Bassam Zawadi has decided to go a second round
(*)
with us on the issue of whether Thomas identified Jesus as his Lord and God
(*). Instead of wasting our time by refuting the same points
that Zawadi repeats in his article we will simply omit them. This will help to prevent our
rebuttal from being too lengthy.
He writes:
My Response:
First lets define what it means to take the Lord's
name in vain...
Thou shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain,.... Make use of the
name Lord or God, or any other name and epithet of the divine Being, in a light and
trifling way, without any show of reverence of him, and affection to him; whereas the name
of God ought never to be mentioned but in a grave and serious manner, and with an awe of
the greatness of his majesty upon the mind. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan
restrain this to swearing by the name of the Lord; and so the Jewish writers generally
interpret it either of swearing lightly, rashly, or falsely; and to this it may very well
be extended, though not limited; and so forbids, as all profane oaths; imprecations, and
curses by the name of God, which the mouths of wicked men are full of, so swearing by it
in matters trivial, and of no importance; for swearing even by the name of the Lord ought
not to be used but in matters of moment and consequence, for the confirmation of a thing,
and putting an end to strife, and where a matter cannot be determined and decided without
an appeal to God. And great care should be taken that a man swears to that which
is true, and not false; for false swearing, or perjury, is a very grievous sin, and as it
is strictly forbidden, it is severely punished by the Lord, as follows; see Leviticus
19:12, this is the third command, and the reason enforcing it follows:
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name is vain; will not look upon
him as an innocent person, and treat him as such; will not acquit and discharge him as
just and righteous; but on the contrary will consider him as a guilty person, a profaner
of his name, and a transgressor of his law, and will condemn and punish him, if not in
this world, yet in the world to come; and so the Targum of Jonathan, by way of
explanation, adds, "in the day of the great judgment;" see Malachi 3:5.(John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Commentary on Exodus
20:7, Source)
So as you see, just because someone might say God's name as an
expression or surprise that does not mean that he used God's name in vain. He did not
insult God in any way. He did not ridicule or degrade God in any way. If that was the case
then every time any of us say "Oh My God!" in a state of surprise then that
would mean that we are committing a gross sin, which is non sense.
RESPONSE:
Let us post the part that Zawadi overlooks:
Thou shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain,.... Make use of the name Lord or
God, or any other name and epithet of the divine Being, IN A LIGHT AND TRIFLING WAY,
WITHOUT ANY SHOW OF REVERENCE OF HIM, and affection to him; whereas the name of God ought
never to be mentioned BUT IN A GRAVE AND SERIOUS MANNER, and with an awe of the greatness
of his majesty upon the mind. (Capital emphasis ours)
Gill clearly stated that God's name cannot be used in a light and trifling manner,
in a way which is not serious. Thomas would have been guilty of taking God's name
in a less than serious and grave manner, and been guilty of using it in a flippant and
trifling way, if his statement was nothing more than an exclamation of surprise. Thus,
Zawadi's reply is simply nonsense.
Moreover, Zawadi is merely exposing his inconsistency and hypocrisy at this point.
Notice what Zawadi will say about Gill's exegesis of John 20:29:
Well obviously John Gill is a Christian and is going to
interpret the text the way he wants it to be interpreted. I already shown enough proof
that it is possible that Thomas did not call Jesus his God.
Zawadi will brush aside Gill whenever he manages to expose and refute him simply
because he happened to be a Christian! But when Gill serves Zawadi's purpose then
he is a trusted and reliable exegete! Apart from exposing his blatant hypocrisy, Zawadi
is also guilty of committing the genetic fallacy and ad hominem by trying to discredit
Gill on the basis that he was a Christian.
He then says:
My Response:
The word for Lord in John 13 iskurios(Source),
which could mean...
he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of
deciding; master, lord
a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
b)is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which
servants greet their master
c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah
For Synonyms see entry 5830
So big deal, Jesus had a title honor to be called Lord
as it signified being a master of a servant. Many others were also called Lord in the Old
Testament (see this). So that proves nothing.
The word kurios is the same word that Thomas called Jesus in John 20:28.
(Source)
RESPONSE:
Notice Zawadi's straw man at this point, which is an obvious indication
that he really has nothing substantial to say. Anyone reading my rebuttal can see
that the reason why I cited John 13:13-14 was to provide evidence that Thomas
was addressing Jesus as his Lord in John 20:28. I demonstrated that both
the immediate context of John along with the text of John 13 conclusively show
that Thomas was clearly identifying Jesus as his Lord. All Zawadi can say
by way of response is that Lord can be a title of honor which fails to contest
the point I made that Thomas was clearly referring to Christ as his Lord, and
therefore his God as well since Thomas directed both expressions to the same
object.
Moreover, Jesus is called Lord not merely in the sense of master or teacher,
but in the sense of being Yahweh God:
"because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and
believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so
is saved. The scripture says, 'No one who believes in him will be put to shame.'
For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and
bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, 'every one who calls
upon the name of the Lord will be saved.'" Romans 10:9-13
"To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus,
called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name
of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" 1 Corinthians 1:2
Believers are to call on the name of the Lord Jesus, which in light of the OT means
that they are to confess Jesus as Yahweh God:
"Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on
the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God." Genesis 21:33
"And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD
shall be saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who
escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD
calls." Joel 2:32
He then appeals to the writings of some Unitarians who try to deny that John 1:1 is
identifying Christ as the Logos, assertions which have been refuted time and time again:
So what if Thomas was talking directly to Jesus? He
could still have said My Lord (referring to Jesus) and My God (referring to the Father)
in a state of shock.
If I haven't seen my mom in a long time and then out of no where she steps into the
room to surprise me and then I say "My mom and my God!" Does that mean I called
my mom my God? I exclaimed "My Mom" in realizing that the individual was
my mom and "My God" to express the shock that I felt seeing her.
RESPONSE:
Zawadi's response basically ignores the grammatical arguments I set forth proving
that Thomas could not have been addressing anyone besides Christ. He fails to address or
interact with the point I made regarding the Greek idiom which John used, namely Apekrithe
... kai eipen auto ("answered and said to him"), and how this conclusively
shows that Thomas was addressing his comments directly to Christ.
Zawadi also commits the very chronological fallacy which I had already addressed.
It may be the case that some rare individuals today use such expressions as
"my mom and my God" — although it strikes me as highly artificial
and unnatural, even today — but that doesn't mean that such exclamations
of surprise and shock were used during the time of Christ. We already explained that
God-fearing Jews would not speak in such a manner since they wouldn't use God's
name in such a flippant way. Hence, the burden of proof is upon Zawadi to show that
Bible-believing first century Jews would use God's name this way.
Zawadi now commits the fallacy of appealing to authority:
Michaelis, a Trinitarian, writes:
I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the
highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears
to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation
that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of
his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only "whom I shall ever
reverence in the highest degree"…Or a person raised from the dead might be
regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal
sense" (Concessions of Trinitarians, pp. 23-25, cited here)
RESPONSE:
First, Michaelis provides us no biblical or contextual data to support his view that
the disciples couldn't have made such a confession. Why couldn't the disciples
have come to the conclusion that Jesus was their Lord and God especially when they had
personally witnessed and heard the claims made by and about Christ, some of which include:
"And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath.
But Jesus answered them, 'My Father is working still, and I am working.' This
was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath
but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God."
John 5:16-18
"'Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was
glad.' The Jews then said to him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have you
seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before
Abraham came into being, I AM.' So they took up stones to throw at him;
but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." John 8:56-59
"'My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I
give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of
my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is
able to snatch them out of the Father's hand. I and the Father are one.'
The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you
many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?' The Jews
answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy;
because you, being a man, make yourself God.'" John 10:27-33
If the unbelievers could deduce that Jesus was claiming to be God then why couldn't
his disciples?
Michaelis is merely begging the question by his assertion that Thomas' confession
was too high a Christology for the disciples to make at this stage. The only way he can
know what the Apostles were capable of knowing or not knowing is by exegeting the text in
question, not by assuming beforehand what was or wasn't possible for the believers to
grasp at this point in time.
As noted Evangelical author and scholar Murray J. Harris points out that,
"it is not the passage of time in itself but dramatic events that effect
any deepening or broadening of human thought." (Harris, Jesus As God:
The New Testament Use of "Theos" in Reference to Jesus (Paperback)
[Baker Academic, July 1998], p. 277)
Moreover, Zawadi has again shown that he doesn't read his sources carefully since
Michaelis doesn't deny that the disciples believed in the Deity of Christ, at least
not from what is cited. He simply denies that they recognized his Deity prior to the giving
of the Holy Spirit, which presumably he means before the Day of Pentecost. Note his words
carefully:
… and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ
BEFORE the outpouring of the Holy Spirit…
Thus, even he admits that the disciples believed in the Deity of the Lord Jesus.
Plus even if Thomas was calling Jesustheos,
which is the Greek word for God in the verse (Source) that does not necessarily
mean that Thomas was calling Jesus his God...
RESPONSE:
Note just how incoherent this sounds. Even though Zawadi concedes that Thomas may have
called Jesus God that still doesn't mean that he was calling Christ his God
despite the fact that the text expressly states that Thomas used the expression "My
God"! If Thomas was addressing Christ in John 20:28 then he was calling Jesus his God
since that is what the text says Thomas said!
Zawadi continues:
Jesus never referred to himself as "God" in the absolute sense, so what
precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus "my God"? The Greek language
uses the word theos, ("God" or "god") with a broader meaning
than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day,
"GOD" (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters)
was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor
(Acts 12:22), and even the Devil(2 Cor. 4:4).
It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as
a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today. (Source)
RESPONSE:
First, Zawadi's source doesn't deny that Jesus referred to himself as God,
but merely denies that he didn't claim to be God in the absolute sense. This
presupposes that Christ did claim to be God, albeit in a more restricted or relative
sense. But this refutes Zawadi since he has been trying to deny that Christ claimed to be
God in any sense whatsoever!
Second, none of the examples use Theos in the same sense that the NT uses it for
Christ. Note, for example, the contexts of Acts 12:22:
"Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and they came to him in a
body, and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because
their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on
his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them. And the
people shouted, 'The voice of a god, and not of man!' Immediately an angel
of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms
and died.'" Acts 12:20-23
God strikes Herod dead for permitting the people to proclaim his divinity! This
actually provides further support of what I had originally said regarding God raising
Christ from the dead. I noted that the Father would not have raised Christ from the dead
if he had been a blasphemer and not God in essence.
Regarding 2 Corinthians 4:4 it is not at all certain that this is referring to Satan.
Let us quote the passage, and its surrounding context, and see what we can glean from it:
"Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. We
have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper
with God's (tou Theou) word, but by the open statement of the truth we would
commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God (tou Theou). And
even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case
the god (ho Theos) of this world (or age - aionos) has blinded the minds of the
unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who
is the likeness of God (tou Theou). For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus
Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For it is the God (ho
Theos) who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' who has shone in our
hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God (tou Theou) in the
face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent
power belongs to God (to Theou) and not to us." 2 Corinthians 4:1-7
The several uses of the noun Theos points in the direction that Paul has
the same exact referent in view, which in this case would be the Father. There are other
reasons for seeing the Father as the God who has blinded the mind of the unbelievers.
For instance, the Scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus actively rules over this age,
and the age to come:
"which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit
at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and
dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age (aioni) but also in
that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the
head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all
in all." Ephesians 1:20-23
The Holy Bible also teaches that as a result of a person's stubbornness and
refusal to accept the light that has been given to him or her God will take away
the little ability he or she may have for seeing and believing:
"And he said, 'Go, and say to this people: "Hear and hear, but do
not understand; see and see, but do not perceive." Make the heart of this
people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and
hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be
healed.'" Isaiah 6:9-10
"And he said, 'He who has ears to hear, let him hear.' And when he was
alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he
said to them, 'To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those
outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be
forgiven' … And he said to them, 'Take heed what you hear; the
measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. For to him
who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken
away.'" Mark 4:9-12, 24-25
"Jesus said, 'For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see
may see, and that those who see may become blind.' Some of the Pharisees near
him heard this, and they said to him, 'Are we also blind?' Jesus said to them,
'If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, "We
see," your guilt remains.'" John 9:39-41
"When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in great
numbers. And he expounded the matter to them from morning till evening, testifying to the
kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from
the prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, while others disbelieved. So, as
they disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had made one statement:
'The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet:
"Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you
shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their
ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive
with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for
me to heal them." Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been
sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.'" Acts 28:23-28
"I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite,
a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his
people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Eli'jah, how he pleads
with God against Israel? 'Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have demolished
thy altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.' But what is God's reply to
him? 'I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to
Ba'al.' So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is
by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest
were hardened, as it is written, 'God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that
should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day.' And David
says, 'Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for
them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for
ever.'" Romans 11:1-10
Thus, what Paul is actually saying is that the God of this age, who is the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ, has blinded the mind of the unbelievers as a consequence of their
sinful rebellion against the God who has clearly revealed his truth to them. This is a
point which Paul reiterates elsewhere:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about
God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the
world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly
perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they
knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in
their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they
became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man
or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their
hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they
exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than
the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to
dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the
men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one
another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due
penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave
them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." Romans 1:18-28
"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and
with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to
perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends
upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be
condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The Old Testament backs up Paul on this point:
"But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would have none of me. So I
gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels." Psalm 81:11-12
"O LORD, why dost thoumake us err from thy ways and harden our heart,
so that we fear thee not? Return for the sake of thy servants, the tribes of thy
heritage." Isaiah 63:17
"And I said to their children in the wilderness, Do not walk in the statutes of
your fathers, nor observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. I the
LORD am your God; walk in my statutes, and be careful to observe my ordinances, and hallow
my sabbaths that they may be a sign between me and you, that you may know that I the LORD
am your God. But the children rebelled against me; they did not walk in my statutes,
and were not careful to observe my ordinances, by whose observance man shall live; they
profaned my sabbaths. Then I thought I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my
anger against them in the wilderness. But I withheld my hand, and acted for the sake of my
name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had
brought them out. Moreover I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them
among the nations and disperse them through the countries, because they had not
executed my ordinances, but had rejected my statutes and profaned my sabbaths, and their
eyes were set on their fathers' idols. Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good
and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their
very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them;
I did it that they might know that I am the LORD." Ezekiel 20:18-26
In light of the foregoing, appealing to 2 Corinthians 4:4 is misplaced since this
isn't calling a creature god, but is referring to the Father as the God of this age.
For more on this issue please read the following article:
http://www.rctr.org/journal/8.pdf
Zawadi appeals to the lexical meaning of Theos and says:
Plus the wordtheos could mean...
a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
So the word theos could possibly mean
God's representative.
RESPONSE:
It is truly amazing that Zawadi could simply overlook and pass over the following
definitions:
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
Notice that the lexicon doesn't say that Jesus is Theos in the sense of
being God's representative. The very source that Zawadi quotes clearly confirms that
the NT calls Jesus Theos in the absolute sense of being the second Person of the
Trinity! It should be obvious why this lexicon would say this since the NT data expressly
portrays Jesus as being fully God in essence.
Zawadi brings up Mary Magdalene:
… Plus if Jesus' resurrection was the ultimate proof that
he was God then why didn't Mary Magdalene call Jesus God once she saw him after his
resurrection? Instead what does she call him?...
John 20:16
16Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him
and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!"
Mary called Jesus Rabboni, which basically was a title of
honor that means master. (Source
So why didn't she
just go ahead and call Jesus God if Jesus supposedly proved himself to be God by his
resurrection?
RESPONSE:
To show just how utterly weak this argument is note that Mary doesn't call Jesus
the Messiah, doesn't call him a prophet, doesn't call him a messenger, all of
which Zawadi believes about Jesus. Using Zawadi's logic this means that Jesus
didn't hold all these offices or that Mary didn't believe that he was all these
things simply because she never addressed him by any of these titles!
Moreover, Mary would have been there to hear Thomas confess Jesus as his Lord and God,
and John concludes this particular chapter by testifying that Jesus is God's Son.
Does Zawadi really want us to assume that even though the rest of the disciples believed
that Jesus was the Christ and the Divine Son of God, Mary on the other hand didn't
solely because John doesn't record her confessing that she did?
To put it simply, Mary's confession doesn't mean that she didn't believe
that Jesus was more than her master, more than a prophet. It is quite obvious that Zawadi
is doing nothing more than committing the fallacy of arguing from silence.
In fact, what Mary actually does say in this chapter provides further proof
that Thomas was addressing Jesus as his Lord God:
"But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to
look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus
had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, ‘Woman,
why are you weeping?’ She said to them, ‘Because they have taken
away MY LORD (ton Kurion mou), and I do not know where they have
laid him.’" John 20:11-13
Mary calls Jesus her Lord and a few verses later the other disciples will also speak
of seeing the Lord alive (cf. 20:25), all of which takes place in the very same chapter
where Thomas makes his confession! This is additional evidence that Thomas was directing
his confession to Jesus.
He then says:
My Response:
Okay fine I believe that Jesus is the Christ as well.
Yes Jesus is the son of god according to Hebrew terminology in which it means servant of
God. Same thing that Adam was called (Luke 3:38)
RESPONSE:
First, Son of God does not carry the same meaning as servant:
"Jesus answered them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin
is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues
for ever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.'" John 8:34-36
Christ clearly differentiates between a servant and a son.
Second, Adam is not God's son in the same sense that Christ is. In order to
prevent this rebuttal from being lengthier than what it already is we will provide
links that illustrate this fact:
Third, Zawadi's appeal to Luke 3:38 backfires against him since it shows that
Allah of the Quran is not the same God of the Holy Bible. The reason is that Allah
isn't a father to anyone since all must come to him as slaves, no more no less:
And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or offspring or
children) [as the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that
He has begotten a son ['Iesa (Christ)], and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten
daughters (angels, etc.)]." Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil
thing. Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the
mountains fall in ruins, That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most
Beneficent (Allah). But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent
(Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children). There is none in the
heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Beneficent (Allah) as a slave. S.
19:88-93 Hilali-Khan
The true God, however, relates to his elect people as a spiritual Father. For more on
this point please consult the following:
Next, Zawadi posts links to Zaatari's "responses" and claims that he
refuted some of the citations which I presented here. Instead of running to Zaatari we
invite Zawadi to post the specific sections of Zaatari's articles since this will
spare us the torture of having to read his shallow materials. This will not only save us
the pain of reading Zaatari's incoherent babble but will provide us an opportunity
to refute these points and show why Zaatari makes Osama look good (which isn't
a compliment by the way).
Following in the footsteps of his mentor Osama (the mantra syndrome) and like a broken
record, Zawadi repeats the point that Jesus was given all authority as if this somehow
refutes the Deity of Christ. Instead of repeating ourselves ad infinitum we simply
post our response to this issue:
As for these claims that Jesus made, we have to remember that
Jesus used to talk figuratively. But then when he talked plainly with his disciples he
made it clear that he was sent FROM God and that he did not say that he WAS God.
John 16:25-33
25"Though I have been speaking figuratively,
a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly
about my Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I
will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because
you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28I came from
the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the
Father."
29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are
speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that
you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This
makes us believe that you came from God."
31"You believe at last!"[b] Jesus answered. 32"But a time is
coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me
all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.
33"I have told you these things, so that in me you
may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the
world."
Now if Jesus was talking plainly then why didn't the disciples
just go and say that they knew Jesus was God and not just sent by God?
RESPONSE:
In his haste Zawadi overlooked the most important parts of the texts:
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, A TIME IS COMING WHEN I WILL NO
LONGER USE THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE BUT WILL TELL YOU PLAINLY ABOUT MY FATHER. In that
day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf.
No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me AND HAVE BELIEVED THAT I
CAME FROM GOD. I CAME FROM THE FATHER AND ENTERED THE WORLD; now I am leaving the world
AND GOING BACK TO THE FATHER.' Then Jesus' disciples said, 'NOW
YOU ARE SPEAKING CLEARLY AND WITHOUT FIGURES OF SPEECH. Now we can see that you know
all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. THIS MAKES
US BELIEVE THAT YOU CAME FROM GOD.' 'You believe at last!' Jesus
answered." John 16:25-31
The passage clearly says that Jesus WAS NOT SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY at this point in
time. The apostles even respond by stating that since Jesus was speaking plainly to them
they came to believe that he had come from God, which itself is a rather explicit claim to
Jesus' prehuman existence! So even if we assume that all of Jesus' statements up
to that point regarding his Divine Identity were merely figurative, this would not apply
to this particular situation or to the incident with Thomas since this occurred long after
Jesus told his followers that he would start speaking plainly to them.
Moreover, note again the glaring inconsistency on the part of Zawadi when he asks why
didn't the apostles go out and claim that Jesus is God. When passages are presented
showing that the disciples did affirm that Jesus is God, Zawadi either denies the plain
meaning of these texts or simply brushes them aside. For instance, notice his response to
what John wrote in his prologue and in 20:30-31:
I could care less about the interpretation of
the New Testament authors. I want to see what Jesus said about himself directly.
And:
Plus, like I said before I could care less about what
the New Testament writers[sic] interpretations I just want to see what
Jesus said.
So now what is it? Does Zawadi care or not care about what the Apostles had to say
about Jesus' Deity?
But since he wanted references from Jesus' followers where they called him God we
will provide him with several:
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ,
who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." Romans 9:5
The late outstanding Greek grammarian and NT scholar A.T. Robertson noted:
Of whom (ex wn).
Fourth relative clause and here with ex
and the ablative. Christ (o Cristoك).
The Messiah. As concerning the flesh (to
kata sarka). Accusative of general reference, "as to the according to the flesh."
Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in Acts 1:3.
Who is over all, God blessed for ever (o
on epi pantwn qeoك euloghtoك). A clear statement of the deity of Christ
following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way
of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology
is very abrupt and awkward. See Acts 20:28; Titus 2:13 for Paul's use of
qeoك applied to Jesus Christ.
(Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament;
online source)
Some other NT verses identifying Jesus as God include:
"For in him the whole FULNESS of Deity dwells bodily," Colossians 2:9
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in
very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human
likeness." Philippians 2:5-7 NIV
One renowned NT commentator said regarding the above that:
"… It is not doubtful that Paul thought of Jesus Christ in terms of God.
He says of Jesus that he was in the form of God. (Phil. 2:6). He then goes on to
say that Jesus was found in human form (Phil. 2:8, RSV), where the AV renders that
he was found in fashion as a man. The RSV somewhat misleadingly translates two
Greek words by the English word form, whereas the AV correctly distinguishes
between them. In the first instance the word is morphe, which means THE
UNCHANGING AND UNCHANGEABLE ESSENTIAL NATURE of a thing; the second word is schema,
which means the changing and altering external form of a person or a thing. For instance,
a man has always the unchanging morphe of manhood; that is what he essentially is;
but he will have different schemata, different outward forms, in babyhood,
childhood, youth, maturity and old age. A tulip, a rose, a chrysanthemum, a marigold, a
daffodil, a delphinium all have the same morphe, the same essential nature, for
they are all flowers; but they have very different outward schemata, outward forms.
Paul says that Jesus was in the morphe of God; that is to say, the essential
nature of Jesus IS THE SAME AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF GOD; but he says that Jesus was
found in the schema of a man; that is to say, he temporarily took the form of
manhood upon him. The NEB renders the Greek well here. In translating the word morphe
it renders the passage: 'The divine nature was his from the first.' In
translating the word schema it says that he was 'revealed in human shape.'
This passage leaves us in no doubt that Paul believed that the nature of Jesus is
the nature of God." (William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him [Eerdmans
Publishing Company; Grand Rapids MI, rpt. 1998], pp. 27-28; bold and capital emphasis
ours)
We conclude with two final NT examples:
"awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God
and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all
iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good
deeds." Titus 2:13-14 {1}
"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have
obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and
Savior Jesus Christ: … so there will be richly provided for you an
entrance into the eternal kingdomof our Lord and Savior Jesus
Christ." 2 Peter 1:1, 11 {2}
Regarding Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, Murray J. Harris writes:
"Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 may be considered together, since both use a
stereotyped formula, 'God and Savior,' in reference to Jesus. This was a common
formula in first-century religious terminology, used by both Palestinian and Diaspora
Jews in reference to Yahweh, the one true God, and by Gentiles when they spoke of an
individual god or a deified ruler. In all of these uses the expression God and
Savior invariably denotes one deity, not two, so that when Paul and Peter employ this
formula and follow it with the name of Jesus Christ, their readers would always
understand it as referring to a single person, Jesus Christ. It would simply not
have occurred to them that 'God' might mean the Father, with Jesus Christ as the
'Savior.'" (Harris, 3 Crucial Questions About Jesus [Baker
Books; Grand Rapids, MI 1994], pp. 96-97; bold emphasis ours)
And:
"In the light of the foregoing evidence, it seems highly probable that in Titus 2:13
Jesus Christ is called 'our great God and Savior,' a verdict shared,
with varying degrees of assurance,by almost all grammarians and lexicographers,
many commentators, and many writers on NT theology or Christology, although there
are some dissenting voices." (Jesus as God, p. 185; bold emphasis ours)
The late great Biblical expositor Albert Barnes stated:
Verse 13. Looking for. Expecting; waiting for. That is,
in the faithful performance of our duties to ourselves, to our fellow-creatures,
and to God, we are patiently to wait for the coming of our Lord.
(1.) We are to believe that he will return;
(2.) We are to be in a posture of expectation, not knowing when he will
come; and
(3.) We are to be ready for him whenever he shall come. See Barnes "Matthew
24:42", seq. See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 5:4"; See Barnes "Philippians 3:20".
That blessed hope. The fulfillment of that hope so full of
blessedness to us.
The glorious appearing. See Barnes "2 Thessalonians 2:8". Compare 1
Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 1:10; 4:1,8.
Of the great God. There can be little doubt, if any, that by
"the great God" here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not
a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in
contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day.
It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come "in the glory of his Father
with his angels," (Matthew 16:27,) but that God as such will appear, is not
taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his
Son; that the Divine approach to our world will be through him to judge the
race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of
the Divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one,
accustomed to Paul's views, can well doubt that when he used this language
he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other
manifestation than what would be made through him. In no place in the New
Testament is the phrase epiphaneian tou theou "the manifestation or
appearing of God"--applied to any other one than Christ. It is true that
this is spoken of here as the "appearing of the glory --ton doxon--of
the great God;" but the idea is that of such a manifestation as became God,
or would appropriately display his glory. It is known to most persons who
have attended to religious controversies, that this passage has given rise
to much discussion. The ancients, in general, interpreted it as meaning,
"The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." This
sense has been vindicated by the labours of Beza, Whitby, Bull, Matthaei,
and Middleton, (on the Greek article,) and is the common interpretation of
those who claim to be orthodox. See Bloomfield, Rec. Syn., and Notes, in
loc. He contends that the meaning is, "the glorious appearance of that GREAT
BEING who is our GOD AND SAVIOUR." The arguments for this opinion are
well summed up by Bloomfield. Without going into a critical examination of
this passage, which would not be in accordance with the design of these
Notes, it may be remarked in general,
(1.) that no plain reader of the New Testament, accustomed to the common
language there, would have any doubt that the apostle referred here to the
coming of the Lord Jesus.
(2.) That the "coming" of God, as such, is not spoken of in this manner in
the New Testament.
(3.) That the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the
ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such.
(4.) That this is just such language as one would use who believed that the
Lord Jesus is Divine, or that the name God might properly be applied to him.
(5.) That it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he was
Divine, to one who had no theory to defend.
(6.) That if the apostle did not mean this, he used such language as was
fitted to lead men into error. And
(7.) That the fair construction of the Greek here, according to the
application of the most rigid rules, abundantly sustains the interpretation
which the plain reader of the New Testament would affix to it. The names
above referred to are abundant proof that no violation is done to the rules
of the Greek language by this interpretation, but rather that the fair
construction of the original demands it. If this be so, then this
furnishes an important proof of the divinity of Christ. (Barnes' Notes on
the New Testament;
online source;
underline emphasis ours)
Another expositor Adam Clarke had this to say about 2 Peter 1:1:
Of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
This is not a proper translation of the original του θεου
ημων και σωτηρος
ιησου χριστου, which is literally,
Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ; and this reading, which is indicated in the margin,
should have been received into the text; and it is an absolute proof that St. Peter calls Jesus Christ GOD,
even in the properest sense of the word, with the article prefixed. It is no evidence against
this doctrine that one MS. of little authority, and the Syriac and two Arabic versions
have κυριου, Lord, instead of
θεου, God, as all other MSS. and versions agree
in the other reading, as well as the fathers. See in Griesbach.
(The Adam Clarke Commentary;
online source;
bold and underline emphasis ours)
Murray Harris ties in all the NT references to Jesus as God in order to
bring out their significance:
This brings to an end our brief survey of these seven crucial passages.
First, the ascription of the title God to Jesus is found in four New
Testament writers - John (three uses), Paul (two), Peter (one), and the
author of Hebrews (one). Second, this christological use of the title began
immediately after the resurrection in 30 (John 20:28), continued during the
50s (Rom. 9:5) and 60s (Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1), and then into
the 90s (John 1:1, 18). Third, the use of "God" in reference to Jesus was
not restricted to Christians who lived in one geographical region or who had
a particular theological outlook. It occurs in literature that was written in
Asia Minor (John, Titus), Greece (Romans), and possibly Judea (Hebrews),
and Rome (2 Peter), and that was addressed to persons living in Asia Minor
(John, 2 Peter), Rome (Romans, Hebrews), and Crete (Titus). Also, the use
is found in a theological setting that is Jewish Christian (John, Hebrews,
2 Peter) or Gentile Christian (Romans, Titus). Fourth, the three instances in
John's Gospel are strategically placed. This Fourth Gospel begins (1:1) as
it ends (20:28), and the Prologue to this Gospel begins (1:1) as it ends
(1:18), with an unambiguous assertion of the deity of Christ: "The Word
was God" (1:1); "the only Son, who is God" (1:18); "my Lord and my God!"
(20:28). In his preincarnate state (1:1), in his incarnate state (1:18), and
in his postresurrection state (20:28), Jesus is God. For John, recognition
of Christ's deity is the hallmark of the Christian. (3 Crucial Questions
about Jesus, pp. 98-99)
For a more thorough discussion of these texts we highly recommend the following articles:
We now finish off our rebuttal by quoting Zawadi's own words against him.
Conclusion
Sorry Zawadi, but your utterly desperate attempt of rebutting the plain reading of John 20:28
has been refuted again. The verse is a powerful testimony proving that disciples such as Thomas
believed that Jesus is God.{3}
Jesus is the risen and immortal Lord for ever and ever who shall come again! Amen.
Come Lord Jesus. Come.
Notes:
{1} All throughout this short epistlethe blessed Apostle applies the term
"Savior" to God and Christ:
"and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with
which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior; To Titus,
my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and
Christ Jesus our Savior." Titus 1:3-4
"nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything
they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." Titus 2:10
"but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior
appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of
his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he
poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,"
Titus 3:4-6
The ease with which Paul can switch between calling both God and Christ
"Savior" is a further demonstration of the Deity of the Lord Jesus.
{2} Peter applies to Christ specific titles and functions which anyone familiar
with the OT would easily see as being nothing less than descriptions of absolute Deity.
According to the Old Testament there is only One who is God, Lord and Savior, only One who
grants righteousness:
"Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long
ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn
to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and
there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in
righteousness a word that shall not return: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue
shall swear allegiance.' Only in the LORD, it shall be said of
me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed
all who were incensed against him. In the LORD all the offspring of
Israel shall be justified and shall glory." Isaiah 45:21-25
Moreover, it is Yahweh's kingdom which is eternal:
"All your works shall give thanks to you, O LORD, and all your saints shall bless
you! They shall speak of the glory of your kingdom and tell of your power, to make known
to the children of man your mighty deeds, and the glorious splendor of your kingdom.
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures
throughout all generations." Psalm 145:10-13
"At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason
returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives
forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures
from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted
as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the
inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, 'What have
you done?'" Daniel 4:34-35
Peter was essentially identifying Jesus as Yahweh God, the only Savior who is able to
give the righteousness which results unto eternal life!
{3} This may give the somewhat misleading impression that the only way that the
Apostles or the NT writers could identify Jesus as God is if they expressly applied the
noun Theos ("God") to him. We say this is misleading since Christ's
Divinity is not based solely or even primarily on the fact that Jesus is called Theos.
The writings of the NT demonstrate the fully Deity of Jesus by ascribing to him certain
Divine qualities, characteristics, and functions, i.e. Christ is the Agent of creation
and redemption, the Sustainer, has all of God's omni-attributes etc.
The Holy Bible sternly warned Israel not to intermarry with the pagan nations lest they end up worshiping their gods/goddesses:
“Be sure to keep what I am commanding you this day: behold, I am going to drive out the Amorite before you, and the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Perizzite,
In this post I will show that the true God loves all nations equally, not just Israel. I will demonstrate that God commanded the Israelites to love the foreigner or non-Israelite as a fellow, native-born Israelite, and ordered that the same Law and commands equally apply to both Israelite and
