Tag Archives: responding to answering islam

John 5:23 – The Sweetest Trinitarian Honey!

Posted on by 6 comments

Visiting the darling Trinitarian argument from a neutral perspective.

Question Mark

Introduction

One of the best argument which a Trinitarian would brandish in support of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity is the appeal to John 5:23. The flagrantly high “Christology” in the youngest of all gospels – the gospel of John – has in it Jesus (peace be upon him) asserting that he is to be honored “just as” the Father.

Under most circumstances, Trinitarians would love to use it to worship a mere man; however, this could be done after comfortably neglecting or rejecting the (i) immediate and (ii) overall context of the Bible and (iii) the contemporary prevailing beliefs of “orthodox” Christians.

Once the verse is seen in its proper perspective either, Jesus (peace be upon him) could not be deified unless otherwise resorted to slanted exegesis; or, multiple mere mortals would also have to be deified, accordingly!

With that said, let us test the viability of one of the best Trinitarian argument!

Honor the Son in the “same way” as Father

 The following is the text used as a proof to deify Jesus (peace be upon him):

Nor does the Father himself judge anyone. He has given his Son the full right to judge, so that all will honor the Son in the same way as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5: 22-23, Good News Bible)

The following transliteration of the video clipping would prove how desperately Trinitarian apologists have been mishandling the above verse towards their polytheistic agenda:

“Why did the Father appointed his Son to be the Judge of all? All creation, all flesh. Here is the answer. Here is the reason from the lips of Jesus Christ our Lord; from the very chapter that Zakir Naik misquoted – that all my honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Let me just stop here for a moment. Notice what the Lord Jesus Christ did not say. He did not say, “the reason why the Father appointed me judge is so that everyone honors me as a prophet”. That’s not what he said. He didn’t say, “that the reason why I have been appointed judge of all is so that you can honor me as you honor the righteous or your parents or a messenger. No, he says, the reason why I judge everyone is so that everyone honors me in the same way they honor the Father. ” (Shamoun Time 07:24 – 08:14)

Before we dissect the argument for closer examination, we will make certain very important observations from the above adduced verse. These observations would sufficiently allude that the otherwise obvious “Christology” (for Trinitarians) of the verse, is not, in reality that obvious!

Observe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is to be honored the “same way” as God for the following two reasons:

1.      Father (God) has made or appointed Son (Jesus, peace be upon him) to judge on His behalf on this Earth. In other words, Jesus (peace be upon him) would be representing God’s sovereignty in this world, he has been given that privilege. In other words, the attribute of judging does not come intrinsically from him. Consequently, elsewhere in the Bible such a deferred privilege is portrayed as a non-divine act of Jesus (peace be upon him):

“If people hear my message and do not obey it, I will not judge them. I came, not to judge the world, but to save it. Those who reject me and do not accept my message have one who will judge them. The words I have spoken will be their judge on the last day! This is true, because I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has commanded me what I must say and speak. And I know that his command brings eternal life. What I say, then, is what the Father has told me to say.” (John 12: 47-50)

Moreover, New Testament also declares that mere Christian believers would also judge on the judgment day! This further proves that judging others was not a task to deify a candidate.

2.      Also observe that Jesus (peace be upon him) has been “sent” by Father; he was commissioned into this world. This particular act of “sending” somebody has the imports of non divine prophet-hood on the one who is send. Moreover, in biblical context such a commissioned person is yet again portrayed as somebody lesser than God. Consider the following few verses regarding Jesus (peace be upon him) as substantiation for this notion:

“Jerusalem, Jerusalem! You kill the prophets and stone the messengers God has sent you! How many times I wanted to put my arms around all your people, just as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would not let me! (Matthew 23:37)

Jesus saith unto them, My meat is to do the will of him that sent me, and to finish his work. (John 4: 34)

I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. (John 5:30)

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. (John 7:16)

And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. (John 8:29)

(King James Version)

This gives us a good picture that neither (i) judging on behalf of God as His representative nor (ii) being the one sent by God can be treated as divine phenomenon and yet we find our subject phrase – to honor Son just as Father – smack dab at the middle of  mutually opposing clauses – the two non-divine functionalities or attributes.

