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, 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 reallyseeing 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
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.” — answering-islam.org
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?
