Monday, November 12, 2012

Refutation of the islamic view of Jesus Christ

#10. God was not born because He has always existed. The logic of this sounds airtight, but only to those who completely lack any sort of theological training. God was not "born", as in came into existence but rather God the Word, who has always existed, took flesh by being born of the virgin St. Mary. This man asserts that Christ, who in the islamic faith is just a man, had no father,however, this is far more improbable than having God as His father. The importance of God taking flesh is to redeem mankind by uniting divinity with flesh, to be the perfect sacrifice for the sins of man. To walk in the footsteps of Adam's failure and correct his wrongs. They discuss this on the presupposition that God and Christ are two distinct beings, saying, God has no beginning, Jesus did. No. Christ has always existed because He is God, Jesus took flesh by being born of St Mary. You probably could not convince anyone because it is a difference of perception and interpretation. In the islamic concept nothing really makes sense, why did Christ teach non-violence and then Mohammed did not? The whole concept of salvation in islam makes no sense because it is so vague. But, a man cannot die for everyones sin.

#9. There is no scripture in which Christ states He (Christ) is God. Here again, muslims are unable to grasp the concept of the Trinity. He quotes scripture referring to "one God" as if we believe that Christ is a god and God the Father is another "god" separate and distinctly different from Jesus. This is a problem in grasping what it means for God to be present in different forms or persons. They seem to be putting restrictions on God as if His essence is capable of being understood. The explaination of John 1 is a laughable one. He claims that if a person read this with no knowledge of the Trinity, they would not interpret that verse as meaning that Christ is God. But it clearly states: "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God.." There is nothing more clear than this. This single sentence states that in the beginning was the Word (Christ) and the Word (Christ) was with God. So before all things Christ was, meaning He is God. "And the Word was God." Again, this is pretty explicit and clear. No ambiguities. The Word (Christ) was God, meaning that in the beginning, both Jesus and God the Father were one in the same. He continually uses this "God states He is one and therefore Jesus cannot be God" argument. It is just silly. Jesus is the same God as God the father, in a different form. "I and my Father are one." John 10:30 When Christ says to go and baptize in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that is pretty clear He is equating Himself to be God. Or even in Genesis, let US make man in OUR image, that is the Trinity. Not three gods, three distinct persons in ONE GOD. 

#8. No man has seen God at anytime, therefore Christ cannot be God. This is kind of a funny one. He says that in John 14:9 "anyone who has seen Me has seen the Father" is taken out of context, yet Jesus reiterates Himself a few times, had He only been a man he would be speaking blasphemy, which is exactly what the Pharisees thought. Any man equating himself to God the Father is crazy. Then, this confused man continues that "God is too great to become a man." That is an oxymoron, God is too great to do something? So God is limited and not capable of everything? Nobody has seen God in the person of the Father.

#7. The deity of Christ was not believed by His followers or the early church fathers. The apostles, for a short time, did continue to go to the temple, there is no dispute about that. But this man asserts that first and second century Christians did this. This is false. The temple was destroyed in 70 A.D. St. Mark went to Egypt around 50 A.D. so what did the Christians do there? People use the Nicaea argument still to this day, and it is historically inaccurate. Writings from Irenaeus, a disciple of the apostles, Polycarp of Smyrna, another disciple of the apostles, Ignatius of Antioch, ordained patriarch of Antioch by St Peter the Apostle, ALL teach the Trinity and the deity of Christ. The term Trinity itself was coined by Tertullian. He defined an already existing belief. When asked if the word Trinity is in scripture, he rightly says no, but then refers to the Comma Johannum which was added when the bible was translated into English. He states this is the ONLY place it was found in scripture but that it is a forgery, and he is right that it was added much later. Oddly enough, he completely ignores Mt. 28:19 in which Christ commands His disciples to go baptize "in the NAME of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Early Christians DID believe in the deity of Christ, it was not until arius that this was disputed. The fact that the word Trinity is not in scripture does not mean that the Trinity does not exist. The word describes a definition, which is contained in scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament, for example: "Let US make man in OUR image" Gen. 1:26

#6. Jesus ate, slept, and prayed. This is stupid argument. God took flesh to redeem all mankind, a beautiful theology ruined by idolators, fools who worship mohammed. The only reason this argument is made is because they lack an understanding of the nature of Christ. God and Man. He took flesh in order to redeem us all from the stain of sin. I am going to skip this in the video as this is a very dumb point to make and is, or should be, already refuted above. This is again denying the power of God. He was not in need of prayer, He was showing us HOW to live.

#5. Jesus claimed that God's knowledge was greater than His.  When Christ says in Mk. 13:32 that not even the Son knows the day or hour, it is not a literal statement (St. John Chrysostom) but meant as a figure of speech. Meaning that Christ will not reveal the exact day or hour to anyone and nobody should be brazen enough to ask of him. (Orthodox Study Bible p. 1351) He then references John 14:28 as evidence that Jesus is lesser than God (The Father). I am amazed at how literal he translates this verse (as it would suit him to do) but the very first chapter of this book he interprets far from literally! John 14:28 is not stating that Jesus is created or is NOT God, but rather that God the Father is the eternal cause of the Son, the Fountainhead of the Trinity. This poor man states that all the other scripture we Christians use is too ambiguous, but that is according to him. It seems anytime Christ is direct, he interprets the scripture as having a deeper meaning and any scripture that has a deeper meaning, he interprets literally. It is the same trick that the protestants use, and probably the same spirit guiding the two.

#4. Jesus explicitly state that He is not God. This poor soul starts off by quoting John 17:3 "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." This is similar to the explaination I gave of John 14:28. It is not meant that God the Father is the One true God and Jesus is just a man, but that God the Father is the Fountainhead of the Trinity. He also mentions when Christ spoke to Mary Magdalene that he was going to "My (Christs) Father and your father, My God and your God." This is the same understanding as explained above. With the whole of scripture it is clear that Christ is God, and therefore this statement has more meaning than a literal one. As we discussed this poor deceived soul could not adequately explain John 1, which clearly shows the deity of Christ, he explains everything as being literal (when it suits him) except this verse that cannot mean Christ is God. It is interpretation, not evidence.

#3. Son of God is not an exclusive title used only by Christ. To claim to be the Son of God, as in literally having the same essence of God is exclusive to Christ. This mans argument about Adam and Eve being fashioned by God, having no mother or father is a silly argument. Being made by Gods hand and having the same essence of God are two very different things. Christ is the only born Son of God, having His same essence from God the Father, and the flesh of our virgin mother St. Mary. So this argument, that he supposedly had with some pastor, is a weak argument at best because the creation of Adam and Christ taking flesh are two very different things. Adam was not God taking flesh but a created man by the hand of God.

***Their little discussion about the possiblity of Christ being God in between #3 and #2 also demonstrates the lack of understanding in islam. We were created as perfect beings, spotless and unblemished and immortal. Christ took flesh that He might restore the flesh to its original state, or give us that opportunity to work on our restoration. So stating that God could not possibly take flesh and become man because "God cannot die" is absurd. God certainly cannot die, God the Word took flesh, uniting divinity and humanity, allowed Himself to be sacrificed for the sins of mankind.*** 

#2. God cannot change. This "point" is another demonstration of the muslims inability to grasp sound theology. John 1 states that "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God." Therefore Christ has always been just as God has always been. Granted, Christ was not always "with flesh" but He certainly has always been in existence. The assertion that there is some sort of change is a misunderstanding. The assertion that God needs anything is also a misunderstanding. The flesh of Jesus needed the very same things that you and I need, this does not demean God in any way and there certainly is no change on Gods part. The one thing that this poor soul seems to keep repeating is that God is limited in the islamic view. They seem to teach that there are things God cannot do, because we cannot understand them, thereby limiting God. Essentially saying that God is limited to our understanding. Like the point he had made earlier that if a child cannot understand the Trinity then how can that be God? We believe that God is limitless. We understand that God took flesh to redeem the stain of sin on the flesh of all humankind. God willingly took flesh and willingly humbled Himself for our sake. He states that God cannot do things against His nature, like go to heaven or hell, well, is taking on the flesh of man against His nature? How else would mankind be redeemed from the stain of sin? How else would we be freed from death? Taking flesh of man is not making God less than God, it is God taking the flesh of man to save His creation from the bondage of sin. 

#1. God is the essence or object of worship. I am not sure what he is talking about, Mt. 15:18 does not say what he states. It states: "But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man." I cannot even find the verse he is speaking of anywhere in scripture. What I think he may be referencing is when Christ was speaking to the pharisees when they asked Him: "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?" To which Christ replied by citing Isaiah "This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." This is not a prophecy of Christ about Christians, it was a prophecy written by the prophet Isaiah about the pharisess! So either this poor soul is blatantly lying, or truly has no understanding of the things he reads, it is clear that Christ cited this prophecy of Isaiah to the pharisees and not of a people in a later time. This poor mans assertion that worshipping Christ is "in vain" is garbage. As stated previously, the disciples of the apostles worshipped Christ as God. So this means that the followers of Christ ALL had it wrong and they all taught it wrong to their disciples as well. But, he ignores this fact and instead chooses to believe, against factual history, that the deity of Christ was invented at the council of Nicaea a few hundred years after Christ. Then why is there a plethora of ante-nicaean writings that prove otherwise? Christ is God, not just a man, therefore we worship Christ our God. This man then refers to Mt. 19:17 where the rich man comes to Christ for advice, but the rich man considers Christ no more than "a good teacher". The response Christ gave was not denying His divinity but was designed to lead that man to this knowledge. If you read a bit further to verse 28, Christ is pretty clear about His authority. On top of all this, muslims entirely ignore the prophets who consistently attest to Christ and His deity, for instance "Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call His name Emmanuel." Is. 7:14 Of course Emmanuel literally means "God with us". 

1 comment:

  1. when God speaks, God use We/I/Us/Me, but you can NEVER find verses referring to God as “They/Their”.

    Then God said, “Let Us make man ‘in Our image, according to Our likeness’; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26

    God was speaking with majestic authority thus using Us/Our in Gen1:26.

    God said clearly “in Our Image according to Our likeness” referring to mankind becoming rulers and creators on earth. Not by any means using the physical of God to create shape of man and female, but rather figure-like to that of God having dominance over universe, but for mankind they having dominance over other living creature on earth.

    And God created man ‘in His (notice verse do Not use THEIR) own image, in the image of God’ created He him; male and female created He them. Genesis 1:27

    And if we use Pauline-Christian logic. Who's image was the verse referring to? Father? As Christians should know that Word and Spirit do not have image.
    Do Christians believe Father/Word/Holy Spirit have image or all three were imageless?