Jesus 12 – Did Jesus P Claim Divinity 2 Claims Attributed To Jesus P

AsSalamu Alaikum and welcome once again to Islam focus. Today's program will be on Jesus, the beloved messenger of Allah. Our topic today is our second on a segment on. Did Jesus claim divinity. I'm your host or sodomy niche. And here with me from St. Mary's University once again is dr Jamal Dido. So I conducted Mr. Ronnie Kusama, could you please give us a summary of last week's program? Okay, we started the first segment of the basic question, Did Jesus peace be upon him claimed to be the vine? And the main question that we face in the beginning is how could

a Muslim for example, try to find an answer to that question in the Bible, without falling into the same errors and problems that we discussed in previous programs, when some Christian authors tried to prove the divinity of Jesus from the Quran,

and he indicated that I've tried my best to avoid those problems. No fictitious statement, or reference to occupation that doesn't exist will be made and that could be checked. At the beginning of the chapter and verse numbers. Normally citation will be made no partial quotation that changes the meaning. No claim will be made which is not sustained by the text of the Bible used as a reference. And no attempt will be made to Islam is the language of the Bible as some tried to villainize the language of the Quran, but things will be referred to within the context of the Bible itself. These were the five major problems with the Christian scholars trying to interpret or

understand the Quran.

I should say also that a great deal of the discussion that we're really getting into, does not just represent the ideas or interpretation of people who are outside of Christianity like Muslims. But rather it also reflects the results of research that has been done by many Christian theologians and even churchmen.

After we explain this methodology of study, we indicated that usually the evidence given

to the effect that Jesus claimed to be divine, or inner divine, relate to five basic areas, what was said about him, what he himself claimed, as Americans and deeds, his mission and our message, and the personal experience of those who believe in this particular dogma or belief. We discuss the first category, what has been said about Jesus and we said that many of those statements do not necessarily mean that he was divine, it simply mean that he was unique, and every respected prophet definitely is unique in his time and place. But it doesn't mean divinity. We also indicated that what is important is not what has been said about the individual, but what he himself claimed about

himself. And we indicated that in human history, there have been lots of people who never claimed to be defined as people after them, deified them.

And then we made at the end of the program, one quick reference general reference to the fact that even the statements, which are given as an evidence that Jesus claimed, divinity, the second category,

are not in themselves conclusive, especially in a matter which is very important, such as the question of diminishing the evidence in the serious matters must be conclusive. Thank you for summary. Now, before we discuss any specific references on this issue, is there any reason why you think that any suggested proof of divinity of Jesus must be conclusive? Yes, I believe in that because the foundation of faith, especially when you speak about the religions, normally referred to as monotheistic religions, the foundation of faith, there is the belief in the one Creator of the universe,

for that belief, or that says to be strong and unshakable.

The foundation for that is also must be strong and unshakable should not be based on any, you know, doubtful kind of statements, which is not conclusive.

It is also important because it is a blasphemy, according to the Bible, and according to the Quran to for that matter, that we associate others with God and His divine attributes. And we have to make absolutely sure

what Jesus said about himself? And what did he mean by that? It is inconceivable that Prophet Jesus peace be upon him or any profit for that matter, would, would speak with some clarity and inclusiveness and some detailed aspects of human life.

without speaking with similar or even better clarity, in the foundation of the face itself, the matters of divinity, any vague or including conclusive statements to that effect with would not be conceivable, nor would it be expected that any Prophet Jesus or otherwise or other prophets, would keep the question of divinity as a guarded secret, and leading to confusion among people for hundreds of years.

If Jesus were gods, or divine, we would have expected him to say, quite clearly, for example, something like I am God incarnate, I am the divine Son of God who shares divine attributes with the Father.

Or is to say, I am God, who intervened in human history by coming in human form, that I am alone is worthy of worship. And this is not really unreasonable within the context of the Bible itself. When we speak about divinity. You find numerous references in the Bible, who is in which God speaks very clearly, I am the gods, your Lord, there is none beside me, I am the God of your fathers, Isaac, and Abraham, and so on. So this is not unusual for the Bible. When God speaks, he speaks in no unmistakable

terms. It is true that sometimes allegories are used in for the purpose of teaching, especially religious teaching, there's no question about that. And Jesus did use parables.

But when it comes to a very simple statement, that I am the Lord, I am God.

In a serious matter like that, it's got to be a straightforward, very clear, decisive statement.

To the best of my humble knowledge, there is no single

statement or passage in the whole New Testament, in which Jesus Himself not what has been said about Jesus Himself, claims to be God to be the only one who is worthy of worship has got should be.

It is far from conclusive evidence giving us really far from from conclusive.

Now, there are many Christian brothers, who believe that what Jesus said about himself is sufficient sufficient proof of his equality with God. Now, you made reference before to his claim that He and the Father are one in the previous program. Yes, yes, right. Now, why is that unacceptable proof of divinity? Okay, let's discuss that particular reference. And this, I believe, appears in the chapter in the Gospel According to john, in chapter 10, verse 30, in which Jesus peace be upon him is quoted as saying, I and the Father, are one.

And by the way, the references I'm making now from now on would be from a device standard edition of the RSP, Revised Standard Version.

Now, it appears that a great deal of mileage has been made out of this statement, and I show that the context of it is quite different from what has been interpreted from.

For example, in a famous Christian reference, the interpreter's Bible, that is published in 1958, volume eight, page 633, we find that a sweeping generalization is made on the basis of that particular statement. And it says, and I quote, this is the clearest and most succinct expression of the logos doctrine of the prologue. But the declaration is now found on the lips of the incarnate Christ.

Well, this kind of statement is not really sustained by the text I and the Father are One, it's stretching too much. It is reading too much, really, in a very simple statement like that, especially that's more important when that statement is interpreted within the boundaries of the Bible itself. I'm not talking about outside reference imposed on

the basic question here when Jesus says, I am the Father are one.

What does that mean? Either that means that I am the Father are one in identity,

or that we are one in nature's or divine essence or that we

Part One, in purpose because I am his faithful servant and Messenger. During his well.

Let's look at this three possible meanings and see which one is consistent with the Bible itself.

If that statement is interpreted to mean that Jesus said, I, and the father, or God, are one in identity, then this is, according to the mainstream Christianity a heresy. Because it means that the Father and the Son are the same person, not two distinct persons within godhood, that was regarded by early Christians and the many Christians today as a heresy. And that, of course, is understandable. Because if we say, the Son and the Father are identical, the same person, the same physical body that walked on this earth, in the form of Jesus, then of course, when Jesus died on the cross, according to the Christian version of the story, it means then that God Himself was dead.

And of course, nobody say that Muslim or Christian for that message. As such, according to Christianity itself, the father and the son could not be identical,

fully, fully identical, the same person, take the second explanation, second possible interpretation, that maybe Jesus meant that He and the Father are One, not really an identity, but in essence, or divinity. But still, they are two distinct persons in godhood.

This, again, is not sustained if we look at the context of this versus the context of this versus if you check chapter 10. In the Gospel, according to john, we'll find that the Jews were asking Jesus,

why is he not telling them if he was Christ, if you weren't, you know, he was Christ or not. So he answered them simply and he says that I told you, but you don't believe in me.

And then he started to tell them that you adjusting the Jews do not belong to my sheep, because my sheep know me. And when they hear my voice, they follow Me. And then and I caught that verbatim, he says, No one shall snatch them, ie my followers. out of my hand, my father, who has given them to me, is greater than all.

And then he continues and says, and no one is able to snatch them out of my father's hand, I and the Father are one.

This is very revealing. I started thinking about, you know what that sections really mean? Taking it in context, not just picking bits and pieces.

At one time, he says that nobody will be able to snatch his followers away from his hand. That is john 1028.

In another statement, he says, nobody is going to take them from the hand

of the father or from his father's hand. And then immediately after that, he says, I am the father.

That shows quite clearly, that Jesus is not really claiming to be one, in essence, or nature with God, but one in purpose. And that purpose is that the believers shall be protected. The purpose or the will of God, is to protect those who believed, so is the purpose of Jesus, nobody is going to snatch them from the hands of Jesus or from the hands of God for that matter. In that sense, then I'm saying that I and the Father are one in purpose, because I am his servant, and his fifth his usage.

That's really good. Now, Dr. Jamal, you've just mentioned or you just explained one reference. Are there other similar statements attributed to Jesus? And what is their context? Well, john, Chapter 10, verse 30, which we refer to it is not really the only one where there is a reference to the effect, of course of Jesus being one with the Father. But none. Not a single verse of a similar nature,

carries a conclusive evidence or conclusive, claim, really, of divinity for Jesus peace be upon him. On the contrary, we find that when these verses are interpreted or understood, in that context, in the context of the Bible itself, it doesn't mean that at all, but it means simply, again, interpret. I'll give you a very prominent example of this. We refer, for example, to the gospel according to john in chapter 17. And we find that in chapter 17, in verse 11, just directly from there, it says and now

11 and now

I am no more in the world, but they are in the world. And I am coming to the Holy Father, keep them in by name, which thou has given me that they may be one, even as we are one. So it's asking that the disciples are praying that the second big one, even as Jesus and the Father, are one. Interestingly enough, if you move on in the same chapter in verses 20, to 23, and digested directly from the Revised Standard Version, Jesus here is reported to have said, I do not pray

for this only, but also for those who believe in me, through their world, that they may only be one, even as thou father, art in me, and I envy

they, that they also may be in a notice here, extending the further as you are in new in new, that they also may be in us, this is very significant, and then continues, so that the world may believe that you have sent me

the glory which you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one, they may be one, even as we are one. It is so obvious here, that Jesus here did not mean when he says that they, the disciples would be one in him, or that they would be one in godhood, that this is oneness in identity, or even in divine essence, because if this is the case, it means that all the disciples are divine, because you see, Jesus and the disciples are one. Okay. And Jesus and the Father are One, it is the same term. And actually, in the Greek the original word used, or the word that has been available, the oldest manuscript is when he when the same term has been used, both to

designate the relationship between Jesus and the Father, and Jesus and the disciples. And if it is oneness, in divinity, or essence, it means then Jesus is divine because he is one with the Father, and that Jesus was divine also is one with the disciples. And if this is one, this also is an identity, it means also that all disciples also are divine, because Jesus is divine to the point. In other words, you have to apply the term consistently, in both expressions. And now,

this of course, nobody's saying, because nobody ever said that the disciples are divine. And when Jesus was speaking, he included actually Judah, even who betrayed him when he says the so that they'd be one in us. So obviously, this kind of, of explanation, I think, is much more consistent with the other differences in the Bible within the chapter itself. And what Jesus said

30 below and I'd like your comments on this. It was reported that in one occasion,

Jesus tried to know the Jews try to stone Jesus, and they accused him of claiming to be God. Now, the common question is this. Now, does that not show enough proof that he actually claimed to be God, attempting to snap to stone Jesus was not only once there was more than one time when this was attempted. Jesus when he came, pick me up and he was very frank. And in his criticism of the straylight, at his time, he called them all kinds of names and you go in the Bible and read how he addressed them, he was very frank, and he made no bones, about accusing them of hypocrisy and all that kind of thing. Definitely, they hated him. And he himself said that, for they hated me for no

reason. And they were trying to implicate him, by hook or crook likely say, anyway, to try to, to trap him to try to put the words in his mouth that he didn't say, just to find some justification to get rid of him. Okay, to prove that he was blessed screaming and deserve death penalty. But if you really refer to that, as one of those incidents, for example, that appears in the Gospel According to john chapter 10,

verse 33,

when they told him you know that

you are claiming to be gods, this man is making himself

gods, even though he's a man or a human. But people stop at verse 33. They don't even the verse after that, verse 34, in chapter 10 of john, he says, Is it not written in your law? I said,

That you are God's is if not written in your law, I say that you are God. So he's defending himself.

And actually, he's referring to the Psalms of David, where, at one point, people were mentioned as being gods, human beings are referred to as Gods not really in a very literal sense. In the book of Exodus,

It is reported that God told Moses that I think you as gone to the Pharaoh, it doesn't mean that you became Gods because I sent you Asgard to Pharaoh, it simply means I sent you as my representative to the unit present me. And the message you communicate to the pharaoh is my own usage. So I think in that context in the atmosphere, and the circumstances of his time, it wasn't really that they sincerely believed that Jesus was claiming to be equal to that, that he was just trying to implicate him, by hook or crook. And he his response to that is quite obvious as to what was meant to.

In an earlier quotation, Jesus is reported to have said that he is in the Father, and that the Father is in heaven. Now, how would you explain that, once again, referring to the context of the violin, I'm not talking about outside sources, would help us to understand whether Jesus really meant divinity, or whether he meant that the Father is in him and he in the father in the spiritual sense, or allegorical sense, not literal.

For example, take one of those references, because it was repeated in more than one place. In fact, in the Gospel, according to john in chapter 17, in verse 21, which I was quoting earlier, it says, even as you are thou father, art in me, and I, in the, that they also may be in us, and they here, obviously, is a reference to his disciples. Again, if we say that the disciples who are in us, that is in God, or the father and in Christ, or one, or goddess, and then an identity or an essence, it means again, like we said, before, that they will be defined, and nobody said that the disciples will define also. So in that context, then we can say that, Jesus simply saying that as you are in

me, in you in terms of the spiritual relationship, they also be one in us. But again, never in the physical origin incarnate or incarnation, meaning at all. And the same thing when Jesus, for example, sometimes say that, that the Father abides in Me are two words in me, we find that this is not unique to him, actually, he used the same thing to refer to the disciple. For example, in the first

and the first letter of john, chapter four, verse 12, the term God abides in us is used. So we can take the term abide or dwell, or in me

as a proof as a sort of incarnation, that's, that would contradict the other usage of the sentence. It's Wish me

How about his statement that whoever has seen him, he has seen God? Would that not be considered proof enough? Okay, I believe the reference to that is in the Gospel, according to john, Chapter 14, verse nine, I think I underlined that, Chapter 14, verse nine, and it says, The Jesus said to him, that is to fill it, who was asking him, or asking him to show to show him the Father, and coat Have I been with you so long? And yet, you do not know me fill it. He who has seen me has seen the Father, He who has seen me has seen the Father, I think this is perhaps the reference that you're referring to? The question here, the basic question is, what does the term see mean?

Is it seeing physically with the physical I, whoever is looking at me, Jesus, He is looking at God? Or is it See, in a sense of knowledge, that is, whoever knows me. He also knows the father. I would submit that the second meaning is the meaning which is consistent with the context of the Bible. Why?

If we take the first meaning, physical seeing, that is Jesus, and the father or Jesus and God are the same, or at least whoever sees Jesus is God because there's Jesus is the divine also.

It is contradictory with to both the Old Testament and New Testament. It is contradicting with the Old Testament because several places in the Old Testament clearly affirm that nobody

He has ever seen God. For example, in the book of Exodus, in the Old Testament, Chapter 33, verse 20, it says, you cannot see my face God speaks, you cannot see my face, for men shall not see me and live.

If we take again the literal meaning of seeing in the New Testament, we find that this is contradictory. Again with other statements in the New Testament, even let us take three or four examples. In the Gospel, according to john, in chapter one, verse 18, it says, No one has ever seen God, the only son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known. But again, it begins with nobody has ever seen them. It should be noted here that one part of it says, See, the other side is known. In other words, it doesn't say nobody has ever seen God, Jesus made him be seen,

says known but not seen. And that's why quite significant. It is noted also, that the term only son does not literally mean only son will see that as we go on with the program and the following ones that according to the Bible itself, sometimes the term only son is used not to refer to the only son literally, we'll get to that. The the other reference, second example, appears in the first letter of john, in chapter four, verse one, in which again, he repeats, and he says, No one has ever seen God. And notice here that john is writing that letter after Jesus finished his mission on earth. And if Jesus were God, john would have not sent that because they saw Jesus already during his his

ministry.

And if the meaning whoever has seen me has seen God is to be interpreted literally, it means then that seeing Jesus was equivalent to seeing God. Okay?

After a few lines in the same quotation, john also says that whoever does not love his brother, whom

he has seen, he cannot love God, whom he has not seen. So again, he affirms that nobody has ever seen God, and he's addressing people who have seen Jesus already, or at least some of them have seen Jesus. The third example is in the letter of Paul, to Timothy. And that appears in the First Timothy, the first letters,

chapter four, verse 16.

And in that letter, Paul states that God alone has immortality. And that he dwells, that God dwells in unapproachable light. And then he continues, and he says that room about God, no man has ever seen, or can see. The fourth example, isn't the gospel according to john, in chapter five, verse 37. Again, it speaks about Jesus and it says, His voice, sir, it speaks about God, not about Jesus speaks about God and says, His voice, you have never heard his form, you have never seen and this is attributed to a saying of Jesus Himself, referring to God, this makes it abundantly clear that when Jesus says, Whoever has seen, he has seen the Father is used only in the sense of man, whoever has

known me, he has known the Father. And this is not really a problem, because every prophet in his time as the spokesman of the Creator, if we know him, if you follow his teaching, because he teaches us about God and about the teaching of God, so we knowing him means knowing the Creator. And I can't see how a statement like that, in that context can be used

to refer to divinity, contrary to what the both the Old Testament and New Testament seem to indicate. One final remark is that this is also consistent with what we find in the Gospel of john, Chapter 14, verse seven, if you had known me, you would have known my Father also. Henceforth, you know him and have seen him so seen again is related here and connected with

knowledge of Well, thank you very much stuck with him. Oh, by the way, a lot of time. I thank you all for joining us here once again, this time in focus. We would greatly appreciate any questions or any comments you may have. Our phone number and address will be appearing on your screen. From all of us you understand the focus also on like, what to do next?