    Clearly you have absolutely no comprehension skills, or do not have any concern for truth.
    You ranted about revelation, when I show you that the author of John quotes from this verse he quotes the reading that say’s “you shall look upon him”, but you didn’t address that, you just ignored that, as usual.
    Secondly, I also quoted church fathers that used the read of him, but yet again, you ignore that and pretend they don’t exist.
    Demonstrated several different translations from Jews that demonstrate the use of et Asher in the verse.
    Demonstrated several different Trinitarian translations
    But of course you are going to ignore all this.
    Ignore variant manuscripts.
    I didn’t say you were a Nestorian, I gave you different options for the death of Jesus from a Trinitarian point of view, despite this clear and explicit message and option, you write two paragraphs complaining that I called you a Nestorian. You have no comprehension skills at all.
    Yes, the sentence is incoherent, I can’t believe you thought saying that it was what the bible says somehow doesn’t make it incoherent, going from first person to third person in the same breath is nonsensical, again, you have no comprehension skills, how on earth is what you said a reply?
    Guess what, those Jews you selectively quote don’t literally think the invisible YHWH was pierced, I mean really.
    I’m saying there is a proper reading from manuscripts and translations, how is this something any out of the normal for any other document. What a stupid question.
    Was YHWH dead on the cross? Yes or no.
    Can YHWH be dead? Yes or no.
    Does Jesus=YHWH?

  • Pingback: Rebuttals to James White, David Wood, Sam Shamoun | Anti Islam: FAQ - 99

  • Romans were not mentioned in Isaiah 42 thus they cannot be relate to preaching to gentiles.

    The meaning of the verse Isaiah 42:10-12 clearly say it will be the inhabitants of Arabia that will travel to far end of earth to proclaim His praise. Not Romans that spread Pauline-Christianity as can be seen today. And indeed inhabitants of Arabia have been travelling to spread New Song since 7th century till today spreading the message that is Islam. Muslims proclaim His praise everyday.

  • Now lets reread the verse in Gen1:1-2.
    God created the heavens and earth. But Holy Spirit only hovers on water. No where does it mentions Spirit involved in creating Heaven and Earth. But rather the verse imply that after Heaven and Earth were created. If we read Israelite scriptures, we can see that Holy Spirit can not make desicions but wait upon command from God to be able to descend down to earth or do some jobs in heaven/earth as commanded by Almighty God.

    The verse also tells that Holy Spirit is limited in power as the Spirit can only exist below the realm of God, not in the same realm of God. Thus only able to hover over the waters created by Almighty God.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Romans were not mentioned in Isaiah 42 thus they cannot be relate to preaching to gentiles.

    The meaning of the verse Isaiah 42:10-12 clearly say it will be the inhabitants of Arabia that will travel to far end of earth to proclaim His praise. Not Romans that spread Pauline-Christianity as can be seen today. And indeed inhabitants of Arabia have been travelling to spread New Song since 7th century until today; spreading the message that is Islam. Muslims proclaim His praise everyday.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s