Therefore it still has to be enquired why the controversial subject phrase was placed in between two necessarily non-divine context. The answer to this query was “shadowed” in the Old Testament!

The way the Old Testament portrays its Prophets

Trinitarians would accept that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not merely a New Testament “God” but he was also a messianic prophet; a Davidic prophet; a royal prophet (c.f. Matthew 1:1, 17, 9:27, 13:55-57, 21: 5-9, 10-11, 45-46. Luke 1:30-32, 13:32-33, 24:18-19, John 6:14, Acts 2:22, 30)

So whatever was attributed and applicable to the Old Testament prophets, especially those who were Davidic and royal, could be applied at par for Jesus (peace be upon him) as well!  With that said let us observe very closely how the Old Testament portrayed its prophets and what was attributed to them.

1.      Davidic royal Prophets were required to be worshipped:

“Then David said to the whole assembly, ‘Bless Yahweh your God.’ And the whole assembly blessed Yahweh, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads low and worshipped Yahweh AND the king (wayyiqadu wayyishtahawu YHWHW walammelek).” (1 Chronicles 29: 20)

“You have delivered me from the strivings of the people; You have made me the head of the nations; A people I have not known shall serve me (ya’abduni). As soon as they hear me they obey me; The foregners submit to me.” (Psalm 18: 43-44)

“Give the king your justice, O God, and your rightenouness to the royal son!…May desert tribes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust! …May all kings fall down before Him (wayishtahawulow); May all nations serve Him (ya’abduhu).” (Psalm 72:1,9, 11)

“They will serve(wa’abadu) Yahweh their God AND David their king whom I will raise up for them.” (Jeremiah 30:9)

Notice the construction of the Old Testament “verses”: It has instructed its believers to worship and serve Yahweh and the prophet(s) in the same breath.

The “verses” do not make any qualification that God is to be worshipped the way befits Him and the worldly kings are to be honored the way which suits the mortals. In fact it does not even differentiates the word – it uses the same word “worship” while referring to both God “and” mortal kings.

Furthermore, observe the Hebrew words used for worship (and services) and compare them with the following words as used while referring to Yahweh. They are either identical or a derivative of the root word:

“Serve (‘ibdu) the Lord with fear, And rejoice with trembling. Psalm 2:11

“Serve (‘ibdu) the Lord with gladness; Come before His presence with singing. Acknowledge that Yahweh is God. He made us, and we are His—His people, the sheep of His pasture.” Psalm 100:2-3

“All nations whom You have made Shall come and worship (wayishtahawu) before You, O Lord (adonay), And shall glorify (wikabbadu) Your name.” Psalm 86:9

“‘From one New Moon to another and from one Sabbath to another, all flesh will come and bow down (lahishtahawot) before Me,’ says Yahweh.” Isaiah

Thus, we see that the Old Testament had a peculiarly high “prophetology” for its prophets. They were to be “worshipped” alongside Yahweh (“and”) and to express this notion Hebrew Bible uses the same root word which it uses for Yahweh.

2.      Mere prophets were praised “just as” Yahweh

The Old Testament requires its believers to exalt and praise Yahweh,

“Give to Yahweh, O families of the peoples, Give to Yahweh glory (kabod)and strength. Give to Yahweh the glory (kabod) due His name; Bring an offering, and come into His courts. Oh, worship (hishtahawu) Yahweh in the beauty of holiness! Tremble before Him, all the earth. (Psalm 96:7-9)

“Let the peoples praise You, O God; Let all the peoples praise You. Oh, let the nations be glad and sing for joy! For You shall judge the people righteously, And govern the nations on earth. Selah Let the peoples praise You, O God; Let all the peoples praise You. Then the earth shall yield her increase; God, our own God, shall bless us. God shall bless us, And all the ends of the earth shall fear Him.” (Psalm 67:3-7)

Yet it also requires that mere prophets be also exalted and praised:

“His glory (kabodo) is great in Your salvation; Honor and majesty You have placed upon him. For You have made him most blessed forever; You have made him exceedingly glad with Your presence.” (Psalm 21:5-6)

“So the King will greatly desire your beauty; Because He is your Lord (adonayik), worship Him (wahishtahawilow)… I will make Your name to be remembered in all generations; Therefore the people shall praise You forever and ever. (Psalm 45:11, 17)

Notice that it is not merely the usage of same Hebrew words (“Kobodo”) for glorifying prophets as was used for Yahweh but that the last verse even requires its followers to praise a mere king “forever and ever” – something which falls in the genre of divinie praise! We do not “kobod” (praise) mere mortal prophets “forever and ever”, yet, biblically these are allowed phrases without breaching its brand of monotheism.

3.      Mere prophets sharing the same title with Yahweh

In the same adduced Psalm verse (45:11, above) notice that Davidic prophet(s) was referred as “Lord” using the Hebrew word “adonayik”. Comparatively, the same word is elsewhere used for Yahweh as well:

“Thus says your Lord (adonayik), Yahweh and your God, Who pleads the cause of His people: ‘See, I have taken out of your hand The cup of trembling, The dregs of the cup of My fury; You shall no longer drink it.’” Isaiah 51:22

Thus we have instance where Yahweh – the “God” of the Bible – has even shared his title with mere mortals. No wonder, Yahweh is also portrayed as sharing his throne as well:

Prophets on the Throne of God Himself:

“Then Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father; and he prospered, and all Israel obeyed him. All the officials, the mighty men, and also all the sons of King David pledged allegiance to King Solomon. The Lord highly exalted Solomon in the sight of all Israel, and bestowed on him royal majesty which had not been on any king before him in Israel.” (1 Chronicles 29:23-25)

“Blessed be the Lord your God who delighted in you, setting you on His throne as king for the Lord your God; because your God loved Israel establishing them forever, therefore He made you king over them, to do justice and righteousness.” (2 Chronicles 9:8)

All of the above Old Testament verses by allowing its prophets,

  1. To be “worshipped” alongside Yahweh,
  2. To be glorified  just as Yahweh,
  3. To share same title as Yahweh,

creates good ground for correct and congenial interpretation of John 5:23. In the backdrop of foregoing Old Testament verses if Jesus (peace be upon him) asserted that son is to be honored “just as” Father then he had the Old Testament pretext in which he was asserting! He knew that the Jewish traditions allow that mere prophets be “worshipped”, “glorified” alongside Yahweh “just as” He is worshipped and glorified. Similarly, Jesus (peace be upon him) even knew that Old Testament prophets even shared Yahweh’s titles to their end and yet none of it violated any Old Testament monotheism.

Therefore, if Jesus (peace be upon him) supposedly demands “same honor” with Father then it could not possibly be taken to establish divinity for Jesus (peace be upon him) given the Old Testament framework. Yet if Trinitarians want to do it then either (i) they want to reject the overall Old Testament context in which Jesus (peace be upon him) was speaking or (ii) they have to deify multiple Old Testament prophets (or at least the royal, Davidic prophets for that reason)!

The problem does not end here with the best-argument. Consider the following section.

 

What did Jesus (peace be upon him) do with the “honor” he demanded? 

Even if we reject all of the Old Testament pretext to claim that because Jesus (peace be upon him) demanded “same honor” with Father, therefore, he must be divine; yet it does not help the Trinitarian agenda in any way since it is very interesting to observe what Jesus (peace be upon him) later did with the “honor” – the so assumed “divine” honor – once it was vested on him. In the following passages we explore it.

Later in the same gospel, towards the end of his life, Jesus (peace be upon him) picks up the topic of his honor and glory once again. In fact John dedicates an entire chapter towards the honor and glory of Jesus (peace be upon him). We pick it up from there:

John portrays Jesus (peace be upon him) demanding the glory which he had initially – even before the world was ever made:

After Jesus finished saying this, he looked up to heaven and said, “Father, the hour has come. Give glory to your Son, so that the Son may give glory to you. I have shown your glory on earth; I have finished the work you gave me to do. Father! Give me glory in your presence now, the same glory I had with you before the world was made. (John 17: 1, 4-5)

Trinitarian exegetes are unanimous upon it that the primordial glory of Jesus (peace be upon him) was particularly divine!

However, later in the same chapter, after praying for his followers, Jesus (peace be upon him) interestingly (or embarrassingly) gave away the same glory to his multiple disciples:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who believe in me because of their message. I pray that they may all be one. Father! May they be in us, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they be one, so that the world will believe that you sent me. I gave them the same glory you gave me, so that they may be one, just as you and I are one: (John 17: 20-22)

Observe it once again that Jesus (peace be upon him) gave his followers the “same glory” which God vested on him. Don’t forget, verses 4 and 5 informed us that, according to Trinitarian exegesis, Jesus (peace be upon him) was seeking his “divine” primordial glory from Father!

Acknowledging the “high” status of followers, Trinitarian commentators have following to remark:

John 17:22  The glory which thou hast given me, I have given them – The glory of the only begotten shines in all the sons of God. How great is the majesty of Christians. (John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes, John 17:22)

Notice the Wesley’s exclamatory note towards the end of his comment. He exclaims about the extra high esteemed status of Christians – why? Because they enjoy thesame glory which Christ (peace be upon him) was conferred with for being the “only begotten” of the God!

It is very disturbing that within the purported realms of “monotheistic” Christianity, the supposed divine and special glory of the alleged Trinitarian god is shared with multiple mere mortals!

Another set of Trinitarian Scholars – Matthew Henry – go a step ahead of John Wesley to claim more divine qualities and positions for mere mortals which assumedly befits Christ (peace be upon him) alone:

Those that are given in common to all believers. The glory of being in covenant with the Father, and accepted of him, of being laid in his bosom, and designed for a place at his right hand, was the glory which the Father gave to the Redeemer, and he has confirmed it to the redeemed. (Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible, John 17:20-23)

As a proof for Jesus’ (peace be upon him) divinity, Trinitarians down the ages have been appealing to the biblical verses wherein Jesus (peace be upon him) is portrayed as “laid in God’s bosom” and “at His right hand”.

The “right hand” of the God is an exclusive, divine place suitable only for Christ (peace be upon him) appeals most Trinitarians, nevertheless, we saw above thatTrinitarian scholars had no scruple into vesting these “divine” status on mere mortals implying either (i) the “glory” of Jesus (peace be upon him) was not divine or (ii) there are numerous individuals in Trinitarian Christianity enjoying such “glory”!

Furthermore, honor of being the “redeemer” of the entire world has to be divine at least in the Trinitarian parlance yet Trinitarian scholars confirm it on multiple mere creatures! This once again establishes that honor of Jesus (peace be upon him) although special and prized but was not divine.

The problem with the best argument continues…

 

 Earliest “Orthodox” Beliefs 

We are now to the very last argument against Trinitarian misuse of John 5:23. In this section we would consider the writings of earliest, “orthodox”, church father Ignatius. Remember that Ignatius is as old as contemporary to gospel of John and a student of John himself!

Consider then what Ignatius had to portray about the “orthodox” belief system of theearliest Christians regarding the status of church bishops:

“Be subject to the bishop as to the commandment” (Ign. Trall. 13.2)

“We are clearly obliged to look upon the bishop as the Lord himself” (Ign. Eph. 6.1)

Since the mortal “bishops” were to be seen as “Lord” himself and their commandments were to be treated at par with the Laws of Yahweh, Ignatius of Antioch gave no religious freedom to the laity:

“You should do nothing apart from the bishop” (Ign. Magn. 7.1)

On the preceding, New Testament authority Bart Ehrman rightly asserts the following:

Each Christian community had a bishop, and this bishop’s word was LAW [Mosaic]. The bishop was to be followed as if he were God himself. (Bart Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p.141)

Even if we neglect that the writings of the earliest, “orthodox” church father – Ignatius as outright polytheistic yet it can still be used to fathom the then prevailing state of affairs with regards to the status of celebrated people inside church walls. If mere church bishop(s) can be viewed as “God himself” then we do not see much appeal if “Jesus” (peace be upon him) – the supposed “head of the Church” demanded merely “same honor” with Father! It was just part and parcel and legacy of “orthodox” Christianity.

Therefore, to declare Jesus (peace be upon him) as God – Almighty just because somewhere he had allegedly demanded “same honor” with Father comes more as an act desperation in the wake of absence of conclusive proofs.

Christians could not conveniently brush aside Ignatius’ writings since (i) he is the very prototype of all “orthodox” Christians (ii) a student of John (the evangelist) himself and most importantly (iii) he – the “Saint” Ignatius – considered his words to be divinely inspired. Check this out:

For even if some people have wanted to deceive me according to the flesh, the Spirit is not deceived, since it comes from God. For it knows whence it comes and where it is going, and it exposes the things that are hidden. I cried out while among you, speaking in a great voice, the voice of God, “Pay attention to the bishop and the presbytery and the deacons!” But some suspected that I said these things because I knew in advance that there was a division among you. But the one in whom I am bound is my witness that I knew it from no human source; but the Spirit was preaching, saying: “Do nothing apart from the bishop; keep your flesh as the Temple of God; love unity; flee divisions; be imitators of Jesus Christ as he is of his Father.” (Ign. Phil., 7)

 

Conclusion 

Our concern was to understand if there is any viability in one of the most celebrated Trinitarian argument in support of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) deity, namely, John 5:23.

In the very first place we saw that the subject verse of honoring son just as Father was placed amidst two mutually opposing phrases which essentially portray Jesus (peace be upon him) in a non divine light.

Later we realized that let alone Jesus (peace be upon him) demanding (merely) “same honor” with Father, Old Testament prophets had centuries ago enjoyed colossal privileges than that. In it, (i)they were to be worshipped alongside Yahweh (ii) they were to be glorified “same as” God so much so that (iii) they were to even share the titles and throne of God – Himself with Bible making no distinction in the construction of the sentence or the choice of words in any of the above! Furthermore (iv) contemporary (to New Testament), “orthodox” church writings declare mere Christian believers in church offices to be looked upon as “God himself” and their fleeting sayings at par with Yahweh’s own words!

If there is a lot of Trinitarian hue and cry over Jesus (peace be upon him) demanding “same honor” with God then, on the preceding biblical proofs, there should be even greater voices raised for worshipping numerous Old Testament prophets and multiple church bishops in various parts of the world and down the ages.

With that said, we request Christians to look upon the alleged Jesus’ (peace be upon him) assertion in its proper biblical perspective and come to conclusions accordingly.

Notes:

  • Unless otherwise mentioned all biblical texts courtesy Sam Shamoun. Jazakallah khair, Shamoun. May Allah (SWT) guide you towards monotheism for this service!

Refutation: Since Jesus has a God, how can he be God himself?

Posted on by One comment

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem
بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ ,

Question:

According to Hebrews 1:8-9 Jesus as God has a God over him. Some Christians claim that Hebrews 1:8-9 is referring to Jesus’ humanity, that as a man he has a God over him. The only problem with this position is that it would imply that Jesus as a man is being called God, which means that his humanity is being deified. How do Christians get around all these problems?*

Answer:

Sam Shamoun begins to answer this verse by firstly quoting the portion of verses that the person references:

“Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs. For to which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you’? Or again, ‘I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son’? And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, ‘Let all God’s angels worship him.’ Of the angels he says, ‘He makes his angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire.’ But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’ And, ‘You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. Bt you are the same, and your years will have no end.’ And to which of the angels has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet’? Are they not all ministering spirits sent out to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation? Hebrews 1:1-14*

This Epistle’s rendition by an unknown author/ traditionally referred to as the Apostle Paul, was taken from the ESV [English Standard Version] version of the Bible. All of Sam’s emphasis (bold, italics) have been left in place. To begin with, there are two renditions of the verses 8 and 9 and both are problematic for the Christian faith. One must understand that Sam has chosen this specific translation to present a certain theological view point, that is, Paul’s trinitarian doctrine, but as the questioner rightly asks, if we do abide by Paul’s theological absurdity, we still arrive at a doctrinal issue. How can God (who Sam refers to as Christ), have a God? The specific verses in question states (from Sam’s version):

But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.’  – Hebrews 1:8-9*.

We will return to Hebrews 1:8-9 momentarily, for now let’s seek to understand how Sam’s reasoning from these points he stated, make much if any sense, Sam states* due to Hebrews 1 we can conclude:

  1. Before his Incarnation as the Agent of Creation.
  2. During his Incarnation when he became the Redeemer.
  3. After his resurrection and exaltation into glory where he then began ruling on the Divine throne forever.

Agent of Creation.

Paul (alleged author*) opens this epistle with alluding to Christ as a God who has been foretold by the Prophets of old. Unfortunately, there is no reference given by Paul to any mention of a Christ who is also the Creator in the Old Testament. He does reference the Father as the creator later down in other verses, but the only actual evidences to indicate that Jesus (by name or mention) actually partook in the creation of the universe is not based on any explicit Old Testament statements. Hence why neither Sam or his Paul sought to defend but only parrot this particular sentiment.

Christ becomes the Redeemer.

God in the Old Testament in Psalms 103:3*, is described as one who forgives all sins, in Psalms 19:14 that same God is also referred to as a Redeemer, in Isaiah 41:14* the same title of the Redeemer is afforded to God and not to Christ Jesus. Therefore when Sam says Jesus became the redeemer, this presents a fundamental theological issue. If God is eternal, and Sam’s God becomes the Redeemer, as opposed to the God of the Old Testament who was always the Redeemer, then we must conclude that Sam’s God (Jesus) is not the same God of the Old Testament. For if they were the same God, then Jesus would have always had to be the Redeemer, a title eternally his, however as Sam has aptly demonstrated this is not the case and Christ unlike the God of the Old Testament, eventually accepted this title.

Christ becomes a Divine Ruler.

In Exodus 17:16*, the God of the Old Testament is described as having a throne and has deemed destruction for a people who rose against it. This is referring to the kingdom of Israel, which is also called God’s kingdom, where God’s throne (God’s promised throne to David) resides. It does not actually refer to YHWH’s throne. This can be understood with the following: God’s daughters. God does not actually have daughters but this title is to refers to a note of distinction among the believing peoples. Similarly, God’s house does not mean that God shacks up under a roof. This form of scriptural hyper-literalism can only be considered indecent and grossly inappropriate for any educated person to do. An uneducated person however is much more susceptible to eisgesis such as the aforementioned. We know that God has a heavenly throne already, as David and others mention this, one example is of that in Psalm 11:4*, similarly in Psalm 103:19. Fast forward to the 21st century and Sam Shamoun is saying that Christ after his resurrection only then took upon the throne. This again, gives credence to the belief that the God of the Old Testament (who is already established upon His throne) is different to the God who is Jesus who only accepted the glory of the throne after his (so-called) resurrection.

Thus, as it can be seen, Sam’s ‘explanation‘ or ‘response‘ to this question, still has not definitively answered it, in fact what he has done is divert from the question, all the while providing evidences for why Christ is not and cannot be considered a God. He tries to alleviate his intellectually inadequacies and theological doctrinal self suicide by then trying (keyword: trying) to do a study on Psalms 45:6-7 from where Hebrews 1:8-9 was copied. Sam states:

The author of Hebrews applied this text in reference to Jesus’ Messianic office, an office which he received by virtue of becoming a human descendant of king David after the Incarnation:

“And the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.’” Luke 1:30-33

“concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,” Romans 1:3-4

Putting it in another way, the writer applied Psalm 45:6-7 to Jesus in reference to his Messianic role, that as the Son of David he perfectly fulfills all the promises God made to David and his sons that theirs would be an eternal royal dynasty:

“And I will appoint a place for my people Israel and will plant them, so that they may dwell in their own place and be disturbed no more. And violent men shall afflict them no more, as formerly, from the time that I appointed judges over my people Israel. And I will give you rest from all your enemies. Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you.” 2 Samuel 7:10-15

 

The primary reason he never explicitly states that Paul is the author of Hebrews, is due to modern studies concluding that Paul’s once unquestionable authorship is now in severe doubt. Some asserting that a scribe of Paul or someone listening to one of Paul’s sermons may have authored this Epistle. Whatever the case may be, this Epistle is now a fundamental part of the Christian New Testament and plays a significant role in Christ evolving from a Messiah into a Messianic-Deity.

It should be noted, that Sam’s references to the Davidic kingdom, refers specifically to an earthly kingdom. We know it’s an earthly kingdom because as the Bible demonstrates itself, many were heirs to it:

And now, as surely as the LORD lives—he who has established me securely on the throne of my father David and has founded a dynasty for me as he promised—Adonijah shall be put to death today!” – 1 Kings 2:24*.

Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day. – 1 Kings 3:6*.

I intend, therefore, to build a temple for the Name of the LORD my God, as the LORD told my father David, when he said, ‘Your son whom I will put on the throne in your place will build the temple for my Name.’ – 1 Kings 5:5*.

David’s kingdom was to be passed on to his sons. This raises two important issues. If David’s kingdom was earthly and promised to his sons (i.e. male descendants) and this kingdom was promised to eventually become eternal:

  • How does David’s earthly throne become God’s eternal throne?
  • David’s throne was promised to his blood sons (his heirs). Jesus can be considered David’s brother since he shares the title Son of God with him, but not the title of son of David.
  • Jesus can only be considered to be a son of David, if Jesus had an earthly father, Jesus did not have a father from the lineage of David.

What’s most damning to Sam’s argument however is the following verse from which he quotes from 2 Samuel 7*:

Moreover, the LORD declares to you that the LORD will make you a house. When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.

This demonstrates that David’s sons (heirs) would not inherit YHWH’s throne. As YHWH already has a throne according Psalm 103:19, also alluded to in Psalm 89:14*. The very fact that YHWH has to create a house and then, from this house a kingdom with a throne, demonstrates that this clearly never was and never will be the same throne as God’s. This leaves Sam’s evidences nothing more than the result of a poor study of the Bible, along with intentional misapplication of Biblical prophecies. Sam continues:

But since the only way Jesus could have ever fulfilled these promises is by becoming a man from the line of David this implies that Hebrews 1:8-9 has Jesus’ Incarnation and exaltation in view. After all, if Jesus hadn’t taken on a human nature he would not have become a descendant of David and could not therefore rule on the throne as his representative. Moreover, since Jesus became a true human being and will forever remain a man who sits on the throne as David’s representative, the Father became and will forever remain his God. So there is no problem with Jesus having a God over him.

I’ve already dealt with Sam’s so-called ‘prophecies’, however what’s most perplexing is that according to Sam Shamoun, if Jesus did not become a man, he could not inherit the throne. Since he believes that Jesus is YHWH and David’s throne is alluded to being God’s representative throne on earth (as those who Judge by YHWH’s laws are considered to be ruling by God, ergo God’s throne, see Psalm 82:6-7*), then how could it be that Jesus has to inherit a throne that if he was God, he would already be ruling by? Again, Sam’s inconsistent beliefs are glaringly obvious. According to Sam, Jesus came to earth to inherit God’s earthly throne (again, recall that ruling by God’s laws in God’s earthly kingdom means the ruler is like God in the sense of his judicial reach, see Psalm 82:6-7), this would then mean:

  • Sam has a God.
  • This God is the Creator.
  • This God has an eternal heavenly throne and kingdom.
  • This God Redeems and Forgives sins.
  • This God raises a chosen people and they rule by God’s laws.
  • Therefore God has an earthly Kingdom.
  • God’s kingdom is insufficient to guide the people.
  • Because the law cannot atone for the sins of the people.
  • Even though God gave those laws and can forgive any sin.
  • God comes to earth to solve the problem as a man.
  • By fulfilling a Prophecy to inherit his earthly throne.
  • This man-God-Messiah who is supposed to inherit a throne…
  • Then gets himself killed by the same nation of people he came to lead.
  • Ascends back to heaven to return to his eternal throne.
  • Makes perfect sense.                                                                     (sarcasm intended).

Sam continues by stating:

At the Incarnation Jesus did not cease to be God, but simply added an additional nature to his Divine Person.

If Sam’s God is eternally divine, how can God who is perfect, create and then add to himself? If God is perfect then adding something to God would mean:

  • God was not perfect before and is now perfect. The result being if God continues to add natures to His divine person, then this God is in perpetual improvement and thus not all powerful nor divine.

Thus far, Sam has not established a proper basis for why Jesus according to the Hebrews 1:8-9 is said to have a God. Despite his meandering, the question remains unsolved. If God who is in heaven, and according to the Trinitarian doctrine, is co-equal to the other two Persons in the Godhead, why does the Father, refer to another person as his God? If Jesus’ divine nature is being ignored, then YHWH has demeaned himself, demoted himself as he is referring to a human as his God. Sam has failed to properly answer this question, I still do not see why Jesus as a man, God or both is considered to be a God of God.

Addendum:

In objection to another verse which presents Jesus as having a God, we read:

“The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name.” – Revelation 3:12.

Sam says:

What this objection erroneously assumes is that Jesus, in Revelation, is no longer man now that he is in heaven. As we noted earlier, the Holy Scriptures explicitly affirm that Jesus hasn’t ceased being human after his resurrection. In fact, the resurrection presupposes that Christ remains a true human being, albeit a glorified human at that!

Again, Sam does not solve the theological blunder. Jesus here, who is both a man and God at all times as stated by Sam, “It isn’t an either/or scenario, but a both/and situation“, means that Jesus can call upon God (himself) or be referred to as God (by himself). This is purely rhetoric and circular thinking. This demonstrates modality, when God is a man, he has a God, when God is a God he calls himself God. This ends up with the hilarious perpetual reasoning that God has a God and God will always have a God. If God has a God, then who exactly is the Most High? If God has a God, who has a God who is a God, who has a God who is a God, then at what point do we stop and ask, which one of these is the true one?

Conclusion:

In closing, Sam has once again failed to answer the question, aptly demonstrated his weak intellect and has gone above and beyond to demonstrate that his God, has a God. Quite absurd to say the least, can’t say I expected any better from him. Atleast we can agree with Sam’s statement: ” In fact, the resurrection presupposes that Christ remains a true human being, albeit a glorified human at that!”

wa Allaahu Alam,
and God knows best.
*:

  1. Sam Shamoun’s, “Since Jesus has a God, how can he be God himself?“, Answering Common Claims and Questions, Answering Islam.
  2. Hebrews 1:1-4, Ibid.
  3. Hebrews 1:1-9, Ibid.
  4. Sam Shamoun, Ibid.
  5. Got Questions’, “Who was the author of Hebrews“.
  6. Bible, Psalm 103:3.
  7. Bible, Isaiah 41:14.
  8. Bible, Exodus (Shemot) 17:16.
  9. Bible, Psalm 11:4.
  10. Bible, 1 Kings 2:24.
  11. Bible, 1 Kings 3:6.
  12. Bible, 1 Kings 5:5.
  13. Sam Shamoun’s, “Since Jesus has a God, how can he be God himself?“, 2 Samuel 7.
  14. Bible, Psalm 89:14.
  15. Bible, Psalm 82:6-7, see:

    Gill’s Exposition of the Entire BibleI have said, ye are gods,…. In the law, Exodus 21:6 or they were so by his appointment and commission; he constituted them judges and magistrates, invested them with such an office, by which they came to have this title; see Romans 13:1 , and so our Lord interprets these words, that they were gods “to whom” the word of God came, which gave them a commission and authority to exercise their office, John 10:35 , or rather “against whom” it came, pronouncing the sentence of death on them, as in Psalm 82:7 , to which the reference is; declaring, that though they were gods by office, yet were mortal men, and should die. The Targum is, “I said, as angels are ye accounted”; and so judges and civil magistrates had need to be as angels, and to have the wisdom of them; see 2 Samuel 14:20. Jarchi interprets it of angels, but magistrates are undoubtedly meant:

    and all of you are children of the most High; the Targum here again renders it,

    “the angels of the most High:”

    and so Aben Ezra explains it of them who are called the sons of God, Job 38:7 but men in power are meant, who, because of their eminency and dignity, their high office, post, and place, are so called; see Genesis 6:2.

  16. Sam Shamoun’s, “Since Jesus has a God, how can he be God himself?“, Revelation 3:12.