‘The Gospel of Luke denies the Incarnation & pre-existence of Jesus Christ.’ – True or False?

Table of Contents

  • The Context for this Blog Post
  • Disclaimer
  • The Virgin Birth – What is its purpose?
  • Is Luke’s Jesus Divine &/or Preexistent?
  • A Titular Christological Approach
    • Does Luke call Jesus ‘God’ (theos)?
    • Son/Son of God
    • Son of Man
      • Sidepoint: Sitting at God’s Right Hand
      • Sidepoint: Heavenly Messenger
    •  Son of David
    • Saviour
    • Lord – Part 1
    • A Mathematical Detour
    • Lord – Part 2
    • Righteous One & Author of Life
    • Holy One
  • Narrative Christology
    • The Testimony of John the Baptist
    • Recipient of Prayer
    • ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind’ (Luke 10:27).
    • ‘There is power, in the name of Jesus’
    • Omniscient and Omnipresent
    • Further reading on narrative Christology
  • Objections
    • Other Holy Ones?
    • NT Use of ‘God’/theos
    • But Luke portrays Jesus as a man/prophet!
  • Conclusion
  • Bibliography

The Context for this Blog Post

Excuse the length of this article – I thought it would be convenient, however, to gather all the below into one place. Accordingly I may edit this post later on with further information.

Paul Williams posted an article a while ago with the above quoted title, within which he appeals to the work of well-respected scholar R. E. Brown – https://bloggingtheology.net/2016/09/10/the-gospel-of-luke-denies-the-incarnation-pre-existence-of-jesus-christ/

Brown himself claims, in his The Birth of the Messiah (p. 432):

‘There’s no evidence that Luke had a theology of Incarnation & preexistence.’

I do not currently have a copy of this work, though I will try to read it the next time I am in an appropriate library. However, allow me to offer a brief response based upon my own interpretation of the Lukan birth narrative, and indeed the Gospel as a whole.

Disclaimer

I feel I should stress in this controversial article that I am not an expert in these matters, and I have not read up on them as nearly as much as I would like. There are of course responses to some of the arguments below (as with everything) – I don’t find them persuasive, but you should be aware that this article is rather one sided (due to time and space constraints), and you are encouraged to do your own reading. This article is not the final word, but just so express an evangelical perspective.

The Virgin Birth – What is its purpose?

The Virgin Birth is clearly taught in Luke’s Gospel:

‘Mary said to the angel, ‘How can this be, since I am a virgin?’ The angel said to her, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God.’ (Luke 1:34-35. All scripture references are from the NRSV).

Why is there a virgin birth? Islam too teaches the virgin birth, where Jesus is only a human, non-divine prophet. Perhaps the virgin birth in Luke’s Gospel need only be a sign of God’s power. This is possible, however there are many ways for God to show his power – a virgin birth is not needed. Another reason for the virgin birth, a reason for which the virgin birth would be particularly fitting, would be for the divine to become human. Such a teaching can be found elsewhere in the NT, e.g. in John 1:14. The fact that Christianity elsewhere teaches thus, means we shouldn’t be surprised if such a doctrine (of incarnation) is also to be found in Luke’s Gospel. But is it?

Is Luke’s Jesus Divine &/Or Preexistent?

To answer this question, we ought to consider whether there is evidence in Luke’s Gospel more broadly for Jesus being divine. At this point I should clarify that because I am discussing a divine being becoming human, I am now speaking of an incarnation, and a pre-existent Son – contra R. E. Brown’s interpretation of the birth narrative.

A Titular Christological Approach

So what evidence is there that Luke considers Jesus to be divine? I will begin with a ‘titular Christological’ approach, considering the titles used to describe Jesus. I will then turn to a ‘narrative Christological approach’, considering how Jesus is portrayed through the narratives of Luke+Acts (both written by the same author). These categories will overlap to some point, when the latter sheds light on the meaning of particular titles.

Does Luke call Jesus ‘God’ (theos)?

In the NRSV, Acts 20:28 speaks of ‘the Church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.’ At the very least, I would note the exclusiveness of the Son here – it is not just any Son, it is ‘his own‘ Son who died for us (see the section below on ‘Son of God’). The language evokes the idea of a Father giving up his unique Son, in a unique relationship with him (not shared with other OT ‘sons of God’), for the world. Very John 3:16 – ‘For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.’

However I’m not even sure that’s what Acts 20:28 is saying. The NASB, a very literal translation, reads ‘the Church of God which He purchased with His own blood.’ Christ has not been mentioned – it is God’s own blood. This would clearly mean that Christ is God.

Indeed,  Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E. (2007, Kindle Location 1561) note that most English translations opt for the latter option in agreement with the NASB: ESV, NIV, NKJV, HCSB, etc.). Many scholars & commentators, however, have followed the NRSV. They claim:

‘There is no doubt as to the reason for this preference: those who dispute the conventional translation find the language, which expresses the idea of God’s having “blood,” difficult if not impossible to entertain.”

‘We are inclined to agree with Nigel Turner, a twentieth-century scholar of Greek grammar, who called the alternate translation of Acts 20:28 “a theological expedient, foisting imaginary distinctions into a spontaneous affirmation, and is not the natural way to take the Greek.” As Catholic scholar Charles DeVine commented sixty years ago, it is nothing more than an attempt “to avoid at all costs the full force of the expression ‘God’s own blood.'” (Kindle Location 1575).

Which translation is preferable? I am no expert in Greek (though I do read it), so I will quote the opinion of Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E (Kindle Location 1565):

‘The word idiou (“his own”) is an adjective, which normally we would understand as modifying the noun haimatos (“blood”). The word order here, with the adjective following the noun with a second article between them, is perfectly normal and common in Greek. … It was not until the latter half of the nineteenth century that anyone proposed that the words here in question did not mean “his own blood.”‘

Son/Son of God

Another interesting title that is given to Jesus is ‘Son’/’Son of God’. Burridge notes:

‘Jesus is ‘the Lord’, the Son of God [the citations he then provides refer to the latter], as the angel announces (1.32, 35) and the voice confirms (3.22; 9.35); demons recognize this also (4.34, 41; 8.28)’

Muslims will point out that there are sons of God in the Old Testament, whether angelic beings (Genesis 6:2) or Israelite kings (2 Samuel 7:14 – many Christians would say this passage finds fulfilment in Christ anyway). But to my knowledge, sonship is not stressed in the OT nearly as much as sonship is stressed in the Gospels concerning Jesus, nor is it spoken of as being unique in the way Jesus’ sonship is.

At times there is the definite article in Greek, thus suggesting ‘the Son’ rather than ‘a son’ – e.g. 4:41. But even where the definite article is not present, the use of ‘son’ is combined with features unique to Jesus, thus hinting at the uniqueness of Jesus’ son-ship. So for example, in 1:34-35 Jesus not only ‘will be called Son of God’, but he will be holy due to the virgin birth, caused by the power of God overshadowing Mary. In 3:21-22, Jesus is not only called God’s Son, but ‘the Beloved’, which whom God is ‘well pleased’. But additionally, many have seen in this passage a Trinitarian flavour (cf. also Matthew 28:19)- God in heaven (the Father) declares that he is well pleased with his Beloved Son, while the Holy Spirit descends upon him. While it is not explicit, it fits nicely with a Trinitarian theology which we find elsewhere.

An interesting passage suggesting the uniqueness of Jesus’ Sonship is the so-called ‘Johannine thunderbolt’ (because of the similarities to the portrayal of Jesus in the Gospel of John). It is worth quoting in full:

‘At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, ‘I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.’ (Luke 10:21-22).

It is worth noting to begin with, that the Son rejoices in the Spirit before communicating with the Father. While not explicit, this could, as with the baptism scene, be an implicit hint of the Trinity.

Secondly, note that the Father is called ‘Lord of heaven and earth’ immediately before we are told that ‘All things have been handed over to me by my Father’. The authority over all things which belongs to God the Father, is handed over to the Son. An exalted statement indeed, and reminiscent of Daniel 7:13-14, discussed elsewhere in this blog post.

The main reason I quote this passage here, however, is to notice the uniqueness of the Son. He is the only one who knows the Father, unless he chooses to reveal the Father to others, which he alone can do. No other prophet truly reveals the Father – only the Son can. What man can say such things! The Son is also special enough that no-one knows the Son except the Father. This can’t simply refer to knowing Jesus as a human – it must suggest there is something more to him, that only God (or, I would say, another member of the Trinity) can know.

More examples could be given. Such descriptions of Sonship, I contend, go beyond what we find in the OT.

Son of Man

Another interesting title used to refer to Jesus is ‘Son of Man’. Off the bat, many evangelicals have noted the allusion to the Danielic (7:13-14) ‘Son of Man’ in 22:69. This is a heavenly figure, of great authority – ‘To him was given dominion and glory and kingship, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that shall not pass away, and his kingship is one that shall never be destroyed.’ Not only is he highly exalted, but he is given ‘glory’. As has been pointed out (I think by James White), God (who is described immediately before in Daniel 7:9-10) says ‘my glory I give to no other’ (Isaiah 42:8).

It is often pointed out by Christian apologists that the term ‘serve’/’worship’ (‘latreuo’) in the Greek version of the OT (the Rahlfs LXX) has a religious connotation. Having just done my own concordance search (Bibleworks 9) of the LXX (inc. Apocrypha, though the vast majority of the uses are not from the Apocrypha), I would agree that this is the normal/possibly unanimous meaning. Out of 109 uses, I would say there are perhaps only 4 exceptions without this religious connotation, and I’m not even sure about those 4. The religious connotation certainly seems to be the primary meaning – and indeed, all uses I found in the book of Daniel had a religious connotation.

If we think that Luke/Mark made up this saying of Jesus, it is quite possible (though not certain) that they had the LXX in mind, including the word ‘latreuo’ – the NT often shows LXX influence. Even if the historical Jesus spoke 22:69, the likely-gentile-Greek-speaking-Luke may well have understood it in light of the OT scripture he used – probably the LXX.

Let us imagine, however, Luke tried to understand how Jesus (assuming he spoke Hebrew/Aramaic and not Greek, which is an assumption) would have interpreted Daniel 7:14. The Hebrew word for ‘serve’ is ‘palach’. I only found 10 uses of this verb in the Hebrew Bible – 9 of which are in Daniel. There is also a usage of the derivative noun in Ezra 7:19 (more on this later). In all of these cases it had the connotation of religious service. Yet I wish there were more uses, so that we could more confidently ascertain its meaning – perhaps there are non-Biblical uses of the word which could shed light. While ‘palach’ was only used with religious connotations, this could simply be because the only ‘serving’ done in the book of Daniel is religious serving (I exclude 1:4, which does not use a verb ‘to serve’, but literally says ‘to stand in the temple’). At least, I could find no ‘non-religious’ serving using my search tool (likewise for Ezra) – if I’ve missed any let me know. A stronger case could be made for the exclusively religious meaning of ‘palach’ if a non-religious serving was described in Daniel, and the author consciously chose to use a different word (not ‘palach’) to describe it.

The possibility that religious service is in mind in Daniel 7:14 is strengthened by the LXX rendering it latreuo. The authors may well have understood Aramaic better than we do today, and far better than the author of this blog. However, it is possible that they translated the word using latreuo due to the context, rather than the etymology of palach.

Either way, whatever the etymology, due to the context (i.e. the exalted way in which the Son of Man is described, receiving glory, kingship and everlasting dominion, and universal service) I would agree with the LXX in seeing the service of 7:14 as a religious service/worship.

Sidepoint: Sitting at God’s Right Hand

Not only does the context of Daniel 7:13-14 suggest the Son of Man receives worship, but this is strengthened by the exalted description of Jesus, in the same verse, as the one who sits at the right hand of God (Luke 22:69). The statement seems to be an allusion to Psalm 110:1 -‘The LORD says to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’

Sidepoint: Heavenly Messenger

Understanding the OT allusions in the ‘Son of Man’ of Luke 22:69 could possibly also help us to understand the ‘I have come’ sayings in Matthew, Mark and Luke (Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, Kindle Location 853). Arguments have been put forward to suggest that this phrase refers to Jesus coming from heaven, to earth, for a particularly purpose. For example, Bowman & Komoszewski argue that when it says Jesus has come to ‘bring fire to the earth’ and bring division ‘to the earth’, it suggests Jesus has come from elsewhere. Also, Simon Gathercole in his The Pre-existent Son draws parallels between Jesus’ ‘I have come’ sayings and angelic ‘I have come statements’. As the latter came from heaven to earth to do their purpose, so too did the Son. The fact that at least a couple of these sayings in the synoptic Gospels (Matthew 20:28/Mark 10:45; Luke 19:10) are linked with the Son of Man title suggests the two factors may be mutually complementary in suggesting a heavenly, pre-existent origin. This, and other factors, distinguish the ‘I have come’ statements of Jesus from the statement concerning John the Baptist in, for example, Matthew 21:32.

Many have pointed to the parallel of John the Baptist having come, who wasn’t pre-existent, to disprove the claim that the ‘I have come’ sayings of Jesus imply preexistence.

Bowman & Komoszewski (2007, Kindle Location 861) are worth quoting at length (because I’m lazy):

‘It is often argued that such language is also used of John the Baptist, but it is never, in fact, used of him in a way comparable to the kinds of statements we find made about Jesus. In Matthew 21:32, when Jesus says, “John came to you,” the use of “came” here is dictated and explained by Jesus’ preceding parable able of the father who “came” to his two sons with instructions (21:28-30). In Mark 9:11-13, Jesus responds to the disciples’ question about why Elijah had to “come” by saying, rather enigmatically, that “Elijah” had already “come,” referring to John the Baptist. Neither the disciples nor Jesus even hinted that John preexisted as Elijah; the disciples were asking about Elijah’s “coming” in relation to the final resurrection of the dead (vv. 9-10). Jesus’ response amounts to saying that Malachi’s apocalyptic prophecy about God’s sending ing Elijah (Mal. 4:5-6) refers not to a literal resurrected Elijah but to John in his Elijah-like ministry (see also Luke 1:17). Thus, the language is applied to John in a very specific context that does not imply preexistence. Neither passage uses Jesus’ characteristic speech pattern of having “come” or being “sent” in order to accomplish a specific end (typically “I have come” followed by an infinitive of purpose, such as “to seek out and to save the lost”).’

Son of David

We discussed above the quotation of Psalm 110:1 in Luke 22:69. Interestingly, Jesus has referred to Psalm 110:1 earlier on in Luke’s Gospel. In 20:44, having quoted this verse, he asks ‘David thus calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?’. I will admit this is not the clearest verse in the Bible – but the interpretation I favour is that of the moderate scholar J. A. Fitzmeyer (1981-85, p. 1310, cited via Beale, G. K. & Carson, D. A. 2007, p. 327): ‘ the implication of the second question [‘David thus calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?’] answers the first [‘how can they say that the Messiah is David’s son?’]. It is not a matter of either/or, but of both/and: yes the Messiah is David’s son, but he is more: He is indeed David’s lord’. As D. W. Pao & E. J. Schnabel (in Beale, G. J. & Carson, D. A., 2007, p.372) say, ‘Jesus argues that the title “son of David”is neither the ultimate nor the only category for understanding the Messiah, since hs is David’s “lord” (see Bock 1987: 132).’

Saviour

In the opinion of Richard Burridge (1994, p. 109), Luke’s Gospel has ‘a rich christology.’ He points to 2:11, where Jesus is described as ‘a Saviour, who is the Messiah, the Lord.’ He claims that Luke is ‘The only synoptic evangelist’ to call Jesus ‘Saviour’, and notes that the term is used of God in 1:47:

‘Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour’.

The theme of salvation is found elsewhere (p. 110) – Jesus tells people their faith has ‘saved’ them (7.50; 17.19; 18.32), and that ‘the Son of Man came to seek and save the lost’ (19.9-10).’

The salvific nature of Jesus’ name is discussed in the book of Acts. To provide just one example (cited via Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E, 2007, Kindle Location 1389), ‘There is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved.’

See ‘Lord – Part 2’, where we see that God alone is the saviour. It is therefore surprising that these things are said of Jesus.

Lord – Part 1

Though Burridge does not draw it out, there are interesting verbal parallels – both are not only called ‘Saviour’,but also ‘Lord’. Such similarity suggests there may be a conscious parallel being drawn – this, were it on its own, is speculative however.

‘Lord’ is a particularly Lukan word. Burridge  claims that while other Gospels refer to Jesus as kyrie, which can just mean ‘Sir’ or ‘Master’,  Luke is alone in using this term to refer to Jesus in the definite form, ho kyrios, ‘the Lord’. As with ‘Saviour’, Burridge notes that the term is used to refer to God. It is used to refer to God (fourteen times) (1.6, 9, 11, 58, 66; 2.9, 22, 23a-b, 24, 26, 39; 3.4; 5.17), and to Jesus (a further fourteen times) (7.13, 19; 10.1, 39, 41; 11.39; 12.42; 13.15; 17.5, 6; 18.6; 19.8; 22.61; 24.3).

A Mathematical Detour

In passing, if Burridge’s references are all correct (I’m afraid I haven’t had time to check them), it is fascinating that both sets of Lord are fourteen. If I were of the Shabir Ally/Rashad Khalifa school of numerology, I might argue that because the number is the same in both, this mean God intends us to focus on this term. Because it is the same number in both, which is unlikely to happen by chance, Jesus must be Lord in exactly that same way that YHWH is Lord. However, I do not wish to go down this road, because I believe when you have enough possible factors, and enough words, such coincidences happen.

Lord – Part 2

Similarity between an aspect or term for God, and that of a human, need not always imply the divinity of that human. God is loving, and Mother Teresa is loving, yet the latter is not the former. However, we are talking here about the matter of authority/lordship, and the role of being saviour, both of which seem to be jealously guarded by God in the Old Testament. For example:

‘I, I am the LORD, and besides me there is no saviour.’ (Isaiah 43:11) (I think I got this point from James White).

In addition, this ‘Lord’/’Saviour’ argument is part of a cumulative approach (fitting in with the rest of what I say in this article). But with implicit arguments like the above, the more there are, the greater impression they make upon the reader. The intention of Bowman & Komoszewski’s book is to overwhelm the reader with the amount of implicit (as well as explicit) parallels between Jesus and God, thus leading the reader to believe such parallels go beyond coincidence.

Holy One

It is also interesting to note that Jesus is described as ‘the Holy One of God’ in 4.34. It is interesting to note that Jesus is not ‘a holy one of God’, but ‘the holy one of God’ (the definite article is present in the Greek).

See the objections section at the end, wherein I pre-empt a possible rebuttal.

Righteous One & Author of Life

In Acts 3:14-15 (remember, written by the same author) the apostle Peter proclaims: ‘you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked to have a murderer given to you, and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.’

See above for our discussion of ‘the Holy One’. In Luke 18:19, Jesus tells us that ‘no one is good but God alone’ – yet in Acts 13:14 Jesus is called ‘the Righteous One’.

But in addition, Jesus is ‘the Author of life’. According to F. F. Bruce (p. 88), ‘Here and in Heb. 2:10 [archegos, translated in the NRSV as ‘Author’] denotes him [Christ] as the source of life or salvation (since “life” and “salvation” are both represented by one Aramaic word”). If Jesus is the source of life, that is a rather exalted statement. If he is the source of salvation, within a holistic biblical framework, this too is perhaps an exalted statement given Isaiah 43:11 (discussed above), that God alone is a saviour.

Some might object that Jesus cannot be God, for this verse distinguishes between Jesus and the God who raises him. See my response at the end of this article.

Narrative Christology

So far I have been focusing on the titles applied to Christ – what is called a ‘titular Christology’. This should be complemented by a ‘narrative christology’, as per below.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

John the Baptist (henceforth JBap – I think I may have actually got this terminology from R. E. Brown)  is said to ‘go before the Lord to prepare his ways’ (1:76), and that he:

‘went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins, as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah.

“The voice of one crying out in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.'”‘ (3:3-4)

This describes the ministry of JBap, who immediately precedes Jesus entering his public ministry. In 3:16-17, JBap says of Jesus: ‘I baptize you with water; but one who is more powerful than I is coming; I am not worty to untie the thong of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing-fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing-floor and to gather the wheat into his granary; but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.’

There are a number of interesting features here. First of all, as has been pointed out by many evangelical apologists, we see in the first couple of texts that JBap is said to be the one who prepares the way of the Lord, and then we immediately see in practice that he prepares the way for Jesus.

Secondly, it is interesting to note how JBap speaks of Jesus – he is more powerful than JBap, he is too elevated over JBap for JBap to even be worthy to untie his sandals, and he has some kind of power to use (even authority over?) the Holy Spirit (henceforth HS), so as to baptise with it. At the risk of pressing the details too far (though this may be warranted in light of all the high-authority texts already considered), note that it is ‘his threshing-floor…his granary’. If the threshing floor/granary is the kingdom into which he gathers receptive people, and it is his, that suggests he is the king. It is also interesting that Jesus is the one with the authority to punish – he is the one who will burn the chaff ‘with unquenchable fire.’

Recipient of Prayer

I don’t have time to go into it here – but Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E. (2007) argue that Jesus receives prayer in the book of Acts (written by Luke) (Kindle Locations 404ff.). For example, not only does Stephen pray to Jesus, he prays that Jesus receives Stephen’s spirit (Acts 7:59), which is what the Father does for Jesus (Luke 23:46; cf. Ps. 31:5).

‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind’ (Luke 10:27).

Jesus demands utter devotion to him, in a way it is surprising for mere humans to say – ‘Whoever comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.’ (Luke 14:26) (this point is from Bowman & Komoszewski, 2007, Kindle location 669). ‘Hate’ here is used hyperbolically, not to teach us to hate others, but to say we should love Jesus to such an extent that our love for others is hate by comparison. This devotion reminds me of the scriptural injunction quoted in the subtitle above.

‘There is power, in the name of Jesus’

That’s not a quote from Luke’s Gospel, instead from a popular modern Christian song. But it accurately captures a theme in Luke-Acts. We read:

‘The seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, in your name even the demons submit to us!’ He said to them, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning. See, I have given you authority…’ (Luke 10:17-18, Cited via Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E, Kindle Location 1369).

I wont quote them all, but Bowman and Komoszewski point us to Acts 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 30; 16:18. Note that it is not in the name of the Father that these miracles are done, but in Jesus’ own name.

The power of Jesus’ name brings him glory in Acts 19:13-18, where even Jewish exorcists are using Jesus’ name to cast out evil spirits. On one occasion the man with the evil spirits overpowered the Jewish exorcists, because the Spirits did not know who they were, but they acknowledged the name of Jesus (v. 15). Because of this, ‘When this became known to all residents of Ephesus, both Jews and Greeks, everyone was awestruck; and the name of the Lord Jesus was praised.’ Bowman and Komoszewski (Kindle Location 1369) note the verbal similarities between this verse, and the LXX of Psalm 20:7: ‘We will glory in the name of the Lord our God.’ Glory/praised are the same Greek verb, and the name of the Lord is praised in both.

The above themes of doing great deeds in Jesus name, and Jesus being glorified by the power of his name, bears resemblance to John 14:13-14: ‘I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If in my name you ask me for anything, I will do it.’

Omniscient and Omnipresent?

I’ll admit that these on their own are comparatively inconclusive. But they supplement and fit nicely into the cumulative case I am making.

Jesus’ omniscience can arguably be seen, in Luke’s Gospel (evidence can be provided from the other Gospels), in that he knew what other people were thinking (Luke 6:8), and what ancient peoples would have done under different circumstances (Luke 10:13-15) (Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E, 2007, Kindle Location 1250).

His omnipresence can arguably be seen, in Luke’s Gospel (evidence can be provided from the other Gospels), when he is able to heal a man even though the man was far away (Luke 7:1-10) (Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E, Kindle Location 1214).

Further reading on narrative Christology

I’m feeling impatient to get this published, so I’m going to leave it there. There are further ‘narrative Christological’ arguments that could be made based on other parts of the Gospel.

For more information on a narrative Christological approach, cf. not only Bowman & Komoszewski (2007), but also Hays, R. B. (2015) Reading Backwards. London: SPCK. I gave up providing examples from the former, because I got tired (there were too many), and who knows, if I carried on I might commit some kind of copyright violation.

Objections

Other Holy Ones?

One might object that Christians too in the New Testament are said to be ‘holy ones’ (saints) and ‘beloved’ of God. This is true – but Christians becomes holy ones, and live as beloved children of God, because of the unique blessings brought to us by the unique one, Christ.

NT Use of ‘God’/theos

One might object that if one is ‘of God’ (4.34), one cannot be God. In short, my response would be that throughout the NT ‘God’ (theos) is often reserved for God the Father (understandably, as this allows for a distinction between the God-man on earth, who appropriately prayed and was submissive to God in heaven, the Father). E.g. Paul frequently uses ‘theos’ (God) to refer to the Father, while still believing in the divinity of the Son (e.g. 1 Cor. 8:6, Phillippians 2:5-11). This is not to say Christ is never called ‘theos’ – Romans 9:5 is a possible example, as with 2 Peter 1:1 (cf. Dan Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basic, where he discusses the Granville Sharp Rule, or check out this article – https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule). Indeed, see my discussion above on Acts 20:28 (‘Did God shed his own blood?’), where Christ may be called theos by Luke.

But Luke portrays Jesus as a man/prophet!

Yes, yes he does. E.g. Acts 2:22, ‘a man attested to you by God with deeds of power’ etc. In Acts 3:22, Jesus (not Muhammad) is the prophet of Deuteronomy 18:18. Neither mean Jesus is not God, for Luke. Christians traditionally have believed that Jesus is both human and divine – the former does not preclude the latter. We see this attitude elsewhere in the NT – for example, the same John who speaks of Jesus’ divinity (e.g. John 1:1; 8:58, 20:28), also speaks of Jesus’ humanity (throughout the Gospel implicitly, and more explicitly in 1:14) and perhaps also a prophet (John 4:19, though the woman’s declaration is not explicitly condoned). To give a clearer example, Jesus calls himself a prophet in Mark 6:4, yet attributes to himself exalted status (see above) in Mark 14:62-3.

Conclusion

Is Luke’s Jesus divine &/or pre-existent? I believe so. It provides a stronger, deeper purpose for the Virgin birth. A strong case can be made that Jesus is called theos/God directly in Acts 20:28. Christ is the Son of God in a unique way, unparalleled in the OT. He is the heavenly Son of Man who receives worship from all the nations, who sits at the very right hand of God the Father on his heavenly throne. In the light of the fact that the Son of Man is a heavenly figure, we can make better sense of the ‘I have come’ sayings in Luke’s Gospel. Christ is both the Son of David, but still his Lord, yea he is the Lord of all. He takes upon himself the role of saviour, a role belonging solely to God. Christ is the Holy and Righteous One, even though only God is good. He is arguably the source of life, though this could simply be source of salvation.

The above is based on the titles attributed to Jesus. But there is much we can implicitly learn from the narrative too. John the Baptist is to Jesus as the messenger of YHWH is to YHWH. Jesus is far exalted above John the Baptist, and is able to use (command?) the Holy Spirit (God’s Spirit, not the angel gabriel) in changing men’s hearts. Those who will not change, it is Christ who has the authority to judge them. Jesus receives prayer, and demands an exclusive degree of devotion. Christ’s name is powerful, and mighty deeds are performed in it, to Christ’s glory. Christ is arguably portrayed as omnipresent and omniscient, though this is comparatively unclear.

I then provided a number of rebuttals. More rebuttals could be raised, and I don’t expect the above to convince many, if any Muslims. I may well be swayed on some of the above points – though because it is a cumulative approach, I would need many of the above to be disproved before this argument loses weight for me. Even if I persuade no-one, I hope Muslims can see why an appeal to Luke’s ‘low Christology’ without addressing the above points will not be persuasive to me.

Bibliography

Beale, G. K. & Carson, D. A. (2007) Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI/Nottingham, UK: Baker Academic/Apollos.

Bowman Jr, R. M. & Komoszewski, J. E. (2007) Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel.

Bruce, F. F. (1988) (Rev.) The Book of the ACTS. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.

Burridge, R. A. (1994) Four Gospels, One Jesus? London: SPCK.

Wallace, D. Sharp Redivivus? – A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule. https://bible.org/article/sharp-redivivus-reexamination-granville-sharp-rule



Categories: Islam

50 replies

  1. It seems that as long as you have already accepted the deity of christ, you are gonna see automatically & blindly everything as evidnce for that deity !

    *Pre existence :
    There’s no more than the title of ( son of man ) to emphasize that Jesus is not God. In Arabic ( Ibn Adam) , you find this term in many hadiths talking about us ( the human beings) who have duty as servants for Allah.
    As Dr Ataie was asking what are those titles for if the three persons(i.e 3 gods literally) are equally co existence? Why are the called ( Father /Son) ?!

    *Miracle of virgin birth:
    The whole bulk of Jesus’ miracles was aimed to ( children of Israel only) aacording to Quran. Christians have deformed the beauty of those miracles to support polytheism. However, those miracle were aimed to support one of the most important pillars of faith which is ( Belief in the Last Day/ Day of judgement) when all people eventually will be resurrected. We know in time of Jesus , many of Israelites had already given up this belief such as Sadducees. However, the virgin birth, miracle of clay birds, and the ability to raise the dead ones are all miracles to state the reality of that pillar.

    Liked by 1 person

    • BTW, Deuteronomy (18:18 ) cannot be applied for anyone other than the prophet ﷺ.
      Linguistically, ” their brethren” with that context cannot be applied for Israelites.
      In the whole Bible, God whenever says (their/your brethren), he has never meant those people/group whom he addressed the speech for.
      Check the bible! If I’m wrong, correct me!
      =============
      ” their brethren/ă-ḥê-hem”, In Arabic “ă-ḥê-witkum”. It’s very clear, so that’s why the Arabic translation for the bible has not used the correct word “ă-ḥê-witkum/brethren” because they know what that means if they translated it as (their brethren). They just translated it as (among your people)!

      In contrast Quran in Surah 9 :128, Allah addressing the people of the propehtﷺ, he said

      “There has certainly come to you a Messenger from **among yourselves**. Grievous to him is what you suffer; [he is] concerned over you and to the believers is kind and merciful.”

      Like

    • *Correction In Arabic:
      “ă-ḥê-watihem” = their brethren .
      “ă-ḥê-witkum” = your brethren .

      Like

  2. The basic fundamentals of this world is sight, but reality is something different. No one here is righteous and can really open up understanding about the Holy Father, the Son of GOD and the Spirit of GOD, unless the Holy Father enables them. Fact one: Jesus was not incarnated, but He was resurrected from the death. Death is a separation from the Spirit and incarnation is when the spirit enters into a form when the host form or body is immobile. As it is written: No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.” John 10:18, Then what is a factor about reincarnation is that the spiritual being does not have flesh and blood, as Jesus said: Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.” Luke 24:39, The trouble that most people don’t understand the concept of the WORD of GOD who came as a representation for the Holy Father. Ghost are have no flesh and blood, they are transparent and cannot enter a form unless it is opened area. Now about Mary, many religions accuse her of not being a virgin, but with science today, we see the possibility of a virgin having a baby. This is call a gestational surrogate has no genetic ties to the child. So is it impossible for the Holy Father to perform this act, absolute not, because of this: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1, The most spectacular of all is the first Adam formed: So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being”; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 1 Corinthians 15:45 So that you would not be hung up on names: All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast–all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world. Revelation 13:8, Acts 4:12 Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” However, the LORD true name is YHVH, He is the ALEPH BET, meaning is the same as the ALEPH which is the beginning-Omega which means the End. YOD-HEY VAV-HEY is not pronounced because his name is Holy an no one knows the proper way to pronounce it anyway without vowels, however it is written: His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. Revelation 19:12 He gave Moses the name that we call on today: God also said to Moses, “I am the LORD. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name the LORD I did not make myself fully known to them. And I reaffirmed my covenant with them. Under its terms, I promised to give them the land of Canaan, where they were living as foreigners. Exodus 6:4 So if your finding the writings of these who are taught by the LORD then you would have the understanding of these things written and heard.

    Like

    • Stormrider (You couldn’t come up with a more original name?),
      I can barely make sense of your incoherent religio-babbling.

      In regard to the subject matter of the post, you wrote, ” Fact one: Jesus was not incarnated.”

      Thanks, ’nuff said.

      Like

  3. “At least, I could find no ‘non-religious’ serving using my search tool (likewise for Ezra) – if I’ve missed any let me know. A stronger case could be made for the exclusively religious meaning of ‘palach’ if a non-religious serving was described in Daniel, and the author consciously chose to use a different word (not ‘palach’) to describe it.”

    quote:
    In Hebrew, the root עבד means to work, and the corresponding Aramaic root is פלח.

    In Aramaic, the root עבד means to do or to make, and the corresponding Hebrew root is עשה.

    quote:
    What I can offer you is an excerpt from the text of the k’tubbah, the marriage contract that every Jewish bride receives setting out her marital rights and the undertakings that her husband makes to her in connection with their marriage. In this part of the document, the bridegroom makes a solemn declaration to his bride undertaking to maintain and support her—

    “הֲוִי לִי לְאִנְתּוּ כְּדַת מֹשֶׁה וְיִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֲנָא אֶפְלֹחַ וְאוֹקִיר וְאֵיזוֹן וַאֲפַרְנֵס יְתִיכִי לִיכִי כְּהִלְכוֹת גֻּבְרִין יְהוּדָאִין דְּפָֽלְחִין וּמוֹקְרִין וְזַנִין וּמְפַרְנְסִין לִנְשֵׁיהוֹן בְּקֻשְׁטָא….”

    “Be thou my wife according to the law of Mosheh and of Yisraél, and I will work for, cherish, feed and [financially] support you, in the manner of all Jewish men who faithfully work for, cherish, feed and [financially] support their wives….”

    The words set in red are both inflections of the same verb we have been discussing, i.e. פלח “to work”—but there is no suggestion of the husband “worshipping” his wife as a god/goddess.

    Like

  4. This was a pretty long article.

    I don’t think I will be able to address all the points in this short comment but I would like to say the following. Luke begins his gospel by saying he wants to write an orderly account.

    “Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,…it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus”[Luke 1:1-3]

    Basically Luke is saying that he has gone through many accounts about Jesus but he wants to pitch in by combining the sources to give a definitive account about Jesus.If someone as articulate and as determined to present a clear and definitive portrayal of Jesus(from his perspective) as Luke certainly was believed that Jesus was God Almighty the eternal Son walking in the flesh it would occur to me that Luke of all people would not leave out this most significant of details.

    Its like saying I want to write a definitive account of Churchill because I am not satisfied with the accounts out there but then leaving out that he was the Prime Minister. Or saying I have read different accounts of Einstein’s life but I will provide the definitive account but I forget to mention that he was a scientist.

    Liked by 2 people

    • correction(missed a comma):

      If someone as articulate and as determined to present a clear and definitive portrayal of Jesus(from his perspective) as Luke certainly was, believed that Jesus was God Almighty, the eternal Son walking in the flesh it would occur to me that Luke of all people would not leave out this most significant of details.

      Like

  5. As for John the Baptist preparing the way for the Lord, I think the simplest explanation for this is by looking at what he was doing in the gospel. He was calling people to repent so that the work of the Lord could be done. But they were unwilling to accept his call.

    Luke 3:4-6 has the quote about preparing the way for the Lord.
    Luke 3:7-14 has John Baptists’s fiery speech about repentance where he calls out the people for their sins.
    (Produce fruit… don’t boast of your Abrahamic ancestry because from stones Abrahams children can come..if you don’t change your ways you will be punished like bad tree in a fire… share your clothing and food with others)

    As for 3:15-17, I could make a stronger case for Moses being God when it says:
    “Then the LORD said to Moses, “See, I have made you like God to Pharaoh, and your brother Aaron will be your prophet.”.[Exodus 7:1]
    Here its not just a kingdom being attributed to Moses but another human is said to be his prophet immediately after using the term “like Elohim” for Moses. Or consider the passage where Solomon is sitting on God’s throne:
    “So Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD”[1 Chronicles 29:33]

    These two passages alone have a more exalted portrayal of Moses and Solomon than Luke 3:15-17.

    Liked by 1 person

    • And also:

      “Then David said to all the assembly, “Bless the LORD your God.” And all the assembly blessed the LORD, the God of their fathers, and bowed their heads and paid homage to the LORD and to the king.”[1 Chronicles 29:20]

      It seems that God and King David are receiving the same action in the same verse and are mentioned together. Obviously this does not mean they are equal. This should also cover the Son of Man reference.

      Like

  6. On a side point since you mentioned Acts 3:22 and Deut 18:18, the previous verse Acts 3:21 “Heaven must receive him until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets”.

    Deut 18:18 is being applied to the future period of restoration but there is nothing in Deut 18 about the Prophet like Moses ascending to heaven and then coming back.

    Does this mean that Deut 18:18 would be fulfilled only during the second coming? Or that the fulfilment of Deut 18:18 is a necessary prerequisite for the second coming?

    Like

    • Why should Deuteronomy 18 have mentioned this? It is mentioned elsewhere in the OT. You must read the bible as a whole book, not just picking some verses. It is ridiculous to require that all references to Jesus from the OT must contain his entire life.

      At the other hand: muslims claim this verse as a prophecy of the coming of Muhammad. Why do muslims not require that there must be mentioned in Deut. 18 that Muhammad was born in Mecca (although he probably wasn’t, but in Petra) en that he should receive revelations from Gabriel and so on.
      See here, the double standards from the muslims again.

      Like

    • Deuteronomy 18:18 (has) to be interpteted as a prophecy abbout the prophet pbuh.
      Read my comment above about it.

      Like

    • @Abdullah: You completely ignore what I wrote, like all muslims do.

      The only reason that muslims say that Deut 18:18 prophecies Muhammad is because you are desperate. If Muhammad is not in the bible, the quran is false.
      The only ones who say that Deut 18:18 is about Muhammad are the muslims.

      You muslims are not consequent. If you say that here and there Muhammad is mentioned in the bible, and that is an true evidence for you, than you have to believe other verses from the bible as well. It is hypocrisy when you cherry pick only the verses that ‘suits’ you.

      It is also very strange that the quran says that Muhammad is mentioned in the bible. Why do the quran refer to a ‘corrupted book’? You must be very stupid if you say that the proof of your prophethood is in a false and corrupted book. So did allah make a mistake then? Wasn’t he aware that the bible was ‘corrupted’? Sounds silly, huh?

      Like

    • I’m waiting you to respond to my argument about Deutronomy 18:18.
      Linguistically, it cannot be applied for Israelites.
      =========
      If we are desparte, you find that we make The Noble Quran be attached with some of your books to make our own bible as you did with the hebrew bible!

      Like

    • I will answer it if answer my questions, which have not done yet.

      It is impossible that this is Muhammad, because Muhammad is a false prophet. 1 John 2:22-23 says:
      Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. SUCH A PERSON IS THE ANTICHRIST—DENYING THE FATHER AND THE SON. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

      So according the same bible, Muhammad is the antichrist. And that is the proof that Muhammad is mentioned in the bible, not Deut. 18:18 or other verses.

      Another proof that Muhammad is a false prophet, is that verse 20 of Deut. 18 says:
      “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.””

      We all know that Muhammad spoke the satanic verses in the name of God, which did not come from God.It came from another god, exactly what verse 20 said. So according verse 20, Muhammad, who claimed to be a prophet of God, is put to death.

      Like

    • I haven’t realized the level of your knowledge . It seems you have graduted from the school of the clown! I’m not gonna waste my time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Weak answer. You simply cannot refute what I wrote. Like many muslims. You all behave similar.
      If don’t like an answer, do not behave as a coward.

      Like

    • Marcel,
      It is a fact that Christians have been reinterpreting and cherry picking the OT for far much longer than Muslims have. So you accuse Muslims of doing the same thing that Christians are guilty of doing.

      Your assertion that, “If Muhammad is not in the bible, the quran is false.” is based on the fallacy of false dichotomy, and one does not prove the other. In fact a more accurate statement is that, “if Jesus is not in the OT, then Christianity is false” This is because the NT is tied at the hip to a highly disagreeable OT, and therefore Christians are forced (backs against the wall) to reinterpret the OT in order to support and justify their innovated Trinitarian beliefs. As I mentioned in a comment below Acts 3:22 is just one example of Christian reinterpretation of the OT, and many Jews object to the assertion that Jesus is the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18:18. Like you, both Jews and Muslims could remark, “only the Christians would make such and interpretation.” However, do we really expect anyone else to make such an interpretation? Maybe a Sikh will interpret 18:18 to indicate the coming of Guru Nanak, will that raise your hackles as much as the Muslim interpretation? What is clear and certain is that 18:18 is not a reference to Jesus (as), and as that is the case one might be led to question the validity of Christian belief, since it does not perfectly dovetail with the OT. A failure to force the OT, into the NT theological framework will cause the Christian house of cards to collapse. WaAlhamdullilah, this is not so for Islam.

      It is a huge blessing for Muslims that the Qur’an is a stand-alone book, and is not tied to OT or NT. The Qur’an indicates that previous scriptures were altered, but does not deny that there may yet be some truth gleaned from them. This is partly why Muslims often engage in interpretive analysis of previous scriptures in order to offer a different view and understanding of the texts while looking through the lens of Islamic belief and scriptures. However, whether or not Muhammad is in the Bible, or if he was the subject of 18:18 or not can be debated, but it does not make or break Islam. An example of Muhammed possibly being mentioned by name is in the Song of Solomon chapter 5 verse 16:

      “Hikko Mamittakim we kullo Muhammadim Zehdoodeh wa Zehraee Bayna Jerusalem.”

      “His mouth is most sweet: yea, he is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

      I am sure you will disagree with that, but there it is – and you are free to believe or not believe.

      FYI, Our Prophet Muhammad never denied Jesus is the Christ. The word “Christ” simply means Messiah or Annointed and that is what we as Muslims believe as Qur’an refers to him as Isa al-Masih (Jesus the Messiah). The Qur’an teaches to worship God and God alone. The ancient Jews called the same One God the “Father.” So Muslims do not deny Jesus, and they do not deny God (the Father). It is in turn, the Christians who “Deny” the absolute oneness of God, as taught in the OT.

      In regard to Satanic Verses, that tired old false story cannot be used as proof that Muhammad(sws) was a false Prophet (astaghfirallah) and has been thoroughly refuted here: https://discover-the-truth.com/2015/02/06/a-response-to-the-spurious-story-of-the-satanic-verses/

      You said, above that, “You muslims are not consequent.” Is this really what you meant to say? I can only hope you meant something else, since as it stands, it sounds belittling at best, and threatening at worst.

      Like

    • Ok , so you wanny play heavy ?
      Deu18:20 is the proof for jews that your Jesus is a false prophet.
      Jesus is the one whom jews put to death , and you are happy for that.
      Jesus gave a prophecy which turned to be a false one ( his second coming during his disciples’ life).
      Tell David if the crucifixion is the proof for Jesus to be god, then it is the very proof for jews to consider him as a false prophet.
      =============

      Regarding the satanic verse:
      1)It’s not transmitted by any authentic chains ever.
      2)It’s not mentioned by any of the prophet’s companions.
      3)It’s not mentioned by any book of hadith! In Bukhari and Muslim, you find the true story narrated by golden chian from the prophet’s companion Abdullah Ibn Masuad(ra).
      4)It’s not mentioned as the prophet who said those words in the earliest Sira about the prophet pbuh which is ( Maghazi Musa ibn U’qbah).
      5) Altabri whom the clown qouted stated very clearly in his introduction in his book of history that ” the reader will find many things which are NOT true. However, his job to record everything he has listened” and he’s not blamed since he mentioned many things with his Isnad. In other words, he didn’t adopt these stories. His book is just a record of what it’s been said regardless of those sayings are true or false. Christins who accpet a whole book as words of God while they have no idea who wrote it cannot have this sense of writing.
      6) The clown said , the sory has been said by 37 sources! That is a lie. His ignorance in Islamic literature made him make this big mistake. Altabri and Alwaqidi , for example, stated the narration of ibn Ishaq. Ibn Saad reapeted what his teacher said who was ( Alwaqidi again) .
      7) The context of Surah Al najam cannot accept these ” verses”.
      As a result, this story is a falsehood upon falsehood.

      However, let’s say it’s true that the prophet pbuh got it wrong then God corrected him ? What would your problem be as christians ?
      You believe that ( Almighty God ) got attempted by Satan himself till the holy spirt delivered him from that situation!
      You believe that Solomn, the Son of God, worshiped idols and even built a temple for those false gods, yet you keep his books in your bible. You read them as wisdom and words of God !

      Liked by 2 people

    • bro ibn isam

      this guy wrote :

      Another proof that Muhammad is a false prophet, is that verse 20 of Deut. 18 says:
      “But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.””

      end quote

      now lets see what the jews say :

      Deuteronomy 4 reminds us that we are to worship God only as He appeared to us at Sinai and that we are to never, ever, ever, ever associate Him with any physical form (by the way, I’m paraphrasing). Jesus did not appear to us at Sinai and he has a physical form; ergo, worship of him is forbidden.
      Deuteronomy 13 teaches us that if a prophet produces a miracle and then introduces a new type of worship, he is a false prophet. Jesus introduced a type of worship unknown to our fathers; ergo, his miracles are meaningless and he is a false prophet.

      quote:

      (As an aside, I should also note that even if Horace’s Tree grew a golden apple right before your eyes, you ought not worship it. Similarly, if Jesus walked right up to you and shook your hand and said: “I’m back!” you should not worship him. Such devotion is reserved for God. It does not matter what wonders or
      miracles one can perform. If he attempts to induce us to worship something other than God or claims some created object is God e.g. a man, then we are not to heed him. See Deuteronomy 13.)

      quote :

      The first mistake Christians make when looking at these passages is being overly awed by the miracles. They tend to think that miracles sanction any act or teaching, but this is not true. Deut. 13 explains that it is quite possible for a man to produce signs and wonders, but teach something even as bad as idolatry. And why? Why should God allow someone whose teachings are false to perform signs and wonders? He “is testing you to know whether you love Hashem, your God, with all your heart and with all your sould. Hashem, your God, shall you follow and Him shall you fear; His commandments shall you observe and to His voice shall you hearken; Him shall you serve and to Him shall you cleave” (Deut. 13:4-5). Our loyalty ought to be to our Creator. Miracles arrest the attention, but they must not draw us away from Hashem. They do not justify any and every teaching. Those teachings must be tested by Torah, not by miracles.

      quote :

      From this passage, we see two explicit themes:

      1. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel not to worship Him in any form. (Deut 4:16)

      2. G-d is explicitly commanding Israel to teach this to their children and their children’s children, even after they come to the land of Israel. (Deut 4:9-14)

      So this isn’t just a “one time deal” command, Lion…This prohibition against form worship extends to this very day!

      It is important to note that this is not simply explicit to “man made forms.” Did G-d create Adam, the first man? Yes…But WOULD G-d appear in the form of Adam? Of course not! Same thing with the “first lizard,” or the “first fish.” How do we know this? Deut 4:16! We are not to worship G-d in ANY FORM.

      Likewise, your jesus was a man. Your jesus was a form. Hashem explicitly forbids Israel from worshipping Him in ANY FORM.

      Thus, your jesus cannot be “god in the flesh.” On the contrary, your jesus is not Hashem. Hashem clearly states that it is idolatry to worship Him in any form. Thus, your worship of jesus is idolatry.

      Also keep in mind that the “sun, the moon, and the whole host of heaven,” were not “man made” either, so please do not make the pitiful argument that your jeezer is immune to this prohibition because he is supposedly “uncreated.” (Which you have no means of proving.) A form is a form is a form!

      At the end of the day, Deut 4:9-19 what we are to go by. If you wish to eisegetically abuse scripture and assume that “let us make man in our image” refers to your jeezer, then that’s your idolatrous prerogative.

      G-d gave Israel explicit instructions not to worship Him in ANY FORM. Deut 4:9-19 isn’t going away…Sorry!

      end quote

      Like

    • Edward,
      Great points. End the end our differences with the Christians are really about the Nature of God. We Muslims agree with the Jews that God is absolute and unique in his oneness, and that there is none other (in any form) deserving of our worship. It is also clear that Miracles do not undeniable proof that one is actually God rather than someone who is working under the authority of God, (or as you mentioned possibly a false prophet). This is why although Prophet Muhammad performed miracles, we don’t focus on them, since the greatest miracle in Islam is the perfect and preserved revelation of Qur’an, and it is this that directs us to focus our worship not on miracles and men, but on Almighty God Allah himself.

      Your comments bring us back to the original subject of this post. Since, I think the references that you mentioned in Deut. were well known by all early Jews in the time of Jesus and the Apostles, as well as the unknown pseudepigraphal author of Luke, and this may be yet another reason why R.E. Browns statement still stands:

      ‘There’s no evidence that Luke had a theology of Incarnation & preexistence.’

      Like

    • @Ibn Issam: “If Muhammad is not in the bible, the quran is false.”
      That is based on what I read in the quran. If the quran says that Muhammad is in the bible, and muslims try, over and over again, to proof this, and it is not in the bible, how reliable is the quran?

      You are right about Jesus in the OT: when Jesus is not in the OT, the Jesus is NOT the Messiah. That’s why the NT refer so many times to the OT. Jesus is mentioned in the OT many times, not only with his name Yeshua, but in many appearances.

      Of course will the Jews not confirm what Christians believe about Jesus in the OT. Alhough, not all Jews yet, there is a growing group of Jews who accept Jesus in the NT as the promised Messiah. And Christians believe that the Jews’eyes were temporarily kept close for the Gospel:
      Romans 11:7-8 What then? What the people of Israel sought so earnestly they did not obtain. The elect among them did, but the others were hardened, as it is written:

      “God gave them a spirit of stupor,
      eyes that could not see
      and ears that could not hear,
      to this very day.”

      The reason for that is found in verse 11: Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious.

      Romans 11 also says that all Israel will be saved:
      “I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in, and in this waye all Israel will be saved. As it is written:
      “The deliverer will come from Zion;
      he will turn godlessness away from Jacob.
      And this isf my covenant with them
      when I take away their sins.””

      Paul writes about the Jews in Romans 9-11. Of course, Jews who haven’t accept Jesus won’t agree. And I have to admit: Christians has fallen short in making Israel envious, it’s very embarrassing what Christians have done to the Jews.

      Pauls used to be a Jew who was following Judaism, but he became a follower of Jesus after Jesus stopped him at the road to Damascus. Paul remained a Jew until his death and, despite Jewish and islamic accusations, he kept holding the Mosaic law all his life.

      Regarding the Messianic verses in the Tanach: many early Jewish scholars explained the Messianic verses as Messianic, but after the christians used these to proof that Jesus is the Messiah, they changed their minds. Isaiah 53 is still a difficult chapter for Jews.

      You must have heard from Christians that we also worship God alone and that we believe that there is only one God. We have said that over and over again. There is no single Christian (unless he is not well educated) who will say: we believe in 3 Gods and we worship other than God.

      So what you said: “It is in turn, the Christians who “Deny” the absolute oneness of God, as taught in the OT.” is definitively NOT TRUE.

      Like

    • hey marchal,

      can you find in ot where yhwh said he would PUNISH himself or get PUNISHED for the sins of pagans and all others?

      can you show where yhwh said he would TAKE his own LIFE to make atonement?

      Like

    • “Isaiah 53 is still a difficult chapter for Jews.”

      without spinning , dancing and hoping, can you show where yhwh says he is an ASHAM sacrifice and that he would CRUSH himself to appease himself ?

      very thanks

      Like

    • Marcel,
      In all respects, Abdullah, Edward and I have all answered your questions, and yet you keep dragging out the same can of old stale meat and reopening it. Your repetitive parroting of other critics of Islam does not prove your point, and neither will your preaching.

      I appreciate your honesty where you said the following: “And I have to admit: Christians has fallen short in making Israel envious, it’s very embarrassing what Christians have done to the Jews.” That has got to be the understatement of the day!! I might add that it is even more embarrassing what Christians are currently doing to the Muslims in the modern age.

      If as you said Paul held to the law, then why do Christians reject the Law? Is it not Paul’s gospel of freedom from the law?

      I don’t think that most Rabbi’s would agree with you that Isaiah is difficult for Jews. If anything it is difficult for Christians to prove the eisegetical claim that there is any reference to Jesus. That’s why Jews and Muslims just don’t buy the pork you’re peddling.

      You can say that you worship one God alone, but when you define the ontological nature of God as Triune, you border on, and often cross the line into idolatry. Just ask any Rabbi if you don’t believe the Muslims on this. That is why if the Jew is in a land where no synagogue is to be found, Rabbi Maimonides gave permission and allowance for them to pray in the Muslim Mosque where God is worshipped and revered in his absolute Oneness, but they are always forbidden to pray in a church as it is a place of idolatry.

      Also the Trinitarian doctrine violates the ontological understanding of the UNIQUENESS of Gods Oneness. The can be nothing else like unto him. Quran 114. Since there are many humans, God cannot be like unto a human, as there is no comparison. The meaning of ABSOLUTE ONENESS is that there are no divisions, no separations, no multiplicities, no parts, partners, persons, or anything else which may contradict the Simple meaning of “THE ONE.” So yes Christians deny the Absolute Unique Oneness of God, this is why the Trinitarian Church has zealously persecuted the Unitarian Christians, Jews and Muslims at different periods of time.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Marcel,
      If as you said, Paul and the Jewish disciples were following the OT Laws, then we can assume that they were aware of the laws in Deuteronomy as Edward mentioned in an above comment. The Laws in Deut. were well known by all early Jews in the time of Jesus and the Apostles, as well as the unknown pseudepigraphal author of Luke, and Matthew, and this may be yet another reason why R.E. Browns statement still stands:

      ‘There’s no evidence that Luke had a theology of Incarnation & preexistence.’

      I think you are just deflecting from the main subject of this post.

      Like

    • @Ibn Issam: “I might add that it is even more embarrassing what Christians are currently doing to the Muslims in the modern age.”

      Please tell me: what bad are doing Christians to the muslims in the modern age? Don’t tell me: all the wars in the Middle-East. Those are NOT the Christians, those are secular governments. A Christian is someone who follows Jesus in word and deed. The vast majority of people in the West are NOT practicing Christians. They never go to church and do not read the bible. How can these be considered as Christians?

      Let’s talk about the persecution of Christians in the Middle-East and what the quran says about Christian. It says that Christians are the worst of all creatures:
      98:6 “Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.”

      That sounds pretty nice for Christians, isn’t it? And the result is clear. Christians in Islamic countries suffer a lot, especially those who are ex-muslims. Look at this map, the majority of countries is…. Islamic! https://www.opendoors.nl/vervolgdechristenen/ranglijst-kaart/
      Muslims are 100% to practice their faith in western countries. A muslim convert don’t have to fear for his life. If a muslim converts to christianity in muslim countries, he has often fear for his life.

      This is how Christians should behave (show me something like this from the quran):
      Matthew 5: 43-48
      “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

      1 Corithians 13:
      1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.

      4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

      8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

      13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

      OK, this is off-topic, but you started this accusation.

      “If as you said Paul held to the law, then why do Christians reject the Law? Is it not Paul’s gospel of freedom from the law? ”

      Christians do NOT reject the law, that is a persistent misunderstanding. Do you know that the NT contains more commandments than the OT? So how can you say: we reject the law? That is bullshit.
      Paul has never said that we can reject the law and are free to sin. Read Romans 6 and 8 and 12 and 13. And many other letters from Paul. Paul is very misunderstood in this. Paul was the apostle for the gentiles, so he preached the law of Jesus. The other apostle spread the Gospel to the Jews.
      The law is summarized in: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.'”

      The Mosaic law is given to the Jews, with all the rituals. A Jew will confirm this. Non-Jews must follow the Noachides commandments. Read Acts 15. Jesus fulfilled the law, so if we follow Him, we exactly know what it means to love God with our hearts, soul and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. That is a process what will cost our life as we dedicate this to God.
      So if you meet a so called Christian who has not dedicated his life to God, he is NOT a follower of Christ.
      This is a long story short, I can write much more about this, but say never ever again that Paul has rejected the law. That is not true!

      “but when you define the ontological nature of God as Triune”
      I have never used the word triune or trinitarian, so I don’t feel a need to answer this.

      “The meaning of ABSOLUTE ONENESS is that there are no divisions, no separations, no multiplicities, no parts, partners, persons, or anything else which may contradict the Simple meaning of “THE ONE.””

      Who determines this? Are you the one who can claim this? Or the muslims? It is God who decide what and who is one. We believe in God how he is revealed to us. And we believe that God is ONE and that we can worship God only. Does that mean that we can understand the highness, holiness and wisdom of God? NO, and I guess you will agree.
      I can mention many other meanings for ONE, but we will not agree on this.

      Like

    • This is how Christians should behave (show me something like this from the quran):
      Matthew 5: 43-48

      “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

      QUOTE:
      Surah 5:8

      O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do.

      Like

    • “That sounds pretty nice for Christians, isn’t it? And the result is clear. Christians in Islamic countries suffer a lot, especially those who are ex-muslims. Look at this map, the majority of countries is…. Islamic! https://www.opendoors.nl/vervolgdechristenen/ranglijst-kaart/
      Muslims are 100% to practice their faith in western countries. A muslim convert don’t have to fear for his life. If a muslim converts to christianity in muslim countries, he has often fear for his life.”

      only christians ? anyone else? muslim convert don’t have to fear for his life? lol you dumb idiot just recently egyptian christian who converted to islam was killed because of his change of beliefs. where? in a muslim country

      Like

    • “Who determines this? Are you the one who can claim this? Or the muslims? It is God who decide what and who is one. We believe in God how he is revealed to us. And we believe that God is ONE and that we can worship God only. Does that mean that we can understand the highness, holiness and wisdom of God? NO, and I guess you will agree.
      I can mention many other meanings for ONE, but we will not agree on this.”

      if the son is ONE person
      and father is one person
      and ghost is one person

      than altogether do we have 9 persons?

      if not, why not ?

      Like

    • Edward: “you dumb idiot ”

      Is this respect? If you start cursing me, I do not feel any need to reply to your comments.
      You may disagree with what I wrote, but this is far from respect.

      Like

  7. Where to begin. Looks like Raymond Browns short comment, Really got under Richards skin. His post reads like a book report on Bowman and Komoszewski’s work (copyright violation indeed). Instead of such a long post he could have just directed us to their publication and we would have got the gist of his point. I would have rather seen a post from someone else which delves more deeply into the work of Raymond Brown on the subject. Maybe Brown’s work and arguments might have convinced Richard if he had only read it first. It would have been more interesting to see Richard actually engage with Browns work rather than to lash out blindly about it. But, as Abdullah aptly put it, “It seems that as long as you have already accepted the deity of Christ, you are gonna see automatically & blindly everything as evidence for that deity!” IMO it would be preferable to see Richard’s thoughts in the comment section on this blog, since he does not seem to be engaged in open minded soul searching scholarship when he has not actually read Raymond Brown’s work before trying to refute it.

    R.E Brown makes the case that the Gospel Luke does not contain a theology of Incarnation & preexistence. Rather than arguing directly from Luke, Richard finds quotes from different parts of the Bible, which he uses to defend the incarnation and preexistence. This is typical of traditional Christian devotional arguments, and does not seem to provide serious scholarship or insights on Lukan theology, based on Luke alone.

    The Virgin birth is actually poor evidence of the divine becoming human. In Hinduism, the divine becomes human by incarnating into an already existing being, (ie, animal, human) or by morphing and assuming the form of an animal or human etc. So this would mean that the Hindu Gods are more powerful than the Christian God, since a Virgin birth is required for incarnation, whereas in Hinduism is not required. (Nothing against Hindu’s, just making a point) The better explanation is that the virgin birth is a sign of God’s power, although there are other explanations as well.

    The simple reason Sonship is stressed more in the NT than in the OT, is because Paul and his students, (along with other Christ followers) are reinterpreting a highly disagreeable OT in order to justify their mistaken belief that Jesus(as) is God. Same for Son of Man arguments.

    In regard to the “I have come” statements, these do not imply divinity. They may however just imply preexistence of the human soul. I could say, “I have come” and link it with an infinitive purpose “to write this comment directed at Richards article” Maybe it implies I “came” from Syria, or maybe it implies that my soul “came” from a pre-existing state into the world through the mother’s womb, but it does not imply that I am in any way, shape, or form God himself!! Therefore, this is a naïve argument and very weak attempt at justifying the Trinitarian belief.

    There is nothing in Mary’s Song Luke 1:46-56 that implies she is speaking of Jesus(as) as God. Her statement could be interpreted such as this: ‘Mary said, ‘My soul magnifies the Lord (Allah), and my spirit rejoices in God (Allah) my Saviour’ It is a mistake to conflate the word, “Saviour” with “Lord” and parallels (implicit or explicit) between the two do not imply Divinity (unless that is what you have been preprogrammed to think).

    The Qur’an has numerous mathematical codes embedded throughout the messages from start to finish, but due to one single coincidental instance of numerology, Richard thinks this may imply that Jesus(as) is God….what a joke.

    The authority of Jesus(as) over Jbap does not imply divinity. Many people are given authority over others, but we don’t consider them to be God. In regard to Omniscience of Jesus I think Mark 11:13 puts the cork on that one. The example of Omnipresence in Luke 7:1-10 can be read as God working through Jesus(as), and does not necessarily imply that Jesus(as) is, in fact, God. Jesus(as) cannot be human and divine at the same time basic logic indicates that the former DOES PRECLUDE the latter. If one differs on that point, then see my comments about Hindu Gods above.

    Any knowledgeable Jew will tell you that Acts 3:22 is, once again, a Christian reinterpretation of the OT, and they will object to the interpretation that Jesus is the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy 18:18. Whether or not 18:18 is a reference to Muhammad (sws) can be debated, but it is certain that it is clearly not a reference to Jesus (as).

    In summary, neither the titular or narrative Christology that Richard has duly regurgitated from other authors proves the preexistence or incarnation of Jesus(as). And Raymond Brown’s comment still stands untouched:

    ‘There’s no evidence that Luke had a theology of Incarnation & preexistence.’

    Liked by 2 people

    • My basic question is this: If the one true pre-existing God really did incarnate into the human body of Jesus, and it was his plan that we should worship him as or through Jesus, then why wasn’t he more upfront and clear about it? Why all the Biblical confusion? It can only be that the confusion is from the hand of fallible mortal authors, and not from the Divine since God is not the author of confusion.

      Liked by 2 people

    • in justin bass’ debate , ehrman said something like

      gospel writers :

      Believed your man god was god
      Revered your god as god
      Worshipped your god as god
      But he did not call him god?

      Like

    • Clarification: It is a mistake to conflate the word, “Saviour” with “Lord” IN REFERENCE TO JESUS(as) and parallels (implicit or explicit) between the two do not imply Divinity.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Edward,
      Yes, good point. We have to remember that we are talking about a man made scripture written by fallible men, not the inerrant word of God, as Richard still seems to think. So it is important to look at the unknown authors of the Gospels individually in interpreting their theology. That is what I think R.E. Brown is trying to do, and I am sure what Ehrman is doing as well. When people conflate Lukan theology with Johaninine, and other parts of the Bible, and/or start reinterpreting the OT in order to fit in with preconceived notions about NT Christology, that is where people get confused. We have to bring it back down to the basics.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “. So this would mean that the Hindu Gods are more powerful than the Christian God, since a Virgin birth is required for incarnation, whereas in Hinduism is not required. (Nothing against Hindu’s, just making a point) The better explanation is that the virgin birth is a sign of God’s power, although there are other explanations as well.”

      interesting. which makes me think. why doesn’t john have virgin birth. did his jesus appear out of nowhere?
      could his high christology imply that “word became flesh” without a mum?

      Liked by 1 person

    • not to forget that kalEl gets adopted by martha kent
      i’m not mocking here, just trying to convey what i am trying to say.
      john not mentioning virgin birth makes me wonder if he knew of it.

      Like

    • Edward,
      That is an interesting point you made about John’s high Christology and the virgin birth. Maybe the author of John was developing and embellishing the story partly in order to address the very question that I had raised in relation to incarnation in other faiths. If I had thought of this, I am sure that it was possible that earlier people had raised the question as well. Ehrman addresses the subject of John and the virgin birth on his blog but I am not a member. I would be very interested to see what has to say on that matter.
      https://ehrmanblog.org/the-virgin-birth-and-the-gospel-of-john/

      Like

  8. “The simple reason Sonship is stressed more in the NT than in the OT, is because Paul and his students, (along with other Christ followers) are reinterpreting a highly disagreeable OT in order to justify their mistaken belief that Jesus(as) is God. Same for Son of Man arguments.”

    That is opinion. I disagree. If you study the New Testament, you may find that Jesus Christ stresses love for God. Jesus constantly refers to His Father as the One true God and that the reason He came to earth was to point the way to Him. He that hath seen me hath seen the Father. His work on earth was dedicated to His Father, to do His will, to love Him, to draw all men to Him. He adored and worshiped His Father and even laid down His life that others might be saved and brought to Him through the shedding of His sacrificial blood, The Perfect and final Sacrifice.

    Like

    • “He adored and worshiped His Father and even laid down His life that others might be saved and brought to Him through the shedding of His sacrificial blood, ”

      but this means the father has been dropped from the picture and the “sacrifice” of a human flesh is now the “magnet” which one requires before one contacts god

      god , his invisible being, is far and unknown unless you develop attachment to human flesh , blood and violent crucifixion ritual

      how intimate /close/ loving is a relationship via bloody sacrificial ritual?

      just test this. remain silent and don’t speak to any of your children. speak to them only after they perform the shedding of chicken.

      god gave jesus everything but left you with flesh, blood and crucifix? you call this love? i call this unkind, unfair and horrible god who is biased .

      Like

    • “The first mistake Christians make when looking at these passages is being overly awed by the miracles. They tend to think that miracles sanction any act or teaching, but this is not true.”

      What does Christ say about His miracles? His own people, for whom He came first, were devastated by His miracles.

      At this, the Jews again picked up stones to stone Him. 32 But Jesus answered, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone Me?” 33 “We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God..If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy’ for stating that I am the Son of God? 37 If I am not doing the works of My Father, then do not believe Me. But if I am doing them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works themselves, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.”

      Like

    • “The first mistake Christians make when looking at these passages is being overly awed by the miracles. They tend to think that miracles sanction any act or teaching, but this is not true.”

      quote :
      For which of these do you stone Me?” 33 “We are not stoning You for any good work,” said the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because You, who are a man, declare Yourself to be God..If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and the Scripture cannot be broken— 36 then what about the One whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world? How then can you accuse Me of blasphemy’ for stating that I am the Son of God?
      end quote

      quote
      What does Christ say about His miracles? His own people, for whom He came first, were devastated by His miracles.

      what argument is he using ? that his works prove that he is yhwh incarnate? if so, then the jews were justified in stoning him to death .

      but then the question is, why does he use psalms when psalms clearly does not prove that the gods are co -equal to yhwh?

      was he just saying he was above a level from the gods, but not co-equal to yhwh?

      Like

  9. Excellent article.

    Like

  10. Marcel

    November 3, 2016 • 4:51 pm

    @Ibn Issam: “If Muhammad is not in the bible, the quran is false.”
    That is based on what I read in the quran. If the quran says that Muhammad is in the bible, and muslims try, over and over again, to proof this, and it is not in the bible, how reliable is the quran?

    I say;
    The Quran never ever said prophet Mohammed was in the Bible.
    The Quran said prophet Mohammed name is mentioned in their(people of the book) scriptures at the time of Mohammed.

    The scriptures of the people of the book at prophet Mohammed’s time are more including the gospel of Thomas, Epistle of Banabas, dead sea scrolls, the gospel of Judas, codex siniticus, bizi, vaticanus and some lost ones that continued to be found today.

    So, the scriptures making up the current Bible is not the only one and not the complete scripture that the Quran is talking about.

    Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Church, protestants etc. have different books in their Bible and that will tell you that, the Quran cannot refer to them because they are different.

    Again, the Bible was canonized i.e. some scriptures were rejected by the Church Fathers and they destroyed the ones they do not want. The Trinitarians destroyed the scriptures of the Arians, Ebionites etc. and today want to vote for Donald Trump to pursue their wish even though he grabs married women private parts.

    It means Christians will by all means destroy what did not agree with them. The infant gospel of Thomas was found hidden by some sect of Christians and the Nag Hammadi scripture was also found hidden.

    Thanks.

    Like

    • I don’t feel any need to respond to so much bull shit. Sorry.

      Like

    • Marcel

      November 3, 2016 • 6:39 pm

      I don’t feel any need to respond to so much bull shit. Sorry.

      Marcel

      November 3, 2016 • 6:47 pm

      Edward: “you dumb idiot ”

      Is this respect? If you start cursing me, I do not feel any need to reply to your comments.
      You may disagree with what I wrote, but this is far from respect.

      Marcel has called my reply to him bull shit and Graham has called me pig.

      Now he is complaining of being called “you dumb idiot”

      Marcel you are indeed “dumb idiot” until Paul Williams put control to this. I just refuted you that the Quran did not say Mohammed is found in your current Bible and you call me bull shit.

      Thanks.

      Like

  11. Hi Abdullah

    You said…

    I’m waiting you to respond to my argument about Deutronomy 18:18.
    Linguistically, it cannot be applied for Israelites.
    =========
    If we are desparte, you find that we make The Noble Quran be attached with some of your books to make our own bible as you did with the hebrew bible!

    Deut 18: is connected to the previous chapters.

    Deu 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;
    Deu 17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.

    A King is to be chosen from among thy BRETHREN this was within Israel no one else.

    Deu 18:1 The priests the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel: they shall eat the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and his inheritance.
    Deu 18:2 Therefore shall they have no inheritance among their brethren: the LORD is their inheritance, as he hath said unto them.

    The priest are chosen from among Israel and no inheritance among their BRETHREN this was within Israel no one else.

    No other nation could fulfil this position as priest

    Deu 18:15 The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;
    Deu 18:16 According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not.
    Deu 18:17 And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken.
    Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

    The prophet was to be risen from among Israel…from among their BRETHREN no one else.

    This is how Israel was run with Kings, Priest and prophets I notice that Muslims bypass all the prophets…Ssmuel..Isaiah…Jeremiah…Elijah…Elisha…Ezekiel right down John the Baptist and Jesus Christ.

    This is just a desperate leap otherwise your Koran is as false as a £3 note.

    Like

  12. Hi Intellect
    You said…

    Again, the Bible was canonized i.e. some scriptures were rejected by the Church Fathers and they destroyed the ones they do not want. The Trinitarians destroyed the scriptures of the Arians, Ebionites etc. and today want to vote for Donald Trump to pursue their wish even though he grabs married women private parts.

    Can you please tell me what the scriptures of the Arians and Ebionites were that got destroyed or burnt by Trinitarians?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: