Sherif
I'll respect your word and We'll keep our emails short and hopefully stick to one point. So lets dismiss any of the other issues which could be looked upon later.
Let us stick to one of the fundamental differences between our view on Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him).
Was he divine or a human prophet?. I'll pose a question to you, and it doesn't bother me how much you reply back, as long as it's
specific to this issue. As a Muslim I'm entitled to ask where in the books of the Bible does Jesus say "I'm God" or "Worship me".
If you attempt to bring up what Paul or John said, it's going to be futile as we
believe in Jesus Christ, what he said and preached.
I just want you to remember the words of Jesus when apprehended
Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the World; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews
always resort; and in secret have I said nothing
(John 18:20)
So we expect Jesus to be open about his divinity, and undoubtedly the Gospel writers would have recorded such sayings of their master.
So if Jesus is God, the burden of proof rests upon him to prove so. I trust we will stick to this topic Sherif, as it is no trivial issue. Please do not
argue for arguments sake, but argue with a noble purpose to reach a conclusion. I for one will return the same gesture, as I believe a flexible mind is needed in searching for the truth. I can see that some of your points I can agree with, but we tend to have different interpretations as you well know.
Hope to hear from you soon
Regards
Malik
Dear Sherif
I have responded to your email after I understood your intention
in regards to the shorter email.
The Bible might teach that Jesus is both divine and human, but did Jesus teach
so. Paul and Peter are not apostles
according to Islam. The Arch-Angel Gabriel does not go to anyone willy-nilly.
I'll send you a url on how deceitful Paul
(the real founder of Christianity) appears to be in the New Testament
http://www.benet.net.au/~tahseen/essays/thedeceitofpaul.html
>Keep in mind that Jesus' self-disclosure was gradual. It was
accomplished
>through His words and works. To appreciate their significance we must
see
>how his contemporaries reacted to them (not how WE react to them). How
did
>the people of that day understand His words and actions? Here is a
sampling
>of how He communicated His divinity (please read the passages in the Bible
>within their context since I don't quote them in full to save time):
Whether Jesus self-disclosure was gradual or not, it will not forfeit the fact
that he did not make claims
to divinity. And yes you have a point, taking his contemporaries reactions to
him is more significant then our reactions.
>Matthew (hereafter abbreviated Mt) 1:22-23: ". . . they shall
call His Name
>Immanuel which is translated, 'God with us'."
This is so often quoted, first of all it is not Jesus talking here. Secondly
Jesus was not named Immanuel. And even if
you want to attribute the meaning of Immanuel to Jesus (ie God with us) does it
mean that he is God. Ishmael, the son of
Abraham, means "God hears", but we don't say Ishmael is God. Joshua
(Moses successor) means "Lord is Saviour" but we never attribute
divinity to him in the very least. Jochebed (Exodus 6:20) means "Yahweh is
Glory", but then again, No one really knows who this character is.
>Mt. 2:11
I can see "worship" is what is pointed out here.
The word "worship" in Mark 5:6 for example (and many other places)
means to adore, to adulate, to respect, to revere. Compare the same verse with
LUKE 8:28 where the word "worship' is alternatively recorded as "FELL
DOWN BEFORE HIM."
This was an ordinary act of respect towards the Holy Prophets sent by God.
And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and
lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed
herself to the ground,
And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be:
and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words
of thine handmaid.
Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his
name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine
handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send.
Ist Samuel 25:23-25
Then the king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his
face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer
an oblation and sweet odours unto him.
Daniel 2:46-48
So Jesus was worshipped in the sense of adoration and respect just like
the Prophets of bygone years were.
>Mt. 3:3 --"Prepare the way of the LORD, Make His paths
straight"
Once again it is not Jesus talking here. And the word Lord is not necessarily equated with God. As you can see in the above verse, David is called Lord, so is
Abraham (Genesis 18:12).
>Mt. 9: 6--" . . . the Son of man (Jesus) has power on earth to forgive
sins"
Ok, so he has power to forgive sins. But where did he get his powers?
"...All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth." (Matthew 28:18)
Power is given unto him, it's not his own. Since when does God need to be given
powers. So given from whom?, from God Almighty
(the Father) offcourse. If Jesus was part of the Trinity (part of the triune Godhead), it would be needless for him to be
given power whatsoever.
>Mt. 11:27-28--"All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and
no one
>knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father
except the
>Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him."
These two verses don't hint at divinity at all, but it exalts the righteousness of Jesus and shows the close affinity that
he as a Prophet has with the Supreme being. Where does he say I'm God or worship
me?
>Mt. 12:8--"for the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath"
The word Lord has been discussed before. Its is high title of repect used upon
Kings, Propehts and Patriarchs. Incidently,
in the Hebrew and Greek languages, capital letters and lower case letters do not
exist. I'm sure you know this Sherif. So if
one was to read Lord for one and lord for another, in there original langaues
they are consistent. Unlike the English Bibles when
ever something refers to Jesus, they give a capital letter in order to pass it
off as divine. As we discussed earlier about John 1:1
>Mt. 13: 41--"The Son of man will send out His angels . . ."
Once again, his powers are given unto him. Sending off angels is an ambigous
trait of divinity. An action or miracle performed does
not render the performer as God. Especially when he is disclaiming any of the
powers. As Jesus also says:
"...I cast out devils by the Spirit of God
then the kingdom of God is come unto you." (Matthew 12:28)
"I can of mine own self do nothing "
(John 5:30)
"I with the finger of God cast out
devils" (Luke 11:20)
He clearly admits it here, on his own he can't do anything. To perform any miraculous
act, he needs the intervention of Gods Spirit to do it for him.
>Mt. 16:13-19
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of
man am?
And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God.
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father which is in heaven.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it.
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the
Christ.
I'm assuming your equating the name Christ with God, as well as Son of the
Living God.
Firstly onto the word Christ.
The word "Christ" is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah,
Arabic Maseeh. Root word masaha, meaning "to rub",
"to massage", "to anoint". Priests and kings were anointed
when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated Grecian form,
"Christ" seems unique: befitting Jesus only.
Christians like to translate names into their own language; like Cephas
to "Peter" , Messiah to "Christ". How do they do
that? Very easily. Messiah in Hebrew means "Anointed". The
Greek word for anointed is Christos. Just lop off the 'os' from Christos,
and you are left with "Christ"; a unique name!
Christos means "Anointed", and anointed means appointed in its
religious connotation. Jesus, peace and blessing be upon him, was appointed
(anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger. Every prophet
of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the
"anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew, he was made a Messiah.
Let us keep to the English translation "anointed."
Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (Christos-ed), but
horns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.
"I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed a
pillar ..." (Genesis 31:13)
"If the priest that is anointed do sin
..." (Leviticus 4:3)
"And Moses... anointed the tabernacle and all
things that was therein..." (Leviticus 8:100)
"..the Lord shall...exalt the horn of his anointed" (I Samuel 2:10)
"Thus saith the Lord to his anointed to
Cyrus..." (Isaiah 45:1)
"Thou art the anointed cherub..."
(Ezekiel 28:14)
There are a hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Every time you come
across the word "anointed" in your Bible, you can take it that that
word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the
same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have Christ
Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, ...etc.
According to the Bible, God has sons by the tons:
"...Adam, which was the son of God." (Luke
3:38)
"...Israel is My son, even My firstborn:"
(Exodus 4:22)
"...for I (God) am a Father to Israel, and
Ephraim is My firstborn." (Jeremiah 31:9)
"...the Lord hath said unto me (David): 'Thou art My
son: this day have I begotten thee." (Psalms 2:7)
"For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God." (Romans 18:14)
"Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a
man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quietness unto
Israel in his days.
He shall build an house for my name; and he shall be my son, and I will
be his father; and I will establish the throne of his kingdom over Israel for ever."
(1 Chronicles 22:10), (also 1 Chronicles 28:6)
Son of God was no exclusive attribute for Jesus as can be seen in the previous
verses. It meant that those who are rightous, could be considered to be the sons
and daughters of God. And because Prophets were very rightous (for obvious
reasons), they could be considered special sons of God in a closer sense, but
not in a divine sense. On that basis, you would have to attribute divinity to
all the Prophets mentioned above, And to confirm that Jesus is in agreement with
this, he says:
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the
children of God. (Mathew 5:9)
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in
heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
(Mathew 5:45)
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am 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 God, and your God.
(John
20:17)
The last verse is very significant, as it shows that Jesus stands in the same
relation (in regards to sonship) as anyone else.
>Mt. 19: 28--" . . . when the Son of man sits on the throne of His
glory"
Does this indicate divinity?, in the King James Bible it is written shall sit
in the throne of his glory. So what is he saying?, if he is not sitting in the throne of his glory yet, does this indicate he is
currently not God?. He has yet to become God once he sits upon the throne. If he
is God, it only should make sense that he would be sitting on throne of his
Glory in all eternity, that includes the time he made such a statement (ie while
on Earth). In the same verse in which you have not completed, Jesus says in
full:
And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye
which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man
shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones,
judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
Now does this in anyway elevate the status of the disciples to divinity?,
just because they will be sitting on thrones as well.
>Mt. 22:41-46 --" . . . how then does David call Him (Jesus) 'Lord' . .
. ?"
The verse in full reads
While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked
them,
Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of
David.
He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies
thy footstool?
If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day
forth ask him any more questions.
Now we all know David to have known only one God, not two. If the Psalm
verse is question is reread, it would sound like this
"God said unto my God, Sit thou........."
I honestly don't think so. It is read "God said unto my Lord" The word
Lord has been discussed already, it is a title of respect if used for Messengers
and Prophets sent by God.
The verse is clear, if Jesus is the son of David how could he be called Lord, or
master (not God). Because if you turn the argument around, David could be called
Lord of Jesus, but it would not be indicated in the divine sense, because his
contemporaries are discussing his pedigree here, not divinity. For the purpose
of a fulfilment of prophecy. Unfortunately Jesus is not recorded to have given an
answer to that question, so we will never know what he really said.
Muslim scholars have indicated that this verse refers to Prophet Muhammed (PBUH).
According to the argument Jesus could not be Lord as he was Davids son. Within a
mere 23 years, the Prophet of Islam defeated his enemies and made them his
enemies his footstool. This we can look into another time, as I do not want to
sway away from the topic of this email.
>Mt. 25: 31-46
These verses are reffering to the Day of Judgement. It explains the consequences
of those who do evil, and the fruits of of those who do rightousness. If the
verse 31 is the one your trying to specifically refer to in which Jesus talks
about his throne of Glory and Holy Angels, this has already been discussed. Your
evading the point, where did Jesus says I'm God or worshship me? That is the
question.
>As for the Gospel of John it is all about Jesus divinity. Let me
briefly
>point out just a few passages:
>
>Jn. 1:1-4
I've discussed this before in my previous email. But I'll re-iterate it, this
time more succinctly.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (HOTHEOS),
and the Word was God (TONTHEOS).
Now the words in brackets are the original words in the Greek manuscripts
for the word "God". You can see that for "God",
two different spellings of the word are used.
Hotheos literally means The God
Tontheos literally means a god
Now if we look at 2 Corinthians 4:4
In whom the god (HOTHEOS) of this world hath blinded the
minds of them which believe not...
you have dishonestly reversed your system by using a small 'g' when
spelling 'God' "(and the devil is) the god of this world." The Greek
word for "the god" is Hotheos the same as in John 1:1.
"Why have you not been consistent in your translations ?" "If
Paul was inspired to write hotheos the God for the Devil, why
don't you use that capital 'G'?"
According to your own system of translating you aught to have spelt this word
'God' (in John 1:1) a second time with a small 'g' i.e. 'god', and not 'God'
with a capital 'G'; in other words Tontheos is rendered "a
god". Both of these, "god" or "a god" are correct.
And in the Old Testament, the Lord said unto Moses: "See,
I have made thee a god to Pharaoh" (Exodus 7:1). "Why do
you use a small 'g' for 'God' when referring to Moses instead of a capital 'G'
as you do for a mere word 'Word' - "and the Word was God."?
Offcourse I'm not accusing you Sherif, but the vested interests of Christianity
that uses capital letters here and small letters there, to deceive the unwary
masses who think that every letter, every comma and full stop and the capital
and small letters were dictated by God (Capital 'G' here!)."
Despite the shortcomings of the Jehovah's Witnesses, at least they've translated
it correctly in their New World Translation version of the Bible
In [the] beginning the Word was, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was a god.
In an earlier email, you said
"Suffice it to say that ton theos is the accusative form (mansoub) of
ho theos (marfu')--it is the same word with the same meaning but takes
different forms based on its function in the sentence."
The point being discussed is consistency of translation, not doctrinal
interpretation. This is why many denominations can easily interpret this verse
in a way that can pander to their accepted beliefs. John 1:1 is intentionally
translated as "God" inorder to bolster the Church belief that Jesus is
divine.
As I mentioned before, it was Philo Judaeus of Alexandria who coined this
sentence (John 1:1), in the beginning of each of his works. This is his
statement, not Johns or let alone, God Almighty. I said in my previous email...
Philo Judaeus is recorded to have died between 45 and 50 C.E. John on the
other hand, wrote "his" Gospel
roughly in 98 C.E. So their is a large timespan in decades for Philos popular
works to have reached
and influenced the Medditerranean world by the time John wrote his Gospel.
Incidently, Philo was
well known for synthesizing Jewish religion with Greek thought. Philo never
equated the Word with the
expected Messiah. Jews and Muslims view phrases like "the Word of the
Lord" as "the Word of the Lord",
nothing else but Gods commands to his Prophets, we don't attempt to mystify the
mere word "Word" (or Logos in Greek).
I'm not going to indulge into to much of John 1:1, as these are not the
words of Jesus, and thus they hold less weight. Strangely enough, John 1:1
should be clear in showing that their is only one God, but that doesn't seem to
be the case according to orthodox interpretation. Because when it says "In
the beginning was the word, and the Word was with God (a distinction is
made here between the Word and God), and the Word was God (Now
it is indicated that their are two Gods according to the traditional Christian interpretation)"
The fact that two entities are distinguished, you then attribute divinity
to both, in effect claiming that their are two Gods.
>Jn. 4:13-14
The verse reads
Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of
this water shall thirst again:
But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst;
but the water that I shall give him shall be in
him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
I can agree to that, Jesus is basically saying that those of his time who
follow me will see heaven, and not hell. If you follow the scribes
and Pharisees, it will not warrant you enough to get eternal life. He is not
claiming divinity in anyway, the Prophet of Islam made similar statements, but
Muslims don't interpret that as being anything divine. Thats why you see many
Muslims follow their beloved Prophet to the letter, in matters of conduct,
morality, etc.. even down to the minute things
>Jn. 5:18-22. Note the first verse in this passage: " . . .
the jews sought
>all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also
>said that God was His Father, making himself equal with God."
Jesus did not
>correct their conception.
Sherif, you know for a fact that the Jews have always wanted to trip Jesus over.
With their questions in regards
to the "Should we pay tribute to Caesar" statement, "The woman
caught in adultery" etc. They were trying to trap him, and not only that,
they
misinterpreted his sayings despite the clarity of his statements that he spoke
in.
Jesus made it clear with other such statements
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am 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 God, and your God. (John
20:17)
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is
your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9)
The point that Jesus did not correct their conception is irrelevant, as he has
made this issue clear throughout other verses in the Gospels.
