Jamal Badawi – Jesus 17 – Did Jesus P Claim Divinity 7 Responses To Objections
AI: Summary ©
The speakers discuss the importance of understanding the difference between "rdourcing" and "rdourcing" in relation to the Bible. They explore the idea of "good" in the Bible, which refers to the image of God, not Christ's image, and explore the idea of "good" in the Bible, which refers to the image of God and not Christ's image. They also explore the idea of "one race" and the potential for conflict.
AI: Summary ©
again to a salmon focus.
Today's program will be our 17th in our series on Jesus, the beloved messenger of Allah. Our topic today will be the seventh in
the question as did Jesus claim divinity.
I'm your host Shawnee Mission here with me once again from St. Mary's University is Dr. Jamal by the way. So I can
talk to you about could we start off with a summary of last week's program please. Okay. In the last program, we focused more on the specific statements made by Prophet Jesus peace be upon him, in which he actually clearly negated that he was equal with God. He indicated that he does the work of his creator, that he doesn't do anything by his own power, but it is the power of ego sent him he does not speak on his own, but what he hears he says,
We also discussed briefly other negations of divine attributes, such as negating that he knows the unseen, negating that he was good when the man was running after him and saying, good masters.
It was so obvious also in the fact that he was praying and usually it is the human who prays to his creator, the story of temptation is equally relevant. In addition to that, we discussed also some of the quotations in which Jesus was either referred to, or even spoke about himself as a prophet, messenger, and a servant of God.
Well, in your last program, you what you quoted, seem to create a deny any equality with God. Now, somewhere, our viewers may be interested to know how the Christian theologians and clergy actually respond to this, when there are some clergy. And possibly some theologians also who take
one or two basic approaches appears to me. One approach is essentially what you might call an apologetic type of approach, an approach which try to seek any way of discounting those very clear and very obvious statements that we refer to last time.
And as such, it might go into a great deal of length trying to get around them, if you might.
I feel that in this kind of approach, it looks like that. It looks like the prior theological commitment that determines what
what approach to take. But in order to be fair, also, I must say that there are also those who take a different approach. They try to take it on a more scholarly and objective basis. And many of them arrive, the basic results that are so obvious and clears logic and that there is no evidence really that Jesus peace be upon him ever claimed to be equals with God, or to be divine for that, actually negated.
Now, let's take that first approach. Can you give us a few examples of responses? And why do you consider these to be inadequate?
One, one example of this is a book that was written by an Egyptian Orthodox priest. His name is Nancy yohana, in the title of his book is Samson.
And this was published in Cairo by moqtada, from muhabba 1960. And particularly, the relevant chapter here is chapter three pages 132 through 136.
For example, He says that in the quotation in john, gospel according to john, Chapter 14, verse 28, when Jesus says that my father is greater than I,
he goes around that and try to explain it and say that when Jesus speaks, here, only about his human side, not his divine side knows he has this combination of humanity and Divinity. So when Jesus says my father
There is greater than I is speaking only from the human point of view.
One, this is, this kind of logic really is like saying that divinity and humanity have both combined united in Jesus.
But when Jesus said, My father is greater than, than I is simply saying that there is some kind of
hierarchy, if you will, that the divine was on his own with divine and just on the divine is superior to one who is divine, but combines with divinity, also the human nature. In other words, they seem to be a source of two
hierarchies, there are two levels, one of them definitely superior, the other is inferior. One, that logic doesn't seem to be acceptable at all, because,
first of all, when we say that the divinity and humanity are both united in Jesus,
then you cannot contradict it by saying, yes, it is united, but not so united. When he says that God is greater than I or my father is greater than I
doesn't really seem to make much sense. Because when we speak about divinity, we're not talking about something inferior and something superior because there is nothing spirit to the divine.
Another response that Reverend Hannah Gibbs,
is that he says that, in that quotation in john 1428, Jesus saying that my father is great as an iron, he didn't say, my god. So he says, that use the term father, instead of God. Again, that's a very strange excuse really, because as we have seen, amply, with full documentation in previous programs, that the term father has been used, of course, not in the sense that some people really try to put into it, but it was used in terms of My Father and your Father, that is equivalent Chile, in that context of the Bible, father was used as my god that is my Creator. So I think one has only to compare the straightforward, clear, crystal clear statement of negation of divinity.
Visa V, this kind of explanation, which I feel is really going into great lengths.
Somehow, as I said earlier, perhaps trying to explain everything in terms of prior theological commitment, rather than on the basis of objective information.
Was Jesus ever quoted, as referring to God as God instead of father?
Very good and relevant question. But before I answer that question, I'd like to make it clear that it's easy. If we assume for the sake of discussion, that there is new verse whatsoever in the New Testament, suppose we say that in which Jesus said about God's God instead of Father, that does not again mean that Jesus is divine because we have seen again, that the same father doesn't does not necessarily mean God doesn't actually. But let me come to the specific question that you're in. The answer is Yes, he did. Yes. There are two important differences to that.
One is in
the Gospel, according to Mark, chapter 15, verse 34,
it is attributed that Jesus peace be upon him.
Just prior to his death on the cross. He shouted, God, God, why have you forsaken me? specifically? Actually, in the Gospel according to Mark he quotes the automatic text. Eloi, Eloi, lama shocked me? And it says that actually, in the text of the Bible, which means, God, God, why have you forsaken me? Jesus, it doesn't say far that God. God does not speak to God. But God does not play to that. So it means that you are my God.
Even after the completion of the mission of Prophet Jesus on Earth, according to the gospel, that is after the resurrection, I'm talking about the
biblical defenses. After resurrection, it was attributed to Jesus as saying again that I'm going to ascend to my father, and your father, my God and your God, the term that is very used very clearly, in reference to that is in the Gospel, according to john, in chapter 20,
verse 17, to be specific.
It might be useful to make a reference here to connect this question.
The previous one,
that when we were talking about john 1428, Reverend yohanna, was trying to say that Jesus there said, my father instead of my God, and He took that as a proof of divinity. But now confronted with this quotations in which Jesus says, mommy God, His argument seems to shift to different grounds. In other words, what was used before as an evidence of divinity now is shifting because there's a clear quotation in the Bible in which you just take a tree or get on a different ground. Or what ground are you referring to? Can you elaborate on that? One, for example, when speaks about explaining the the quotation, in Mark 1634, God, God, why have you forsaken me,
says that Jesus said that, by virtue of human nature, or an Arabic to use the term natural, it says that by virtue of his human nature,
and then he goes on to say that, however, when he says, why have you forsaken me, he speaks also by virtue of his divinity, because he is sinless.
Now, this is another way just to complete again, what he wants to say. He says, also, that moves into Jesus saying, is saying, basically, in this, that I'm not suffering, I'm not being punished, because I am the Son of God. But I'm only being punished as a substitute or on behalf of Adam, who was sinful.
This is what I mean by shifting grounds. In other words, previously, he considered the term father's, as more important and a clear indication of the divinity of Jesus, because he did not say, My God, but when the verses
in which he says, My God are used, he goes around in explaining it in a way that I direct, if anybody has really made any sense of it. I couldn't, I don't know, what's the connection between being punished instead of as an on this kind of explanation? And how does that answer the question that Jesus said clearly about God, man, God, not just my father, so he absolutely no question No, no doubt that he's speaking about one who is superior to him, that means that I am a human being.
So this is what I mean by
the shifting count, as a basis for arguments. Actually, this is quite revealing in view of
our topic, maybe I'll ask you to give a few more examples of the snow to enlight the whole issue.
Right? There are quite a few, let me choose maybe three or four examples, and try to get the reference also. So if any of the viewers wish to check them on his own, or her on decline in the first one, and his commentary, that is Reverend Johannes commentary on mark, Gospel according to Mark chapter 16, verse 32, in which as you might recall from previous program, this is the quotation where Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him denied that he knows the hour. And it was indicated at that time, of course, that knowledge of the hour is one of the basic attributes of the Divine and as such, when he denied that he knows the only thing that he denies that is absolute or that he is
divine.
in addressing this
question, he goes around and he says, know
what Jesus meant to say that, I don't know the hour in in such a way that I can tell you in other words, that he knows already the hour. He knows that they unseen because he's divine, but he did not wish to declare it to them. That's in that sense, I don't know, in a sense that I can tell you about it. But again, that seemed to be putting too much wording in a text which is rather clear. If this indeed was the intention of Jesus peace be upon him, would have simply said, Alright, you asked me about the hour, he would have said, All right. Only God knows about our since I'm divine, I know about the hour, but I have good reasons not to tell you when this will take place.
Not clearly like that, but to use that expression as an indication that he knew it but didn't know it in such a way that you can tell it is really
going too far really putting meaning into it.
Furthermore,
also which might be typical of some
other similar apologetic responses, you might say, in this commentary on the various verses in which Jesus says that he doesn't do anything by his own power, and so on. Like, john 530, john, chapter six, verse eight, the story of bringing Lazarus from death. As you find in john again, Chapter 11, verse 41, it says that
Jesus actually said that, in order to respond to an accusation, live it against him, that he is doing this miracles by the power of Satan. So instead, he's saying that he's doing it by the power of God, in order to show he says, His unity, with his father on the unity of Jesus and the father.
Now, when we use the term, the unity of Jesus with the Father, we have no problem with that whatsoever. If we're thinking of it in allegorical sense, in the spiritual sense, in which you can say that all prophets actually had this kind of unity or communion, you might say, we've got in the spiritual sense, but not to say that they are divine themselves. So there's no problems with it in that sense, but to say that, he simply wanted to reject the notion that he's doing it in by the powers of Satan. And as such, he is claiming divinity, I think doesn't really seem to follow. On the contrary, if you wanted to prove, or to tell the people, that this miracles I'm doing in the name of
God, by the power of God, not by the power of Satan just said it as he said, that I do nothing by myself, I say nothing except what I hear. This does not prove divinity. In fact, it disproves any claim of divinity. so obvious.
The in the other case, for example, where
Jesus in john six, chapter six, verse eight, says that I'm only doing the will of he who sent me.
He responds to that, because that's obvious again, because he said that I have no rent on my own. My Word is not independence, not absolute. What I do, is simply fulfilling the will of God who sent me.
In response to that Reverend,
says, No, Jesus actually saying that.
My wins, I do not think by my win as a human. But I'm only doing that by the word of God, who is one with me, I gave the text then say that, again, is just like putting the writers on thinking in the verse without any sound justification.
And that's when there's a serious question that has come to again, with respect to one one or two wins or Jesus.
It doesn't make sense because again, the when we talk about humanity and Divinity being united in Jesus, how can you say that I'm doing that with my role as a human but not with my will, as divine.
refers also to the fact that Jesus prayed to God, especially at the time of his imminent arrest, that he would get so many stories very famous. And even one difference in the New Testament, in Hebrew, chapter five, verse seven, it even says that Jesus was praying and the angel appeared that assured him now this, he says, Reverend Johanna, responding to that, that this is this does not necessarily really
negate the divinity of Jesus, because he is, as he calls it, an elaborate enactment status on the status.
That is Jesus was a God in human form.
And he says that this emotion and feelings or reaction, such as fears and prayer, was done by Jesus in his capacity as a human, not as gods.
This kind of response, as I mentioned earlier,
is a very, very serious question.
Does Jesus have one nature? Or two natures? Does he have one, when are two separate worlds one human and one divine? And this has been this issues and questions have been
quite problematic for many church councils in the early Christianity. But the difficulty with these questions which resulted in this constant lack of satisfactory solution over the centuries, is that if we say that Jesus had only one way, not to one well, then how could we make a distinction, as rather than 100 suggests, between his will as a human and again, the will of God who dwells in him
Especially when Jesus puts it very clearly indicates he says, I'm not doing this by my own will, but the will, of what he who sent me, which again, means that you cannot really talk here about one one, there's one rule, which is to previous to his own wealth. And he's simply following that.
If, on the other hand, he assumed that Jesus, peace be upon him had two worlds, one human and one divine, then the question here is this. What is the kind of the nature of relationship between the two worlds? Where does one end and the other begin?
Which one supersedes the others?
And if we say that one of them supersedes the others, then we're assuming then that one will is the weaker one is a finite or human one, while the other is infinite? If this is the case, how could these two wells be united? fully and completely? How could the finite and infinite be united fully? How could be the superior and Dennis than superior or inferior In comparison, the United fully and completely
but by no means are the difficulties The only difficulties raised by the kind of answers like relevant Yohanan.
Roses, because we all know, for example, that Jesus peace be upon him. When his arrest was imminent, I was praying very earnestly, and he's praying to God that if God's will, he will take this cup away from him? Well, it's obvious from that, that he didn't want to suffer really, he was praying that it's natural, it's human, it's his will, as a human, his desire as a human is to be saved, or to be spared from this suffering. Now, the question here is this. If Jesus peace be upon him, was divine, how many wins did he have? It was impossible, again, to say that there was only one wind, because that's contradictory. Because there is one wind, the will of God, that sacrifice must be fulfilled
in order to save humanity from humanity from sin.
And then there was another one also, which, of course, is the desire to be spirit. And that's why he was praying for Allah or for God, to take this cup away from him some description of Jesus that he was struggling, even at that time. So we cannot say that this is only one unit. Well,
and it's obvious again, that these two wells can never combine in one in the same person. Of course, as humans, sometimes you might have hesitation, you know that you want to do this, and you don't want to do it. But when you talk about the divine, there's no such hesitation. There's no such contradiction
of wins or at least inconsistency.
Again, if we take the other assumption that Jesus was playing, because there was two separate ones, it raises the whole problematic issue again, forwards which one and failure which one's superior? How could the divine and the human, the infinite and the finite, be united? I noticed that took a little bit too long. But if you can find an example on this
reference, you can also refers to the statement that was narrated in Matthew's Gospel according to Matthew in chapter 19, verse 13, when the man can run into Jesus and says, tell me good Master, what is the most important commandment and so on? And Jesus told him why he called you need good, and he said that that only is good. I think we quoted that verbatim in the previous program. I only invite the viewers
to check the kind of answer given by Reverend Johann by referring to the text of the Bible and see whether the text sustains his suggestion.
In response to that, he says, that when this man was running after him, saying, Why couldn't you be good Jesus actually meant to send to tell him why he called you need groups,
even though you don't believe in me, as gods or as divine. Since the term good is a title for the divine. It means then, that you must believe in me as God
is that creator should I?
Or should I know and it's very hard to understand. The logic behind it is is very shaky, I should say. Yes.
In other words, the statement from the rival simply says that the man came after Jesus a good man such as a Safeway called me good. But the way Reverend Infineon explains He said, No said Jesus is divine because what he meant to tell the man is that the term good is the title for the divine and you are telling me good
without believing in me, as divine, so there is inconsistency in your belief. So you must believe in me as divine. Like I said, I'm not, I don't wish to be any, to be judgmental, but I only invite and respect the intelligence of the viewers, get your Bible, get the Gospel according to Matthew chapter 19, verse 17, and see whether this lengthy explanation really is sustained by the very clear, straightforward term, Why call Unicode.
I would invite the viewers also to examine something even very relevant, the context of the Bible itself. And the context in which this specific verse occurs. When Jesus started to answer that man about the most important commandment, he mentioned to him, believing in God, and fulfilling the commandments. Now, if, as Reverend Johannes, Jesus meant by that statement, to tell him that you must believe me, as God, he would have stopped him. The only thing or the first thing that would achieve salvation for you or life hereafter,
is to believe in me as God or the only begotten Son of God, or whatever our one question in the three persons constituting the trinity of God's universe said that, that he should be doing salvation. The way of achieving eternal life is simply to follow what all the prophets in the past has emphasized. That is to worship God not to worship be a genius. So it's, I think it's so obvious. And sometimes they wonder why
an attempt is made to negate something which is so clear, like,
how did Reverend yohanna explain the Old Testament reference to God, and the absence of any verse concerning Trinity, what he uses basically the same approach, you know, this very,
he might say,
very roundabout statements not sustained at all by the by the text. For example, in reference to the numerous I don't have to quote the English, so numerous verses in the Old Testament that says, I am God, the Lord is no one besides me. He says, No,
it does not negate Trinity because God speaks as the French. In other words, the intention is only to negate false gods, but he says, I am the only God, there is none beside me, or none before me or none after me. He speaks really about the three persons and of course, the fixed term safety person, there is absolutely no statement in the Bible about the term charity doesn't appear anywhere. Nor is there any hint even in the Bible, that God at one point of time of history will enter into the world in a in a human form. This is interpretation is just a sort of theorizing, but not theology, but not really something sustained by the by the text itself.
Maybe one last question, and we'll try and squeeze it in.
How can I was said about Jesus, the thing to negate that he was divine? In other words, how does Reverend yohana respond to them? When it is amazing again, for example, *, as we quoted before, refer to Jesus, that there is one God and one Lord, that's in the first Colossians chapter eight, verse six. And now he tries to answer that by saying, well, it means that both God and Christ are our divine. And then he says, In any case,
Paul refers to Jesus as Lord, which means divine. And of course, we have explained already in a previous program, that's in English, Lord does not mean necessarily divine means master. The same thing in Arabic, when you say the same Rob, it could be up to date, which means the head of the household, it doesn't mean any notion of divinity at all. Another example, and perhaps you can finish with this, because of the time in the New Testament, also, Jesus called study Paul refer to Jesus as the image of the invisible God, image of the invisible God. And that's again in Colossians chapter one in verse 15. What we all know that the image is not the same as the reality in one
sitting there and watching us now on this, the TV screen, it does not see our reality See, the image of us if we're not here, the image will not will not be there, the image is less than the reality. And of course, in the concept of Trinity or unity of divinity and humanity and Jesus does not suit itself to this question of Image and Image is that reflection reflection is not like the original at all. And obviously, when we speak about that, we have to put it also in the context of the Bible, because in the Bible itself, Adam was referred to as being
created in the image of God, nobody said that Adam was the image of God and everything, ie a divine person. Thank you very much, Dr. Jamal since around time and thank you all for joining us here this weekend is now in focus. We appreciate your questions and comments. Our phone number now just to be appearing on your screen. From all of us. Assalamu alaikum