Responding to Christianity's Critics

Re: Is Jesus God?

Here is an interesting article by one Mushafiq Sultan. The author seeks to prove from the Bible that Jesus is not God himself. What follows is a succession of half-quotes, blatant lies, faulty logic and all around contextual bastardization in a bid to show the Christian position to be incorrect. Now I realize that those were in fact some rather strong words but I am quite confident that by the time the reader finishes this article, they will have seen that I was actually quite reserved in my opinion of the article. Furthermore, no matter whether they believe Christianity to be true or not, they will agree with the statement that the Bible teaches the divinity of Christ. Now as it comes to evidence for the divinity of Jesus Christ, I have always known that eventually I would have to write such a post and in one respect sincerely dreaded the thought. There is just so much to cover and even in trying to cover just the “important things” I know quite well that I will fail in doing the subject any justice. So with that caveat, let me begin to explain from scripture why in fact Christians consider Jesus to be God.

Or so I thought. I realize that before we can at all begin, there need be established some simple ground rules. First of all, let us remember that we who engage in debates have to be consistent. If by one argument we are able to dismantle the position of the opposition but also our own, and yet continue to claim that our position should be exempted from the scrutiny that comes by way of that very argument, we are being deceitful and inconsistent. The mark of a good argument is consistency and where the debater lacks consistency one should be alert to a faulty argument. Second is the fact that, nevermind our own biases, it is the theory that can explain all the factors that we are to support. That is to say that, in a manner of speaking, the author of the article to which I am responding to and I have a certain hypothesis and so we use the Bible to prove our position. Now if my theory cannot account for all the evidence I am presented with and the theory of my opponent can, then I cannot remain obstinate and say that I am still right without being deemed foolish at best, and a liar at worst. Last of all, we must take care to argue against what our opponent actually claims and not raise up strawmen in hopes that through deceiving our audience, we may garnish praise for ourselves and/or our position. Let the reader take note of all of what I have just mentioned because in the course of my reply, I will demonstrate how Mr. Sultan is guilty of all these faults. Finally, without further ado, let us begin.

For the Christian, the only documents accepted as reporting the words of Jesus are the accounts given in the Bible. However, there are no sayings of Jesus where he claimed “I am God” or “Worship me”. — Mr. Mushafiq Sultan

The above makes the case that seeing as Jesus did not speak the exact words, “I am God” or “Worship me” he cannot at all be God. I would very much like to know where Muslims get such arguments and specifically this one seeing as almost every Muslim I have ever spoken to concerning the subject of Christ has asked me this same question in exactly the same words. If the reader has browsed through my blog, they would know that the very first post of mine addressed this common argument advanced by Muslims and showed why their position is one of a lack of consistency. Speaking of the deception of Joshua Evans I wrote:

On that note, if Mr. Evans needs for Jesus to have said the exact words, “I am God, worship me” in order to acknowledge that the bible teaches the divinity of Jesus (of course let’s not mention the verses where Jesus is equated to God, 1 Corinthians 2:8; called the creator of all things, John 1:3; worshiped, Luke 24:51-52; threatened to be stoned for making himself equal to God, John 10:33; demands to be honoured in the exact manner in which the Father is honoured, John 5:23; claims to have existed before his human birth, John 3:13; claims to have existed before Abraham, John 8:58-59; claims to have existed before the creation of the world, John 17:5; is described as indwelling God himself, John 1:18; claims that to have seen him is to have seen the Father, John 10:30; claims to share the exact same glory as the Father, John 17:5; claims to be able to do whatever the Father does, John 5:19; claims to have all authority in heaven and on earth, Matthew 28:18; etc.) then why does he believe that Jesus is the Messiah or the word of Allah given that in the Qur’an, Jesus never speaks the words, “I am the Messiah, follow me” or “I am the word of Allah, listen to me”? If Mr. Evans were an honest individual he would have to admit that, given his very argument, he cannot agree with the teachings of Islam on these matters seeing as Jesus never explicitly makes these statements in the entire Qur’an. Yet this was never about honesty in the first place—Mr. Evans does not possess a shred of honesty.

The same argument which I had written in refutation of Joshua Evans also easily refutes the logic of Mushafiq Sultan and exposes him to be inconsistent with his arguments and at worst deceiving. This is why I stress that no matter one’s position, it is their duty to be critical of all arguments and strive to only accept the best of points even if by that one is severely restricted in what kind of argumentation they can use. More important then this simply being a precept of duty, it is simple honesty. The state of Muslim apologetics is certainly worrying given how great a currency the above inconsistent argument holds within the Muslim community.

In the language of the Hebrew Bible, righteous persons who follow the Will and Plan of God are know as Sons Of God. […] Son Of God is a nothing but a metaphorical description commonly used among the Jews. […] The most widely translated sentence on earth is said to be Jesus’ statement of John 3:16, […] Christians wish to say that the word Only Begotten (Monogenis) gives Jesus a special status among all the Sons of God. However, not all Bibles translate the passage with this key word because some translators have seen the difficulty this causes. The same word translated as Only Begotten is found at Hebrews 11:17. In this verse the word refers to Isaac. The Bible itself shows that Isaac’s older brother Ishmael outlived his father (Genesis 25:9). Therefore, at no time was Isaac, strictly speaking, the only begotten of Abraham. — Mushafiq Sultan

(The manner in which the author has styled his work makes it somewhat difficult to present it here unedited.)

First and foremost, I delve into a bit more detail on this subject here so the reply within this article will be fairly brief (or so let’s hope). Let us realize that there are in fact two claims being made here: one, that the term “Son of God” does not connote actual literal sonship and two, that the phrase “Only Begotten” does not literally mean being the only one within the category of son. Now at face value I would indeed agree with the words of the author yet let me show why the evidence does not support his conclusion on the question of Jesus’ divinity. It is indeed true that Son of God was a term used by the Jews to speak of an upright man but Jesus’ use of the term went beyond this:

17 But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.”18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. 19 So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. — John 5:17-23 ESV

Notice that Jesus spoke of his sonship markedly differently then what had ever been seen in Jewish literature for a description of the prophets or other pious individuals and this is what the Jewish authorities of his day picked up on. If he wasn’t who he claimed to be then what he was declaring was nothing short of blasphemy. Let the reader note that the Christ specifically says that whatever the Father does, the Son can do likewise. This is a specific claim to the uncommunicable omni-attributes of God. Furthermore, Jesus demanded that all should honour him just as they honoured the Father and in fact all those who did not honour Jesus in the exact same way that the Father was honoured were guilty of sin. The implication is that he demanded the same worship and thus clearly made himself equal to the Father. Can anyone who does not believe in the divinity of Jesus read the above and not find it blasphemous? Contrary to what Mr. Sultan would like his audience to believe, Jesus wasn’t simply reiterating common Jewish parlance but in fact reinterpreting it when it came to himself. The very thought that Mr. Sultan is so quick to dismiss Christ’s way of speaking about himself while actual Jewish scholars who lived in the time of Jesus and inhabited the same thought-world as this 1st century carpenter-turned revolutionary did not (John 19:7), should be cause enough to alarm the reader to the fact that Mushafiq Sultan is certainly incorrect in his reinterpretation of the facts.

Now to the question of the phrase,”only-begotten”, Mr. Sultan shows how much he misunderstands the doctrine by thinking that it specifically relates to a numerical value. In actuality, the phrase designates one who is acutely similar to and who has the same nature as the one who begets in every possible way. Hence why God uses the same phrase to speak of Isaac in Genesis 22:2 even though he was aware that Abraham had more than one son but as he had said in Genesis 21:12 when he encouraged Abraham to send away both Hagar and her son Ishmael, “Do not be upset over the boy and your servant [Hagar]. Do whatever Sarah tells you, for Isaac is the son through whom your descendants will be counted.” Isaac was the son who was like his father in every way, it was through him that the promise made towards Abraham would be carried on for all generations. Hence why the LORD claims to be the “God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” and never that of Ishmael. God considered only Isaac to be Abraham’s true son and as such Genesis 22:2 can be rendered “Take your son, your only son, Isaac” or “Take thy only begotten son Isaac”. Clearly both phrases mean to express the same idea in that they describe a single son who is acutely like his father in every way to the point where it is only of him that the position of being the father’s one and only can be claimed.

This then brings us to the subject of Jesus Christ who is called the “only-begotten” of the Father. First the author claims that given the fact that other bible authors do not translate it as “only begotten” (in modern English) this somehow means that Jesus does not possess claim to a distinct and completely unique status as the Son of God. Here is a list of close to all English Bible translations and I would like for the reader to note the manner in which John 3:16 is rendered. It is a blatant lie to say that the Bible does not claim Jesus to have a unique status and that his sonship isn’t completely different then that of all other believers. In fact, all other Christians are described as being adopted into the family of God, and spiritually reborn—none are described as ever being the only-begotten of God because only-begotten means that the begotten is completely like the one who begets and as a man can only beget another human, God only begets God.

You can only beget a child that has the same nature as you have—a son or a daughter. There is nothing else you can beget (unless you were speaking very figuratively). Your son or your daughter will inherit his or her nature from you—genes, personality—all of it. You can use “make” or “create” for producing a child; but when you use “beget” it only means you produce a child that has your nature.

Now follow this carefully. If Jesus is said to be the begotten Son of God (using the figure from human language to make the point), then Jesus has the same nature as the Father. If Jesus has the same nature as God the Father, then Jesus is divine and eternal as well. If he is eternally God, then there was never a time he was literally begotten—which is why we know the language is figurative to describe his nature, and not his beginning. To call Jesus “the only begotten Son” means that he is fully divine and eternal. He is God the Son. — Christian Leadership Center

That being said, the Isaac/Abraham example is not an exact representation of the God the Father/God the Son dynamic but simply an archetype to which God himself is the fulfillment thereof. As is the case with all analogies, the two cannot be exactly the same because one is comparing two different things (albeit the similarities thereof). From all the evidence presented, it is quite clear that Mushafiq Sultan tampers with things he does not possess adequate knowledge to contend with.

If being born without a male parent entitles Jesus to being God, then Adam would have a greater right to such honor. Adam was born without either a human father or mother. — Mr. Sultan

I must say that I have heard this statement before by other Muslims and I always am unable to see the logic. To be sure it does have the semblance of a proper argument but once placed within the proper context it loses whatever facade it had of reason. I am astounded that Muslims would continue to export such a sad excuse for an argument and that they are so uncritical when it comes to their own points that they haven’t picked up on the fact that the above is not a valid argument—it is sophistry at best.

Now, nevermind that the evidence for Jesus’ divinity does not rest on his virgin birth but rather primarily on his ressurection, (a fact very few Muslims seem to know, given how widespread the above argument is) let us proceed to refute the supposed logic within the above quote. But before that, the very fact that Jesus had no human father should give one pause. Why is it that after God set into motion the process of natural birth by which he deemed fit that every single human being should come into the world—why then would he make such an exception for Jesus and go out of his way to orchestrate such a miraculous birth? The Qur’an and the Holy Bible are in agreement when they present Christ’s birth as being the most miraculous in existence and as far as the Qur’an is concerned it goes even further with the idea of entrenching the miraculous nature of this birth by incorporating within it’s text flagrant myths that communities propagated such as Jesus speaking from birth and turning clay into birds  (these can all be traced back to the Infancy Gospel of Thomas). Once more I would ask why God would make Jesus the only figure in human history to have such a miraculous, exalted in it’s uniqueness, birth? That’s something to think about. Now the author of the quoted material seeing this evident problem, then tries to make a connection between Adam and Jesus so as to undermine the status of Christ but fails because Adam was the first human being, how could he ever have parents? It would be impossible for Adam to be the first human being and also be born of parents. Therefore Jesus and Adam are of completely different categories seeing as Adam’s lack of parents was out of necessity (God could not make Adam the first human and also have him be born of human parents) while that of Christ was exceptional (God could have made him to be born normally like Muhammad and yet he refused to. Why did God decide that Jesus absolutely had to have such a unique birth?). For Jesus and Jesus alone did God decree a halt to the natural birth process and while he deemed it fit for all other men and women to be born through these natural means, Christ alone was to be distinguished from everyone else. He is not a man whom God would allow to be birthed like all others; no—Christ Jesus was exceptional and this fact needed to be declared from his very birth. It is more than obvious that the author of the article, “Is Jesus God” understood the problem with Christ’s miraculous birth and so he sought to mitigate its peculiarity by way of the example of Adam but given that we have now seen that his argument is invalid, we are still left with the fact of Christ’s unique and absolutely amazing birth. Let us remember that a miracle is a sign that God uses to point us to some truth, what then is the virgin birth pointing to other than Christ having eternally existed as God the Son before deeming to enter creation and being born a man?

The fact that Jesus accepted worship is offered as strong proof of his divinity. […] The word translated as worshipped in both verses is the Greek word proskuneo {pros-ku-neh’-o} which literally means: “To kiss, like a dog licking his masters hand”. (Strong’s concordance). Even Prophet Daniel was worshipped by Nebuchadnezzar: “Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and worshipped Daniel…” (Daniel 2:46, KJV) If He was not to be worshipped, why didn’t He tell this man to stop? It appears that “worship” was a type of greeting or salutation offered by the king. In all modern versions of the Bible, when Daniel was worshipped, the word worship has been removed. However, in the case of Jesus, the word worship still remains. (e.g., compare NIV and KJV)

Let us first realize that for what it’s worth the author has realized that the worship of Jesus within the Bible is a serious enough problem that he has need to expose his audience to the above half-truth in a bid to justify his Islamic belief. I would like to emphasize the fact that whenever one is presented with a quote (pretty much from any book) they would do well to look up where the quote is from and read it within its surrounding context. Let us do so now:

And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever. 45Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure. 46Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odours unto him. 47The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret. 48Then the king made Daniel a great man, and gave him many great gifts, and made him ruler over the whole province of Babylon, and chief of the governors over all the wise men of Babylon. 49Then Daniel requested of the king, and he set Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, over the affairs of the province of Babylon: but Daniel sat in the gate of the king. — Daniel 2:44-49 KJV

After Daniel had interpreted King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, we read that the King fell prostrate (incidentally this is the very word used in most modern translations) before Daniel and ‘worshiped’ Daniel. Yet what did his worship consist of? Was he praising Daniel? Did he glorify Daniel or did he glorify the God of Daniel? To be sure enough Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan who was accustomed to displaying his worship in the wrong fashion for while he worshiped the God of Daniel, it can be argued that he did so through the conduit of Daniel yet even then it cannot be said that his aim was to worship Daniel. We are given clear examples of what his worship consisted of and not once does he pray to Daniel but every reference is towards the God of Daniel and the king even goes so far as to admit that Daniel is only a tool whom the LORD has used to reveal the interpretation of the dream (“your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret”). Not once is Daniel called a deity by the King nor is any praise at all directed towards him. The text itself is quite clear (almost as if the author had foreseen this likely misunderstanding) that all worship was directed towards Daniel’s God. Now can the same be said of the worship which Jesus received? I will quote the very verses which Mr. Sultan sought to negate (with their relevant context):

Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age. — Matthew 28:16-17 NIV


Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him, he said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man?”

36“Who is he, sir?” the man asked. “Tell me so that I may believe in him.”

37Jesus said, “You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking with you.”

38Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.

39Jesus said, “For judgment I have come into this world, so that the blind will see and those who see will become blind.”

40Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are we blind too?”

41Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains. — John 9:35-41 NIV

Let me first speak of the quote from the Gospel of Matthew. Notice that the text is very explicit in that it is Jesus that is being worshiped. Furthermore note that Jesus declares his followers to be baptized in the single name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He does not use the plural for name but uses the singular, not only that but he includes the Father within this one category. Thereby stating that the one being of God has one name: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these though distinct comprise and are the one Name in the same manner that Christ, the Father, and the Holy Spirit though distinct in that one is not the other comprise and are each simultaneously the one God. (For more on the Trinity see here.) As it comes to the quote from the Gospel of John the reader will note that once more it is expressly Jesus that is worshiped. Christ asks the man (whom he had healed from physical blindness) if he believed in him and the man authenticated his belief by worshiping Jesus. This is all very explicit. If that weren’t enough, Jesus reprimands the Pharisees who did not believe in the divinity of Christ and calls them blind because they have not believed in him as the formerly blind man has. Clearly all the evidence is against Mr. Sultan and I for one cannot believe that all the errors he has committed so far have been because of a sincere misunderstanding of the text.

An episode is recounted in the twentieth chapter of John and a certain Thomas is quoted as saying, My Lord and My God. In interpreting this, Christians maintain that Thomas was addressing Jesus by both of these titles. The Muslim would have no objection to the term Lord. […] The suggestion that Thomas addressed Jesus as literally being God is a different matter. Jesus had already pointed out that the Hebrew scriptures themselves address men as gods (John 10:34; Psalms 82:6). This would allow for Thomas’ use of the term. However, Paul gave new rules in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, saying that there are many lords and gods …yet for us there is but one God, the Father,… and one Lord, Jesus Christ… […] Christians apply this verse to sort out the ambiguities of Thomas’ expression. But now we are left with an unorthodox doctrine, namely that Jesus is the Father.— Mushafiq Sultan

When the Hebrew Bible addressed men as gods it meant to imply that in a manner of speaking, men are similar to God (a fact that cannot be denied) but in no way does it give approval for anyone other than the One true God to be considered any individual’s God (a simple browsing of the Bible clearly attests to this fact). Yet I have also shown how scripture is replete with instances of Jesus demanding the same worship that is given to the Father and in fact receiving this very thing by all those who believed in him. It is interesting that in paraphrasing from Paul, the author refused to give the exact citation of his quote. If the reader knows the quote it will immediately be obvious why Mr. Sultan took such care not to mention the full citation nor even give his readers the full quotation. Here is the citation in full:

For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. — 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 ESV

Isn’t the above diametrically opposed to what Mr. Sultan just claimed?  Paul quite clearly states that it is from God the Father that all things are made and from whom we exist and then he says the very same thing about Jesus. How is this not in fact clear evidence that the words “Lord” and “God” are interchangeable? If both the Father and Christ are the Creator of everything that exists how can he then claim that Christ is not deemed to be God? And if Christ is shown to be distinct from the Father and yet also called God why then claim a dilemma that isn’t at all there? And more than this just being diametrically opposed to the author’s position, this is a clear case of selective editing of the text. This man edited the text in a way so that it wouldn’t contradict him while it clearly does and he knew furthermore that very few Muslims would go to the actual source and see whether or not he was actually telling the truth. I will be quite frank, this man is a liar. I do not understand why this man would need so strongly to lie to his audience in order to justify his belief in Muhammad and the Muslim Deity. Is it perhaps that Islam is not interested in truth? Once more the text shows that “God” and “Lord” are interchangeable and that to call Christ God does not at all blur the lines between the Father and the Son. Might the author not have heard of the Trinity which stipulates that there is One God eternally existent as three persons?

Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. […] So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. – Athanasian Creed

To accept that Jesus is God does not mean to say that Jesus is the Father seeing as all trinitarians accept the simultaneously divinity of Jesus and his distinction from the Father. If nothing else, at the very least it is evident that the author is not in any way qualified to be writing this article.

The distinction is blurred again when John 14:9 is pressed into service. Here Jesus’ reply to a man named Philip is recorded as He who has seen me has seen the Father.

A strictly literal explication would mean the unacceptable doctrine that Jesus is the Father. So interpreters say that Father is here equivalent to God. However, we cannot possibly be obliged to understand that Jesus meant to say that seeing him was exactly the same as seeing God because he was God. Our reason is found in the contrariety of John 5:37 You have neither heard His (God) voice at any time nor seen his form. — Mr. Mushafiq

Must we take a strictly literal position to absolutely everything or do we take the position that best explains all the facts that one is presented with. If the Qur’an has Allah using the word “We” and then says that Allah is not a Trinity (let us at this time overlook the fact that the Muslim deity is never actually correct in his definition of the Trinity) do we then say that there is an inherent contradiction or do we not suppose that He could at times speak metaphorically or figuratively? Would that not be the answer that can account for all the evidence? And cannot the Muslim deity speak figuratively and then go on to speak literally (and vice versa)? If you accept this of the Qur’an why then not of the New Testament? Should not the best theory be employed to account for all the evidence? I would very much like to know why it is that the Christian Bible has to be understood literally at all places even when there is a far better explanation that is in fact able to account for all the evidence? That said there is far too much evidence that shows that Jesus considered himself to be the God of Israel (something Mr. Sultan implicitly admits by the manner in which he so desperately seeks to mitigate the instances where Jesus is outrightly worshiped) yet he did claim there to be, within the being of the One true God, a distinction of three distinguished yet not separate persons.

Anyway, to provide a more concise answer to Mr. Sultan’s objection: It is interesting to note that the author once more leaves out evidence that would show his argument to be completely faulty. The very next verse following John 5:37 in fact says that the reason they have never seen the Father is because they did not believe in whom he had sent. Obviously one can see without really seeing and this was what Christ was in fact referring to. Now the reason why Christ was able to say that to have seen him is to have seen the Father without himself being the Father is, as the bible states, because:

The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. — Hebrews 1:3 ESV

It must once more be said that, contrary to what Mr. Sultan claims, Jesus never says that the Jews have not seen God nor heard his voice but says specifically that they have not seen the Father. They have seen the Son even if he veiled his full glory.

If Jesus lived in heaven then came to the earth it might mean something remarkable, but it would not be enough to establish him as God Christians do not imagine that the prophet Jeremiah had a prehuman existence and find a suitable way of interpreting the words of Jeremiah 1:5 which portrays such a situation, if taken literally. — Mushafiq Sultan

I would ask anyone who is reading this to follow this link and read the relevant passage of Jeremiah for themselves. The author would like his audience to believe that, when read literally, the text speaks of Jeremiah preexisting before his birth when all it ever says—precisely when read literally—is that since the very beginning God had appointed him to be a Prophet to the nation of Israel. There is nothing unique with this idea yet this is completely unlike what Jesus claimed of himself.

“Jesus then said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.’ … Jesus said to them, ‘I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst… FOR I HAVE COME DOWN FROM HEAVEN, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.’ … So the Jews grumbled about him, because he said, ‘I am the bread that came down from heaven.’ They said, ‘Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How does he now say, “I have come down from heaven”?‘” John 6:32-33, 35, 38, 41-42

“This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh… As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not as the fathers ate and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.” John 6:50-51, 57-58

“Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?” John 6:62

[taken from]

And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. — John 17:5

Notice how markedly different Christ’s description of himself is. Not only does he claim to have preexisted in heaven, he also claims to be eternal life itself! If that weren’t explicit enough he says that he existed prior to the creation of the world and he shared in the Father’s very own glory. Does this sound at all like what was said of Jeremiah? If any Muslim can read the above and not find it blasphemous than I dare say that they aren’t really Muslim. The sharing of the Father’s glory is especially critical and a Jewish audience would not have let this escape them since in Isaiah 42:8 and 48:11 Yahweh quite clearly says that he will not give his glory to another and so how could Jesus claim to have eternally shared the glory with his Father? The problem is in fact resolved when, as we have seen (and will see once more shortly), that Christ was claiming to be Yahweh himself.  On a related note, I have said it before and I now say it again: Mr. Mushafiq Sultan is particularly adept at exposing his audience to half-truths, in being incredibly inconsistent in his argumentation and in engaging in contextual bastardization. This is fairly obvious from all that I have written so far.

In Exodus 3, it is reported that God told Moses I am what I am as most English Bibles translate the Hebrew text. At John 8:58 Jesus says, before Abraham was I am as most English Bibles translate the Greek text. […] For two hundred years before the time of Jesus the Jews used a Greek translation of their Hebrew scriptures, the Septuagint. This work translated the key phrase I am of Exodus as HO ON. However, the words of Jesus, I am, have been given in Greek as EGO EMI. If the gospel writer in John 8:58 wanted to tell his Greek-speaking audience that Jesus had imitated God he would have used the familiar words of the Septuagint. — Mr. Sultan

Although it is in fact true that in the Septuagint’s rendition of Exodus 3, Yahweh does use ho on to mean, ” I AM”, it is in fact false to say that ego eimi does not mean “I AM” as well. Before I show the reader that Mr. Sultan has not done his research and is in no way fit to speak of these things, let me quote the passage:

“And Moses said to God, Behold, I shall go forth to the children of Israel, and shall say to them, The God of our fathers has sent me to you; and they will ask me, What is his name? What shall I say to them? And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE ONE WHO IS/THE BEING (ego eimi ho on); and he said, Thus shall ye say to the children of Israel, THE ONE WHO IS/THE BEING (ho on) has sent me to you.” —

The contention here is that seeing as THE ONE WHO IS (i.e. I AM) is rendered as ho on in the Septuagint (also known as the LXX), ego eimi does not mean this as well nor should be used in allusion to the LORD’s I AM sayings. Luckily enough for me, the folks at Answering-Islam have once more made my task all the more easy by having browsed through the LXX and finding how it renders the other I AM sayings of the LORD:

“Who has wrought and done these things? he has called it who called it from the generations of old; I, God, am first, and to all futurity, I am (ego eimi).” Isaiah 41:4

“Hear me, O house of Jacob, and all the remnant of Israel, who are borne by me from the womb, and taught by me from infancy. Until your old age I am (ego eimi), and until you shall have grown old I am (ego eimi); I bear you, I have made, and I will set free, I will take up and save you.” Isaiah 46:3-4

“Hear me, O Jacob, and Israel whom I call; I am the first, and I am (ego eimi) forever/into eternity.” Isaiah 48:12

[…] The Greek word ho is the definite article “the,” while on is the present participle of eimi. The present participle in Greek expresses continuous or repeated action or state. And yet since both on and eimi are in the present tense they basically have the same meaning.

From the above we learn that even the LXX translates some I AM sayings as ego eimi and as such shows us that ego eimi and ho on are largely interchangeable and certainly mean to express the same idea. Furthermore, it is quite clear that Jesus was alluding to these very I AM sayings and specifically claiming to be the God of Israel, Yahweh himself. What should not escape the reader is that according to Mr. Sultan’s very own criteria, this point by itself proves the divinity of Jesus. We have clear proof that the Bible records Jesus as thinking himself to be the very God who created all things. Given the fact that it has been demonstrated that Christ claimed the prerogatives of Yahweh (his eternal existence, his worship, his omni-attributes etc.) and outright claims to be Yahweh himself, I feel no need to continue my response to Mr. Sultan’s article (seeing as I’ve addressed his most important points) save to say that the author is inconsistent in beginning and ending his article with a supposed future exchange that Jesus will have with God in which he denies all claims of deity yet refuses to consider a future exchange within the book of Revelation where Jesus says, “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” Is that not a claim to deity?


39 responses

  1. The Messiah testified that “He had a G-D and Father”, and that “His G-D and Father was also the G-D and Father” of His Brethren…….

    There is Only ONE True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, and HE has no g-d for HE IS The Only True G-D, and HE has no father for HE IS Father(Creator) of ALL…….

    The Messiah testified, “That they would know YOU, The Only True G-D”…….

    “Only” = without others or anything further; alone; solely; exclusively…….

    And Truth IS, as Paul testified, “G-D was in The Messiah”, Paul did not testify that ‘g-d was the messiah’…….

    And Paul testified of “ONE G-D, Father of ALL”…….

    The Messiah testified of “The Only True G-D”, and The Messiah testified that He had a “G-D and Father”, and The Messiah’s G-D and Father was, is and always will be The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….

    Paul testified, “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world has been hid in G-D, WHO CREATED ALL things by The Messiah”…….(Eph3:9)

    And The Father(Creator) spoke The Word “Let there be Light” and “there was Light”…….

    LIGHT begot Light…….

    The Messiah, “The Light which enlightens every man”, was “The Beginning of The Creation of The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….(Rev 3:14)

    There is Only ONE True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, and HE IS The G-D and Father(Creator) of The Messiah and His brethren…….

    John 17:3 “And this is Eternal Life, that they might know YOU The Only True G-D, and The Messiah, Whom YOU have sent”…….

    Mark 12:32-33 “And the scribe said unto The Messiah, Well, Master, You have said The Truth: for there is ONE G-D; and there is NONE OTHER but HE. And to love HIM with all your heart, and with all your understanding, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and to love his neighbor as yourself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices”…….

    Rom 3:30 “Seeing it is ONE G-D, WHO shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith”…….

    1 Cor 8:6 “But to us there is but ONE G-D, The Father, of WHOM are all things, and we in HIM; and one Master, The Messiah, by Whom are all things, and we by Him”…….

    Rev 3:14 The Messiah was “The Beginning of The Creation of The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL”…….

    Eph 4:6 “ONE G-D, Father of ALL, WHO is above all, and through all, and in you all”…….

    John 4:24 “G-D is A SPIRIT: and they that worship HIM must worship HIM in Spirit and in Truth”…….

    Luke 24:39 The Messiah testified after He was “raised from among the dead”, “Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself, handle Me and see, for A SPIRIT DOES NOT HAVE FLESH AND BONES, AS you see I HAVE”…….

    The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL can not die…….period…….

    The Messiah died and “The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL raised Him from among the dead”……. And The Messiah’s incorruptible body ascended into the clouds…….

    James 1:13 “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of G-D, for G-D CAN NOT BE TEMPTED with evil, neither tempts HE any man”…….

    Heb 4:15 “For we do not have a High Priest(The Messiah) Who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, for He WAS in all points TEMPTED like we are, yet without sin”…….

    The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, HE CAN NOT BE TEMPTED with sin AS THE MESSIAH WAS…….period…….

    1 Tim 2:5 “There is ONE G-D, and one mediator between G-D and men, the man-The Messiah”…….

    James 2:19 “You believe that there is ONE G-D, you do well, yet the devils also believe, and tremble”…….

    John 20:17 “The Messiah said unto her, Touch Me not; for I have not yet ascended to My Father: but go to My brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto My Father, and your Father; and to My G-D, and your G-D.”

    Mark 3:33-35 “The Messiah answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brethren”? And He looked round about on them which sat about Him, and said, “Behold my mother and my brethren! For whoever shall do The Will of G-D, the same is My brother, and My sister, and mother””…….

    Rom 8:29 “Whom G-D did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of HIS Son, that The Messiah might be the firstborn among many brethren”…….

    Hope is you are one of the brethren of The Messiah…….

    The brethren of The Messiah know there is Only ONE True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….

    And Truth is as The Messiah tesified, ” My(Our) Father is greater than I”…….(John14:28)

    And Truth is as Paul testifed, “The HEAD of The Messiah is The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, and The Head of the man is The Messiah, and the head of the woman is the man”…….(1Cor11:3)

    Those who would pervert The Order of The ONE and Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL will have to answer to HIM…….

    For The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, “HE Created all things by The Messiah” and The Messiah was “The Beginning of The Creation of The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL…….

    Truth is “The Messiah is The Son of The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL”…….

    The Messiah testified that He had a “G-D and Father” and that His “G-D and Father” was also the “G-D and Father” of His Brethren…….

    And The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, HE has no god, for HE IS G-D, and HE has no father, for HE IS Father(Creator) of ALL, and HE has no brethren, for HE IS Father(Creator) of ALL…….

    Hope is there would be those who experience The Miracle that is receiving “the love of The Truth” for they will “experience The Messiah and The Power(Our Father) that raised Him from among the dead”…….

    The Faith of those who have received “a love of The Truth” is grounded in Miracles, not mere colored marks(words) written on a dead tree(page) and bound in a book…….

    Thankfully The ONE and Only True G-D, Father of ALL, HE yet communes with HIS Children, HE yet reveals all things…….

    Father Help! and HE does…….

    Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this world and it’s systems of religion, for “the WHOLE(not just a portion) world is under the control of the evil one” indeed and Truth…….

    Truth IS, a lie never was and is not…….

    Abide in Truth…….

    November 2, 2010 at 11:58 AM

    • Hmm, at first I had thought to write a detailed response to you but then I realized that while it is quite easy to quote a string of bible verses (without proper exegesis I might add) and take the author’s intentions out of context and/or not quoting them in full as you have done, it takes far longer to explain each one clearly and effectively and so I’ll pass on the bible verse duel. That said if after my comment you would still like a proper response (and by that I mean a blog post) then I will try my best to squeeze one in in the next few days.

      Now before I continue I should mention that you did not even attempt to refute the points I made in the article above but rather chose to ignore them. While my understanding of scripture can account for every verse you have quoted, yours cannot and by your logic we would either end up with 3 different Gods (whom the chiefest of which is the one called Father) or Jesus lying, committing blasphemy and advancing a ministry in which he dedicated his last years on earth to appropriating for himself the glory and worship of God while (according to you) he wasn’t God.

      Anyway, given that you seem so attached to such a heterodox understanding of scripture especially when it comes to Yahweh, I will cite for you two bible passages and I would very much like to know how you understand them:

      Zech. 12:10 — “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son. 11 On that day the weeping in Jerusalem will be as great as the weeping of Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. 12 The land will mourn, each clan by itself, with their wives by themselves: the clan of the house of David and their wives, the clan of the house of Nathan and their wives, 13 the clan of the house of Levi and their wives, the clan of Shimei and their wives, 14 and all the rest of the clans and their wives.”

      Zech. 2:10-11 — “Shout and be glad, O Daughter of Zion. For I am coming, and I will live among you,” declares the LORD. 11“Many nations will be joined with the LORD in that day and will become my people. I will live among you and you will know that the LORD Almighty has sent me to you.

      Please read the above Old Testament verses and tell me who the speaker is and who he is speaking of. In all cases, as you’ll clearly note, the speaker is Yahweh himself and yet he is referring to someone else who is also Yahweh. Yahweh says that the Jews will realize that they have pierced him and on that day they will mourn for—and this is where he refers to someone else as Yahweh—him as one mourns for an only son. Isn’t this what orthodox Christianity has claimed since the very beginning? That the very God of Israel, the God who Created all the worlds and everything in them, He who is omnipotent and lives forever, was pierced by mere men and suffered death on the cross? Isn’t that the Gospel?

      Yahweh consistently claims to be one and yet he also consistently refers to two others as Yahweh. Notice that in the second quote Yahweh says that he will live among the people of Israel and yet says that it is Yahweh who has sent him. Notice that there are two distinct persons who are referred to as Yahweh in the above quote. One Yahweh sends the other Yahweh to live among men and yet Yahweh never claims to be more than one. This can only be understood along a trinitarian perspective but I await your reply.

      November 2, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    • mark

      Francis, what exactly is your stand behind all the redundant verbosity? I still cant seem to fully understand your reasoning as its unintelligible and cryptic to the point of frustration. Where is the love you preach? I see no ‘do everything in love’ or ‘admonishing’ from your attitude in your writing. As a ‘christian’ are you not supposed to ‘correct gently’? Hmmm. Perhaps your arguments would gain better ground if you practised a bit more humility like the messiah you serve. To Methodus, that’s an excellent piece of writing. Keep it up.

      February 21, 2011 at 4:49 PM

      • Thanks for the encouragement and taking the time to read what I have written.

        February 21, 2011 at 5:12 PM

  2. Quite obvious that pagan catholic/christian folklore has had it’s way with youu ;-(

    Simply sad for you ;-(

    November 2, 2010 at 5:31 PM

    • Thank you Francis, that was about the response I was expecting from you. Anyway, I would hope that you will one day research the matter of the Holy Trinity within the Old Testament some more. God bless you.

      November 2, 2010 at 6:47 PM

    • mark

      Pagan/christian folklore? How long have you been studying God’s word? I suggest, in love, that you earnestly seek the truth of which you seem to have an immense affinity for.

      February 21, 2011 at 4:53 PM

  3. Would make no sense to seek out a pagan catholic/christian lie in The Word of Truth!

    Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(religion) that is of this wicked, evil world……. francis

    November 2, 2010 at 7:00 PM

    • Alright Francis but notice that you couldn’t reply to even one simple question. Scripture is quite clear that Yahweh is a plurality within his being and Jesus was quite clear in this regard as well.

      November 2, 2010 at 7:05 PM

  4. Simpy, your “imag”ined ‘jesus’ is but one head of the three headed pagan catholic/christian god ;-(

    There are no questions that can not be answered, yet many questions that should not be asked or answered.

    Truth has been posted, such is sufficient for those who have received “the love of The Truth”.

    Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(folklore) that is of this wicked world and it’s systems of religion……. francis

    November 2, 2010 at 7:19 PM

    • Francis I really think that we should end here because I’m not at all interested in vying for the last word with you. God bless.

      November 2, 2010 at 7:24 PM

  5. swissknifev

    @Methodus. I am neither a Muslim nor a Christian. But I have great awe of Christ and his teachings. He was a great Prophet. To my simple knowledge, I feel, when Christ said He was the son of God he did not equate himself to God. He knew the infinite power of an Almighty and we are but his little children, his creation. We must remember that the Prophets were mystics and they spoke in mystical ways which should not be taken literally. The Prophets are messengers of God. For they have insights which the average person does not have. They spoke of spiritual truths and all the saints, sages, prophets and seers have a universal common message that seems like some universal voice speaking through them. To those who believe in a God or the higher force, the sages seem to say, just surrender to the Almighty and love Him with your heart like a child would trust and love its mother, secure in her care. Now that’s how I see Christ as the son of God.To me Christ’s teachings are valuable. Very, very valuable.

    November 19, 2010 at 1:16 PM

    • Thank you for taking the time to comment. Now I can really respect your opinion (and I really do mean this) but if you are indeed right, what are we to make of the above? You speak of Christ in a way completely removed from his historical, social and even religious context. If Christ meant to teach what you propose then why not simply state it clearly? Rather he claimed to be the God of Israel himself. He accepted and expected to be worshiped as Yahweh himself and to this fact both his supporters and detractors acknowledged. This man was claiming the worship of God for himself and if he were not God (as his opponents believed) then he is a liar and should not be held in high regard. It is true that we must surrender to God and love him like a child loves their parent but we must also believe in him. If he claims to have come down into our loneliness, into our pain, into our suffering and placed all these burdens upon himself so it is he that is afflicted when we are afflicted, it is he that sheds the very same tears we shed and rather triumphantly it is he that overcame all these ails so that we might live forever in his love then one must believe him. To not believe him is to call him a liar and therefore not to want anything of his love. I fear that this is where your belief would take me if I were to cast aside the Christ whom I know and love for a Christ who cannot be a real presence in my life nor fill me with a peace which surpasses all understanding. I really don’t mean to disparage your position but you would have me turn my back on the God who showed me what love is by giving his very life to save me, for a God who has never suffered like I have, who has never come down from the comforts of heaven to rescue me from my hurt but merely sends me inferior messengers with the message that this distant God loves us. Forgive me if I say that that is not love. Love is sacrifice and he who has never given himself has never loved.

      November 19, 2010 at 1:46 PM

  6. The Messiah testified that He had a G-D and Father and that His G-D and Father was also The Only True G-D WHOM The Messiah declared to be The G-D and Father of His brethren…….period…….

    The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, WAS, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE, yet “in the beginning” HIS WORD spoke The Messiah into existance!

    The Messiah, “The Beginning of The Creation of The Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL!

    The 1st Day of Creation.

    “The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of GOD moved upon the face of the waters.” (Gen 1:2)

    Then GOD spoke HIS Word into being…….

    “Let there be Light”!

    And “There was Light”…….(Gen 1:3)

    And such ‘Light’ was to be, and is, Eternal!

    So it is that Hope is Alive!

    Even though this wicked world begins and ends it’s day in darkness it is good to realize that the 1st Day of Creation, although begun midst the darkness, ended in ‘Light’! (Gen 1:5)

    And such ‘Light’ was not the sun, moon or stars for they were not created until the 4th Day. (Gen 1:14-19)

    GOD’s Word “Let there be Light” became “The Light which enlightens every man born into the world” and was “the glory The Messiah had with Our Father before the world began”…….(John 1:9, 17:5)

    LIGHT Begot Light…….

    LIKE Begot Like…….

    The Messiah, “The Light of the world”…….(Jn8:12)

    The Messiah, “The beginning of The Creation of GOD”…….(Rev1:1, 3:14)

    The Messiah, “The Son of The Living GOD”…….(John 6:69)

    And Our Father, HE “created all things by(of, in and thru) The Messiah”…….(Ep3:9)

    The 1st Day of Creation.

    “And GOD called The Light, Day, and the darkness HE called night. And the evening(darkness) and The Morning(Light) was The 1st Day.” (Gen 1:5)

    Now if the beginning can not be ‘seen’ nor understood, then what of the end?

    Confusion would reign! And today confusion does reign midst the religious systems of this world, for apart from “The Light” there is only darkness, “the blind leading the blind” ;-(

    And the Apostle Paul saw “The Light” that is The Messiah on the road to Damascus:

    “At midday, O king, I saw in the way a Light from Heaven, which was above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.

    And when we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why do you persecute Me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.

    And I said, Who are you, Master? And The Messiah said, I am Y’shua(for He spoke in the Hebrew tongue) Whom you are persecuting”. (Acts 26:13-15)

    GOD’s Word “Let there be Light” became “The Light which enlightens every man born into the world”, “The Light” that is The Messiah, and was “the glory The Messiah had with Our Father before the world began”…….(John 1:9, 17:5)
    Someone had commented, “I am interested in how you synchronize your doctrine on GOD creating The Light with John’s version”.

    i believe you are referring to John 1:1-5 and how John’s testimony bears witness to The Messiah being “The Light” begotten by Our Father the 1st Day of Creation.

    Father Help! and HE does…….

    (John 1:1) “In the beginning was The Word, and The Word was with GOD, and The Word was GOD.”
    “In the beginning was The Word”

    The 1st Day of Creation was the beginning.

    And “In the beginning” GOD(Creator) WAS, and HE spoke The(HIS)Word “Let There Be Light” and “There was Light”!

    “and The Word was with GOD”

    GOD spoke The(HIS)Word “Let There Be Light” and The(HIS)Word “Let There Be Light” became “Light” and “was with GOD”, HE WHO IS LIGHT!

    “and The Word was GOD”

    GOD spoke The(HIS)Word “Let There Be Light”, “The(HIS)Word was GOD” and became Light!

    LIGHT Begot Light!

    The Messiah, “The True Light(The Light of Truth) which enlightens every man born into this world.”(John 1:9)

    The Messiah, “The beginning of The Creation of GOD(Our Father)!”(Rev3:14)

    So it is that The Messiah, the first begotten of Our Father, testified “The Father is Greater than I.”(John 14:28)

    “The Light”, “the glory The Messiah had with Our Father before the world began.”(John 17:5)
    (John 1:2-5) “The same was in the beginning with GOD. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was Life; and The Life was The Light of men. And The Light(The Messiah)shinned midst the darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”

    “To make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning (as in John 1:2) of the world has been hid in GOD, WHO Created all things by The Messiah(The(GOD’S)Word “Let There Be Light”).”(Eph 3:9)

    Our Father(Creator)created “all things” of, by, in and thru The Messiah(The(GOD’S)Word “Let There Be Light”).
    (John 1:14) “And The(GOD’S)Word(“Let There Be Light”) was made flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His(The Messiah) glory, the glory as of the only begotten of The Father, full of Grace and Truth.”

    “The Light” was “the glory The Messiah had with Our Father before the world began.”(John 17:5)

    Father Help! and HE does…….

    So there is Hope!

    For Miracles do happen…….

    Hope is there would be those who experience The Miracle that is receiving “the love of The Truth” for they will “see” The Light that is The Messiah…….

    Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(no-peace) that is of this wicked world. for “the WHOLE(not just a portion) world is under the control of the evil one” indeed and Truth…….(1John5:19)

    Truth IS, a lie never was and is not…….

    Abide in Truth…….

    November 19, 2010 at 2:15 PM

    • Francis, I don’t entirely understand what you chose to post again. While I’ve only skimmed the above, it seems to me to be the same as your last posts. I would request that you cease from posting like this again. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t comment but rather to make your comments more intelligible (and concise). Furthermore, I am reminded of the fact that you were unable to reply to a simple question so I would rather your next comment be concerning that rather than simply a reiteration of the above.

      November 19, 2010 at 3:35 PM

      • Your “imag”ined ‘jesus’ is but one head of the “imag”ined three headed pagan god of catholic/christian folklore ;-(

        Simply, The ONE and Only True Living G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL, WAS, IS and ALWAYS WILL BE, and “in the beginning” HIS WORD spoke The Messiah into existance!

        “Let There Be Light”


        “There was Light”

        LIGHT Begot Light…….

        The Messiah, “The Beginning of The Creation of The Only True G-D, Father(Creator) of ALL!

        Such is clearly revealed unto those who have received “the love of The Truth” for they are not bound up in the chains of strong delusion that is of this wicked, evil world and it’s religions, the most delusionary being pagan catholic/christian folklore.

        “Come Out of her MY people”!

        Be of the brethren of The Messiah, those who desire above all else “Father, not my will, But THY Will Be Done”! Be of those “aliens and pilgrims while on the earth” whose “citizenship is in Heaven” for they have entered into The Kingdom of “Our Father”!

        “For THINE IS The Kingdom”!


        November 19, 2010 at 5:26 PM

  7. swissknifev

    @Methodus. Thanks. No, I will not dispute your point. Believe me I have thought a lot about the concept of God and what all the different religions are saying. Religious texts have their ambiguities. Let me make my position on God and saints clear. I am perfectly comfortable with all kinds of beliefs that people have, including atheism. I was one.
    I treat the Prophets as messengers of some spiritual force – an insight. How right are their insights? We can keep guessing forever. Who is God? Again we can keep guessing forever. What are all the teachings really saying? THIS I have simplified to a simple thought – faith, belief, following the good laws of God and it always pays to be on the side of the good and truth. Why is that so called God, sometimes deaf to our sufferings? That too is a huge subject, debatable forever. An ant can never know the workings of a space station. We can never know the workings of the universe. These workings have manifested themselves as insights in Prophets and saints. We can question them for infinity. Here I am awed by the simple explanation of an ancient saint. He said that during the day time we don’t see the stars in the sky. Does that mean that they don’t exist? Just because in our finite ignorance we do not see GOD it doesn’t mean God doesn’t exist. We have limited senses to interpret only that much. To that force I pray. I have questioned enough. Either I believe or I don’t. I choose to believe and so my respect for Christ and his teachings. And every spiritual thought of a truly spiritual seeker. I am comfortable if people call my thinking a croc of crap. I believe and so the universe works around that belief to make it true. This is my experience. Peace unto Christ. And I neither a Christian, Jew nor a Muslim.My respects to you too.

    November 19, 2010 at 2:21 PM

    • I understand your position and while I certainly disagree with it, it’s also been said that you don’t want a debate so I won’t draw you into one. Suffice to say that I respect your beliefs and I hope that the love you have for the God whose true word you cannot name, will draw you to the word of truth revealed in the name, Christ Jesus.

      November 19, 2010 at 3:43 PM

  8. swissknifev

    Thanks Methodus. There are only two things about God. Either we believe or we don’t. No gray areas. Scissoring Prophets with analysis, I can’t. Because these are areas that start as beliefs and faith when logic stops. We’ll end up merely analyzing texts and words. That too from a 21st century cyber world. It’s too clouded by science. Too late. Have a nice day. I admire your scholarly depth. Salutes.

    November 20, 2010 at 4:09 AM

    • mark

      Unfortunately its not as clear cut swissknifev. Anyone can believe..even the devil and his servants are aware of God and his divinity. But belief in the Almighty demands action. And that action calls for more than mere belief. I’d like to encourage you to not hide behind cowardry in taking a stand for what you believe. There’s no sitting on the fence here..

      February 21, 2011 at 4:58 PM

  9. Pingback: On (Christian) Unitarianism and 1 Corinthians 8:6 « God Omnipotent

    • Thanks Hasan. I have and I will make a comment on it soon but I must say that you have not touched on any of my points at all.

      January 14, 2011 at 8:40 AM

      • I did read your article and replied in the comments section. If you want I can make a post on my blog but the content will be the same as in your comments.

        January 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM

      • I’m looking at the comments section right now and I don’t see your comment. Are you sure we’re talking about the same article, i.e. Of Gods and Men? …I think that there has been a little mix up…nevermind my comment then.

        January 14, 2011 at 9:24 AM

  10. Pingback: The son-ship of Jesus Christ « Epimetheus

  11. I thought you were talking about the sin and atonement issue. I will reply to this one soon

    January 14, 2011 at 9:33 AM

  12. Asif

    There are an awful lot of wasted words about topics such as this. I have 80+ Scripture verses which reveal that Jesus is God, is equal to Father God, is the Creator of all things, is the Sustainer (now) of all things, is the Giver of eternal life, etc.
    So, either believe them or don’t believe them.
    Take the Quran over the Scriptures at your own risk.
    God has proven to me over many years that:
    God honors all Bibles except those of cults.
    God honors people who believe in the Bible.
    God never says (or does) anything which contradicts what the Bible says.
    Allah of the Quran obviously is NOT the God of the Bible.
    Satan -> Gabriel -> Allah -> Mohammed -> Islam

    April 24, 2011 at 11:58 AM

    • Allah of the Quran obviously is NOT the God of the Bible.

      Indeed he isn’t and thank you very much for your comment.

      April 25, 2011 at 7:55 PM

  13. Prophet Muhammad In Bible

    April 25, 2011 at 12:54 PM

    • Tiigerr, one really must wonder how you have no qualms with repeatedly posting your comments here when you do not have the decency to approve my posts on your own blog. You claim to wish to be let known of any errors in your posts but when your arguments have been refuted you are quick to delete any of my comments. That my friend is what they call hypocrisy and you certainly aren’t doing the Muslim position any favours by repeatedly being deceiving like this.

      That said, neither do you care to post things which are actually pertaining to the discussion. The arrogance is astounding.

      April 25, 2011 at 7:59 PM

  14. Where is Christ in Christianity

    Dr. Brown shares with the viewers some insight about the difference between the “Trinitarian Pauline Doctrine” and teachings of Jesus Christ himself.

    [link removed]

    May 3, 2011 at 11:54 AM

    • Tiigerr, I have removed your link seeing as it has nothing to do with the above post. If you feel like actually commenting on the posts on this blog you are more than welcome but I will not tolerate spam.

      May 3, 2011 at 6:55 PM

  15. Pingback: Does the Bible Teach the Divinity of Christ? « God Omnipotent

  16. Pingback: Does the Bible Teach the Divinity of Christ? Pt. II « God Omnipotent

  17. Pingback: Talking About Logic « God Omnipotent

  18. “For the Christian, the only documents accepted as reporting the words of Jesus are the accounts given in the Bible. However, there are no sayings of Jesus where he claimed “I am God” or “Worship me”. — Mr. Mushafiq Sultan”

    I must repy this.
    This is a common failure from a muslim. Jesus actually DIRECTLY said that he is God in John 20,28-29.

    Let’s see step by step. He ten lines erlier point out this about other part of Trinity (Father) this definition:

    “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

    In here, seems Jesus is not God, because only Father is called Lord here, right? Just a ten lines after that, in that same text, same context – He did that approve that He is a God on Earth. Few sentences further, Thomas words:

    John 20 –
    28Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
    29Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

    So Jesus here directly said that He is God. :) Of course, te only right correct definition of Jesus is as he stated himself: “Lord and God”.

    All this, about God from God, is defined here too, where Jesus proves Old Testament – because even David said that “Lord said to my Lord”:

    Mathew 22 –
    41While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42“What do you think about the Christd? Whose son is he?”
    “The son of David,” they replied.
    43He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says,
    44“‘The Lord said to my Lord:
    “Sit at my right hand
    until I put your enemies
    under your feet.”’e
    45If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” 46No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions.

    Bible is pretty clear, Old and New Testament DIRECTLY proves that Jesus is God – he alone pointed that, even if you don’t mention all that “I am” statements. :)

    March 24, 2012 at 7:23 AM

  19. Pingback: John 10:33 – The Real Reason the Jews Sought to Kill Jesus - Jesus and His God

  20. Pingback: John 8:58,59; 10:30-33 – The Real Reason the Jews Sought to Kill Jesus « Jesus and His God

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s