Utilising the same logic that those questioning Jews of his time used, they also
have the capability of equating themselves with God, as long as they call him
Father (as Jesus told them to do so)
>Jn. 8:23--"you are of this world; I am not of this world"
If you read the entire context, the fact that the Jews are satisfied with this
material world, and the fact that they refuse to accept him as the Messiah and
seek to kill him; makes them destined for hell. Jesus is refering to the life
that he prefers, and that is the hereafter. Not the present world, and this is a
true characteristic of a True Prophet.
>Jn.8:58--"Before Abraham was, I AM"--Ibrahim lived 2000 years
before the
>incarnation of Christ! Note the reaction of the jews in verse 59.
John 8:56-58 states:
'Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; and he
saw it, and was glad.' The Jews therefore said to him: 'You are not yet fifty
years old, and have you seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them: 'Truly, truly, I say
to you, before Abraham came into being, I am.'"
Trinitarians argue that the Greek words ego eimi ("I am"), allegedly
spoken by Jesus (John 8:58), indicate that Jesus is God (see also John 8:24,
28). They arrive at their contention by connecting the phrase "I am"
with the words spoken by God in Exodus 3:14 and often translated:
"I AM
THAT I AM . . . . Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: I AM has sent me
to you."
However, the literal and proper translation of this verse is: I
WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE. . . . Thus you shall say to the children of
Israel: I WILL BE has sent me to you."
Since the author of the Gospel of John utilized the Greek Septuagint translation
of the Bible in his writings, it cannot be assumed that John's Jesus is
referring to the words in Exodus 3:14. Although Jesus actually spoke in Hebrew
or Aramaic, not Greek, John recorded Jesus' alleged words in Greek. Ego eimi
("I am"), used by John's Jesus, is not the same as ho on ("The
Being, The One Who Is"), which is used in the Septuagint's rendering of
Exodus 3:14:
"And God spoke to Moses, saying, I am THE BEING; and He said,
Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: THE BEING has sent me to
you."
Even though ho on appears in the Gospel of John, it is never used as
a title or name or exclusively as a reference to Jesus. In the Book of
Revelation, also credited to John by Christian commentators, ho on appears five
times (Revelation 1:4, 8; 4:8; 11:17; 16:5). Significantly, in each instance, it
is used as a title or designation applied to God, not Jesus. Thus:
"John to
the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is [ho
on] and who was and who is to come; and from the seven spirits who are before
His throne" (Revelation 1:4).
That this verse refers to God and not Jesus
is seen from the following verse, which continues the greeting by now including
Jesus as one of those sending greetings. Hence, John says, in verses 4 and 5,
that greetings are sent by God, the seven spirits, and Jesus.
In verse 8, John writes: ''I am the Alpha and the Omega,' says the Lord
God, 'who is [ho on] and who was and who is to come, the Almighty''
(Revelation 1:8). This verse also speaks of God, not Jesus. In Revelation 4:8,
ho on is applied to "the Lord God, the Almighty," not Jesus, who, as
the "Lamb" referred to in Revelation 5:6-7, comes to God, who is
sitting on His throne. That they are two separate entities is seen from
Revelation 5:13: "To the one sitting on the throne, and to the Lamb, be
blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." In addition,
ho on is applied to the "Lord God, the Almighty," not Jesus, in
Revelation 11:17 and Revelation 16:5. That ho on in Revelation 16:5 refers to
God and not Jesus can be seen from verse 7, which, referring to the subject of
verses 5 and 6, states: "And I heard the altar saying: 'Yes, Lord God, the
Almighty, true and righteous are Your judgments.'' These are further
indications that ho on and ego eimi are not used as synonymous terms by John.
In John 8:56-58, John is expounding his belief that Jesus had a prehuman
existence as an angelic being in heaven. John's Jesus is proclaiming here that
this prehuman existence began before Abraham was born: "Before Abraham came
into being, I am." The fact of the matter is that the text does not at all
indicate how long Jesus supposedly lived before Abraham. In no honest way can
John's statement be taken to identify Jesus as God.
If taken in the monotheistical thinking, it would be correct to believe that
Jesus existed before Abraham in the divine will and plan of God. As even God
says to Jeremiah,
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before
thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a
prophet unto the nations. (Jeremiah 1:5)
This is truly an Islamic belief. As everyone was in the knowledge of God
Almighty before they even materialised; Abraham, Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus,
Muhammed, Columbus, Napoleon, Hitler, Nasser etc
>Jn. 10:25-39--the jews accused Him again of blasphemy in verse 30:
"you,
>being a man, make Yourself God." Again Jesus confirms their
understanding
>rather than saying, "Astaghfar allah alazim!" He says,
"I and the Father are
>one".
A saying goes like this, "Text without context is pretext". (The
below is taken from Ahmed Deedats book, "Christ
in Islam")
To get at the context, we have to begin from verse 23 which reads:
23. "and Jesus was in the temple area walking
in Solomon's Colonnade." (John 10:23).
John, or whoever he was, who wrote this story, does not tell us the reason for
Jesus tempting the Devil by walking alone in the lion's den. For we do not
expect the Jews to miss a golden opportunity to get even with Jesus. Perhaps, he
was emboldened by the manner in which he had literally whipped the Jews
single-handed in the Temple, and upset the tables of the money changers at the
beginning of his ministry (John 2:15).
24. "The Jews gathered around him, saying,
"How long will you keep us in suspense? If you are the Christ, tell us
plainly."
(John 10:24).
They surrounded him. Brandishing their fingers in his face, they began accusing
him and provoking him; saying that he had not put forth his claim plainly
enough, clearly enough. That he was talking ambiguously. They were trying to
work themselves into a frenzy to assault him. In fact, their real complaint was
that they did not like his method of preaching, his invectives, the manner in
which he condemned them for their formalism, their ceremonialism, their going
for the letter of the law and forgetting the spirit. But Jesus could not afford
to provoke them any further there were too many and they were itching for a
fight.
Discretion is the better part of valor. In a conciliatory spirit, befitting the
occasion:
25. "Jesus answered, I did tell you, but you
do not believe. The miracles I do in my Father's name speak for me,"
26. "but you do not believe because you are
not my sheep." (John 10:25-26).
Jesus rebuts the false charge of his enemies that he was ambiguous in his claims
to being the Messiah that they were waiting for. He says that he did tell them
clearly enough, yet they would not listen to him, but:
27. "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them,
and they follow me."
28. "I give them eternal life, and they shall
never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand."
29. "My Father, who has given them to me, is
greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand.."
(John 10:29).
How can anyone be so blind as not to see the exactness of the ending of the last
two verses. But spiritual blinkers are more impervious than physical defects. He
is telling the Jews and recording for posterity, the real unity or relationship
between the Father and the son. The most crucial verse:
30. "I and the Father are one."
(John 10:30).
One in what? In their Omniscience? In their Nature? In their Omnipotence? No!
One in purpose! That once a believer has accepted faith, the Messenger sees to
it that he remains in faith, and God Almighty also sees to it that he remains in
faith. This is the purpose of the "Father" and the
"son" and the "Holy Ghost" and of every man and
every woman of faith. Let the same John explain his Gnostic mystic verbiage.
"That they all may be one as thou. Father, art
in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us..."
"I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one..."
(John
17:20-22)
If Jesus is "one" with God, and if that "oneness" makes him
God, then the traitor Judas, and the doubting Thomas, and the satanic Peter,
plus the other nine who deserted him when he was most in need are God(s),
because the same "oneness" which he claimed with God in John 10:30,
now he claims for all "who forsook him and fled" (Mark 14:50). All
"ye of little faith" (Matthew 8:26). All "O faithless and
perverse generation" (Luke 9:41). Where and when will the Christian
blasphemy end? The expression "I and my Father are one," was very
innocent, meaning nothing more than a common purpose with God. But the Jews were
looking for trouble and any excuse will not do, therefore,
31. "Again the Jews picked up stones to stone
him,"
32. "but Jesus said to them, I have shown you
many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
33. "The Jews answered him, saying : 'For a
good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a
man, makest thyself a God." (John 10:31-33).
In verse 24 above the Jews falsely alleged that Jesus was talking ambiguously.
When that charge was ably refuted, they then accused him of blasphemy which is
like treason in the spiritual realm. So they say that Jesus is claiming to be
God "I and the Father are one". The Christians agree with the Jews in
this that Jesus did make such a claim; but differ in that it was not blasphemy
because the Christians say that he was God and was entitled to own up to his
Divinity.
The Christians and the Jews are both agreed that the utterance is serious. To
one as an excuse for good "redemption", and to the other as an excuse
for good "riddance". Between the two, let the poor Jesus die. But
Jesus refuses to co-operate in this game, so:
34. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in
your Law, `I have said you are gods'?"
35. "If he called them `gods,' to whom the
word of God came --and the Scripture cannot be broken--,"
36. "what about the one whom the Father set
apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of
blasphemy because I said, `I am God's Son'?" (John 10:34-36).
Why "Your Law"?
He is a bit sarcastic in verse 34, but in any event, why does he say:
"Your Law"? Is it not also his Law? Didn't he say: "Think
not that I am come to destroy the Law of the prophets: I am come not to
destroy, but to fulfill (the Law). For verily I say unto you, till heaven and
earth pass away, one Jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the Law,
till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:1718).
"You are Gods"
"You are gods:" He is obviously quoting from the 82nd Psalm ,
verse 6, "I have said, ye are gods: and all of
you are the children of the most High."
Jesus, continues: "If he (i.e. God
Almighty) called them gods, unto whom the word of God came
(meaning that the prophets of God were called 'gods') and
the scripture cannot be broken..." (John 10:35), in other words he
is saying: "you can't contradict me!" Jesus knows his Scripture; he
speaks with authority; and he reasons with his enemies that: "If good men,
holy men, prophets of God are being addressed as 'gods' in our Books of
Authority, with which you find no fault, then why do you take exception to me?
When the only claim I make for myself is far inferior in our language, viz. 'A
son of God' as against others being called 'gods' by God Himself. Even if I
(Jesus) described myself as 'god' in our language, according to Hebrew usage,
you could find no fault with me." This is the plain reading of Christian
Scripture. I am giving no interpretations of my own or some esoteric meaning to
words!
>Jn. 17:5--"O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself with the glory
which I
>had with You before the world was."
So is he saying that he is currently not glorified, and until he is glorified,
he can be considered God. He means here that for God Almighty to restore
his dignity and honour that was degraded by the Jews. The Holy Qur'an says
Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and
clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who
follow
thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall
ye all
return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
3.55
This was a punshment to the Jews for rejecting Jesus, those who believed in him
(the early Christians) were made superior
(numericly) to those who rejected him (his own people, the Jews). And by the 4th
century, Christianity had taken root in the Roman Empire.
>Jn. 20:24--29. Note in particular verse 28, "Thomas answered and
said to
>Him, "My Lord and my God"! Jesus blesses him for his faith!
>
Thomas, was "not with them (the disciples) when Jesus
came" — (John 20:24), the first time in the
upper-room. Subsequently, when these very disciples who had felt, and touched
and eaten with Jesus, testified that they had seen the "Lord"
(not God, not the ghost of Jesus, but he himself flesh and blood — ALIVE!),
Thomas said unto them:
"Except, I shall see in his hands the print of
the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand
into his side, I will not believe."
John 20:25
Biblical scholars are coming to a conclusion that the "doubting
Thomas" episode is of the same variety as that of the woman "caught
in the act" — (John 8:1-11), i.e. it is a
fabrication! But as the orthodox will not allow this interpolation — (John
8:1-11) to be expunged from their Versions of the Bible, he exhibits a
similar stubbornness in dealing with the verses about "putting
fingers into the print of the nails" — (John 20:25).
For the present we will deal with them for what they are worth.
The Romans had no special reasons for being vindictive towards Jesus as compared
to his two "crossmates". Why make fish of one (his "crossmates")
and fowl of the other (Jesus), i.e. to have the two tied with leather thongs to
the crossbar and to have Jesus "nailed"?
"eight days" later, Jesus walks once more into the upper-room,
and he finds Thomas there this time. And according to John, he commanded Thomas
to. ..
". . . Reach hither thy finger, and behold my
hands;
and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side;
and be not faithless, but believing."
John 20:27
Thomas realises the heel he has been. He had signally rejected every proof
that Jesus was ALIVE! Every other disciple, beside Judas Iscariot the traitor,
had testified that they had seen Jesus and felt him and eaten food with him, but
Thomas WOULD NOT BELIEVE!. What would he not believe? That the living,
pulsating Jesus was making his rounds — Not a ghost of Jesus. Now, being
confronted with the PHYSICAL reality of his presence, demonstrating his
physical, material body, he was forced to exclaim,
"My Lord and my God!" —
John 20:28
WHAT DID THOMAS REALISE?
Did Thomas realise at that juncture that Jesus Christ was his
Jehovah? Did he and the other disciples fall down in prostration before him.
Never! His words were the words of self-reproach. We utter them daily,
"My God! What a fool I have been!" Are you addressing your listener,
as your God?. The Romans of Jesus' day would utter "Great Jupitor",
but that does not mean they were addressing their listeners with their pagan god
name.
Here is an excellent page explaining this verse
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Delphi/1053/12211.html
>I hope you can read all the verses referred to and not just the ones I wrote
>out. May the faith of doubting Thomas be ours in full measure,
"My Lord and
>my God".
>
>Sherif
Indeed it has Sherif, I have added a reply to each verse. Apologies for taking
too long, as I have had studies to balance out as well. For Jesus to have said
that he said nothing in secret, and he spoke openly unto the world (John
18:20).
Should it not make you realise by now, that this Great Prophet of God, did not
make any claims to divinity whatsoever. In the four Gospels, not one such
statement is recorded.
Please I urge you to read the literature at my site
www.benet.net.au/~tahseen/MAIN/tahseen.html
Because all my information I'm expounding to you, is based on the resources from
there.
Regards
Malik
POSTSCRIPT: The Evangelist replied back
in a common orientalist style. He derided the Prophet Muhammed (pbuh), accusing
him of the same accusations we have heard for centuries, made references to the
oppressive Muslim countries and dictators, the issue of women and human rights,
the 4 wife issue, Islam being spread by the sword myth, corruption etc
etc. What he said had nothing to do with the issue of the divinity of
Christ. This is a sure last resort of the frustrated missionary, after appearing
tolerant, warm and "filled with the love of Christ". He exposes his
real self with a barrage of false accusations towards our beloved Prophet and
the Holy Qur'an. As well as making the typical sweeping generalisations we hear
in the West. I refuse to publish his final email (unless I can be given a good
reason to do so) because of the nature of its derogatory and profane remarks. In
my reply to his email I remarked in one paragraph
The points on the Prophet of Islam are to numerous, and
I'm not going into them as I know their wont be a positive outcome. Also seeing
the fact that there is so much information on the net, that rebukes such false
accusations, but I know you would not want to bother to read such materials, as
I know it would far from suit your missionary goals. You just tend to repeat the
same orientalist accusations, that serve to belittle the Prophet of Islam.
So I don't know if it would be of any usefulness if I was
to give you such urls. You'll not see Muslims pointing out anything in Jesus
like the Jews and Atheists do. That's because we respect this great Prophet
Jesus, and we make no distinction amongst any of the Prophets and Messangers
sent by God.
Just remember Muslim brothers and sisters , if Allah (Subhana Wa Ta'ala) chooses to guide someone onto Islam. No matter how much misinformation the missionary gives that person, even if the Berlin wall was placed before him or her. That person will still come into Islam. If you were to effectively rebuke a missionary in regards to comparative religious issues, whether he agreed with you or not. He will continue to repeat the same traditional arguments to the Muslims, in the hope that simple minded Muslims will swallow the argument. When all else fails, you can expect too hear the falsehoods regarding Islam from him.