Refutation: How can Jesus be God, when he calls the Father the only true God?

Posted on by 8 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Question:

Jesus himself admitted that the Father is the only true God. Since Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are distinct Persons, that they are not the same Person, wouldn’t this prove that Jesus denied that he was God?

Answer:

Once again, the wheels of Shamounian Logic have been rolling and here we are analysing another one of his mishaps. Sam’s answer to this question is to begin by denying that the question has any validity, as per his modus operandi the questioner is always a Unitarian or Muslim with ulterior motives. He quotes  John 17:1-5, 8, 10-11, 20-26 which reads (note: emphasis is his):

“After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify YOUR SON, that YOUR SON may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people THAT HE MIGHT GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL THOSE YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN … For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me … All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come TO ME through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name – the name you gave me – so that they may be one as we are one … My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be IN US so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I IN THEM and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me BECAUSE YOU LOVED ME BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them AND THAT I MYSELF MAY BE IN THEM.’”

Then he derives this list of conclusions from the passages:

  1. Jesus is God’s Son.
  2. Jesus gives eternal life to all that God gives him, which is a claim to being absolute Deity since only God can give eternal life.
  3. Jesus existed in glory with the Father even before the world was created.
  4. Jesus demands to be glorified by God, something which no mere creature could ever demand.
  5. Jesus states that everything that the Father has belongs to him, which makes him the heir of everything that exists.
  6. Jesus indwells all the believers, an indication that Christ is omnipresent and therefore God since God alone is omnipresent.
  7. Jesus is the object of the Father’s love even before the creation of the world.

To the contrary, his list is erratic, he reads meanings into words and verses that do not present the conclusions he’s arrived at (big surprise there) and they clearly don’t answer the questions at hand. If the Father is the only true God according to Christ, why is Sam trying to disprove Christ’s claim and make Christ into a deity? Let’s analyze Sam’s conclusions and debunk them one by one:

  1. The word son is used throughout the Old Testament and is not unique to Christ. See Exodus 4:22, Jeremiah 31:9 and Psalm 2:7. According to Galatians 3:26, we are all God’s son. Thus according to Shamounian Logic, we are all Gods once God calls us His son.
  2. Christ gave eternal life by being an authority over the people, as the verse clearly says. When we read John 5:30-31, we understand that his authority was as a  judge to the people and that he guided them with religious edicts. Hence this does not make him a God, but an authority operating under God’s will.
  3. God gloried Christ before the world began, just as in Ephesians 1:4, God chose all of mankind to be holy and blameless in His sight. Sam uses this verse to emphasize the ‘before the world began’ mantra of Christians, but this is also applied to all humans in the aforementioned verse and is thus not unique to Christ.
  4. Jesus explains in John 16:14 that he is glorified because he leads people to glorify God, he doesn’t demand it, rather God glorifies him because of his mission.
  5. Nowhere does Jesus state that everything which belongs to the Father belongs to him, Sam’s just making stuff up.
  6. According to the verse Sam quotes to reach this conclusion, the believers also dwell in Christ and God, thus if Sam is to be rational, if Jesus being in God makes him a deity, then the believers dwelling in God also make them deities.
  7. We are all an object of God’s love before the creation of the world, see point 3 and Ephesians 1:4.

Now, I’m not sure if Sam noticed this, but he’s found himself in a bundle, he says and I quote:

Thus, the context makes it clear that Jesus’ statement about the Father being the only true God in no way was meant to deny that Christ is God as well, since he goes on to make claims that only God could make.

There exists a significant contradiction in Sam’s statement. Christ explicitly states that the Father is the only true God. The word ‘only’ is of great importance as it denotes singularity and not plurality. Sadly, Sam Shamoun then contradicts Jesus by saying even though Christ says that their is only one true God, that Christ has lied and also claims to be a God. Therefore, Sam is claiming several notions:

  1. That Christ does not understand what the word ‘only’ means and thus is not all knowing and cannot be God.
  2. That Christ lied and therefore is not ‘The Truth” and therefore cannot be God.
  3. That Sam himself is lying about Christ and YHWH and is thus a deceiver.

Considering our options, whichever way we look to interpret Sam’s mendacious and heretical view, of Christ and YHWH, he crucifies himself by accepting that Christ implores him to follow the one deity known as the Father. It’s also important to point out that Christ never makes a Godly claim of himself, as indicated in my article: Non Compos Mentis, therefore when Sam says that Christ made statements only a deity can make, I’m still looking for such unique words which have yet to be demonstrated. Sam then goes on to claim the following:

– The Trinity is the only true God.
– Each specific member of the Trinity is the only true God.
– Therefore, the members of the Trinity are the only true God, whether individually or collectively.

The problem with these assumptions is that they are not stated in the Old or New Testament. Christ himself does not say that the Trinity is the only true God, he says the Father is the only true God. What Sam has done is called scriptural emendation, where he has emendated or altered the text to prove his bias notion. This is a sign of a desperate man. Christ never mentions the Trinity, or a Godhead or that each member of a Trinity is a Deity. I call upon Sam Shamoun to bring forth one statement of Jesus the Christ which says this! Since Sam’s two previous premises are false, then it logically follows that his conclusion is false.

Sam then appealed to Hebrews 1 to prove Christ’s deity, which have debunked indepth here: Does God Call Jesus God? Hebrews 1:8-12.

He continues by stating:

The same Scriptures teach that Jesus is the only sovereign Master and Lord:

“For admission has been secretly gained by some who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly persons who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness and deny our only Master (δεσπότης) and Lord (κύριος), Jesus Christ.” Jude 1:4

The problem with this text is that Master does not denote a deity, otherwise we are all deities according to the use of the same word in Titus 2:9, which reads:

Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters (δεσπότης), and to please them well in all things; not answering again;

Similarly, the word Lord (κύριος) as is used in the Greek also does not denote a deity, it’s a title of honour and respect:

Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord (κύριος): whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. – 1 Peter 3:6.

Therefore, none of the verses Sam Shamoun has referenced declares Jesus to be a deity as both terms are titles used to describe men and are titles of men. Sam then sought to embarrass himself by stating the following:

In fact, a careful reading of John 17:3 helps to further confirm that Jesus wasn’t denying his absolute Deity:

“And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, AND (kai) Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

The Lord Jesus, by using the Greek conjunction kai in his prayer, makes himself the necessary object of the knowledge that leads to eternal life. In other words, Jesus basically made himself a coequal partner with God by claiming that eternal life is dependent on knowing both the Father and the Son.

To correct Sam, the verse is rendered as such: “And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God and Jesus the Christ whom you have sent.”

Without appealing to Christians who already believe Jesus to be God, by reading the verse we see a distinction between God and the Christ, for the verse describes God as the only true God. Only denotes uniqueness and singularity, whereas ‘and Jesus the Christ‘, denotes Jesus as distinct from the God as is described as “the Christ whom you (God) have sent“. Therefore the verse by using ‘and’ distinguishes the Christ from the God, by denoting the Jesus as one sent by God. Similarly, Jesus was not made co-equal to God by claiming eternal life is dependent on knowing both Christ and God, for Christ was the one sent to teach the people about eternal life:

“Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?” – Matthew 19:16.

Christ was therefore, tied to the knowledge of eternal life, for he was the teacher as sent by God to teach the people how to attain eternal life as the Gospels themselves state. There is no need to go beyond the Gospel itself and demonstrate what scholars say as that is man’s interpretation of the text, whereas the scripture itself explains in what way Jesus was tied to ‘eternal life’, i.e. his role of teaching how to attain it. This is the first rule in scriptural exegesis, something which Sam’s sect follows, known as ‘sola scriptura’, the rule is laid out as ‘interpret scripture with scripture firstly‘.

Lastly, Sam appealed to the Gospel of John to demonstrate some quotes were Jesus is mentioned as the ‘saviour of the world‘, being a saviour entails simply ‘saving’ a person or people and there were many saviours before the Christ:

“In the twenty-third year of Joash the son of Ahaziah, king of Judah, Jehoahaz the son of Jehu became king over Israel in Samaria, reigning seventeen years. But he did evil in the eyes of Yahweh, and he went after the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat with which he had caused Israel to sin, and he did not depart from it. So the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he gave them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram and into the hand of Ben-Hadad the son of Hazael repeatedly. Then Jehoahaz entreated Yahweh, and Yahweh listened to him, for he saw the oppression of Israel, because the king of Aram oppressed them. Yahweh gave Israel a savior, and they went out from under the hand of Aram. So the Israelites lived in their tents as formerly.” – 2 Kings 13:1-5.

““But they rebelled and were rebellious against you and cast your law[l] behind their back and killed your prophets, who had warned them to turn back to you, and they did great blasphemies. 27 Therefore you gave them into the hand of their enemy, and they brought trouble to them. Then in the time of their trouble they cried out to you, and you heard from the heavens, and according to your great compassions, you gave them saviors, and you saved them from the hand of their enemies. 28 But when they had rest they returned to doing evil before you, and you abandoned them in the hand of their enemies, and they ruled over them. Then they returned and cried out to you, and from the heavens you heard and many times rescued them according to your compassions. ” – Nehemiah 9:26-28.

A saviour does not have to be a God, but merely one who ‘saves’. Seeing as YHWH sent many saviours before, then this title does not imply deity in the least. In conclusion, despite what shenanigans Sam tries, he cannot escape from the fact that Christ refers to the Father as the only true God. The word ‘only‘ is defined as:

on·ly

adj.

1. Alone in kind or class; sole: an only child; the only one left.
2. Standing alone by reason of superiority or excellence.


adv.

1. Without anyone or anything else; alone: room for only one passenger.

Sorry Sam, but it seems as though you’ve found yourself in a precarious situation, the word only is a singular term, referring to something which is alone, sole or unique, it does not indicate plurality in any sense. To imply otherwise would be a gross perversion of the English language and a perverse violation of the text itself.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Slaves of God

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Have you ever been confronted by a missionary who claims that Muslims are ‘slaves to God’ while Christians are the ‘children of God’? They explain the reasoning for this is because our God does not love us, so Muslims are by definition slaves, while Christians are children because the Father (the God in heaven) loves them as He would love His children. When they do this, just remember these two quick references to remind them, that their God and Paul (as if there is a difference), actively refers to and asks them to be like slaves/ submit to Him as well:

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. – Romans 6:22.

If they disagree with the first reference, send them to the Greek Lexicon which mentions it clearly for them:

  1. to make a slave of, reduce to bondage
  2. metaph. give myself wholly to one’s needs and service, make myself a bondman to him

 

Such terminology is also used in the Old Testament:

“Submit to God and be at peace with him; in this way prosperity will come to you. – Job 22:21.

Two simple quotes that disarm the missionary and lead him to be insulting against his own faith.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Predator Priest Returns to Duty

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

australian priest

A leading Australian priest who sexually preyed on a disabled and vulnerable woman on Sydney’s north shore for 14 years has been allowed to return to preaching and running community groups at one of the nation’s busiest churches.

The recent decision by the Catholic Church to allow Father Tom Knowles to return to full duties at St Francis’ in Melbourne’s central business district after about 16 months of “administrative leave” has outraged his victim and victims’ groups. Father Knowles’s reinstatement comes after the church apologised to Jennifer Herrick, paid her $100,000 in compensation and acknowledged “the harm that can be caused to vulnerable people in such a case”.

Ms Herrick’s story highlights a rarely exposed facet of church abuse: vulnerable adult parishioners who are targeted by their priest for a sexual relationship.

– Read the full story and get more details at the Sydney Morning Herald’s Website.

German Priests Carried Out Sexual Abuse for Years

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

A report about child sexual abuse in the Roman Catholic Church in Germany, based on victim accounts and released by the church this week, showed that priests carefully planned their assaults and frequently abused the same children repeatedly for years.

The report, compiled from information collected from victims and other witnesses who called a hot line run by the church from 2010 until the end of last year, includes the ages of the victims, the locations of the assaults and the repercussions they have suffered since. The accounts were provided in 8,500 calls to the hot line; they are not representative of abuse cases over all and cannot be individually verified. The church said the report contained information from 1,824 people, of whom 1,165 described themselves as victims.

Germany’s bishops have vowed a thorough and impartial investigation into the abuse. Bishop Stephan Ackermann of Trier, who is looking into abuse cases for the German Bishops’ Conference, told reporters after the report was released on Thursday that it served as an example of that intention.

– You can read the full article at the New York Times Website.

Scholar Relates Gospel Traditions to the “Telephone” Game!

Posted on by Leave a comment

Question Mark

Speaking candidly on the historicity of the gospel traditions, especially its transmission, New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman makes the following intriguing comparison:

“You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game “telephone.” A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants – from different backgrounds, with different concerns, and in different contexts – some of whom have to translate the stories into different languages. The situation, in fact, was even more complicated than that.” (The New Testament – A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, Chapter 3, Where it All Began: The Traditions of Jesus in Their Greco-Roman Context, p.44)

One of the very reasons why Qur’an had to be revealed with narrations of Jesus (peace be upon him) in it was because, as evident from above, the actual revelations given to or the words uttered by Jesus (peace be upon him) were lost in their transmission. With this the actual message of Christ (peace be upon him) was also lost. As on mere conjectures eternal fates could not be banked, the final Messenger (peace be upon him) was given divine glimpses of the life of Jesus (peace be upon him).

We also need to make a healthy parallel comparison of the transmission of Gospel traditions to that of Qur’an and Hadith. It was an extremely imperative, prudent and monumental task undertaken by Muslim scholars to protect the chain of transmission of Qur’an and Sunnah in the form of “Isnads”.

We have detailed biographies of all the people involved in the transmission of Islamic narratives right from the beginning. Just vicariously imagine the chaos which was circumvented by preserving transmission chains of Qur’an and Hadith – it was not let to take form of some “Telephone” game!

Refutation: Is this all to make Allah’s name upper most or the Muslim blogger’s ?

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Honour, respect and integrity. I fully believe that these are three important qualities that any proselytizer should posses. Sadly, Mr. Edwards’ behaviour after the debate has been appalling to say the very least. Earlier today I read his latest article, located here. In his post, he claimed:

  1. I am egoistic.
  2. I am very immature.
  3. I am attention starved.
  4. I have a need to be seen and heard.
  5. I am a sinner.

Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards when we compare his behaviour to mines, we find that what he claims of me to be applicable solely to himself.

  1. He is egoistic, as in his ‘blog’ features him and only him. His photo is plastered throughout the blog and his high handed self praising comments are littered throughout. Yet no Christian knows what I look like or what my real name is.
  2. His immaturity is striking, after all, what kind of a man seeks to mock and insult a 20 year old because I didn’t reply immediately to his email?
  3. He is most certainly attention starved, his Youtube videos are about him, our debate was about him, his posts are about him. I have never posted a Youtube video about me, my past or my history, unlike Chessie who has an entire channel dedicated to his self posts.
  4. He does have a need to be seen and heard, his latest post demonstrates that if I he needs to interacted with, people must read his posts and must reply to him.
  5. I’m not going to expose anyone’s sins, but he is free to call me what he wishes. This is the difference between my Islam and his Christianity.

Unlike my opponent, I will not choose to mock him, or berate him or jeer at him. Indeed, he is a bit confused. I say this because he claims he does not have an apologetics career, I must agree with him on that notion, he never has nor will he ever have one given his current decorum. CL should also not fool his viewers (if there are any) and should remind them, that I am the one who proposed the debate topic of, “Is Muhammad [may the peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him] a Prophet of God?“.

However, his lack of decorum means that I shall not reply to his emails any longer. It is a matter of personal integrity to know that when one discusses the planning of a debate, that you do not publish private emails between individuals. I am sorry that he feels that I must reply to him instantly, or that I am somehow indebted to him. Sorry Chessie Edwards, but Islam has raised me differently and I am not the sort of chap to pursue character assassination or to publicize private dealings. If it is that you truly wanted the debate which I proposed to occur, then I suggest you adjust your behaviour and begin to act like an adult, until then, I shall not entertain your petulant behaviour.

Sincerely, a 20 year old Muslim kid who is, and continues to be anonymous.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Review: Jesus the Christ, Man, God or Both? – Ijaz Ahmad vs CL Edwards

Posted on by 18 comments

Note: This is a review done by Br. Paul Bilal Williams via his website, ‘Blogging Theology‘. Br. Paul is a well established orator and debater from the United Kingdom and has studied Christianity and Islam for several years.

Jesus the Christ, Man, God or Both? – Ijaz Ahmad vs CL Edwards

A Review of the Debate by Paul Williams 

Ahmad’s opening statement threw down the gauntlet:

‘If we are to be fair and objective in our study of who the Messiah was, then we can’t work backwards, that is to start with the bias we already have and then look at the previous scriptures to justify our claims and beliefs. This is a form of revisionism.‘

He has in mind here a favourite methodology adopted by Christians: that of reading into Jewish texts their own later beliefs about Jesus. Scholars call this practice ‘eisegesis’.

Though Ahmad did not mention well known Christian apologist Dr Craig in his opening presentation, he could have called him as a witness for his defense as Dr. William Lane Craig would agree with him! Though Craig’s comments focus on Jesus’ alleged death and resurrection, they perfectly demonstrate how Christians read back into the Jewish Bible beliefs that no Jew ever held about their Messiah.

Craig writes:

‘Early Christians were convinced that Jesus’ resurrection, like his crucifixion, was, in the words of the old tradition quoted by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. 3-5, “in accordance with the Scriptures.” In Luke’s story of Jesus’ appearance on the road to Emmaus, the risen Jesus chastises the two travelers: ” ‘Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?’ And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24. 26-27).

The difficulty is that when we ask, “What Scriptures are they thinking of?”, we come up with sparse results. Hosea 6.2 ‘ “After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him” – has been suggested because it mentions the “third day” motif found in the old formula cited by Paul.

But Hosea 6.2 is never explicitly cited by any New Testament author, much less applied to Jesus’ resurrection. In the apostolic sermons in the Acts of the Apostles, we find Psalm 16.10 interpreted in terms of Jesus’ resurrection: “For thou dost not give me up to Sheol, or let thy godly one see the Pit.” But if we look at the principal Old Testament passage cited in the Gospels with respect to Jesus’ resurrection, we find the story of Jonah and the whale. “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12.40).

Now the problem for the theory in question is that nobody, especially a first century Jew, reading the story of Jonah and the whale would think that this has anything whatsoever to do with Jesus’ burial and resurrection! Similarly for Psalm 16.10; this has to do with David’s confidence that God will not allow him to see defeat and death. And as for Hosea 6.2, this has nothing to do with resurrection of the dead but with the restoration of the national fortunes of Israel.

The point is that no one who did not already have a belief in Jesus’ resurrection would find in these Scriptures any impetus to think that Jesus had been raised from the dead. To this we may add the fact that in Jewish belief the resurrection of the dead was always an event at the end of the world involving all the people, an event which obviously had not yet taken place.

Once the disciples came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection, then they could go to the Scriptures looking for verses to validate their belief and experience, and passages like Jonah and the whale and Psalm 16.10 could be re-interpreted in light of Jesus’ resurrection. But to think that the belief in Jesus’ resurrection was derived from the Old Testament is to put the cart before the horse; it gets things exactly backwards.’

***

What a stunning admission by Craig! At a stroke all those much vaunted “prophesies” in the OT about Jesus the Messiah turn out to be entirely absent from the Jewish Bible and can only be ‘discovered’ there if you artificially graft Christian beliefs onto the texts, in disregard of the original context and original meaning of the passages. But this is the standard ‘orthodox’ way Christians use the Bible to justify their beliefs.

Ahmad convincingly demonstrates that the Jewish Messiah was never considered to be divine or God at any time but was always expected to be only a man like other mortals.

Therefore the Christian belief in a Divine Messiah is unJewish and alien to the Torah. The final Prophet to mankind Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to correct these blasphemous excesses by Christians. Today 1.6 billion of his followers have learnt this lesson well.

***

A few comments on the opening statement by CL Edwards

Edwards boldly states:

After seriously studying the first century evidences concerning Christ, while being logically consistent, I had to change my position, and I now hold to the hypostatic union i.e the belief  Jesus had two natures. There is no historical proof anyone during this time held Jesus to be just a man.

He might need change his position once more as scholars have long realized that the earliest Christians did not believe Jesus was divine. Read Peter’s sermons in Acts and ask yourself did he consider Jesus to be God (see Acts 2:22 & 2:36 for example)? Read Mark’s gospel: Jesus prays to God; is ignorant about various matters; denies he is ”good”;  feels abandoned by God on the cross. Does such a man seem like God in the flesh to you?

Much of Edwards presentation is simply a list of proof texts culled from the Bible. He does not show any critical awareness of how Christology developed in the New Testament, and just how radically different Mark’s gospel is from John’s gospel in its portrayal of Jesus.

As every undergraduate in Bible studies knows, it is clear that there has been a development in the way Jesus is presented in the pages of the New Testament. Look at the earliest gospel to be written, that of Mark.

This shows us a very human figure. Here are 7 examples:

1) Jesus is a man who prays to God (1:35)

2) Jesus is unable to work miracles in his own town (6:5) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 13:57-58.

3) Jesus confesses his ignorance about the date of the End of the world (13:32).

4) Jesus did not know the identity of a woman who touched him and had to ask his   disciples for help (Mark 5:30) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 9:20-21.

5) Jesus was so irritated by the absence of figs he cursed a fig tree even though it was not the season for figs (Mark 11:14) – but see Matthew’s redaction in 21:18-22.

6) Jesus even denies that he is perfectly good (Mark 10) – but see Matthew’s redaction of Mark in 19:17.

7) Mark portrays Jesus despairing of God’s help at the crucifixion as he cries: ‘My God my God why have you abandoned me?’ (15:34) – Luke and John both omit this.

So it seems clear that in the earliest gospel Jesus does not exhibit any of the attributes of God that Jews, Christians and Muslims commonly accept: unlike God, Jesus is not all knowing; he is not omnipotent; he is not perfectly good; he is not eternal; he is notimmortal; he is not unchanging. Therefore it seems obvious that he cannot be God.

If we read the last of the four gospels to be written, the gospel of John, we move into a different world. Here Jesus seems to move effortlessly through his ministry, he is clearly portrayed as a divine figure, indeed as “God” himself.

Instead of Jesus saying in Mark’s gospel “Why do you call me good – no-one is good but God alone”, John has Jesus say: ‘Before Abraham was I am’.

In the very first chapter of the gospel according to John, the Prophet John the Baptist proclaims Jesus to be ‘The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world’ when he first meets him.  But in the earlier synoptic gospels, John the Baptist not only does not say this but half way through Jesus’ ministry sends messengers to Jesus asking “Are you the Messiah we’ve been expecting, or should we keep looking for someone else?” (Matthew 11:2)

So even this brief survey has shown the enormous evolution of the story of Jesus which occurred in less than two generations after Jesus was taken up by God.

Unlike in the earlier gospels of Mark, Matthew and Luke, in John Jesus speaks with a clear awareness of his divine existence with God from before his time on earth (5.19ff and 8.12ff make this clear). But the question cannot be ducked: whether the Jesus of the fourth gospel was intended to be historical, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually spoke in the terms used by John. Were the claims about Jesus in John’s gospel already in place from the beginning of Christianity? It seems hardly likely.

Few scholars today would regard John as a source for information regarding Jesus’ life and ministry in any degree comparable to the Synoptics gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It is worth noting briefly the reasons why scholars think this:

One is the very different picture of Jesus’ ministry, both in the order and the significance of events and the location of Jesus’ ministry. For example, the cleansing of the temple happens at the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in John but occurs at the end of Jesus’ ministry in the synoptic gospels. A clear contradiction.

Another is the striking difference in Jesus’ style of speaking – much more discursive and theological in John, in contrast to the aphoristic and parabolic style of the Synoptic gospels. Jesus’ way of speaking is the same, whether Jesus speaks to Nicodemus, or to the woman at the well, or to his disciples, and very similar to the style of John the Baptist, and indeed very similar to the 1st Letter of John. The conclusion is unavoidable that the style is that of the author of the gospel of John rather than that of Jesus himself.  

Probably most important of all, in the synoptic gospels Jesus’ main message is the Kingdom of God and he rarely speaks of himself, whereas in John the Kingdom of God hardly features and the discourses are largely about Jesus’ own self-consciousness andself proclamation. To put it simply, in the earlier gospels Jesus does not preach about himself but God and his kingdom. In John, Jesus speaks about himself and his Father. Had the striking ‘I am’ claims of John been remembered as spoken by Jesus, how could any gospel writer have ignored them so completely as the Synoptics gospels do?

In conclusion, Edwards could benefit from an introductory course in New Testament studies to bring him up to speed with what his own scholars are teaching!

Examining the Engineering behind Jesus’ title as the “Lamb of God”

Posted on by Leave a comment

 

Question Mark

Introduction

We have been arguing on good grounds that gospels elicit internal evidences – in fact, hard evidences – which alludes that its verses have been penned to meet biased theological agendas; as such on one hand where the gospels compromise with historical facts, on the other hand, it defies the very concepts of divine “inspiration”.

Thus, in this paper we would bring to light another intriguing incident which shows that gospel of John’s portrayal of “doctrine of vicarious atonement” through the alleged death of Jesus (peace be upon him) was the result of that conscious engineering which was meant to bolster one of the fundamental “orthodox” doctrine, albeit, at the cost of conflict with Mark’s gospel!

Mark’s “Passover” did pass!

 

Mark narrates that before being trialed by the Sanhedrin and subsequent crucifixion, Jewish Jesus (peace be upon him) ate the famous “Passover” feast with his disciples:

“On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the day the lambs for the Passover meal were killed, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and get the Passover meal ready for you?” Then Jesus sent two of them with these instructions: “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him to the house he enters, Teacher says,Where is the room where my disciples and I will eat the Passover meal?’ Then he will show you a large upstairs room, prepared and furnished , where you will get everything ready for us.” The disciples left, went to the city and found everything just as Jesus had told them; and they prepared the Passover meal. When it was evening, Jesus came with the twelve disciples.While they were at the table eating, Jesus said, “I tell you that one of you will betray me – one who is eating with me.” The disciples were upset and began to ask him, one after the other, “Surely you don’t mean me, do you?” Jesus answered, “It will be one of you twelve, one who dips his bread in the dish with me. The Son of Man will die as the Scriptures say he will; but how terrible for that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would have been better for that man if he had never been born!” While they were eating, Jesus took a piece of bread, gave a prayer of thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples. “Take it,” he said, “this is my body.” Then he took a cup, gave thanks to God, and handed it to them; and they all drank from it. Jesus said, “This is my blood which is poured out for many, my blood which seals God’s covenant.” (Mark 14:12-24)

It is vitally important to observe a few incidents as it turned out in the above passage:

Firstly, note the day. It starts with the day before the Passover is to be eaten. In other words, it is the day when the sacrificial animal would be slaughtered for the Passover meal: “the lambs for the Passover meal were killed”

Secondly, Jesus (peace be upon him) specifically directed his disciples where they should prepare the Passover meal for him: at the house where the man with the pitcher of water enters.

Thirdly, the disciples prepared the Passover meal for Jesus (peace be upon him)and they ate it.

Fifthly, on the foregoing, Jesus (peace be upon him) symbolized that the food and drink is like his body and blood!

From all of the above, we want to stress that Jesus (peace be upon him) ate the Passover meal with his disciples at his chosen place before any case and conviction by Pontius Pilate. In fact immediately after the meal, Jesus (peace be upon him) goes to the well-known garden of Gethsemane where he is subsequently arrested by Roman authorities with Jewish elders (c.f. Mark 14:27-49). Thereafter he was convicted to be finally, biblically, crucified to death.

This is good enough a narration on the face of it; however, when this is juxtaposed with John’s narration of the same incident it starts to create problems!

John’s “Passover” never passed!

  

Quite contrastingly, John claims that Jesus (peace be upon him) was captured, litigated, convicted and crucified before the Passover meal was ever eaten by him:

“When Pilate heard these words, he took Jesus outside and sat down on the judge’s seat in the place called “The Stone Pavement” (In Hebrew the name is “Gabbatha.”) It was then almost noon of the day before Passover. Pilate said to the people, “Here is your king!” They shouted back, “Kill him! Kill him! Crucify him!” Pilate asked them, “Do you want me to crucify your king?” The chief priests answered, “The only king we have is the Emperor!” Then Pilate handed Jesus over to them to be crucified. So they took charge of Jesus. He went out, carrying his cross, and came to “The Place of Skull,” as it s called. (In Hebrew it is called “Golgotha.”) There they crucified him; and they also crucified two other men, one on each side, with Jesus between them. (John 19: 13-18)

Notice that Jesus (peace be upon him) is being prosecuted when it was “almost noon of the day before Passover”, in other words, more or less the exact time when the slaughter animal would be made ready for sacrifice and simultaneously preparations for other associated rituals would be made. This in turn implies that John’s Jesus (peace be upon him), unlike Mark’s Jesus (peace be upon him), did not ever had chance to eat the Passover meal.

In fact, John’s narration gets internal support for his timing of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) prosecution; this is so because John alludes that the Jewish elders who conspired against Jesus (peace be upon him) did not enter into Pontius’ hall. They tarried outside while Jesus (peace be upon him) alone was standing in front of the Roman governor:

Early in the morning Jesus was taken from Caiaphas’ house  to the governor’s palace The Jewish authorities did not go inside the palace, for they wanted to keep themselves ritually clean, in order to be able to eat the Passover meal.(John 18:28)

Note the reason why the Jewish priests did not enter into Pontius’ hall; so that they might not be defiled for being into the chambers of a pagan gentile – Pontius Pilate. And, they wanted to remain “ritually clean” so that they “be able to eat the Passover meal”! So, Passover feast is yet to materialize and Jesus (peace be upon him) ingospel of John is being prosecuted.

To further bolster John’s position, we can observe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is not portrayed as symbolizing his body and blood to the food and drink of the Passover meal respectively as he did in Mark’s gospel; simply because he was never present in the Passover meal! Probably, by the feast time, he was in his alleged tomb!

 

 

What did author of John achieve?

It is extremely difficult to resolve the conflict between the two so-assumed god breathed “injeels”. However, what exactly were these “orthodox” authors achieving by these well-thought manipulations of data. In fact in the passages to follow we would realize that the author of John did achieve an “orthodox” theological agenda which happens to be the cornerstone of the “orthodox” Christianity which, otherwise, would have been impossible to achieve:

Remember that we were talking about the Passover meal. And in Jewish culture it was marked by slaughter of an animal – a lamb for that reason.

Quite interestingly, John’s gospel happens to be the only gospel which symbolizes Jesus (peace be upon him) as a (sacrificial) animal – a lamb:

The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and said, “There is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)

So when author of gospel of John manipulated the timing of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) crucifixion from after Passover meal to before Passover meal when the “lamb” is traditionally “prepared” for slaughter, he was able to draw a strong theological link between the crucifixion of Jesus (peace be upon him) as the “lamb” slaughtered for the traditional Jewish “Passover”!

In other words, when Jews in Jerusalem were slaughtering their “lambs” for Passover meal, Jesus (peace be upon him) – the Lamb of Lambs, so to say – was also slaughtered for the “Passover” of the sins of the world unto himself. Not surprisingly, of this happening just at the exact time when traditional Jewish slaughter takes place, namely, just after noon so that when sunsets, i.e., when the Passover day really sets in, the Passover meal would be ready! Obviously this strong figurative correlation would have been impossible given the way Holy Ghost “inspired” Mark; thus, a manipulation of “God’s word” was inevitable and necessary.

In all of these, do keep in mind that when John’s gospel was being written, Pauline epistles with its outstanding emphasize on the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (peace be upon him) than his life, was already available for at least half – a – century!

Therefore, if author of John’s gospel was one influenced by Pauline philosophy or used his epistles as source, then it certainly makes sense why Jesus’ (peace be upon him) crucifixion was meticulously shifted before the Passover meal in John’s gospel!

Conclusion

 

It is not the blatant contradiction between so called god-breathed “scriptures” which intrigues; rather, it is the hefty price of allowing flagrant contradiction(s) between gospels to meet skewed theological agendas – that has to be observed!

On this regard, it would be best to end this brief investigation with New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman’s note:

“The main point is that the stories that Christians told and retold about Jesus were not meant to be objective history lessons for students interested in key events of Roman imperial times. They were meant to convince people that Jesus was the miracle-working Son of God whose death brought salvation to the world, and to edify and instruct those who already believed. Sometimes the stories were modified to express a theological truth. For the early Christians who passed along the stories we now have in the Gospels, it was sometimes legitimate and necessary to change a historical fact in order to make a theological point. These are the stories that the Gospel writers inherited.” (The New Testament: A Historical Introduction, The Traditions of Jesus in their Greco-Roman context, Chapter 3, Pp 48-49)

We need to think about a certain aspects! If gospel author(s) can manipulate the timing of alleged crucifixion for mere correlation with a Jewish custom, then is it possible that they can modify other aspects of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) life and alleged death as well! How about manipulating his words too which ended up in thecurrent New Testament? How about exaggeration of his status and miracles? In fact the possibilities just open up like opening of floodgates. We leave that for readers to cogitate further when they pick up New Testament.

Finally an exemplification at par for the treatment of “Scriptures”:

Then We made you heirs in the land after them, to see how ye would behave! But when Our Clear Signs are rehearsed unto them, those who rest not their hope on their meeting with Us, Say: “Bring us a reading other than this, or change this,” Say: “It is not for me, of my own accord, to change it: I follow naught but what is revealed unto me: if I were to disobey my Lord, I should myself fear the penalty of a Great Day (to come).” (Qur’an 10:14-15, Yusuf Ali)

In the hostile situation where Prophet (peace be upon him) preached it was easier for him to compromise the revelations he was inspired with at least at nominal level, yet it was not in his authority to change God’s word.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned all biblical text taken from Good News Edition.
  • Textual emphasize wherever not matching with original is ours.

Harvard University Posts Qur’an Verse at Entrance of Law Faculty

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ , 

The US Harvard University has posted a verse of the Holy Quran at the entrance of its faculty of law, describing the verse as one of the greatest expressions for justice in history, a Saudi newspaper reported on Sunday. Verse 135 of Sura Al Nisa (women chapter) has been posted at a wall facing the faculty’s main entrance, dedicated to the best phrases said about justice.

A Saudi student who studies at Harvad published a picture of the poster in his Twitter page, according to the Saudi Arabic language daily Ajel. “I noticed that the verse was posted by the faculty of law, which described it as one of the greatest expressions for justice in history,” Abdullah Jumma said. Harvard University was established in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1636 as the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States.

O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if it be against yourselves or parents and relatives. Whether one is rich or poor, Allah is more worthy of both. So follow not [personal] inclination, lest you not be just. And if you distort [your testimony] or refuse [to give it], then indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, Acquainted. – Qur’aan 4:135.

Article Source: Emirates 24/7.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »