What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube

Rebuttal to Sam Shamoun’s article

A Series of Answers to Common Questions

By

This article of Shamoun is some what similar to his previous article ' A Christian defense of the Gospel to the Muslims'. For the rebuttal to that article click here (*). Many of the arguments which Shamoun shows with his responses have already been adressed in his common answers to common questions section and his previous article. Here are the rebuttals to his section of common questions to common answers: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [11] [8]. Now to his article.

He wrote:

Charge #1

In John 8:40, Jesus declares to the Jews, "But now you seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God: this did not Abraham."

The Greek term for man, anthropos, implies one who is absolutely human, distinct from God and animals. This would in effect eliminate the divinity of Jesus, proving that Christ was only human.

Response

There is nothing within the word anthropos that denies John’s clear affirmation that the Lord Jesus Christ is God’s eternal Word who became flesh:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind ... Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory - the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father." John 1:1-4, 14 NET Bible

Had the objector continued reading further into the context of John, he would have found the Lord Jesus acknowledging his eternal preexistence:

"He said to them, ‘You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins.’" John 8:23-24

"So Jesus said to them, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.’" John 8:28

"Jesus replied, ‘If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here.’" John 8:42 NET

"‘Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.’ Then the Jewish people who had been listening to him replied, ‘You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I AM!’ Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area." John 8:56-59 NET

These passages demonstrate that Christ existed before Abraham, came down out of heaven from the Father’s presence and is the Eternal I AM (a title used in reference to Yahweh God). Cf. Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10-11; 44:6; 48:12

Therefore, in light of John’s Christology the use of anthropos simply conveys that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, perfectly uniting within his one Person two distinct natures. Jesus is very God of very God, and man as God intended man to be.

My Response:

To start of here is a link that shows the real translation of John 1:1:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/john1_1.htm

As for Jesus saying I AM, this does not prove he is God. Let us post some of the verses Shamoun posted:

So Jesus said to them, ‘When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I AM, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.’" John 8:28

That is the important part of the verse which Shamoun missed. Those words basically prove that without a doubt Jesus is not God. Why would Jesus make such a statement after making a claim that he is God? You believe Jesus saying I AM makes him God, if so then why would he say such a statement right after saying I AM? The fact is Jesus said those words to show he is a prophet and that he is not God and the fact that he says I AM means nuthing special it is just the desire of Christians to make it seem as if Jesus is claiming to be God when he is claiming something tottally opposite.

Shamoun then posts:

"‘Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.’ Then the Jewish people who had been listening to him replied, ‘You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I AM!’ Then they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out from the temple area." John 8:56-59 NET

No where in those passages does Jesus say he existed before Abraham, this is bad mis handling and mis-understanding of the text. The fact that Jesus said that before Abraham he was, does not mean he existed literally. I would like Shamoun to prove me wrong on that and show me the passages do in fact show Jesus EXISTED before Abraham, because no where in those passages do we see Jesus claiming that he did exist and was on earth or in heaven. Shamoun may believe that this passage shows that he did exist: Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day, and he saw it and was glad.’

Not even this passage shows Jesus as being existent before Abraham, let us look at it for ourselves.

Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see my day.  So in fact when Jesus says MY DAY it basically means MY TIME, so Abraham was happy to see Jesus' time come and finally bring the children of Israel back to God, and of course Abraham would we overjoyed because they are his offspring! If Jesus existed before Abraham he would have said Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see ME, Not to see my day. To see my day means to see my time, and what time is that? The time when Jesus is sent by God to bring the children of Israel back to God, and Jesus was also their messiah. Their Saviour even giving more reason to why Abraham would be overjoyed to see Jesus' day come.

Now of course the Jews who couldn’t think outside the box misunderstood what Jesus meant just like Shamoun does, and they took it for something else that he literally existed before Abraham: Then the Jewish people who had been listening to him replied, ‘You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?

So they took it in a literal sense, however so let us even look at Jesus' answer which will even make it more clear that he did not literally exist before Abraham, let us quote the Jews remarks and Jesus' response: Then the Jewish people who had been listening to him replied, ‘You are not yet fifty years old! Have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I AM!

Jesus did not say he existed before Abraham! Look at his response and you can see it for yourself that Jesus did not say he literally existed before Abraham. Jesus never said I SAW ABRAHAM, he said BEFORE Abraham was that I AM. Christians will say that is proof! Actually it is not, because before Abraham so was I and Shamoun and every other living being on this planet. God has foreknowledge of all his creation before he even creates them and puts them into existence. However so I know many Christians will be saying well what was so special about Jesus saying that? It isn’t something very special since we are all already known before our existence and so on. However when you get the big picture it makes very much sense to why Jesus would make such a statement. Let us see the reasons.

1- Abraham is the father of the Jews, and a very important figure to them. He is loved and honoured by all Jews and has a very high status.

2- Jesus is the messiah to the Jews, their saviour.

3- Jesus was a prophet sent to the Jews to bring them back to God.

So when you have all those three points it becomes clear that Jesus was showing the Jews of his own HIGH STATUS. Jesus was sent to the Jews, who were from Abraham, and Jesus was their messiah and prophet, and the Jews honour and love Abraham. So Jesus said that to show them of his own importance to them ranking right beside Abraham. He was showing them that he is on the same rank and high status of Abraham. That is exactly why Jesus used Abraham and not Adam or Noah. Jesus used Abraham because Jews are from Abraham and Jesus was sent to the Jews. So Jesus is basically showing his importance to them and that even before his existence and his creation that God had already planned on sending him to children of Israel as a messiah and a saviour and last prophet. So it becomes evidently clear to why Jesus would make such a statement. Sadly the Jews misunderstood him. There is no proof that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he was claiming to be God either. The facts are there for all to see. The Jews wanted to kill Jesus because he claimed to be in existence before Abraham, and he was not even very old or old enough to have been alive back then, so they wanted to kill him for making such a statement, which they believed to be a lie. They did not want to kill him for claiming to be God.

So the fact is, Jesus saying ‘I am’ didn’t make him God. The verse doesn’t even show that Jesus literally existed before Abraham or that the Jews wanted to kill him for claiming to be God. Jesus is fully man and is not God at all.

He wrote:

Charge #2

Numbers 23:19 states that "God is not a man that he should lie, or a son of man that he should repent." Yet, Jesus was both man and son of man. (Cf. Matthew 16:13)

Response

This passage does not deny that God could take on human form, but is simply stating that he is not man by nature. Since God is not human by nature he cannot change his mind nor lie, traits which are common of fallen men. To show that this is the correct interpretation of the passage we only need to look at other OT citations which show God appearing in human form (called theophanies) and prophecies which actually claim that God will become a true human being. Note for instance the following passages:

"The LORD appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw THREE MEN standing nearby. When he saw them, he hurried from the entrance of his tent to meet them and bowed low to the ground. He said, ‘If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by. Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash YOUR FEET and rest under this tree. Let me get you something to eat, so you can be refreshed and then go on your way - now that you have come to your servant.’ ‘Very well,’ they answered, ‘do as you say’ ... He then brought some curds and milk and the calf that had been prepared, and set these before them. WHILE THEY ATE, he stood near them under a tree. ‘Where is your wife Sarah?’ they asked him. ‘There, in the tent,’ he said. THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife will have a son’ ... THEN THE LORD SAID TO ABRAHAM, ‘Why did Sarah laugh and say, "Will I really have a child, now that I am old?" Is anything too hard for the LORD? I will return to you at the appointed time next year and Sarah will have a son.’ Sarah was afraid, so she lied and said, ‘I did not laugh.’ BUT HE SAID, ‘Yes, you did laugh.’ WHEN THE MEN GOT UP TO LEAVE, they looked down toward Sodom, and Abraham walked along with them to see them on their way. THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do?’ ... THEN THE LORD SAID, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.’ The men turned away and went toward Sodom, BUT ABRAHAM REMAINED STANDING BEFORE THE LORD. Then Abraham APPROACHED HIM and said: W‘Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? Far be it from you to do such a thing - to kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?’ THE LORD SAID, ‘If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake’ ... WHEN THE LORD HAD FINISHED SPEAKING WITH ABRAHAM, HE LEFT, and Abraham returned home." Genesis 18:1-5, 8-10a, 13-17, 20-26, 33

"So Jacob was left alone, and A MAN wrestled with him till daybreak. When THE MAN saw that he could not overpower him, he touched the socket of Jacob's hip so that his hip was wrenched as he wrestled with THE MAN. Then THE MAN said, ‘Let me go, for it is daybreak.’ But Jacob replied, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me.’ THE MAN asked him, ‘What is your name?’ ‘Jacob,’ he answered. Then THE MAN said, ‘Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome.’ Jacob said, ‘Please tell me your name.’ But he replied, ‘Why do you ask my name?’ Then he blessed him there. So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, ‘It is because I SAW GOD FACE TO FACE, and yet my life was spared.’" Genesis 32:24-30

Both Abraham and Jacob saw God appear to them in the form of a man!

And:

"For to us a child IS BORN, to us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders. For he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, the Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

In fact, God is also called a man of war!

"The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name." Exodus 15:3 KJV

"The LORD shall go forth as a mighty man, he shall stir up jealousy like a man of war: he shall cry, yea, roar; he shall prevail against his enemies." Isaiah 42:13 KJV

To therefore use Numbers 23:19 to disprove the Incarnation is simply erroneous to say the least. The passage is simply affirming that God's essence is distinct from man, without denying the fact that God could/would eventually become man, taking on a real human nature.

My Response:

This has already been addressed here [11]

He wrote:

Charge #3

Exodus 33:20 clearly shows that no one can see God and live, and yet Jesus was seen by many.

Response

The passage does not deny that God can appear in human form, but that no man can behold the unveiled glory of God's essence in its fullness. That is precisely why God appears in human form, so that man may see him face to face. The fact that man can view a veiled form of God is expressly stated in Exodus 24:9-11:

"Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up, and they SAW the God of Israel; and there was under HIS FEET something like a pavement made of sapphire, and clear like the heaven itself. But he did not lay a hand on the leaders of the Israelites, so they SAW God, and they ate and they drank." NET

My Response:

This has already been addressed here [11.b] [7]

He wrote:

Charge #4

Job 25:4 records that a man born of a woman cannot be clean before God, a statement reiterated in 15:14. Jesus was born of a woman and impure before God, and therefore cannot be God.

Response

It must be stated that the Holy Bible accurately records events and conversations without necessarily condoning them. For instance, Genesis records Lot's daughters getting their father drunk enough to have sex with him in order to preserve human life. (Cf. Genesis 19:30-38)

Another example would be Samson sleeping with a harlot. (Cf. Judges 16:1)

The Holy Bible records these stories not because it condones such actions, but that these events did actually take place and serve as illustrations of man's depraved sinful nature.

Likewise, the passages from Job reflect the views of Job's friends, i.e. Eliphaz the Temanite (cf. 15:14) and Bildad the Shuhite (cf. 25:4). They do not necessarily reflect God’s view of the situation, since not everything these men said were pleasing to God:

"After the Lord had spoken these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, ‘My anger is stirred up against you and your two friends, because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has. So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and offer a burnt offering for yourselves. And my servant Job will intercede for you, and I will respect him, so that I do not deal with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken about me what is right, as my servant Job has.’" Job 42:7-8 NET

In order to determine when a person’s statements or opinions are in agreement with the Word of God we need to turn to the passages of Scripture which reflect God's view of things. When this is done one finds that although the Holy Bible agrees that man is evil by nature, there is a way for a person to be born from a woman and still be pure and holy in God’s sight:

"In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.’ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. SO THE HOLY ONE TO BE BORN WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD.’" Luke 1:26-35

Luke answers the question of Job’s friends. The way that a person born of a woman can be holy before God is if he were born supernaturally of a virgin by the Holy Spirit, thus purifying the child from the stain of sin. Since Jesus was the only one conceived supernaturally by the Holy Spirit to a virgin, he alone amongst the sons of men is Holy from conception. Everyone else become holy through his or her union with the Lord Jesus, God’s sinless Savior.

My Response:

Shamoun did a good trick there I must say. He invents up something by posting Luke 1:26-35 to show that this is why Job 25:4 and 15:14 don’t apply to Jesus. However so the fact is even the verses he posted does not change any thing. Let us quote Luke and see the context:

Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. SO THE HOLY ONE TO BE BORN WILL BE CALLED THE SON OF GOD.

The context is clear. Mary is asking how can she have a child when she is a virgin. The angels simply answers her by telling her how the spirit will come upon her and the most high will overshadow her so the holy one will be born. The verse is basically saying how such a miraculous birth can take place. The verse does not show that Jesus is exempted by Job 25:4 and 15:14. Shamoun tries to deceive the reader by trying to show that the miraculous birth and the way it takes place means Jesus is no longer unclean since he is born of a women. However so Shamoun may also try to trick the reader into thinking that just because Jesus was called holy this makes him pure and unclean, quite the contrary indeed, consult this rebuttal [2] and see for yourself where I refute such a silly claim. Shamoun then says Jesus is called the Holy ONE of God, this still doesn’t change anything, what would Shamoun prefer Jesus to be called? The fact it says holy ONE is because Jesus is one person, one being, he is not 10 persons or 3 persons but 1 person, so hence he is called the holy ONE. Holy one means messenger (Daniel 4:23). So Jesus is a messenger of God. I totally agree. The fact remains that Shamoun tried to trick his readers into thinking the miraculous birth exempted him from the previous verses when in fact it did not. Luke was basically saying how such a miraculous birth could take place.

He wrote:

Charge #5

In Mark 2:1-12, Jesus forgives a paralytic's sins without having to die for that man. This affirms that Christ's death in place of sinners was unnecessary and unbiblical. Furthermore, Christians often use this text as proof that Jesus is God since God alone forgives sins. But in John 20:22 we are told that the disciples were given authority to forgive sins as well. Are they God as well?

Response

Christ could pardon sinners based on the certain knowledge that he was going to die for them on the cross. The Scriptures state that Christ's sacrifice had already transpired in the foreknowledge of God, having been ordained before the foundation of the world:

"Israelite men, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a man clearly attested to you by God with powerful deeds, wonders, and miraculous signs that God performed through him among you, just as you yourselves know - this man, who was handed over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you executed by nailing him to a cross at the hands of Gentiles. But God raised him up, having released him from the pains of death, because it was not possible for him to be held in its power." Acts 2:22-24

"For both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, assembled together in this city against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, to do as much as your power and your plan had decided beforehand would happen." Acts 4:27-28

"But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot; He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for you ... " 1 Peter 1:19-20 NKJV

"And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship Him, whose names are written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world." Revelation 13:8

God, because of this, temporarily overlooked the sins of His chosen ones and spared them from eternal punishment, justifying them on the basis of the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness and his vicarious death:

"Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance, God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." Romans 3:24-26 NKJV

"Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead." Acts 17:30-31 NKJV

As far as John 20:22 is concerned, the disciples were given authority from Christ to forgive sinners. Yet Christ could forgive sinners by virtue of His divine nature since he is the source of salvation and forgiveness.

The disciples were Christ’s instruments to preach the Gospel by which sinners could be saved and forgiven:

"He said to them, ‘This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.’ Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. He told them, ‘This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached IN HIS NAME to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things.’" Luke 24:44-48

"But to all who have received him - those who believe in his name - he has given the right to become God's children - children not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband's decision, but by God. John 1:12-13

"Now Jesus performed many other miraculous signs in the presence of his disciples that are not recorded in this book. But these are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31 NET

"God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel." Acts 5:31

"All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through HIS NAME." Acts 10:43

"‘I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,’ the Lord replied. ‘Now get up and stand on your feet. I have appeared to you to appoint you as a servant and as a witness of what you have seen of me and what I will show you. I will rescue you from your own people and from the Gentiles. I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith IN ME.’" Acts 22:16-18

To put it simply: the disciples are the moon that derives and reflects the light which emanates from the one true source, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Sun of Righteousness. Cf. Malachi 4:2

My Response:

To start off Jesus being able to forgive sins is not something special making him Godly, it would make him Godly if you took it out of context and intentionally twist it like Shamoun and Christians do. Visit these rebuttals to see how it does not mean anything special [3] [1].

Secondly if Jesus did in fact die, then this disqualifies him as God, no matter what you take death as, death is not for the creator, and it is for the creation. We as humans die to end one life to be resurrected to the next life to be judged and so on, what purpose would it have for Jesus to die? None. That is one flaw in the Jesus dying episode if he is God. And once again God never dies. Visit this rebuttal for more information [4].

He wrote:

Charge #6

Jesus Christ in John 13:16 states that a "servant is not greater than his lord; neither he who is sent is greater than he who sends him." Since God sent Christ, the latter cannot possibly be equal to the Father.

Response

The passage does not deny equality but negates the fact of one being greater than his master or sender in position. No Christian believes that Jesus is greater than his Father, but equal with Him in essence and nature, although subject to him in authority. The objector has committed a categorical fallacy, confusing nature with rank or position. More on this below.

My Response:

This has already been addressed here (*).

He wrote:

Charge #7

1 Corinthians 11:3 teaches that the head of Christ is God, making Jesus less than true deity, and therefore inferior to God.

Response

To understand Paul's meaning we must read the entire verse:

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God."

To say that Christ is not equal to God because God is his head would also imply that women are inferior to men since the one is head over the other. However, the Holy Bible clearly indicates that both men and women are equal in worth since both are created in the image of God and are one flesh. (Cf. Genesis 1:26-28, 2:24, 5:1-2)

Paul says essentially the same thing:

"For a man should not have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man ... In any case, in the Lord woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For just as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But all things come from God." 1 Corinthians 11:7-8, 11-12

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female - for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." Galatians 3:28

In fact, it is the woman who is called the mother of all the living. (Cf. Genesis 3:20)

In light of the foregoing, headship here simply means that man is superior to women in position, not in essence or value. Likewise, Christ is subject to the Father in position because he is the Son and because he is fully human also. Since Christ is the Son, not the Father or the Holy Spirit, he remains in subjection to his Father. Yet just as human sons are subject to but equal with their fathers in nature, the divine Son is also equal with his divine Father in nature and essence.

Furthermore, since the Lord Jesus retains his human nature forever, eternally existing as the God-man, as well as being man’s ultimate head and representative before God, he remains forever subject to the Father. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, 45-49; 1 Timothy 2:5-6)

My Response:

I could careless to what Paul has to say; here are links, which show the truth about Paul:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/paul.html

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_baptism.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/baptism_rebuttal.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/2tim3_16.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_or_god_words.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_docs.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Paul/esau.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Sources/paul-talmud.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Paul/paul_and_islam.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Sources/elijah.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/pauline.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Commentary/paulinspire.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/paradox.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/genital_mutilation.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/pauls_head_covering.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_peter_contra.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_peter_contra_rebuttal.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/conflict.htm

Any Christian who would like to see the truth on Paul could go read all those sites that have been posted and then judge for yourself.

He wrote:

Charge #8

1 Corinthians 15:28 is another passage that shows that Christ is not God since he is made subject to the Father for all eternity.

Response

This passage does not imply that Christ is inferior to God in terms of his nature and essence. It only shows that he is subject in rank and position. As we have already noted, Christ is subject to God by virtue of his being God’s Son and by being fully human to the core, albeit a glorified human at that.

To support the point that Paul is speaking of position here, not essence and nature, all one has to do is look at the specific Greek word used by the inspired Apostle, i.e. hupotageesetai. The word stems from the Greek verb hupotasso, and is used in Holy Scripture to refer to position or rank:

"Then he (Jesus) went down to Nazareth with them (Joseph and Mary) and was obedient (hupotassomenos) to them. Luke 2:51 NIV

Christ was made subject to his parents by virtue of his being their son. He was not made inferior in nature to them in anyway, since he was the Savior who had come to save them and others from their sin. (Cf. Matthew 1:21)

"Everyone must submit (hypotassesthoo) himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established." Romans 13:1 NIV

Christians are also commanded to submit to one another:

"Submit (hupotassomenoi) to one another out of reverence for Christ." Ephesians 5:21 NIV

Finally, the context of 1 Corinthians 15:28 shows that the Greek passive hupotageesetai should be taken as a middle voice. This would mean that the Son is not being made subject, but is actually willfully subjecting himself to the Father. Greek scholar Spiros Zodhiates notes:

The translation of the verb as "the Son Himself also will be subjected to the One" is very misleading. It is taken as a passive, whereas the exegesis demands that it should be taken as a middle voice which means that the Lord Jesus Christ at the completion of His mediatorial work subjects Himself to the One who had subjected all things unto Him. It is a voluntary act and not a compulsory subjugation of one person of the Trinity to the other. This is not something which took place while the Lord Jesus was the God-Man on earth, but it is something that will take place in the future when all people will be made subject unto Christ, and then He will finally subject Himself with the finished work of redemption before God the Father. One of the greatest difficulties of the translation of the N.T. lies in discerning when the passive form should be taken with the passive meaning or the middle voice meaning, as, for instance, Jesus Christ "is made subject" or He "subjects Himself." (Zodhiates, New American Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible [AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN, 1990], p. 1530)

In light of this, note how the following translations render the verse in question:

·        then the Son Himself will also subject Himself to [the Father] Who put all things under Him. Amplified Bible

·        the Son will present himself to God. NLT

·        the Son will put himself under God's authority. GOD's Word

·        then he himself, the Son, will place himself under God. The Good News Translation

·        then he will put himself under God. New Century Version

It becomes clear in light of the foregoing that the term "submit" or "subject" does not necessarily imply that the person that is submitting is inferior in nature and essence to the other. It can simply refer to a person being in a lesser position of authority. In light of the clear NT teaching that the Lord Jesus is fully and essentially God, the term submission when referring to Christ relates to his position. It does not prove the Muslim contention that the Son is inferior to the Father as far as nature and essence is concerned.

My Response:

For a bit of Paul please visit these rebuttals:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/paul.html

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_baptism.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/baptism_rebuttal.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/2tim3_16.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_or_god_words.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_docs.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Paul/esau.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Sources/paul-talmud.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Paul/paul_and_islam.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Sources/elijah.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/pauline.htm  

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Commentary/paulinspire.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/paradox.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/genital_mutilation.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/pauls_head_covering.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_peter_contra.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_peter_contra_rebuttal.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/conflict.htm

He wrote:

Charge #9

Luke 2:52 states that "Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." This passages shows that Jesus is distinct from God, which makes it impossible for him to be God. Furthermore, Christ is said to have grown in wisdom and stature. Yet, God does not grow since He is immutable.

Response

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it assumes Unitarianism, that God is one Being and one Person. The logic of the argument goes something like this:

God is only one Person.

Jesus is a distinct Person from God.

Therefore, Jesus cannot be God.

The major problem with this syllogism is that premise 1 is false since God does not exist as one Person according to the Holy Bible. Jesus could therefore be distinct from God, while also being God at the same time.

Secondly, while as a real human being Christ grew in knowledge and experience, as God he remains the same since his divine nature is unchanging:

"And, ‘You founded the earth in the beginning, Lord, and the heavens are the works of your hands. They will perish, but you continue. And they will all grow old like a garment, and like a robe you will fold them up and like a garment they will be changed, but you are the same and your years will never run out.’" Hebrews 1:10-12 NET

The preceding citation is quite astonishing since the inspired author applies Psalm 102:25-27 to the Son. The inspired author has God praising and addressing his own beloved Son as Yahweh God who created the universe and who always remains immutable!

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today, and forever." Hebrews 13:8

These passages show that it is not an either/or situation, but both/and. Christ grew as a man and remained immutable as God

My Response:

Christ grew as a human because he always was human and never God. As for Hebrews 13:8 I will quote a piece from one my previous rebuttals to Shamoun, which can be found here [8]. From the rebuttal:

Let me just refute Shamoun on Hebrews 13:8, because the verse actually hurts his argument of Jesus being God, it hurts it VERY BADLY! If Jesus is the same today, yesterday, and tomorrow, then this means Jesus was always in need of things from the Father! If Jesus is always the same then Jesus NEVER owned anything of his own! He never had his own authority and power. As the verse says Jesus is the same yesterday tomorrow and forever. We cannot say that before Jesus took on the flesh, that he was all-powerful and mighty, because this is totally illogical and against what the verse is stating. Once Jesus became man he completely CHANGED from his former state, in his former state, which we are to believe, is that he was all-powerful and not bound by the flesh. However the fact is obvious, once he became man he CHANGED a lot, he became a servant and let go of his powers or so we are told. And if Shamoun believes that Jesus is the same tomorrow, meaning the future, then this means Jesus was still bound by the flesh, because if he did change back to his former state of being which is to be divine, then that is a huge change! So overall Jesus changes two times, the first is when he became a man (he was given everything, unlike when he was in his divine state), the second is when Jesus returned back to his fully divine state and no longer being bound by the flesh. So overall if Shamoun believes Hebrews 13:8, then this means Jesus was never God! Because the verse says Jesus never changed, he is always the same, so this means he was always bound by the flesh and in need of things, and that my friend does not work. However the problem does not stop there, the verse says Jesus does not change in the same sense that God does not change. However so we have established what is meant by God not changing, and the fact is Jesus does change in the way God says he will not change, which is to become LIKE a man which is to give up his powers and attributes etc. So the verse itself is a mistake! Because Jesus did in fact go through two huge changes. However if Christians are to blind or to proud to admit the verse is not a mistake, then they will have to accept the fact that Jesus did not ever change, meaning when he took on the flesh, that was not a change, so basically it means Jesus was ALWAYS like a man and was always limited. That conclusion also still leaves the Christian with a problem! If Jesus was always LIKE a man, and being bound by flesh and being limited, then that means God did not know what he talking about when he said he is not LIKE a man, because there was already one person within the God-head who was LIKE a man and a man in every sense. So one must ask why did God say he is not LIKE a man when Jesus was always LIKE a man? Did God not know? Or was Jesus never like a man and did in fact change when he took on the flesh and limited himself contradicting the very words of God that he is not LIKE a man that he does not change. So either way the Christian is still left with a lot of problems.

1- If you truly believe Hebrews 13:8, then this means Jesus never changed and was always bound by the flesh and being limited, which that in itself proves he is not God.

2- If you believe the verse, then this means Jesus never changed and was always bound by the flesh, and that the Bible is lying when it says Jesus let go of his powers and became like a servant. 

3- If you believe Jesus never changed, then this means Jesus was always bound by the flesh and being limited as a man, then this would make no sense in God saying he is not LIKE a man, and that he does not change. Either God did not know there was a Jesus who was LIKE a man, and a man in every sense, or God just didn’t know what he was talking about.

4- However the Bible makes it clear Jesus was not always bound by the flesh, and took it on and limited himself and became LIKE a man, that in itself contradicting the words of God when he says he is not LIKE a man. As we have already explained what is meant by God not changing, meanings his attributes, his powers, his essence and his qualities, Jesus changed in every single way if he is God.

5- Jesus did in fact change two times, the first time is when he became a man and limited himself, which is a change, as he let go of his powers, and attributes, and as we have already shown earlier, this is a huge change when we take the words of God that he is not LIKE a man, Jesus was LIKE a man and Jesus became LIKE a man on his will! Obviously if Jesus is God he forgot when God said he is not LIKE a man. The second change Jesus went through is when he died and came back to life in his divine state of being, two obvious changes. 

So Christians can decide what to believe about the verse, but the verse will still cause them a lot of problems. I will leave this for Shamoun and every Christian to solve.

He wrote:

Charge #10

John 17:3 indicates that the Father alone is the only true God, which means that Jesus Christ is not the true God.

Response

A careful reading of the context shows that the Lord Jesus did not deny his Deity:

"After Jesus said this, he looked toward heaven and prayed: ‘Father, the time has come. Glorify YOUR SON, that YOUR SON may glorify you. For you granted him authority over all people THAT HE MIGHT GIVE ETERNAL LIFE TO ALL THOSE YOU HAVE GIVEN HIM. Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I HAD WITH YOU BEFORE THE WORLD BEGAN ... For I gave them the words you gave me and they accepted them. They knew with certainty that I came from you, and they believed that you sent me ... All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come TO ME through them. I will remain in the world no longer, but they are still in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name - the name you gave me - so that they may be one as we are one ... My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be IN US so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I IN THEM and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me BECAUSE YOU LOVED ME BEFORE THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them AND THAT I MYSELF MAY BE IN THEM.’" John 17:1-5, 8, 10-11, 20-26

Jesus here affirms that:

He is God's Son (v. 2).

He gives eternal life to all that God gives him. This shows that he is God Almighty since only God can give eternal life (v. 2).

He existed in glory with the Father even before the world (v. 5).

He demands to receive glory and be glorified alongside the Father. No creature can make such a demand (vv. 2, 5).

All things that belong to God also belong to him (v. 10).

He will personally indwell all the believers, a claim of omnipresence. This again demonstrates that Jesus is God since only God is omnipresent (vv. 20-23, 26).

He has been the object of the Father's love even before the creation of the world (v. 24).

These points should indicate to the readers that Jesus was not denying his Deity, but simply affirming that the Father is fully and underived Deity. Jesus was acknowledging what every God-believing Jew must acknowledge, namely that the Father is the only true God. Since the Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man, man as God intended man to be, it should not surprise us to find the man Christ Jesus acknowledging the Deity of his Father. After all, isn't it true that the Father is truly God?

Secondly, we must bear in mind that the three Persons of the Godhead take pleasure in glorifying the others as the following verses demonstrate:

"When Jesus heard this, he said, "This sickness will not lead to death, but to God's glory, so that the Son of God may be glorified through it." John 11:4 NET

"When Judas had gone out, Jesus said, ‘Now the Son of Man is glorified, and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him right away." John 13:31-32 NET

"He (the Holy Spirit) will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you." John 16:14 NET

"As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow - in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess to the glory of God the Father that Jesus Christ is Lord." Philippians 2:9-11 NET

In light of the preceding, we can safely infer that the Lord was giving the Father the glory for being who he truly is, the only true God, without this implying that the Son isn’t God also.

Similarly, the Father himself glorifies Christ as the Creator and Lord of creation, as we saw above in Hebrews 1:10-12, and even calls his Son God:

"but of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O GOD, is forever and ever, and a righteous scepter is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness. SO GOD, your God, has anointed you over your companions with the oil of rejoicing.’" Hebrews 1:8-9 NET

The author has God the Father calling his Son God!

Thirdly, the Apostle John, being the one who recorded Jesus' words to the Father in John 17:3, saw no problem addressing the Lord Jesus as the true God:

"And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God and eternal life." 1 John 5:20 NET

The term for "This one" is the Greek pronoun autos which, depending on context, often refers back to the nearest or last person just mentioned; in this case Jesus. (Cf. John 1:29-30, 1:40-41; 6:46, 71; 2 John 9)

John provides evidence to support the position that Jesus is the antecedent of the pronoun, and is therefore called the true God. The Apostle began his epistle by calling Christ eternal life:

"This is what we proclaim to you: what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and our hands have touched (concerning the word of life - and the life was revealed, and we have seen and testify and announce to you THE ETERNAL LIFE that was with the Father and was revealed to us). What we have seen and heard we announce to you too, so that you may have fellowship with us (and indeed our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ)." 1 John 1:1-3 NET

In the words of the NET Bible translators, in footnote 59 to 1 John 5:20:

The pronoun This one (??t??, houtos) refers to a person, but it is far from clear whether it should be understood as a reference (1) to God the Father or (2) to Jesus Christ. R. E. Brown (Epistles of John [AB], 625) comments, "I John, which began with an example of stunning grammatical obscurity in the prologue, continues to the end to offer us examples of unclear grammar." The nearest previous antecedent is Jesus Christ, immediately preceding, but on some occasions when this has been true the pronoun still refers to God (see 1 John 2:3). The first predicate which follows This one in 5:20, the true God, is a description of God the Father used by Jesus in John 17:3, and was used in the preceding clause of the present verse to refer to God the Father (him who is true). Yet the second predicate of This one in 5:20, eternal life, appears to refer to Jesus, because although the Father possesses "life" (John 5:26, 6:57) just as Jesus does (John 1:4, 6:57, 1 John 5:11), "life" is never predicated of the Father elsewhere, while it is predicated of Jesus in John 11:25 and 14:6 (a self-predication by Jesus). If This one in 5:20 is understood as referring to Jesus, it forms an inclusion with the prologue, which introduced the reader to "the eternal life which was with the Father and was manifested to us." Thus it appears best to understand the pronoun This one in 5:20 as a reference to Jesus Christ. The christological affirmation which results is striking, but certainly not beyond the capabilities of the author (see John 1:1 and 20:28): This One [Jesus Christ] is the true God and eternal life. (Source <http://netbible.org/cgi-bin/netbible.pl?book=1jo&chapter=5>)

Whatever one’s position may be, this fact remains certain: that John calls Christ the eternal life suggests that the inspired Apostle believed the Lord was also the true God since only God gives and is eternal life.

Finally, if the statement that the Father is the only true God means that Jesus cannot be the true God as well, this logic would also prove that the Father is not the sovereign Lord since the Bible says that only Jesus is our sovereign Lord:

"For certain men have secretly slipped in among you - men who long ago were marked out for the condemnation I am about to describe - ungodly men who have turned the grace of our God into a license for evil and who deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ (ton monon despoteen kai kurion ‘Iesoun Christon)." Jude 4

To reiterate, the Father is indeed the only true God without excluding the Son and the Holy Spirit from being God also. The Scripture explicitly testifies that all three Persons are in fact true Deity.

My Response:

Most of what Shamoun is trying to prove or show has already been dealt with and refuted. Visit these rebuttals, which shows without a doubt that John 17 proves Jesus is not God. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. The scripture in fact shows Jesus is not God, consult all my rebuttals and see for yourself. :)

He wrote:

Charge #11

In Acts 2:22, the Apostle Peter declares that Jesus is nothing more than a man sent from God:

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man (anthropos) approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."

Response

Peter does not say that Jesus was only a man, but bears witness to Christ's true humanity and position as the servant of Yahweh whose coming had been prophesied by Isaiah. (Cf. Isaiah 42:1-9; 49:1-10; 52:13-53:12)

If the objector had continued reading further into Acts, and elsewhere, he or she would have seen Peter acknowledging the deity of Christ:

A careful reading of the context of Acts 3 will further illustrate this:

"One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer - at three in the afternoon. Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts. When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, ‘Look at us!’ So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. Then Peter said, Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST OF NAZARETH, walk.’ Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man's feet and ankles became strong. He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God ... While the beggar held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon's Colonnade. When Peter saw this, he said to them: ‘Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. You disowned THE HOLY AND RIGHTEOUS ONE and asked that a murderer be released to you. YOU KILLED THE AUTHOR OF LIFE, BUT GOD RAISED HIM FROM THE DEAD. We are witnesses of this. By faith IN THE NAME OF JESUS, this man whom you see and know was made strong. IT IS JESUS' NAME and the faith that comes THROUGH HIM that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see. Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer ... When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways." Acts 3:1-9, 11-18, 26

And:

"From Simeon Peter, a slave and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ, have been granted a faith just as precious as ours ... For thus an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, will be richly provided for you." 2 Peter 1:1, 11 NET

Let us highlight some of Peter's points for our readers to see:

1-Jesus is Lord, God and Savior.

2-Jesus' kingdom is everlasting.

3-The Apostles performed supernatural feats and wonders in Jesus' name.

4-God glorified his servant Jesus.

5-Jesus is the Holy and Righteous One.

6-Jesus is the Author of Life.

7-Jesus was killed.

8-Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

9-Jesus grants faith.

10-Jesus turns people away from wickedness.

These points make it quite obvious that Peter didn't preach a Jesus who was only a human servant of God. Interestingly, Islam denies all ten points, with the possible exception of point 5, and cannot therefore be a revelation from the true God.

He wrote:

Let me respond to Shamoun's summary:

1-Jesus is Lord, God and Savior.

I would like some proof please because so far I have seen none. [1] [2] [3]

2-Jesus' kingdom is everlasting.

 So is mine and every other person who makes it to heaven. [8]

3-The Apostles performed supernatural feats and wonders in Jesus' name. 

Yet Jesus could do nothing of his own but was given that power and was given the power to give power to the apostles. [2]

4- God glorified his servant Jesus.

And? God glorifying some one makes them more than a mere man?

5- Jesus is the holy and righteous one.

And? Being holy and righteous makes you more than a mere man? [7]

6-Jesus is the Author of Life.  

Jesus is not the author of anything [1] [2] [3] [4]

7-Jesus was killed.

There fore he is not God; God does not die [2]. I must also correct you; Jesus was not killed but saved by Allah.

8-Jesus was resurrected from the dead.

 There fore he is not God, God does not die to be resurrected. I must also correct you again Jesus has yet to be resurrected because he has not died yet but rather Allah has saved him

9-Jesus grants faith.

And? So does every other prophet, they teach and guide and show the truth, they get people to faith. If Shamoun tries to be smart and say this is different, then I must ask Shamoun how can Jesus grant something when he is granted everything? Hence nothing special there because Jesus is granted everything, hence everything he gives is not his and he is no independent rather dependent on some one else therefore he is not God. [6] [4]

10-Jesus turns people away from wickedness.

So does every other prophet, and so does your parents and many normal people around the world. Are the all Gods? It amazes me to see how stupid Shamoun can really get!

He wrote:

Charge #12

In Acts 2:36 Peter states, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ." It is obvious here that Peter does not believe that Jesus was always Lord but only made so after His post-resurrection exaltation.

Response

The context shows that Peter was referring to the resurrection of Christ (vv. 22-35). With this in mind, it is clear that the sense in which God "made" Christ Lord is by supernaturally vindicating him through raising him from the dead. In other words, God affirmed Christ's messianic claims by raising Him from the dead, and it is in this sense that Christ was "made" Lord.

Secondly, Peter confirms that Christ is God, and therefore has always been Lord. See above for the data.

Furthermore, Luke, who records Peter's words here, also records these words made by the angel to the shepherds at the time of Christ's birth:

"Today your Savior is born in the city of David. He is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:11

In fact, Christ was Lord even before his birth:

"And who am I that the mother of my Lord should come and visit me?" Luke 1:43 NET

"And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High. For you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways," Luke 1:76 NET

Both the OT and the Quran teach that John was sent to prepare the way for Jesus Christ:

"So they came to John and said to him, ‘Rabbi, the one who was with you on the other side of the Jordan River, about whom you testified - see, he is baptizing, and everyone is flocking to him!’ John replied, ‘No one can receive anything unless it has been given to him from heaven. You yourselves can testify that I said, "I am not the Christ," but rather, "I have been sent before him."’" John 3:26-28 NET - Cf. Surah 3:39, 45

Hence, Jesus is the Lord that John prepared the way for.

In Matthew 16:15-17 we read the confession that Jesus is the Christ:

"He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!’" NET

This confession took place long before the resurrection and affirms that Peter was aware that Jesus did not become the Christ or Lord only after his exaltation.

It is quite evident then that the unanimous testimony of the Holy Bible is that Jesus Christ has always been Lord even before His birth.

My Response:

Show me where Jesus is God, the above data shows no such thing and has already been refuted in several of my rebuttals. Jesus being referred to as lord does not make him God, simple. ;)

He wrote:

Charge #13

Christians often presume that since Scriptures call Jesus God he must therefore be Deity, while they ignore the fact that both Moses and others are called God also:

" ... And you (Moses) shall be to him (Aaron) as God." Exodus 4:16

"And the LORD said unto Moses, ‘See, I have made thee God unto Pharaoh ...’" Exodus 7:1

"God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods ... I have said, ‘Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.’ But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." Psalm 82:1, 6-7

No Christian assumes that these passages are to be viewed literally, taking Moses or the judges to be actual gods; and yet, when it comes to Christ Christians enforce a literal interpretation which exposes their inconsistent methodology.

Response

A careful examination of the Hebrew text would easily resolve this erroneous assumption. The term applied to Moses and the Israelite judges is elohim, which is correctly translated as gods, having the plural ending "im". This term is not a proper name for the God of Israel but a title used extensively throughout Scripture to denote beings besides Yahweh, as the following examples demonstrate:

"Thou shalt have no other gods (elohim) before me." Exodus 20:3

"Then the Lords of the Philistines gathered them together to offer a great sacrifice unto Dagon their god (elohim), and to rejoice: For they said, ‘Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our hand.’" Judges 16:23

"For you have made him a little lower than God (lit. gods, elohim) ... " Psalm 8:5

"Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols; worship him, all ye gods (elohim)." Psalm 97:7

The Jewish scribes who translated the Hebrew text into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews, understood both of the above two Psalms as speaking of angels and rendered the Greek as such:

"Let all of the angels of God worship him."

"You made him a little lower than the angels."

Hence, even angelic beings are called elohim.

This affirms that the term itself does not necessarily mean that the true God is being spoken of. The term can refer to either individuals or angelic beings that speak on God's behalf, or to false gods whom others view as truly divine but are not. (Cf. Galatians 4:8)

However, Scripture mentions several specific names and titles that are used only of God. These include:

Yahweh / Jehovah:

"And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Exodus 6:3

The Mighty God (El Gibbor):

"The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the Mighty God." Isaiah 10:21

The I AM:

"Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last." Isaiah 48:12

Both prophetic Scripture and the Lord Jesus himself ascribe all these titles to Christ. As we quote the Hebrew text, we will also give the rabbinic interpretation to avoid the accusation that these passages do not refer to Christ (Messiah):

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Father of Eternity (abi ad), The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6

"For to us a Son is born, to us a Son is given; and His name is called from of old, Wonderful, Counselor, Eloha (God, Arabic- Allah), The Mighty, Abiding to Eternity, THE MESSIAH, because peace shall be multiplied on us in His days." Targum Jonathan

"Behold the days come, saith the LORD that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch ... And this is his name whereby he will be called: JEHOVAH (YHWH) our Righteousness." Jeremiah 23:5-6

"What is the name of the KING MESSIAH? R. Abba son of Kohana said, ‘JEHOVAH’, for it is written: This is HIS name whereby HE shall be called, JEHOVAH OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS." Midrash On Ezekiel 48:35; Targum Jonathan

"Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, ‘Whom seek ye?’ They answered him, ‘Jesus of Nazareth.’ Jesus said unto them, ‘I AM’ ... As soon as he said unto them, ‘I AM’, they went backward, and fell to the ground." John 18:4-6

"And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, ‘Fear not; I am the first and the last. I am he that liveth, and was DEAD, and behold, I am alive forevermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.’" Revelation 1:17-18

Furthermore, the Holy Bible ascribes all the essential attributes of God to Christ:

Creator - John 1:3,10; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2, 10-12

Omnipotent - Matthew 28:18; John 5:19-21; Philippians 3:21; Colossians 1:17; Revelation 1:8

Omnipresent - Matthew 18:20, 28:20; John 1:45-49; 14:20-21, 23; 17:23, 26; 20:24-29; Romans 8:10; 2 Corinthians 13:5; Ephesians 1:23; 4:10; Colossians 1:27; 3:11

Omniscient - Matthew 9:4; 11:27-30; 16:27; 17:27; John 2:23-25; 16:30-31; 21:17; 1 Corinthians 4:5; Colossians 2:2-3; Revelation 2:23; 22:12

The preceding passages should clearly demonstrate that the Lord Jesus is not called God in the same sense that others were called as a result of their being God's spokespersons. He is truly God by nature. Christians are therefore not misinterpreting the Holy Bible but are correctly understanding and applying God's Word by their worship of Jesus as the True God and Savior of all men.

My Response:

As for Jesus being omnipotent and omniscient and omnipresent that is a lie, consult these rebuttals [7]. Jesus is not the creator of anything; consult these rebuttals to see for yourself that Jesus cannot possibly be God [2].

As for John 18:4-6 this has already been dealt with in the previous rebuttal, but for the benefit of the reader I shall post my response to it once again:

Jesus never identified himself as God. Bring me the verse where Jesus said I AM GOD WORSHIP ME. The verse will never be found because the fact is Jesus never claimed to be God and never did anything that qualified him as a God. As for Revelations, I call on the readers to read Revelations 1:1 which shows that Jesus in fact is not God, so any text later on that supposedly shows Jesus as being God is blasphemy. As for the soldiers falling, let me ask Shamoun this, why indeed they fall down? Did they fall down because they believed he was God? If so does that make Jesus God? Secondly did the men even know Jesus? They were asking if he was Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus replied that he is and they fell down, why did they fall down? Did they know Jesus or see him do anything special for them to fall down? The soldiers were simply asking if he was Jesus of Nazareth and Jesus answered them saying yes I AM HE, so does anyone else when asked if he is a certain person says I AM HE, does that make that person God? However so, let us look at the context of John 18:4-6 and every one will see for themselves how Shamoun tries to make something up from nothing even with his own book, and how he tries to deceive people into believing something when the actually context doesn’t support his argument at all. Let us start from John 18 verse 1 all the way to verse 12:

1 When Jesus had spoken these words, he went forth with his disciples over the brook Cedron, where was a garden, into the which he entered, and his disciples. 2 And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus ofttimes resorted thither with his disciples. 3 Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons. 4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said unto them, Whom seek ye? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground. 7 Then asked he them again, Whom seek ye? And they said, Jesus of Nazareth. 8 Jesus answered, I have told you that I am he: if therefore ye seek me, let these go their way: 9 That the saying might be fulfilled, which he spake, Of them which thou gavest me have I lost none. 10 Then Simon Peter having a sword drew it, and smote the high priest's servant, and cut off his right ear. The servant's name was Malchus. 11 Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it? 12 Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him,

Ah yes so when the soldiers fell to the ground when Jesus said I AM HE it was because they fell down in worship to him because they thought he is God! Strange indeed I must say as the context and situation does not even support that or show such a thing happening. The very same soldiers who fell were the very same soldiers sent to capture Jesus for execution, very funny that for no apparent reason they fall to the ground in worship for Jesus. However so just say they did, then why did they still arrest Jesus and took him to the people who wanted him dead? Why didn’t they just let Jesus escape since they fell down for Jesus when he said I AM HE apparently because they believed he was God? So they knew he was God and yet they still took him as a prisoner and beat him and so on. Very funny indeed, that is the first flaw in Shamoun's silly argument, it is INCONSISTENT. Secondly having read the context it is apparent they did not fall to the ground for worship or respect, but they were stunned and amazed that they had gotten Jesus, the man they wanted right there in front of them so when Jesus affirmed who he was they walked a bit backward excited and so on and tripped or something like that. Or the verse is not a literal fall. However so the fact is that they did NOT fall down to the ground in worship and respect for Jesus because they believed with God. So the verse in no way shows that they believed Jesus is God, nor does it show Jesus claiming to be God.

As for revelations, read revelations 1:1, which shows without a doubt that Jesus is not God, any thing after that trying to show Jesus being God is without a doubt blasphemy.

He wrote:

Charge #14

The official Christian understanding of the Trinity is that the three Persons of the Godhead are inseparable, forming one indivisible unity. Yet, two passages seem to suggest that the Father and Son were anything but inseparable:

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, ‘Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?’, that is, ‘My God, my God, why have You forsaken Me?’" Matthew 27:46

"And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, ‘Father, into Your hands I commit My Spirit.’ Having said this, He breathed His last." Luke 23:46

It is apparent that the Father and Son were not inseparable or one in unity.

Response

To use these texts to disprove the indivisible unity of the three Persons of the Godhead shows a gross misunderstanding of what the Holy Bible means by separation. Separation does not mean being cast off from God's presence since it is impossible for anyone to be totally separated from God in that sense, let alone Christ. Since God is present everywhere, filling all things completely, it is impossible for separation from God to occur in that sense. The Psalmist in Psalm 139:7-12 beautifully points this out:

"Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend into heaven, You are there; if I make my bed in Sheol, behold You are there. If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even there Your right hand shall lead me. If I say, ‘Surely the darkness shall fall on me,’ even the night shall be light about me; Indeed the darkness shall not hide from You. But the night shines as the day; the darkness and the light are both alike to You."

Since the Bible affirms the impossibility of being separated from the presence of God, what does it mean then to be God-forsaken?

Simply put, to be forsaken by God is to experience broken fellowship, which means the loss of the intimate experience of God caused by sin:

"But your iniquities have separated you from your God; And your sins have hidden His face from you, so that He will not hear." Isaiah 59:2

"If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear." Psalm 66:18

"Then they will cry to the LORD, but He will not hear them; He will even hide His face from them at that time, because they have been evil in their deeds." Micah 3:4

Obviously, God is able to hear the prayers of the wicked but refuses to respond to their requests due to their sin. Likewise, although God is present everywhere he refuses to have intimate communion with those who persist in sin. It is in this manner that one is forsaken by God.

Since Christ became our sin-bearer, one of the consequences of taking on the sins of the world was to experience broken fellowship from the Father. Christ was not separated from the Father, but forsaken to face judgment on our behalf.

After paying the price for sin Christ was restored to fellowship with the Father. This is the meaning of Jesus' statement in Luke 23:46, not that He was separated from the Godhead, only to be reunited, but that He and the Father resumed the intimate communion they have always shared from eternity, which had temporarily been broken due to our sin.

My Response:

As for Jesus praying consult this rebuttal (*). There is not much to respond to. I don’t believe in no non-sense as the trinity, neither did Jesus, so you can believe in trinity all you want, but at the end of the day it shows you believe in 3 Gods.

1- Jesus is God

2- The Father is God

3- The holy spirit is God

How many is that? THREE.

He wrote:

Charge #15

According to James 1:13, God cannot be tempted by evil. Christ was tempted (Matthew 4:1), therefore he cannot be God.

Response

James whole point is not that no one can try to tempt God, since many have (Deut. 6:16; Mal. 3:15; Mt. 4:7; Acts 15:10), but that there is nothing within the nature of God that would lead him to act upon these attempts. God cannot fall victim to temptations that are done to lure him into sinning. The same holds true for Christ. Although he was tempted, he could not sin. (Heb. 4:15), since there is nothing in Christ's divine nature that would attract him to evil.

Furthermore, since Christ also became man he could therefore be tempted like all men, yet without sin.

My Response:

This has already been addressed in this rebuttal (*).

He wrote:

Pauline Christology

There are certain Muslim apologists, most notably Hamza Abdul Malik of the Islamic Propagation Center International located in Jamaica, New York, who claim that Paul's Christology falls far short of asserting the full Deity of Jesus Christ. Instead, one finds Paul adhering more to an adoptionist and subordinationist view of Christ; that Christ became God's Son either after his baptism or resurrection. It is also asserted that Paul knows nothing of either Christ's preexistence or his virgin birth.

Biblical passages are cited to prove these assertions. We will cite the passages in question and give our responses to them:

#1: In Romans 1:3-4 Paul writes,

"Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed (spermatose) of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness by the resurrection from the dead."

The Greek term for seed is spermatose, i.e. sperm. This means that Paul believes Christ was conceived naturally, denying the virgin birth. Secondly, Paul states that Christ was declared to be God's son after the resurrection, which is a denial of Christ's eternal sonship.

Response

To assume that spermatose implies natural biological conception is an unscholarly exegesis of the biblical usage of the term. In fact, if taken in this hyper-literal approach then this implies that David sired Jesus, which is obviously nonsensical. David had been dead for centuries.

Turning to the Blue Letter Bible’s online Greek lexicon we discover that the word comes from the Greek word sperma, and can mean:

Strong's #4690 : sperma {sper'-mah}

1) from which a plant germinates

a) the seed i.e. the grain or kernel which contains within itself the germ of the future plants

1) of the grains or kernels sown

b) metaph. a seed i.e. a residue, or a few survivors reserved as the germ of the next generation (just as seed is kept from the harvest for the sowing)

2) the semen virile

a) the product of this semen, seed, children, offspring, progeny
b) family, tribe, posterity
c) whatever possesses vital force or life giving power

1) of divine energy of the Holy Spirit operating within the soul by which we are regenerated

(Source: Blue Letter Bible <http://www.blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?word=4690>)

The term is used in reference to a person’s descendents, progeny. Note the following examples:

"They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?" John 8:33

"I know that ye are Abraham's seed; but ye seek to kill me, because my word hath no place in you." John 8:37

Paul's usage of sperma is not a denial of the Lord's virgin birth, but simply a confirmation of Christ's right to the Davidic throne and Messianic promises, since Messiah was to be a descendent of David. Paul is stating that Jesus is from David’s line, being his descendent, and therefore fulfills the Messianic expectations. (Cf. Mt. 22:41-46; Revelation 22:16)

Secondly, one of Paul's traveling companions was a physician named Luke (Cf. Colossians 4:14; 2 Timothy 4:11), who authored two New Testament books, Luke and Acts. Luke, in his gospel account, explicitly affirms both Jesus' virginal conception/birth and his descent from David:

"In the sixth month, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin's name was Mary. The angel went to her and said, ‘Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.’ Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, ‘Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of HIS FATHER DAVID, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end.’ ‘How will this be,’ Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?’ The angel answered, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.’" Luke 1:28-35

"Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of Mele-a, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David ... the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah," Luke 3:23, 31, 33 RSV

"So he called out, ‘Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!’ And those who were in front scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted even more, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me!’ So Jesus stopped and ordered the beggar to be brought to him. When the man came near, Jesus asked him, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ He replied, ‘Lord, let me see again.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.’ And immediately he regained his sight and followed Jesus, praising God. When all the people saw it, they too gave praise to God." Luke 18:38-43 NET

Luke apparently had no problem calling Jesus a Son of David while still affirming his virginal conception and birth. Unlike Hamza, Luke knew that Christ truly became a full human being and had a real human mother. In other words, Luke knew that the Lord Jesus had a human ancestry from his mother’s side which linked him to King David.

This provides indirect confirmation that Paul did indeed hold to Jesus' supernatural birth since it is extremely unlikely that his own companion would hold to a belief that he himself did not.

In fact, Paul specifically alludes to Luke's Gospel in 1 Timothy 5:18 where he quotes Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7. The fact that Paul quotes Luke with approval is evidence that he also believed in Jesus' virgin birth, since Luke’s Gospel mentions the virgin birth!

Finally, Paul does not deny that Christ has always been God's Son or that he existed prior to His human birth. Paul alludes to Christ's preexistence in several passages, some of which include:

"For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh ... You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, this person does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is your life because of righteousness." Romans 8:3, 9-10 NET

"To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen." Romans 9:5 NET

Paul states that Jesus is God, is omnipresent, that God’s Spirit is his own Spirit and that he existed as God’s Son even prior to his being sent into the flesh. And:

"For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were all drinking from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ." 1 Corinthians 10:1-4 NET

According to Paul, Christ was there with the Israelites during their desert wandering! Again:

"The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven. Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly." 1 Corinthians 15:47-48 NET

Christ is man who came from heaven according to Paul. Finally:

"He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him - all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers - all things were created through him and for him. He himself is BEFORE ALL THINGS and all things are held together in him. He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead so that he himself may become first in all things. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son." Colossians 1:15-19 NET

"For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form." Colossians 2:9 NET

Christ preexists all creation and is the embodiment of the fullness of Deity, being the eternal Creator. This is preexistence in the highest sense!

In light of the foregoing, Paul’s point in Romans is that by the resurrection God confirmed Jesus' divine nature. The resurrection establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus is fully Deity and is the preexistent unique Son of God. This is specifically why Paul uses "declared to be", as opposed to saying "became" God's Son.

As scholar Edmund J. Fortman puts it:

It has been maintained that Christ was born a man but divinized after His death or as Paul put it, ‘designated Son of God in power… by his resurrection from the dead’ (Rom 1.4). All we have just said above contradicts this. For Paul, Jesus is ‘revealed as the Son of God in His resurrection; before the event men might question the title, but not after it.’ For Paul as for the early Christians ‘the fact that Christ was the Son stands out and is made obvious by his resurrection and exaltation: it was not merely a decorative title which came into being at that moment.’ (Fortman, The Triune God A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity [Wipf and Stock Publishers: Eugene, Oregon, February 1999], p. 18)

#2: In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul affirms that there is only one God, the Father. Paul clearly believes that Jesus is not God.

Response

The full text reads:

"Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." NIV

If indeed Paul believes only the Father is God, then this also means that only Christ is Lord. Yet, Paul uses both titles interchangeably when speaking of the Father and Son:

"While we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13 NIV

Paul's intention here is not to deny Christ's Deity but to contrast the many false "gods" and "lords" with the only true God and Lord of all Christians, the Father and the Son. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5)

Furthermore, Paul affirmed here that Christ was the agent by which the Father created all things, since all things come from God through Christ. Even the life we receive from the Father comes only through Christ. Paul could not have been any clearer in asserting Christ's equality with the Father in essence and nature.

Finally, for Paul to say there is only one Lord who is Jesus suggests that Paul believed that Christ is Yahweh God, as the following passages show:

"And Jesus answered him, the first of all the commandments is, Hear O Israel The Lord our God is one Lord." Mark 12:29

Continuing further in the same chapter, Jesus states:

"How is it that the teachers of the law say that the Christ is the son of David? David himself, speaking by the Holy Spirit, declared: ‘The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet."’ David himself calls him ‘Lord.’ How then can he be his son?" Mark 12:35-37

If there is only one Lord who is God, and yet both Jesus and Paul affirm that Christ is Lord, then this logically makes Christ God.

"But, let him who boasts boast in the Lord. For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved but the one whom the Lord commends." 2 Corinthians 10:17-18

Keeping in mind that Paul had stated in his first epistle to the Corinthians that there is only one Lord who is Jesus, then the Lord spoken of in this passage can be none other than Christ. What is most amazing about this is that Paul is alluding to the following OT reference to Yahweh, with the implication being that Jesus is the Yahweh being spoken of here:

"But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD (YHWH), who expresses kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight, declares the LORD." Jeremiah 9:24

Hence, reading 1 Corinthians 8:6 in the context of the entire Scriptures provides additional proof that Jesus is incarnate Deity.

#3: Paul states that "for this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ." (Ephesians 3:14 NKJV) Paul affirms that we should worship the Father alone, as he clearly did.

Response

First, the word `alone' does not appear in the text. Secondly, Paul indicates that everyone will also bow down before Jesus Christ as Lord, giving him the same honor that they give the Father:

"That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and of those on earth, and of those underneath the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father." Philippians 2:10-11 NKJV

#4: In Colossians 1:15, Christ is called "the firstborn over all creation." This clearly teaches that Jesus was created

Response

This interpretation is a gross misinterpretation of the whole context for the following reasons. First, the Greek term for firstborn prototokos, does not necessarily mean the first one or thing created but can also mean preeminence. In several places of both Old and New Testaments the term ‘firstborn’ has the meaning of preeminence and first rank. For instance, Israel is called God’s firstborn in Exodus 4:22. This could not possibly refer to Israel being the first people God created, but rather to their preeminence and election over all the other nations.

In Job 18:13 we are told:

"It devours patches of his skin; The firstborn of death devours his limbs." NKJV

Firstborn refers to the deadliest of diseases, indicating that the term implies preeminence, not necessarily birth or generation per se.

Ephraim is called God's firstborn in Jeremiah 31:9:

" ... because I am Israel's Father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son."

Yet, Ephraim was anything but the firstborn son:

"But Israel reached out his right hand and put it on Ephraim's head, though he was the younger, and crossing his arms, he put his left hand on Manasseh's head, even though Manasseh was the firstborn." Genesis 48:14

David in Psalm 89:27 is also called God's "firstborn" due to the fact that God had made him "the highest of the kings of the earth." We know that Saul preceded David as king; and David was the youngest son, so the title cannot possibly refer to creation or time, but to position.

It should be pointed out that the Greek Old Testament called the Septuagint translates the Hebrew term for "firstborn" (bekhor) as prototokos in all these passages, the very word used in Colossians.

Furthermore, if Paul intended to teach that Christ was created he could have done so by using the word ktisis (create). In fact, the very term "creation" in this verse stems from this same Greek word.

Thirdly, the context of Colossians shows that Christ preceded and created all things, and is therefore eternal. See above.

Therefore, firstborn cannot mean that Christ is created. Rather, Christ is firstborn in that he is supreme over all creation by virtue of his being the Creator, Sustainer and Redeemer of all things.

#5: Jesus is viewed as a mediator between God and man:

"For there is One God and one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus."

Paul clearly teaches that Christ is a man and not God.

Response

This may look like a logical conclusion if this were the only verse on the topic. However, just as Paul affirms Christ's true humanity here, he also affirms Christ's true Deity as the above citations have shown. Here is yet another example:

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider equality with God to be something to grasp onto, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bond-servant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to death, even the death of the cross." Philippians 2:5-8

Jesus is true God who became true man, without ceasing to be fully Deity.

In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the last thing on Paul's mind is to deny that Christ is God. 1 Timothy is showing that since Christ is man he can stand on our behalf and represent us before the Father. Yet as God he comes down to our fallen level to redeem us in order that we may come to know God personally and intimately.

Edmund J. Fortman best sums up Paul’s Christology by putting all the pieces together:

At times Paul writes as if Christ is ‘subordinate’ to the Father. For he tells us that ‘God sent forth his Son to redeem’ (Gal 4.4) and ‘did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all’ (Rom 8:32). And in a notable passage he declares that ‘when all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one’ (1 Cor 15.28). Taken by themselves these passages might warrant the conclusion that Paul held a merely subordinationist view of Christ and did not place Him on the same divine level with the Father. But if they are taken together with the passages cited above in which Paul does put Christ on the same divine level as the Father by presenting Him as the creator of all things and the ‘image of the invisible God’ who was ‘in the form of God’ and equal to God, it becomes clear that Paul views Christ both as subordinate and equal to God the Father. Possibly he thus means merely to subordinate Christ in His humanity to the Father. But more probably he wishes to indicate that while Christ is truly divine and on the same divine level with the Father, yet there must be assigned to the Father a certain priority and superiority over the Son because He is the Father of the Son and sends the Son to redeem men, and there must be ascribed to the Son a certain subordination because He is the Son of the Father and is sent by the Father. Nowhere, however, does Paul say or imply that the Son is a creature, as the Arians subordinationists will say later on. On the contrary, he makes it clear that the Son is not on the side of the creature but of the Creator and that through the Son all things are created ... (Fortman, The Triune God, p. 18; underlined emphasis ours)

We come to the end of our article. In conclusion, we must simply say that there are no good arguments that deny the fundamental truth of the biblical teaching which shows that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting men's trespasses against them." 2 Corinthians 5:19

We pray that the Lord of glory, the Great God and Savior Jesus Christ, will bless the hearts of all who read this study. It is to, for, and by him that we devote all our studies in order that his name may be exalted in all the earth.

AMEN

My Response:

Well I could care to less to what Paul says or teaches, here are the links to show the truth about Paul:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id4/qumran.htm

http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/james.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paula.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/coward.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/yahshua's.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/12th_apostle.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/hebrews.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/law_stands.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/attri_part_3.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/word.htm

http://www.judaismvschristianity.com/paulthe.htm

http://www.hiddencodes.com/apostle_paul.htm 

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/paul.html

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_baptism.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/baptism_rebuttal.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/2tim3_16.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_or_god_words.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_docs.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Paul/esau.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Sources/paul-talmud.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Paul/paul_and_islam.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Sources/elijah.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/pauline.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Commentary/paulinspire.htm

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/Bible/Text/paradox.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/genital_mutilation.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/pauls_head_covering.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_peter_contra.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/paul_peter_contra_rebuttal.htm

https://www.answering-christianity.com/conflict.htm

So that is the end of the rebuttal. Shamoun has once again failed very badly to address the problems and questions. Almost everything he says has already been refuted in previous rebuttals. So there wasn’t much to refute showing how weak his responses are and that he has no real good answers but just has to keep repeating the same old story. So in conclusion the Muslim arguments still stand and the Gospel Shamoun holds and the faith he believes in are still wrong. :) 

Ameen

Rebuttals, and exposing the lies of the Answering Islam team section.

Rebuttals to Sam Shamoun's Articles section.

A Muslim's Rebuttals section.

Send your comments.

Back to Main Page.

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube