Tag Archives: Jesus

Angel of the Lord as God?

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

We’ve read from a few missionaries that Christ Jesus is also the Angel of the Lord. There’s a major problem with such a concept though and we begin our response to such a notion by quoting Matthew 1:

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream…..
When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. – Matthew 1:20, 24.

The question begs itself, if Jesus is the angel of the Lord, then who appeared to Joseph? Adam Clarke comments:

The angel of the Lord mentioned here was probably the angel Gabriel, who, six months before, bad been sent to Zacharias and Elisabeth, to announce the birth of Christ‘s forerunner, John the Baptist. See Luke 1:36.

Coffman’s Commentaries on the Bible states:

An angel of the Lord This is perhaps the same angel whose name is given in Luke 1:19,26; if so, he is Gabriel. The existence of angels affords no difficulty for Christians. The Scriptures abound with the deeds of angels. Angels announced the birth of Christ, ministered to Jesus in the wilderness of temptations, strengthened him in the garden of Gethsemane, and escorted him to glory.

So who is the angel of the Lord? Gabriel! According to who? The New Testament’s Gospel according to Luke! So unless Gabriel is Jesus, then the angel of the Lord, quite clearly cannot be Jesus:

The angel said to him, “I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God, and I have been sent to speak to you and to tell you this good news. – Luke 1:19.

The Angel of the Lord is therefore the Angel Gabriel. For one to claim otherwise, then missionaries such as Anthony Rogers and David Wood would have to prove that Jesus is Gabriel, which isn’t difficult since he’s already half man, half God, Melchezidek, YHWH and a few other people.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

Refutation: Jesus, Islam, and Atonement for Sin

Posted on by 3 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

On the eve of Christianity’s most treasured period of celebration and praise, we find Christian Apologist David Wood focusing his attention on Islam.  How strange is it, that David would rather spend an occasion so dear to his religion, to talk about another religion? In light of his statements, I present a quick, concise and simple to understand response.

The verses of Qur’aan 6:164 and 17:13-15, do explicitly state that one person would not bear the sin of another. For example, if you steal a car, I will not pay the punishment for your sin of theft. However, according to Qur’aan 16:22-25, if you lead a person to sin then you will be punished for that sin because you’ve misguided that person and misguiding/ tempting a person into sin, is a sin. Say you sell a person that stolen car, you’ve lead that person to purchase a stolen vehicle without them knowing, but it is you who are responsible for selling the vehicle. Thus you bear the sin of stealing the vehicle and selling the vehicle. The one who has purchased it, does not know it is stolen so you will bear the sin of an unlawful transaction.

David Wood doesn’t seem to understand this and sees it as a contradiction, yet the Bible also promotes the belief that tempting a person into sin is sinning, as entering into temptation is a sin:

“Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” – Matthew 26:41.

He then jumps to Qur’aan 29:12-13, without providing any context so as to fool the simple minded readers of his facetious blog. According to verse 12, the Quraysh told the Muslims that they should revert to paganism and they the Quraysh, would bear (willingly) the sins of the Muslims. This is substitutionary atonement, where one person pays for the sins of another by substitution. However Allaah rebukes them, rather He says that each will bear his own sin and the Quraysh will bear their sin of misguiding Muslims. Meaning then, the Muslims will bear there own sins and the Quraysh will have the added sin of trying to misguide the Muslims, i.e. tempting them to disbelief. There is again, no contradiction here, it only exists as such in the mind of David Wood.

As for the arguments he presented from the ahadith, I’ve responded to them here in great detail. The short answer being:

HellorNoHell

It’s an argument stolen from Sam Shamoun, nevertheless, the ahadith do not imply (save for a prima facie reading), that a Christian or Jew is substituted for a Muslim in the fires of hell. Rather, for a Muslim and a Christian/ Jew there is each a place for them in heaven or hell. If the Muslim goes to heaven, his place in hell is unfilled, since the Christian/ Jew (due to their kufr – disbelief) is going to hell, then that spot in hell would be occupied by a disbeliever. Nothing in either or hadith, imply that a Christian/ Jew is the substitute for any Muslim, such a case only exists in the drunken rants of David Wood.

Thus, in Islam, you bear your own sin, for you are responsible for what you do. You are also responsible for leading others into sin and will thus bear the sin of misguiding others from the truth. David says he disagrees with this type of theology, therefore I must logically conclude that David does believe he is an adult who needs to be held accountable for his grievous inhibitions and devious deeds. What’s worse is that, since David does not want to feel responsible for his own actions, he wants us to believe that God should bear the burden for our sins. This would have to mean that God is the worse sinner of all, a far cry from being a ‘Holy’ God.

Rather, we as Muslims believe in a ‘Holy God’, not a sinful God and we take full responsibility for our actions, we don’t need to blame others for our mistakes as David would want you to do.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

A Critical Study of Isaiah 53

Posted on by Leave a comment

Isaiah 53 is considered almost universally by Christians as a prophecy concerning the crucifixion of Jesus. They base their claim on verses applied to Jesus in the New Testament such as Matthew 8:17 that are taken from Isaiah 53. In this article we shall explore the chapter as analytically as possible and see whether the Christian claim has weight or not.

The context of Isaiah 53 actually begins in verse 13 in chapter 52. Superficially, some of the verses do seem applicable for Jesus, but, does the entire passage agree with the Jesus that is portrayed in the so called gospels? If the prophecy is really about Jesus then it surely follows that there should be no contradiction at all between the contents of Isaiah 53 with the life of Jesus according to the so called gospels[1]. For example, let us say we have a prophecy from Nostradamus that may at a glance seem to be about Ibn Anwar. So in the prophecy Nostradamus says,”that there shall arise a person in 2008 and 2009 who will debate with Christians a lot on the internet. He will be 50 years old and he will have many friends who will support him in his endeavours.” All right, so we’re in 2009. Everything Nostradamus mentions in his prophecy is true to the letter except for one thing, that is, my age. I am not 50 years old. Can any reasonable person say that the prophecy is truly about Ibn Anwar? The answer is obviously NO. Likewise, if there is even a single verse in Isaiah 53 that is incompatible with Jesus then the whole argument falters. Everything has to correlate with Jesus. With that said let us not waste any time and begin with verse 13.

Read more

Breaking News: Rapture Delayed

Posted on by 2 comments

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

I found this to be quite funny, a Christian on Facebook seemed to be a bit too enthusiastic about the rapture and decided it was just about to happen, as if it were moments away. Sadly, it’s been posted since lunch time and it’s around night time now, I don’t have the heart to tell this guy that the rapture isn’t going to happen tonight. Would anyone like to do it?

Infernoz Flamz

 

I almost feel sort of embarrassed for the guy! Then I remembered he was a Christian and the only way he gets through life is to believe the rapture is imminently upon us. Unfortunately, most Christians who are over excessive in their excitement of the rapture fit into the mould of those who forget that no one knows when it is going to happen, not even Jesus knew. It must be depressing to wake up everyday and believe that the rapture is going to happen and going to bed knowing it hasn’t.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.

The Problem of Colossians 4:16

Posted on by One comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

In the following quote, we read that the alleged Apostle Paul, commands his followers to read one of his epistles that he sent to another town:

And when this letter has been read among you, have it also read in the church of the Laodiceans; and see that you also read the letter from Laodicea. – Colossians 4:16.

The problem with this verse is that the Epistle to Laodicea no longer exists, therefore the scripture (according to Christians) of Colossians 4:16 is commanding the impossible. This raises a bigger issue, and to explain it we need another quote from New Testament:

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God  may be complete, equipped for every good work.” – 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

According to Sham Shamoun, this verse refers to Paul’s letters in general as scripture:

“Since all the letters where Paul claimed inspiration preceded the writing of 1 and 2 Timothy, we can safely infer that these epistles would have also been included among the Scriptures that Paul said were breathed out by God; an inference which the apostle Peter himself makes:

“Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.” 2 Peter 3:15-16″

This reasoning therefore exacerbates the problem of scriptural self contradiction, emendation and rejection. How so? To be quite honest, if Paul’s words are inspired by God and are therefore scripture and as scripture it is commanding Christians to read a certain letter, yet that letter does not exist, we’re in a bit of a conundrum here. If we consider the letter of Laodicea to be scripture according to Sam’s interpretation of 2 Timothy and in light of 2 Timothy itself, then the Christian faith has dug itself into a ditch. Allow me explain:

  1. Paul’s words are seen as scripture.
  2. All scripture is profitable and useful for teaching and guidance, according to 2 Timothy.
  3. If #2 is true, then Colossians 4:16 is false as it is not profitable as the Epistle to Laodicea does not exist.
  4. Since Colossians 4:16 is false, then #1 cannot be true since it does not fulfil the condition of #2.
  5. Since #1 and #2 are false, then the New Testament thus far cannot be seen as scripture.
  6. Since #3 is true, then why do Christians continue to believe it to be scripture?

Considering that logic is not the best friend of our friends at Answering Islam or Answering Muslims, I need to establish my point a bit more simply. In context of 2 Tim. 3:16, Paul’s letters are scripture and are therefore useful for teaching. Paul’s letter commands the impossible and thus is useless. Since it is useless than 2 Tim. 3:16 is false. Since 2 Tim. 3:16 is false, then as a whole, the New Testament is not trustworthy as it contradicts the very criteria under which it exists. Now, I’m assuming that I’m dealing with some thick headed people, so I’m going to bring to the forefront an even simpler argument. Colossians 4:16 commands us to read a scripture known as the Epistle to Laodicea, since Colossians 4:16 made it into the canon by YHWH’s will, then we have some bigger issues:

  1. YHWH was ignorant of what would happen to the Epistle to Laodicea.
  2. YHWH knew what would happen and chose to have 2 Tim. 3:16 contradict Paul.
  3. If #2 is true, then YHWH is deceitful as he is not the author of confusion see 1 Cor. 14:33.
  4. Since #3 is true, then the YHWH of the New Testament is not a true God by his own criteria/ Paul’s inspired writings.

So where does this leave the Christian religion? Either they have to forego Paul’s letters as worthless garbage in order to protect the dignity of YHWH, or they reject both YHWH as he contradicts the criteria of not being a God of confusion. If not, then rejecting both YHWH and Paul is the best solution as both contradict each other and themselves, as demonstrated above. Therefore due to simple logic, according to the Bible, Christians must reject the Bible, YHWH and Paul.

wa Allaahu ‘Alam.  

A Case Study of Peter’s Denial

Posted on by Leave a comment

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Note: This article by sister Elisabeth Strout, a female revert from the depths of Christianity to the heights of Islam, read her story here.

While getting ready to teach a Sunday School class on the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, my mother asked me what Islam teaches about these issues. Honestly, I responded that the Qur’an simply states categorically that Jesus didn’t die, the Jews only thought they killed him. While that leaves room for countless theories, from the switching of bodies with a look-alike, to the swoon theory, the basic teaching is that Jesus did not die and come back to life, but rather ascended to heaven without dying. I concluded with the assertion that Christians themselves cannot trust their own Bible’s teaching, as it’s riddled with contradictions. My parents confidently disavowed any possibility of discrepancy between the Bible’s four accounts of the event, and as a result, I’ve spent the last few days studying the four Biblical crucifixion and resurrection narratives closely, to analyze the contradictions between them.

There are quite a few, and while some may be written off with the “inclusive” explanation (i.e. Matthew and Mark recount Jesus’ last words as being “my God, my God why have you forsaken me”, Luke claims they were “into thy hands I commit my spirit”, while John says they were “it is finished”, and Christians generally claim that Jesus said all three in succession, “my God, my God why have you forsaken me, into your hands I commit my spirit, it is finished”.), there are some narratives that cannot be reconciled, no matter how you superimpose them.

Rather than posting them all here at once and leave readers floundering in all the references, I decided to start with a case study of one particular event in the story, namely Peter’s denial of Christ. While the wording differs insignificantly between the three questioners who point Peter out, that is not primarily of interest. Take a look at Matthew and Luke’s accounts, which are almost identical, and then compare them with John, and then Mark, and notice the incompatible details:

Matthew 26:69-75

  • All disciples flee upon Jesus’ arrest, Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl in the courtyard says, “You also were with Jesus the Galilean,” Peter responds, “I do not  know what you mean”.

  • A different servant girl at the gate says, “This man was with Jesus of Nazareth,” Peter responds with an oath, “I do not know the man”.

  • The bystanders say, “Certainly you are one of them, your accent betrays you,” Peter responds again with an oath, “I do not know the man.”

  • The rooster crows, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

Luke 22:55-62

  • Jesus is arrested (no mention made of disciples fleeing), Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl in the courtyard says, “This man also was with him,” Peter responds, “Woman, I do not know him.”

  • Another person says, “You also are one of them,” Peter responds, “Man, I am not.”

  • Another person says, “Certainly this man also was with him, for he too is a Galilean,” Peter responds, “Man, I do not know what you are talking about.”

  • The rooster crows, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

So far, so good. Again, there is a slight difference of wording, but that can be overlooked. Take note of the emphasized words in Matthew, and now watch how in John, the story takes on a lot more detail (though John was written decades later), and the contradictions begin.

John 18:15-27

  • Jesus is arrested (no mention made of disciples fleeing), Peter and another disciple follow. The other disciple gets into the courtyard because he knows an official. Peter doesn’t get into the courtyard, so the disciple sends a servant girl to open the gate for him.

  • The servant girl at the gate says, “You also are not one of this man’s disciples, are you?” and Peter responds, “I am not.”

  • The officers and servants around the fire in the courtyard say, “You also are not one of his disciples, are you?” and Peter responds again, “I am not.”

  • A relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off asks, “Did I not see you in the garden with him?” and Peter denies it.

  • The rooster crows (no mention is made of his weeping).

So now, apart from the general wording and the location of the questioners (he goes from courtyard to gate in Matt., and from gate to courtyard in John), we have several distinct differences. First, the identity of the following disciples. Matt. claims all the disciples fled except Peter, and Peter alone followed from a distance. John makes no mention of the disciples fleeing, and claims both Peter and another disciple followed. Typical of John, the other disciple remains anonymous leaving Christians to speculate that it was probably John himself. Either way, either they all fled except Peter, or they all fled except Peter and John. It can’t be both.

Secondly, the identity of the questioners. Other than the first, the servant girl, Luke leaves the second two questioners anonymous, so his version is fairly compatible with the others. Matthew on the other hand, states that the questioners were (1) a servant girl in the courtyard, (2) a different servant girl at the gate, and (3) the bystanders (identified in John as officials and servants). John claims they were (1) a servant girl at the gate, (2) the by-standing officers and servants, and (3) a relative of the man whose ear Peter cut off.

While some may be tempted to generalize “bystanders” to mean anyone, including servant girls and relatives of earless men, the gospels purposely distinguish between the two, and the relative’s words in John set him apart even further from the bystanders of Matt., Mark, and Luke. While the three synoptics list, with slightly different wording, the third questioner as having recognizing Peter as a Galilean (because of his accent in Matt.), John’s third questioner (the relative of the man whose ear Peter cut) recognizes Peter because he saw him in the garden, during the arrest. It can’t be both.

Finally, we come to Mark’s account, which has yet another notable difference. While agreeing with Matthew about all the disciples fleeing except Peter, and the third question from the bystanders about Peter being Galilean, there are a few details that don’t match up.

Mark 14:66-72

  • All disciples flee upon Jesus’ arrest, Peter follows at a distance.

  • A servant girl at the fire in the courtyard says, “You also were with the Nazarene, Jesus,” Peter responds, “I neither know nor understand what you mean.”

  • Peter goes out to the gate and the rooster crows.

  • The same servant girl sees him there and says, “This man is one of them,” and Peter denies it.

  • The bystanders say, “Certainly you are one of them, for you are a Galilean,” Peter responds with an oath, “I do not know this man of whom you speak.”

  • The rooster crows a second time, Peter remembers Jesus’ prediction, and weeps bitterly.

While Matthew specifies that the first two accusations were leveled by two different servant girls, Mark goes to the trouble of telling us they were spoken by the same servant girl. It can’t be both. The second, and more noticeable aberration, is that Mark’s account of the story, as well as his account of Jesus’ prediction, differ in the number of times the rooster crows. While Peter is told he will deny three times, and does deny three times, in all accounts, Jesus predicts it will be “before the rooster crows”, in Matt., Luke, and John, and “before the rooster crows twice”, in Mark. And sure enough, in Matt., Luke and John, Peter denies thrice before the rooster crows, while in Mark, he denies, the rooster crows (the sound of it doesn’t bring him to his senses yet), he denies twice more, and the rooster crows again. So which was it, before the rooster crows, or before it crows twice? It can’t be both.

It seems like a silly, insignificant story. Same servant girl or different one, courtyard or gate, bystanders or relative, all but one disciple or all but two disciples, Galilean accent or previous encounter in the garden, one crow or two; does it really matter? For the Christians who claim there’s not a single contradiction in the entire Bible, it does matter. You can’t get around these, and you can’t get around the dozens, if not hundreds more in the Bible, no matter how insignificant. For the more reasonable Christians who openly admit that sure, they’re ancient documents, there’s the occasional slip-up, but nothing major that affects doctrine, their intellectual honesty is refreshing, but it begs the question, can God’s divine revelation be anything less than perfect? When God sends a final text for all of mankind, shouldn’t it be held to the same standards of holiness and perfection as He himself? Others maintain that as God’s Word incarnate, Jesus himself was the final revelation, and it’s his person that matters, not the text. Yet the text is all we have of him today, and if it contradicts itself, if it can’t be trusted to deliver the truth about the small events, how can we trust its claims about matters as weighty as death and resurrection?

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.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »