Jeffrey Lang – Was Jesus Devine or a Prophet of God 172
AI: Summary ©
AI: Transcript ©
Okay. Sounds good to me. So is he
in
There's this one right here. This one up
on top. Looks like it's fine.
Well,
what do you mean is what we wanna
discuss? Okay. I think we as far as
what we wanna do, we want to raise
the next year. Question. Yes.
No. I prefer
to. To raise. It'd be nice to just
sit around and start with the. Yeah.
Oh, this is pretty tippy.
This may be pretty tippy. It may fall
over.
No problem.
It
I think think if we get it down
where we can hear it, it may tip
over. But that's alright. We can hold it.
Morning, everybody.
It's our pleasure again to,
start
this
morning session.
I'd like
to start with
thanking everybody for coming over here.
And,
again,
we,
have for those who just came in, we
have
the Christian
side over here. We have doctor Dudley Woodbury
teaching at Fuller Theological
Seminary, and he has his PhD in Islamic
studies and a master in Arabic studies
and a vast experience in the Muslim world.
We have, mister Warren Chastain
from
Zweimar Institute. He's the director of strategic projects
at Zweimar Institute.
And, we have Doctor Paul Martinson,
who's teaching
at
San Paul
Seminary in
San Paul, Minneapolis.
And, we have doctor Vagular,
Harold Vagular, who's a visiting professor at Lutheran
School of Theology in Chicago,
and he spent 26 years in the Middle
East,
the Muslim countries.
This side we have,
doctor,
Hussein Mercy, who's the cofounder of the Christian
Muslim dialogue and research committee in Chicago, and
he participated in many,
Christian Muslim dialogues.
We have, doctor
Jamal Badawi,
who,
teaches at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Canada
with an extensive
experience in religious dialogues,
and he produced more than 200 TV programs
on Islam.
We have, mister Shaker Saeed.
He's the director of Al Ghazali Islamic School,
and he also participated in,
good number of Christian Muslim dialogues.
And, he's the cofounder of the Islamic
Center For the Islamic Information International, which is,
the one managing this dialogue. And we have
doctor
Jeffrey Lang, who's
teaching at KU,
the math department, and, he's a Muslim since
1982
with a vast
and good experience on both Christianity and Islam.
And, today's
topic will be dealing with,
prophet
hood. And we have part
1 and part 2. And part 1 is
Jesus divine,
and then the next one would be, is
Mohammed
prophet of God. So on on that one,
the way we're gonna start it, we're gonna
ask each side to make a presentation
for 10 minutes.
And then we'll move to some other points.
So
I would kindly ask you to start. Alright.
They start. Either way. You want to start,
I think perhaps, since the question relates to
Jesus. Then next one you start.
Fine. Fine.
Alright. The,
there are a number of ways that, the
scriptures look at Jesus.
One of the ways that is most helpful
is in 2nd Corinthians 5 19, where it
says God was in Christ
reconciling the world.
And so, this is what we're dealing with
this morning. To what extent or or how
was god in Christ,
reconciling the world to himself?
Now we want to look at this,
whole question more broadly,
first.
First of all, what is the
interesting that, the Quran says things about Christ
that it says about no one else, including,
Mohammed himself.
I will give you just some of these.
Jesus has called a statement of the truth
in Surah
19,
as he is in John 146,
where he says, I am the truth.
He's called
a word or the word.
From the Christian side, we have it in
places like John 11 and John 114. The
word was made flesh.
And,
he's called a word,
from God in,
Sura 10 verse,
19.
Both call him an apostle an apostle of
God, sura 4.
I'll just give you one set of
verses. Although, we need to remember there
are 4 standard
English texts that have different versification.
So you may need to look a few
verses in front or in back if you
have a different text.
But,
he's called an apostle in Sura 4 verse
117
as he is in Hebrews 31 called the
apostle.
He's called a sign in Sura 19 verse
21,
that we might make of him a sign
for mankind as he is in Luke 234.
The child is set for a sign.
Now there are miracles
attributed,
to him.
In surah 3 verse 49, you have him
giving sight to the blind, healing the leper,
and raising the dead.
It might be mentioned that none of these
are attributed
to, the prophet Mohammed in the Quran.
The only miracle attributed to him in the
Quran itself is the reception
And then,
Jesus is called faultless in surah 19 verse
19,
which is an interesting,
comment,
because of the times that, and we'll get
to this later on, I presume, in the
latter part of the morning, that Mohammed is
told to ask forgiveness,
for his sins. Words like them and so
forth, general words for a sin, but Jesus
is called faultless.
And then, in both,
scriptures, he's called the servant
of God, sort in 19 verse 31 as
he is in Philippians 27.
Now this might be a good area to
lead into the biblical witness because,
in the bible,
we see in Philippians 2 that,
Jesus did not count equality with God something
to be hung on to, but emptied himself
and, became obedient,
took the form of a human being. Of
course, that reference there, mister? Philippians 2.
So that
we need to remember that from a Christian
point of view, it is as much a
heresy
to
deny the humanity
of Jesus as to,
deny that in some special way God was,
in Christ reconciling the world,
to himself.
And this is where,
I presume many of the difficulties will be
brought up this morning
is,
in the confusion between those verses where,
he obviously is speaking as a human being,
and we need to remember that according to
Philippians 2, he did emptied himself and not
hang on
to,
equality
with God,
in his earthly form. And those other places
where by his acts and by his words,
he does reveal
that in some way, God,
is in Christ.
Now, we didn't do need to look at
some of the,
descriptions,
made
concerning him. Let me just give some of
the titles first, and then we'll look at
the specific
passages that deal more with, divinity.
Just look at some of the titles that,
Jesus,
accepts.
John 426,
where I'm the Messiah.
6 3rd 35,
I'm the bread of life.
823,
I'm from above.
858,
these are all in John,
where I'm the eternal one.
95,
I am the light of the world.
107,
I am the door.
10:36,
I'm the son of God.
11:25,
I'm the resurrection and the life.
1313,
where he claims to be Lord
and master.
146, I am the way, the truth, and
the life.
151,
I'm the true vine.
And then in the Revelation passages, which I
realize are of what we call apocalyptic
literature, which combine,
dreams
and,
historical,
context in which those dreams or visions were
held, but you have in Revelation 1 8,
I'm the Alpha and Omega,
17. I'm the first,
and the last. But let's look particularly
at, some of those passages, and in 10
minutes it's, difficult to, cover too much here.
But, some of those passages where Jesus either
claims,
makes claims that can only be understood as
divine or accepts the ascription
of,
divine, divinity to himself.
For example, in John 10:30 through 33,
I and my father are 1. Then the
Jews took up stones to stone him.
The Jews answered him saying, for a good
work we stone thee not, but for blasphemy,
and because thou being a man,
makes thyself god.
Now it is interesting that, Jesus does not
argue with them
in this. The crowd knew the implications,
because they picked up stones to stone him
for blasphemy. In other words, for
ascribing in some way divinity
to himself, and Jesus
accepts,
this.
John 858,
is another passage.
Jesus said unto them, verily, verily, I say
on to you, before Abraham was,
I am.
Now, it is interesting the words that he
uses here. He uses the exact words that
you have in the,
Septuagint.
I have the, Greek here,
where egoaimi,
I am, is the,
wording that you have. And the
people listening would have, known the Hebrew scriptures
in their Greek translation.
And, Jesus says, ego, aim, ho, own.
So he uses the very words ego, aim,
in Greek,
that you have in the exodus
314 passage
when these are used of God himself.
And, again, it is quite obvious what,
he means and how he's understood because, again,
horrified, the Jews take up stones to stone
him.
This meant that they fully
recognized the implications
of these claims, and Jesus himself
did not say, oh, no. I didn't mean
that.
He accepted,
that.
Then in, other passages like John 149,
he that has seen me has seen the
Father.
So in some way,
which
does not deny his humanity,
that he was a man who was hungry
and,
who stubbed his toe and was sleepy and
all that. But in some way, when you
had seen him,
you had seen what the father
was like. And this is what the church
has,
wrestled with in coming to explain,
their experience, our experience
of how we meet God in very in
a very unique way,
in Christ.
And then, I'll mention just one other passage
here of this nature,
and that is John 2027
through 29.
Thomas,
remember this is when Jesus appears to Thomas,
after the crucifixion and resurrection
account.
Thomas will not believe unless he sees. And
then Thomas answered and said to him, my
Lord
and my God.
Now this is not just a exclamation like,
oh my God, the way, some people,
would say.
But, this is obviously
a confession, an affirmation of faith.
In some way,
Thomas recognized that in confronting Jesus, he was
confronting,
an expression of God himself.
And,
Jesus said to him, because you have seen
me, you have believed. Blessed are those, a
verse referred to last night,
are those who did not see me and
yet believe.
He accepted
and, confirmed,
the claim.
It is interesting that Jesus,
with his disciples
in Matthew 16,
he said who do people say that I
am? And they said well you're you're prop
they say you're and so forth.
But who do you say that I am?
And Peter says, you're the Christ,
the son of the living God.
And Jesus says flesh and blood didn't reveal
this to you, but my father in heaven.
Now
he then had to explain
to his disciples some of the things that
this meant. And this was very difficult for
them to grasp,
because when he told about,
the suffering
that was to come,
they couldn't accept this. Somehow this would be
God was defeated,
And yet they needed to come to an
understanding of what it meant,
to experience
God in,
Christ, even as
the church
primarily
meets
God through Christ.
And then,
we seek to explain this,
afterwards,
what this means.
Okay.
Let me then just, say a Jesus just
did a number of works that only God,
could could do. He forgave sins, Matthew 92.
He spoke with authority.
You have heard it said you see in
the law, but I say,
Matthew
193 through 9, they talk about the authority
of,
God.
Then let me just indicate how the early
Christians,
interpreted this. Let's look at Romans, and remember
Paul did,
was in contact with many who knew Christ
personally and did meet Christ,
on the Damascus
road in that, vision.
He says in Romans 95,
of whom are the fathers and from whom
according to the flesh Christ came, who is
over all
the eternal blessed
God.
And then in second Corinthians
45
through 6, in explaining his experience,
he talks about,
Christ as
having the function to give the light of
the knowledge of the glory of God
in the face
of Jesus Christ.
So that,
the church
subsequently
has tried to interpret and understand,
what it means.
How do we meet God in Jesus Christ?
And this is what the theologians,
have done.
But let me just indicate what this accomplishes
for the,
Christian.
By in some way God being in Christ,
we understand better
what God is like,
in Revelation.
But then,
by Christ
not hanging on to equality but becoming human,
he is able to empathize with us, be
tempted as we were, and hence, understand and
help us,
in a way that he would not otherwise
be able to.
Doctor Woodbury raised a number of interesting points.
I'm just going to respond to them, actually,
rather than making any preferred statements, which I
I do have, but I think he raised
the number of points.
And basically, the argument,
seemed to rotate around,
4 basic issues.
1 is what, doctor Woodbury claims,
of the testimony of the Quran about Jesus.
Secondly, on the question of miracles.
Thirdly,
on the testimony of the Bible. And fourthly,
on the reaction and experience of the disciples.
I try to again, in a very capsulized
way, respond to these.
1, to base any argument on the basis
of the Quran, quite frankly, is
one of the flimsiest evidence I've ever heard.
I'm not talking from doctor Woodbury, I've ever
heard from anyone really, because it reflects lack
of understanding of the phraseology and language
of the Quran and the context in which
it says. For example,
the reference to Jesus being
If you look at the copy of the
Quran, it says
which actually
means that this is the word of God,
not Jesus is the word of God. That
the clarification about Jesus is the word of
truth that came from Allah. Not referring to
Jesus, but referring to the Quran.
But even if we were to take it
as the word of God,
I think that relate to the issues we
discussed yesterday.
That every creature is the Word of God
because it's created by the creative Word of
God,
And as such, Jesus is not unique in
that sense because the Quran speaks about words
of God in the plural.
Number 2,
I I have no dispute with you when
you say that Jesus is mentioned in the
Quran as the messenger of God, as the
servant of God, and a servant is not
like a master. So that actually confirms the
islamic view on that.
The fact that Jesus was called the ayah,
again within the physiology of the Quran, ayah
means a sign of the power of God.
You are an aya of God. You are
a sign of God. I am a sign
of God. Everyone,
every even creature on this earth is aya.
And the Quran speak about Ayat also in
plural. So this has nothing to do whatsoever
with any notion of uniqueness. All of us
are signs of Allah.
The question of mentioning of Jesus as Zakayyan,
or a pure child, there are two responses
to that. It says,
a pure child.
And in Muslim belief every child is born
innocent and pure. Number 1.
Number 2, if that argument is to be
presented to show that Jesus was divine, it's
very flimsy quite frankly because in the very
same surah,
Zachariah,
sorry, John the Baptist, Yahya, is also called
Zakaton, actually it's a stronger term even than
Zakayyah. Zakaton is the infinitive
of the word pure itself.
And that's in the same Surah, nobody claimed
that John the Baptist is divine.
The other point that you raised, the second
issue about,
miracles.
And I think, doctor Woodbury, you know very
well that Muslims have 2 primary sources, one
is the Quran and one is the authentic
hadith.
And the prophet Muhammad has
met many more miracles but I'll hold on
at this time because this will come in
the discussion of prophet Mohammed.
So the question of miracle is there, and
there is more in the Quran than what
you mentioned like in Shakaqalcomer,
like the help and support of angels in
the battle of battle. So it's not true
that there's only one. There are several in
the Quran, and there are a lot more
in Hadith.
On the other hand, when you,
present the,
argument of miracles as a sign of divinity,
I'd like to refer you to the old
testament
itself.
And I'll give you a list of that
after I finish with all documentation
that there are several prophets in the past
who had miracles similar to years including
bringing the dead to life. Including bringing the
dead to life.
So if that were to take to be
taken as an argument of uniqueness in terms
of divinity, we might apply the same as
we find in the book of Kings and
Ezekiel and others
about other prophets as well.
Your third argument about the quotations made from
the Bible, and again I'll make a preliminary
remark because it comes to that topic again,
that when we refer to the Bible as
Muslims, we're not necessarily accepting each and every
word in it, nor are we rejecting each
and every word. We take it to its
precaution.
We'll discuss that on the topic of the
Bible.
But on the other hand, I must remind
my colleagues here,
that it's not a Muslim statement, but a
statement that has been made over and over
again by several
biblical scholars
throughout history, especially in recent times when we
deal with the issue of
high criticism,
that there is absolutely no definitive claim
in the Old or New Testament that speaks
about the
divinity of Jesus.
This is not my words. These are the
words of biblical scholars who have researched that
topic.
Francis Young, I believe, in the myth of
God incarnate came to that point. Even the
Gospels, even the first three Gospels, synoptic
Gospels, stopped short
of any, you know, more or less outright
type
of deification
of Jesus.
Now, some of the quotation that you refer
to does not necessarily mean divinity when you
say divine of life or it's all symbolical,
and it doesn't necessarily carry meaning of divinity.
Some of the other quotations you made for
example, that in John 10:33,
that when he was accused of blaspheming.
But if you quote the remaining part of
it also, he responded to them, is it
not written in your law that ye are
gods? In other words, you people,
he wants to tell them you are hypocrites.
You're trying to get me crucified by hook
or crook. You're trying to nitpick and just
catch anything to get rid of me because
I said Son of God, and you people
know that Son of God in the old
testament does not mean the unique Son of
God.
David, Solomon, many others have been described in
the old testament as Son of God, and
now you're trying to pick on me and
try to accuse me of blasphemy.
What Jesus was probably referring to are 2
places where human beings are referred to metaphorically
as God. That's the
language of the Bible. In the Book of
Exodus, when Moses is sent to the pharaoh,
he is sent as his God, as God.
Nobody interprets that to mean Moses actually was
God incarnate,
but that Moses was speaking for God.
The reference Jesus made also written in your
law, I think he is referring also to
the Psalms, the 82nd Psalm,
when human beings also are referred to symbolically
as God. So that doesn't really prove anything
at all. The question of before Abraham, I
am.
First of all, the word before itself does
not necessarily mean sequential in history.
It could be also ahead, better than, this
is one before me, that means better, or
ahead of me, or I am ahead of
him.
The question again of saying that before Abraham
means eternity,
does not really prove it because
before Abraham there was also Noah, he didn't
say before Noah, he didn't say before Adam.
Secondly, what is even more important to realize
is that all human beings
existed in the knowledge of God before the
earth was even created. And the Quran speaks
about that. So you and I also, before
the physical birth of Abraham,
the existence or the will of God to
create Jesus, to create you and me, already
were there, it doesn't mean eternity.
In John 14/19,
whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
Again, if you look into the New Testament
itself, you find that there are places and
they give you references to that also I
have the whole list for it.
That seeing me does not necessarily see with
the eye, because both the Old and New
Testament specifically
say that nobody ever saw God or heard
His voice.
I know it might create a problem sometimes
when they say God spoke to Moses, but
there are statements in the Bible that affect
that nobody
ever saw God as such.
Secondly, the word see also does not always
mean see with the eye, but it also
means known me. Whoever has known me, he
has known the father, not again in the
incarnational sense. Whoever knows my teaching, whatever I
am teaching, he knows God means the will
of God
and his commands to us.
The question of Thomas,
actually if you look in 3 different versions
of the Bible, 3 different translations,
my God, my Lord and my God actually
appears with an exclamation mark and that leaves
it to interpretation really.
Did Thomas really, the doubter said, you are
my God and my Lord? Or did he
say to Jesus, my Lord and by the
way the Lord, as you know, used in
the old and new testament also frequently
to refer to master,
Teacher,
Rabbi, Oh my Teacher and my God! Because
of the surprise.
Again, this is not a matter really that
is
absolutely settled, and it could be argued that
it could be interpreted
this way or that.
The power to forgive, when Jesus says you
are forgiven, assuming even he said that, it
does not necessarily mean that I am God,
I give you the power of forgiving. Because
we believe, and you believe too, I believe,
that all prophets receive revelation from God, and
they could see things or know through inspiration
things that other people don't know. So when
a prophet says you are forgiven, it means
that God revealed to me that you are
forgiven. It does not necessarily give a conclusive
interpretation,
one way or the other. Your final point,
basically,
I'd like to add one more point, when
you were referring to the 1st Corinthians,
when Jesus
makes,
when there is a clear distinction
between God and the Lord, when Jesus said,
you have only one
God, the Father,
and one Lord, Jesus Christ.
Obviously, he is distinguishing between 2 entities. 1
God who is the Father of all, my
Father and your Father, as he said it
quite frequently,
and you have one Lord, I. E, one
teacher,
one master,
one rabbi.
Your 4th point about the experience of early
Christians, fine, good for them.
1 cannot dispute with anyone
what they report as their personal experience.
But to take a subjective personal experience of
people
as
an evidence
of faith and make that a theology, it's
a matter that really we have to stop
at and make sure
that we are not making
a very serious problem that affect our life
here and hereafter,
and on the basis of some subjective experience.
And furthermore,
what is more important really is not what
people report.
There are many people who deified,
in India for example, many times Gandhi was
sometimes believed to be a reincarnation of God.
It's not what people report. That is again
assuming
that they really meant it literally, which is
not the case. Many biblical scholars say that
they use a poetic language to express the
intensity and emotion
of encountering
a God like in their mind, in the
metaphoric sense, Godlike
person, Jesus.
Thank you, Doctor. Jimenez.
And,
now we're gonna start the discussion.
So what I'd like you
to help me do is
state
the most important argument that you have,
that Jesus is divine.
And
of course, you see, the way I wanna
have the response is,
because there are lots
of points that were raised, So I wanna
take the main point, or the most important
point to you, that you think this is
really the point that is the most important
one for us. You see what I'm saying?
And then they respond and we go
in and out of this point. So, could
you state what is the most important argument,
from
your view? What we are what we have
been trying to say is that
our understanding
of Christ
is based on a whole complex
that is a whole
cluster of his
doing things that God
alone
could do.
His speaking with authority
in a way that was different from the
scribes and the,
the scribes and other scholars of the day,
that
those who were there with him when he
spoke
knew what he meant, and they showed that
they knew what he meant by the fact
of taking up stones to,
stone him and so forth.
So that,
it is the whole cluster
of the experience
that they had of God in that day,
which then later on gets interpreted.
We don't find it all that helpful to
just
point to 1,
different,
to one
unique or or one specific event. It is
rather the clusters that shows that they understood,
they were meeting Christ. Example of that is
Well, I've given the most important one in
European, if you think it? I
know you you Well, I would say for
different Christians, there will be different ones that
they that are more important to them, but
there's certain
way when we look at the scripture passages
I mentioned mentioned,
it is quite evident
that those who were listening
understood that Jesus was making divine claims. And
I think that it is a little bit,
presumptuous
for us at a later date
to say that those who heard him speak
were mistaken in this way. But, maybe
you want to Listen to some of your
views and I might just see You get
them more closer please.
Might just say one thing. I didn't see
this happening.
Jesus,
does not come to the
disciples
simply as a teacher
or as a prophet.
Now he did come as that,
and he did make
affirmations
that
the people took to be blasphemous.
We cannot take that out of the out
of the material.
The people took it to be blasphemous,
and he didn't did not deny
the attribution
that,
was implied.
However, he did not come merely as a
teacher or a a prophet.
He was crucified,
and that was a highly traumatic
event
for the disciples.
And it is not until the resurrection
that
the disciples,
a changed group of people from afraid,
cowering, weak people
at the time of the crucifixion
became a changed people
who spoke with authority
and said that this one whom you crucified,
god has made
both lord and Christ.
And
so we can't take,
we can't isolate any particular thing from this
whole complex
of the life and teaching,
the crucifixion
and the resurrection.
The Christian faith is a post resurrection
faith. That is absolutely fundamental.
And
when the Christians spoke of Jesus as Lord,
that was in the context of
an absolute
commitment
to Jesus,
not merely as a rabbi,
as an instructor,
but as a committal of the whole life,
Islam.
It was a statement of Islam for the
disciples, a committal,
a total committal
to this one as Lord.
And
the background to the use of that term
in in in the as the as the
New Testament,
bears witness
is the Old Testament language about God as
Lord.
So it's this whole complex and
it's in that framework that,
Christians experience
and God and think. Okay. Thank you. Okay.
What would you just respond? Yeah. We'll respond.
Well, first of all, on the question of
Jesus speaking with authority more than the scribes,
the Muslims would say, of course,
these are humans.
They are followers of prophets. He is a
great one of the 5 greatest prophets of
God. Definitely, he should speak with more authority
than what they used to when they hear
the scribes. I have no difficulty with that.
Secondly, on the question of people,
interpreting his claims as claiming divinity,
The fact seem,
not to support that because
if indeed they believe that this is God,
they would have worshiped him. Of course, there
is, one
or a few references that they say worshiped
Him which could mean also love Him intensely.
But if they really believed in Him as
God, we don't get reports in the New
Testament. It should have been full of reports
of praying to him and offering homage to
him and make such the prostration in front
of him. It didn't. Actually he himself led
them in prayer, our Lord,
our Father in heaven.
And he prayed and told them how to
pray, he bowed himself, he put himself on
the,
his foreground on the floor to worship the
God of old. So how could they understood
him to claim to be God, yet he's
bowing down to worship God?
Even after
the resurrection,
he says I am ascending to my
father and your father, my God
and your God. How could that go with
their understanding that he was claiming to be
God?
Why did they run away after crucifixion if
they believe that he is God? The one
who endows people with life
or take life away.
The third question that doctor Martinson raised about
the use of term Lord and total commitment.
Again, total commitment doesn't mean deity either because
as we mentioned earlier
in Corinthians, first Corinthians, Jesus said it clearly,
you have one Lord, one God, the Father,
and one Lord. So the the 2 entities
are rather different. But if you mean by
commitment to Him in terms of obedience, like
obedience to prophet Mohammed or prophet Abraham, we
have no problem with that. Fourthly, and that's
perhaps the more important part in the discussion,
is that,
the other side of the coin is that
Jesus
disclaimed
quite clearly
and conclusively, not allegorical statement, very clearly that
he was deity.
Number 1, he said he doesn't do anything
of his own authority as you find in,
in John chapter 5 verse 30 and others.
Secondly, he said he doesn't say anything except,
except what the father tells him. He doesn't
speak of his own authority. That's not an
attribute of divinity. It's an attribute
of a human
being.
3, he said, my father is greater than
I, and we know that there is nobody
that's greater than God. So he's deferring to
the father, to God.
Number 4, he was tempted. And the fact
that the person is tempted means that he's
human.
How could God be tempted himself?
5thly, that he denied the knowledge of the
unseen, which is an inseparable
attribute
of God.
He was subject to change. He grew up
in wisdom.
God is immutable. God doesn't increase in wisdom
or knowledge. His his knowledge and wisdom is
is eternal.
He also did not accept to be called
good as was mentioned before.
He referred to himself frequently as a prophet.
That's the most
frequent statement that he referred to himself as
a prophet, or in some cases, used the
term also,
son of man. So, given this,
tremendous
volume of evidence,
I would say that,
any claim of divinity or assumption
that the disciples understood him really to be
God, the creator of heaven and earth,
doesn't seem to me to have any solid
ground.
I would like to, couple
of points.
Can we wait until we hear the reaction
first? Or I need to share my time
with you. He is gonna carry his time.
That's fine. Go ahead.
Then you respond to both of them. Both
of us. Yeah.
If it is true
that the disciples
have considered
Jesus to be God
walking on the face of the earth,
then why in the book of acts with
Peter
addressing the Jews would say,
ye men of Israel,
hear my words.
Jesus of Nazareth,
a man
approved of God
and had
by whom God have done wonders and miracles.
That's a very, very clear statement
that Peter in the book of Acts, which
is after the time of Jesus,
understood Jesus to be merely a prophet
approved by God.
As far as doctor,
like doctor Jamar Patel pointed out the power
to forgive, Jesus himself on his lips indicated
that I have not spoken of myself.
In another place, he indicated that all power
are given unto me. He never claimed to
be initiating anything.
Now as a student of the Bible,
I can find no support to the divinity
of Jesus
on the lips of Jesus.
To the contrary,
I find that he viewed himself as a
messenger and as a prophet.
He who
receives
me receives
he who receives you receives me, and he
who receives me receives
him that send me. So he's referring again
to God, not to himself.
He who believes in me does not believe
in me,
but in him that have sinned me.
A slave is not above his master,
neither the one that has sinned is above
the one that had sinned him.
Like doctor
pointed out, when he was asked to whom
shall we pray, he never said pray to
me. He never said pray to the trinity.
He said you pray only to our father
who art in heaven, your father and
my father.
Jesus even went as far as
confirming
that there is only one god to be
worshipped,
and that is the one and the only
true god. That they might know
the only true God
and Jesus Christ whom thou have sinned.
So I cannot find any evidence on the
lips of Jesus or on the lips of
the disciples
that Jesus ever claimed
himself to be a subject to prayer or
a subject to worship
or a subject to be considered divine, but
he always
correctly
claimed to be a messenger of God, a
prophet from God.
Thank you.
Yes. 1 of you and,
mister David. Yeah. I wanted to say something.
That's okay. Go ahead.
Yes. I just want to make 2 or
3 quick
comments.
The one is to play off
the passages in scripture that speak of Jesus'
humanity
and those which speak of Jesus
Christ in the same context in which they
speak about God, and you cannot separate those
in there. It's just full of it in
the New Testament.
That is is is is an inappropriate
activity because it is absolutely fundamental to the
Christian faith that Jesus is human,
Jesus is a man, so that all of
those,
those affirmations are absolutely appropriate.
The second
point is,
and I think this gets to be quite
fundamental,
But we refer to the impassibility
of God.
What we have, what we have encountered
in Jesus Christ
is
a new insight
into the nature of God's love.
It is a vulnerable love.
It is not an impassable love.
God is passable.
That is the statement about the very nature,
the very heart of God's love. So we
get to something very fundamental there. And then
a third
comment is I'm surprised
about this
these comments about the absence of worship.
Because at the very heart
of the,
of of the
experience
of Jesus' death.
And the earliest worship of the church
was the
sacrament of the Lord's supper.
This is my body.
This is my blood
given and shed for you
for the forgiveness of sins.
That was at the heart of the Christian
worship. So,
I I simply don't understand,
the denial of
Jesus Christ at the heart of the Christian
worship.
So just just those
Yeah. What what before you before you move,
you got the point, doctor Bedowish.
Right? You got his his Yes. I'd like
to respond to that point. Important point. Yes.
Yes. I'm going to respond to that. Do
we have equal time? Sure. But I just
wanna, you know, make sure that the point
is already there. Let let the Reverend Chastain
say too and respond. Yes. Yes.
Okay. But I just wanna make sure that
he got his his point before we move
on.
I think what we're seeing again is this
problem of
using a proof,
that Jesus is,
man,
to be evidence that he cannot possibly be
God. And if if you persist in doing
that, we're not going to make any progress
because
no matter,
what is said about Jesus, say, being tired
or being a servant or or
in a showing human characteristics.
This is just to prove something that the
church already agrees to. So all of this
does not touch on the issue as to
whether he is divine or not.
If the the the fact that he ate
or slept or
or lived and functioned as a human being,
all the evidences for that have do not
touch on the issue whatsoever as to whether
he is divine or not. That comes out
in an entirely different way.
I guess another thing that we see is
a tendency to take any statement that,
in its natural setting and natural reading,
people will consider to be,
unique.
And especially when you have a whole series
of different
statements coming together and focused on one person.
Now you may pull out of the Old
Testament an incident here where someone does something,
and another place where someone does something else
that Jesus does.
It does not require that Jesus do entirely
new things that no one else ever did
before,
but when you have a whole bunch of
different things being said about him, different actions
being done that are obviously are done
by divine power and authority,
and then statements linked to him that suggest
this, then you should
an honest reading then of the
of those events would suggest that we're we're
talking about something quite unique.
I would also refer you to a passage
in John 10 where you said, you know,
Jesus
did not receive worship. And here we see
the Pharisees have a man
who, who was born blind. And on a
Sabbath day, Jesus made
makes clay and opens his eyes.
And then I won't read all the verses
just to be quick, but it's the Pharisees
are concerned about this and they weren't and
they go to his parents and they and
they say, what do you say to him?
And,
and, and they go to the blind man.
What do you say about him, that is
Jesus, since he opened your eyes? And he
said he is a prophet.
But, the Jews didn't believe that. And they
went to the parents. Is this your son
who you say was born blind? And then
how does he now see? The parents were
intimidated and frightened, so they say, we know
that this was our son. We know he
was born blind, but, you know, ask him
how he became,
well.
And then you see this whole thing. And
and so eventually Jesus meets with the man.
And
verse 35 of John 10,
Jesus heard that they had put him out,
and finding him he said, Do you believe
in the Son of Man?
And he answered and said, And who is
he, Lord, that I may believe in him?
Jesus said to him, You have both seen
him and he is the one talking with
you. And he said, Lord, I believe.
And he worshiped him. Now here we have
worship taking place. What was that reference again?
I just John
10 in the
verse 38.
And,
and Jesus doesn't,
act horrified
or say this is inappropriate or or blasphemy
or anything like that.
Jesus accepts this and he says, for judgment
I came into the world into the world
that those who do not see may see
and that those who may see may become
blind.
And those of the Pharisees who were with
him heard these things and said to him,
we are not blind too, are we? And
Jesus said to them, if you were blind,
you would have no sin. But since you
say we see,
your sin remains.
Now Jesus is,
asserting the authority
to tell people that their sins are not
forgiven, even as in other places, he he
has the power to forgive sin.
This is obviously is a Divine prerogative.
No one can do this except God. Jesus
in in Mark 2, forgive sins,
and here he says your sins are retained,
in coupling that with healing someone who is
blind from birth.
Now an honest reading of this
will say, well,
there's more than just someone,
who is just like everyone else. The tendency
to say, well, to diminish anything about Jesus.
To say, oh, we're all like that. Though
everybody's like that, all prophets.
That I don't think is a fair and
honest reading of the scripture. And if we're
going to arrive at truth, we have to
be willing to accept the evidence and and
say, okay, that he did accept
worship. And he did say he could forgive
sins.
And it is reasonable then for a Jew
to say, these are the prerogatives of God.
And if we want to, be honest before
God, then we have to accept that evidence
and not try to find ways to avoid
it, because then we will be committing the
sin of the Jews. He did miracles because
then we will be committing the sin of
the Jews.
He did miracles before them, and they found,
by their ingenuity,
a way to deny the evidence right in
front of them. And so we can commit
sin by having evidence being presented to us,
and then finding some ingenious interpretation
to avoid the thrust of of what is
being done.
Thank you.
Well, quick points and then I'll get some
of my colleagues to share this, but I'll
just take part of the time.
First of all, to say that your sins
are retained or kept again, it goes back
to the same argument whether this is really
an information that he received revealed to him
from God or whether he claimed that there
is no conclusive evidence that he claimed to
have this divine prerogatives.
On the question of worship, induction is including
the dictionary of the Bible. Worship also to
means to do a reverence to. It does
not necessarily to worship in the sense of
worshiping God Almighty. This is only one meaning
of it. And, worship also could mean intense
love, intense appreciation
or respect, which I think nobody questioned that
whether on the Muslim
or Christian side. And,
with respect to doctor Martin's remark, when you
say that the centrality of, the worship of
Jesus in
Christian experience. I'm not dealing with Christian experience
that developed later on. I'm saying that the
textual evidence
from the New Testament itself does not show
that the disciples believed in Jesus as God,
because if they did, they would worship him
all the time.
And to say that in one particular instance,
and they worshiped him, even though the meaning
itself is disputable,
is an evidence, seems to contradict the fact
that he himself worshiped God in front of
them and joined with them in the worship
of God. How could God, if they believe
that he's God, he's worshiping someone else. Who
is he worshiping then?
The other point also is the question of
Jesus being,
human, full man.
But my understanding that the argument
and the whole issue of, vicarious sacrifice stands
on the assumption that Jesus
was simultaneously
full man and full God. And to the
Muslim, that's,
that's a self contradictory
proposition
because being full God
precludes
being human, weak,
sleeping, not knowing things,
not knowing what's going to happen in the
future.
And being full man precludes divinity because there
is nothing really human about somebody who is
being divine.
So you you get really
a difficult reconciliation
between
God who is finite and a human who
is,
sorry, God who is infinite and a human
who is finite.
God who is immutable and a human who
is immutable. How could both be together? Then
we heard the argument yesterday and today to
Philippians
that, Jesus emptied himself. Emptied himself of what?
If he were divine,
and emptied himself of some of his divine
qualities, then he's not full God.
So that raises a tremendous issue really as
to whether really we have any ground,
firm ground to, to claim divinity.
Thank you. I'll let,
check if you continue, please.
Okay. It's up to you.
In your presentation,
you mentioned
that
Jesus is a full man,
and on that we agree.
But yet you add to this that he
is also a full God. He is God
incarnate or god in flesh. On this we
disagree, and the discussion has been going around
this.
Now
is there any way to assert whether
by our way or your way or any
way,
that his being was the same being of
God? Because the Bible is full of evidence
that Jesus himself, even when he did the
maximum miracle that he did, which is
to bring somebody from the dead, right?
He said, he spoke loud to God, praying
to him, seeking his help in the case
of Lazarus, right?
In John 11,
42,
and I quote, I know that thou hears
me always, but I have said this on
account of the people standing by that they
may believe
that thou did send me.
So Jesus was making a point, this is
what the Quran asserts,
that he did the miracles by the will
of God. In the Bible he said by
the finger of God. In the Bible he
said by the spirit of God, by the
will of God. So the assertion of the
Quran is found in the Bible, it is
the argument of
theologians
or those who understand the Bible from a
special context
and a special background,
who wants to impose divinity on Jesus in
my humble view, rather than accept
that he is a messenger? Why would he
then would like to assert
that he was
sent? He never said,
now you discover that I am God, see
I'm walking from the dead
to life, I'm bringing people from death to
life. He didn't say, don't you know that
I am God?
No, the assertion not only was left in
the air, but he asserted that he was
a messenger. This is one point. The other
point
that doctor Gamal
also,
appointed
on his last encounter with Mary Magdalene in
the tomb, when she encountered him, he he
said to her what? He said, touch me
not because I am not yet ascended to
my father. But go to my brothers and
tell them, I ascend
to my father
and your father, sharing the same.
My lord and your lord, sharing the same.
Then he went on to say, my god
and your god.
So if he had a God,
then now you can come and tell me
this was the man talking.
But see brothers, it is difficult
to say what he didn't say.
It is difficult to conclude what he didn't
conclude about himself. Thank you.
I think yesterday we established the fact that,
there
there will be problems about God
that human intellect will not be able to
delve into fully. And,
again, we,
will admit
that there
are issues about
God that we we cannot explain fully nor
can you explain fully. Yesterday, I I,
challenged you. I asked you if you will
explain to me
how, you know, the essence of God is
related to the attributes of God and the
99 names. So you have 3 categories here.
You have the essence of God. You have
the major attributes of God. You have the
99 names.
Is this God consist of 99 parts and
pieces?
Or is the essence different from the 99,
names
and the attributes? If if the
if the essence is different from the attributes,
then you at least have 2 parts to
God. Well, you can't explain that to to
me. I'm not we're not forcing you and
keep coming back
to making you clarify something which you say
you cannot,
explain, which no human mind could could explain.
And, we are trying to say to you
that
any evidence you give that Jesus is a
man, and as a man he worships God,
therefore means that he himself cannot be one
with the Father and participate
participate in divinity is is,
something that is wrong. You're saying it's impossible
for God, who created the heavens and earth,
the God who created the human body, not
to come down and dwell in that human
body.
How can you say that God cannot do
this? And if he he surely has the
wisdom and the power to do this, since
he made the human body in the first
place,
he could come down and inhabit that body
and live out a life in which he
chooses
of his own will to limit himself.
And this is the mystery
impossibility for God at all. Now the impossibility
perhaps is for us to explain it. But
if there is goodwill,
we think perhaps there would be some,
awareness how this might occur. We're not asking
you necessarily to accept our opinion. But if
you keep coming back to the same point,
we will continually be,
hitting heads against the wall. Because no evidence
that Jesus is a man, that Jesus prays,
that Jesus
calls God his father or speaks of God
is evidence
that he himself
is not participant in divinity at all. It
it just doesn't apply to us. So your
evidence your your proofs
do not
register. They do not make any impact. You're
you're not, as it were, understanding what we're
saying about the doctrine of the Trinity.
Okay. There is a brief response, and the
rest of the time will be shared this
time with, brother Jeffrey. Before you just move
into it, since you talk about sharing, can
would any of the journalists wanna share
some points before moving here? Well, just,
a few comments
A few comments here that, in a sense,
many of the arguments that are raised against
the divinity of Christ,
were raised by the early disciples.
I mean, they were they were Jewish people
who believed in the oneness of God.
They understood prophecy. They they knew about prophets.
And so for them it was a,
a whole new learning experience.
And it wasn't as though they,
you know, had the theories
and,
all the understanding
and then
try to fit what Jesus did into it.
I think that what Jesus did and said
and the event itself
shattered many of their experiences
about what God should or should not do,
what the mind says, you know, God ought
to do or ought not to do. I
mean they had all their arguments
against, as it were,
what was actually happening.
But what happened
was happening,
and they had to, you know, experience it
day by day, moment by moment. It was
kind of an accumulative
experience
of who this person was. Yes. He was
a prophet for sure.
Yes. He did the things that prophets do.
But as time went on, he was actually
doing more than
a prophet does.
And they said no to the cross. When
Jesus talked about, you know, the Messiah must
go to the cross, Peter said absolutely not.
They they stood firmly against this.
But as events unfolded,
the cross became more inevitable.
And
when the cross happened, it seemed to me
that
many of them,
they thought this was their their dream, their
hopes, their aspirations were completely lost.
What they had hoped would happen did not
happen. It seemed defeat
at the hands of the enemies.
And then there was the resurrection.
And then the disciples had to begin to
piece together all the things that Jesus said
and did. And as they reflected on that
in light of the resurrection
and the risen Christ,
then
some of the old categories, some of the
old ways of thinking,
simply no longer held true.
And they had to change their own categories
of thinking, their own understanding
of how God actually works in history.
And I would just like to say that
there's some, indication of this, even in Isaiah
in the Old Testament,
that God is a God of surprises.
Things can happen
that we perhaps don't even understand.
In Isaiah 64,
we have, I think, a very traditional understanding
of the way God should act or does
act in history.
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and
come down that the mountains would tremble before
you as when fire sets twigs ablaze and
causes water to boil.
Come down to make your name known to
your enemies and cause the nations to quake
before you.
You see?
If God comes,
surely everyone would know.
Surely the mountains themselves would quake if God
came to earth.
And then in
chapter 65, we have these very striking words.
God's speaking now. I revealed myself to those
who did not ask
for me. I was found by those who
did not seek me.
To a nation that did not call on
my name, I said, here am I.
Here am I.
All day long, I have held out my
hands to an obstinate people
who walk in ways not good,
pursuing their own imaginations. I think what to
do with it. I e,
it wouldn't be so obvious, you see, that
Jesus was God immediately.
I mean, you seem to insist that if
he was truly God, they would know it
almost like that. And Jesus would be proclaiming
it, and shouting it, and and making it
abundantly clear.
But in fact, there is this kind of
incognitoness
of God, the hiddenness of God.
It's a way like like the leaven in
the lump, like the seed that is sown.
And it begins to take, you know, its
own life. And it takes time. It's a
process. It's a way.
And the disciples went through all the reactions
you're talking about, all the rationalizations.
They were good Jews. They were good Muslims,
if you wanna put it that way, believing
in the oneness of God, the prophecy.
But somehow in Christ,
God was doing a new thing.
And it took them a long time, I
think, to finally put it all together.
And it wasn't until,
you know,
almost,
years, decades later
they began to see that here a new
thing was was happening. God had done something
new. Thank you, doctor Vavala. What You wanna
add it now? Or
well, just a word on that.
The it was mentioned that, the disciples did
not recognize
him as
divine.
Was said at an earlier
stage.
But it was this gradual recognition
so that John in,
John, who was one of the disciples,
in John 11 and John
114. In the beginning was the word and
the word was with God and the word
was God.
And then
verse 14, the Word became flesh and he
dwelt among us. We have seen his glory,
the glory of the own one and only
who came from the father,
full of grace and truth.
Verse
2, he was with God in the beginning.
Verse 3, through him all things were made.
Without him was not anything made that was
made.
In in him was light and that life
was the light of men. The light shines
in darkness and the darkness does not understand
or comprehend,
it. So here's a disciple
who, as he experienced
God
through Christ,
came to this realization,
and this would be a mature
reflection
of,
what it had meant to live and listen,
to
Christ. Thank you. And we can can,
are you gonna talk first? Yeah. I shared
that with, with Jeffrey, but I just start
off with a couple of points.
Most of the remarks made, towards the end
really speak about the, subjective
experience reported by people that developed or evolved
over time.
Fine. Does that mean that this is a
religious truth, or does that mean that these
people were infallible and that their experience actually
revealed the true God? Many people did not
conclude that way.
The mention or quotation
from John raises a number of issues. The
word, the word was with God and the
word was God. These are not the words
of Jesus. These are the words attributed to
John. And that raises another question also. Is
it actually John the son of Zebedee, as
I mentioned yesterday,
or someone else, in you know, well grounded
in new platonic philosophy
and the Greek concept of the logos,
that wrote that is an issue which is
in dispute among biblical scholars,
themselves.
Another aspect, that was raised, the question of
essence of God, the essence of God and
attributes of God in response to,
Reverend Chastain.
No. No Muslim ever said that these are
99 parts of God. I did emphasize yesterday
and I'm repeating today, these are attributes of
God. It is not parts of God. Then
there are 2 more questions then I'll turn
to, to Jeffrey.
The notion of saying, well, can God come
in flesh? It's a rhetorical question really because
one can also say, alright, Can God be
unjust?
Can God be unloving?
Can God be ungodly?
And if you say no, I say, Doesn't
God do whatever He wishes? No. It is
not that we human impose any limitation or
restrictions on God, but he himself has ordained
that for himself because it's not befitting
for his glory,
for his transcendence
to be in a human form, in a
weak form, in less than divine form, forgetting,
not knowing,
what is happening in the future. And these
are not majestic. This is not consistent with
his majesty. We didn't impose it. He himself
chose that. Finally, on the question of mystery,
I think again, you probably made the wrong,
inference from what I said yesterday that we
don't understand everything about God. That's true. We
can't comprehend the essence of God.
But to compare that with the Trinity is
a different issue. Because whether you're a Muslim,
Christian, or Jew, or any right minded person
really,
we all realize that we believe in God.
It is all in our heart, and we
find also intellectual evidence around us.
Yet, we know that we can't comprehend any
being that doesn't have a beginning or end,
infinite. We can't imagine it. But everybody,
more or less, have that
sense.
But when some human beings meet in a
religious conference
and try to make or formulate a particular
religious dogma,
which according to many biblical scholars
has been adopted and been very greatly influenced
by the milieu in which it emerged.
And then they say this is a religious
truth, and then you tell me accept that
as
as a statement of truth because it's mystery.
That's not acceptable. Just like somebody telling me,
1 plus 1 plus 1 is equal to
1. I'd say, I'm sorry. Tell me, no,
that that's mystery.
I said, no, this is not a mystery
because this is something that can clearly be
proven false.
1 plus 1 plus 1 is not equal
to 1. I can prove it's false. But
mystery, you can neither prove it fully nor
can you disprove. And then let's, brother Jeffrey
also touch on
that.
Well, I just wanted to
maybe just, add to what doctor Bedouin said.
A little bit. First of all, I I
kinda think we're getting bogged down into something
here. We're seem to be resuming the debates
that have taken place in, Christian scholarship over
many centuries.
And I don't think we're gonna unseat all
that in,
in this, program today.
I slightly disagree with my brothers and, my
Muslim brothers in one thing that, the fact
that the Christians over the years did interpret
the scriptures
in a particular way does show perhaps that
that the kernel of that idea or that
is a possible interpretation
of those
scriptures.
You know, the I think the people were
sincerely believed in God and were trying to,
as the Christian panel said, trying to interpret
what that meant in their lives. And that
was a widespread interpretation. So in some sense,
it can't be completely opposed to the message
of, the New Testament.
The but I would like to come back
to another point. As the Christian panel has
continually said, the church does
did try to interpret how
the human has met God in Christ,
ever since the New Testament times. And as
a matter of fact, Christian scholars also agreed
that the gospel writers themselves were trying to
interpret
to a large extent
how the early how mankind
met God and Christ. I think that's a
very fundamental point between the Muslim and Christian
point of view in
this. The Muslim point of view is that,
yes, those were very much interpretations
of what,
how God revealed himself
through,
Christ.
And,
for just to give one quick example for
those of you in the audience, I mean,
biblical scholars acknowledge that, for example, the Synoptic
Gospels, the writers of the Synoptic Gospels were
using some common sources,
some source information. For example, some believe that
the bow all three gospels,
well, the gospel of Matthew and the gospel
of Luke used the gospel of Mark to
a large extent, the earliest gospel. They also
believe they used another source called Q,
a sort of Q source.
Recently, we've discovered other sources like the gospel
of, Thomas,
which essentially just a list of sayings of
Jesus,
which, doesn't mention the crucifixion or the resurrection.
The point of it is is is that
for the Muslim,
there are yes.
When we look at the,
New
Testament, for the Muslim, we're not it's not
the same as looking at the Quran.
The Quran is the revelation.
That When we look at the New Testament,
I'm done. If it's about the bible and
the Quran No. No. The Quran. The letter
states. Yeah. Yeah. But I it is an
important point because we are all handling
this as if we all assume that the
Bible is a revelation from God in the
sense that Muslims believe that the Quran is.
The point doctor Bedouy is making time and
time again, and I think it's essential, is
that we are dealing with human interpretations
of what,
Jesus life is. And, that does not have
the same authority for Muslims
as a revelation from God to man.
Direct.
That's just a minor point. I would like
to add something. You had 3, so have
a third one talk, and then we'll move
to another area if you don't mind.
Yeah. I I would, like to, yeah, very
similar. I would like to,
add
to what Doctor. Lang said about human interpretation
of events.
It was mentioned also about communion, about a
a form of worship or an act of
worship.
I would like to point out communion among
Christians could mean different things for the Catholics.
It means, It means,
the complete transformation
into the actual blood and body of Jesus
to the protestant. It does not mean the
same. So, again, that is human interpretation.
Even among the Christians themselves, they do not
even agree about this point.
Reverend Chastain also said that there is nothing
new about
the humanity of Jesus, and he did not
come with anything new, so there is no
reason to. That's exactly what we are saying.
There is nothing new about
the humanity of Jesus,
but we are discussing the divinity of Jesus
that no one so far had been able
to show it to me or to prove
it to me beyond human interpretation
or human,
understanding,
which put severe limitation to it.
Doctor
Myriston also mentioned that the Christian faith is
a post resurrection
experience.
I would like to point out that not
all Christians
share
in the physical resurrection of Jesus.
There are some Christian scholars who will tell
you that this the resurrection was more of,
an understanding
more than an actual physical body that came
out of the grave. So even among Christian
scholars, this has not been,
agreed upon 100%
into one understanding. The last point that I
would like to make to add to what
doctor
said about John chapter 1,
that this is not only the Greek understanding,
but this was a Philo
theology or the Philo writing, which is a
Jewish scholar that's talk talked about the logos.
So John was not the first one to
talk about that,
and this is not something new. He took
what Philo said and tried to apply it
to the person of Jesus. Thank you. What
I'd like to to do now, you have
to forgive me, you have to move to
some other areas. So
ask doctor Woodbury
to direct a question, and I want 1,
only 1,
to answer
this question. And then I want you to
direct a question to them, and then we'll
move to the audience. Yeah. Okay? Although so
far we have spent
the we have, spent the last,
almost hour on one basic question that they
asked,
which is, what is
the proof of the divinity?
There are a number of theological questions for
our part that we are interested in.
So that,
one of them is,
does the incarnation,
that is that in some way God,
expressed himself in and through Jesus Christ,
does this compromise
divine sovereignty?
The incarnation?
To the Muslim,
yes.
How?
Incarnation of God in physical form. They can't
call it? It does it does compromise. Yes.
Yeah. Because incarnation means incarnation in a weak
body.
A weak body
is limited.
It's mutable.
It's finite.
God is infinite
and unmutable.
Can I ask something for this, if I
may? Okay. Yeah. They just show those. Okay.
Okay. Please. It's a very short one. I
hold it. Okay. I wanted it to be
1 to 1, sir, but just go ahead.
Fine.
The incarnation of God is not only against
the Islamic concept of who God is. It
is also against the bible itself
according to my reading of the Bible. I
will only quote what the Bible says. Maybe
I've read it before. It may make more
sense today since we have just taken our
breakfast.
Here the book of acts says,
the God who made the world and everything
in
it, being lord of heaven and earth, that's
act 24,
does not live in shrines made by man.
It is making him a separate being to
deal with altogether.
Okay?
Nor is he served by human hands,
as though he needed anything
since he himself gives to all men life
and breath and everything.
And He made from 1 every nation of
men to live on all the face of
the earth, having determined allotted periods and boundaries
of their habitation.
Okay. So
and it goes on to say that
he is not part of the work of
art or the imagination of man. In essence,
the Bible is saying
God can never be what man imagines him
to be. So to talk about incarnation means
that it is not only imagination,
but a physical
presence of God will be in front of
the man's eyes, which is again is a
teaching of the Bible itself. From an Islamic
standpoint in 1 minute or less,
it is absolutely,
clear that God can never be seen by
man
nor can he be imagined by man, and
anything you imagine by your mind is not
gone. It is said in the Quran, there
is nothing
like unto him. Okay. What I'd like to
do in in in the next remaining part
is to have short
comments and short answers.
And I'd like to have a dialogue. You
don't have to have me in between. So
we joined again Yes. So we wanna wanna
finish first this are you satisfied with your
answer, doctor Whitberg,
or you wanna make any follow-up on the
same point? Just a couple comments.
There's not anything like unto god's
majesty.
That is what the Christian also affirms,
the majesty
of god's vulnerable love. There is nothing,
that there is nothing that is deeper and
more profound than that.
Yesterday, we talked about the question of divine
impassibility.
And, I had spoken about the,
the parent child metaphor that's very fundamental in
the biblical understanding of god.
And that there is no such a notion
in the Bible,
either Old Testament or New Testament,
of unobligated
deity,
of impassable deity. That is a Greek notion,
as far as the Christian tradition is concerned.
And,
I thought yesterday that
you had agreed that
there there was,
obligation
in some sense in deity
because mercy has been imprinted upon his soul,
upon himself.
And,
relationship
involves,
passability or there is no relationship.
It it is it is an in a
relationship that lacks integrity.
But throughout the whole Bible, we we see
a God who is,
profoundly,
involved. I might read one passage here,
that,
gives an example from the Old Testament.
How can I give you up, oh, Ephraim?
How can I hand you over, oh, Israel?
This is a word of judgment.
How can I make you like Adma?
How can I treat you like Zeboia?
And then it goes on. My heart recoils
within me.
My compassion
grows warm and tender.
So the the,
the Christian the the majesty
that the Christian sees in God
is not only the majesty of power,
of invulnerable
sovereignty,
but the majesty of love that condescends
and becomes a servant. Okay.
Thank you.
I think, yeah, we've we've covered the point
enough to know, and maybe we can move
to the question, doctor Mercy with with staffers.
The,
the Muslim panel will agree with you 100%,
that the majesty of God, not only power,
but it is love. And you quoted a
lengthy text from the old testament.
So my,
very dear friend, Harold,
did also from the old testament.
But I failed to see what that got
to do with the divinity
of Jesus. Here is God speaking about
his love for his people
and for his creation.
How does this prove the divinity of Jesus
is,
I'm missing the point completely, apparently.
This is number 1. Number 2,
it was also mentioned that everything in the
old testament and in new testament leads to
the,
coming of Jesus in a human form,
but I have not seen one single text
so far or * heard any specific
scripture,
point that that gives me that indication I
heard completely to the contrary
that he is a man sinned by God,
and he did not come up with anything
new.
As far as the disciples also worship Jesus
or consider them God or prayed to him,
that is even if you
speak to historians,
Christian historians,
they will dispute this point. They had, there
had been no one that came out and
said that the contemporary
of Jesus
considered him to be God walking with the
face of the earth.
And logic tell us
even when he was circumcised at the age
of 8 days, that the barber that circum
circumcised him thought that he is circumcising his
god? The obvious answer is no. But my
question to you is,
if the old testament in the book of
Job
chapter 25 verse 4,
specifically states,
how can man be justified
with God?
And how could be he clean
or holy
that is born to a woman?
I'll give everyone chance to get that reference.
How can man be justified with God?
And how would be he clean or holy,
other translations,
that is born to a woman?
Now these Jewish disciples of Jesus that they
honor the last testament and very familiar with
their scriptures,
why didn't
they correct this passage or consider this passage
to be null and void? Jesus was born
to a woman.
The fact remains that he was born to
a woman. So how can you
consign
what you said about the Old Testament and
the presence of this passage and
put it for me on the lips of
Jesus or put it for me in a
context that I can understand and I can
relate to, and I will have no problem
with that. Thank
you. First of all, it proves that the
Jews in the Old Testament were very honest.
If there is a verse like this
that, as you say, seems to,
mitigate mitigate against,
this, opinion,
they didn't throw it out. They left it
in there. And it shows a certain,
honesty and care handling the text.
But,
it sounds like you're arguing against something that
Quran itself says because Jesus is supposed to
be pure according to the Quran too.
So if, if you're saying,
that, Now I'm not arguing about the Quran.
I I know, but I have I I
must correct at this point. We're talking about
the specific verse in the bible that says
holy means divine.
We are not talking about human perfection like
the Quran is talking about human perfection. You
just have a quick calling That means divine.
No. That that's not the way out. We
we don't necessarily say that holy therefore means
divine. You're you're forming a question. I don't
have to give you your answer in your
way. You're you're sort of putting me into
some kind of a mold and the mold
misses the whole point. That is what you're
saying in in a sense is irrelevant to,
to this question.
And,
the
the the purity of Christ,
if this is what you're referring to, or
maybe you're referring to something else, but
this is taught in other passages.
Yeah, no. Not only is that, but Jesus
can make others pure. He
can heal from leprosy. He also can heal
from sin. And this is something that was
taught clearly in the New Testament.
Thank you. Doctor Laguna?
Yes. The, you were asking the connection the
Old Testament passages and the divinity of Christ.
I think that
that, that question here or what we're trying
to grapple with is our understanding of god,
the nature of god.
Incarnation? And you say, no. According to our
understanding of god, this could never happen. Well,
okay. That's that's your understanding of god.
I think that was basically the understanding
of the early disciples as well,
and the cross and the suffering.
This was unthinkable.
This is not what God does.
But when actually Jesus
did what he did and said what he
said and what happened, happened,
then they began to reflect, and there were
even passages then in the Old Testament
that suggest that indeed,
God
has this capability, or there is this dimension
within
our understanding of God, that what has
happened is is not,
you
know, other than who God
was or is.
And so
I think a basic, you know, a basic,
premise here is is our understanding of God.
So Thank you. It's fair to say then
it is more of an experience
more than a scripture.
And and don't don't just,
discredit
the,
witness of the early disciples so easily. You're
saying it was subjective. It made no difference.
It was just a story.
I mean, all of us depend on the
early witnesses. I think this is true in
Islam as well.
The the testimony
of the earliest hab or of the early
disciples of the early church is very crucial.
And if you want to dismiss it in
1, then you have to dismiss it in
the other as well. And I don't think
that can be dismissed
quite so easily, or should be. Thank you,
sir, doctor, Jeffrey, and then we'll move to
the questions.
Forgot what I wanted to say. I wanted
to address that one. But no.
Just one question since I'm all since this
has to be questions.
I just wanted to say that
the issue in Islam, referring to the previous
question whether god can become incarnated or whatever,
the issue in Islam or the issue from
the standpoint of the Quran is not with
any particular philosophical question.
As Muslims,
and I think we have to be straightforward
about it, we don't believe that's true because
the Quran says it didn't happen.
It just simply didn't happen. It doesn't matter
whether it's philosophically defendable,
whether it's a consistent theology could built be
built around it. From our standpoint,
the revelation we believe simply says it doesn't
doesn't happen. I mean there's a lot of
systems that interpretations of, the divinity or or
the divine
that are not philosophically absurd like Hindu beliefs
and Buddhist beliefs and etcetera.
And those are interpretations of the divine.
My question to you, is it not just
simply possible
that the theologies that were built, the interpretations
that were given,
are is it not simply possible that that
those interpretations
strayed from the original message preached by Jesus?
Well,
they have to move to the question. Oh,
they have to answer the question. I mean,
that's not fair.
Go ahead.
I mean, there's always a possibility of of,
misinterpretation, wrong interpretation, heresy. The church has struggled
with this for, for centuries.
Of course. Too. This is a
this is this is this is a matter
of
let let me say it this way. I
think there's a different understanding
of the nature
of revelation that we're dealing with here. Yes.
That's true. And you'll have to get at
that when we get to the scriptures because,
many times you are asking for a clear
statement of Jesus, I'm God, walking around. That
way, statement of Jesus, I'm God, walking around.
That would be absolutely ridiculous
from our perspective.
The faith of the Christian comes out as
a response. It is faith
that we are called to,
a response
to God's presence with us. And that works
through the historical
dimensions of things. So it's there's relativity.
There's messiness,
And,
I am accountable
in that
messy context
to respond to God's word to me. So
it doesn't come as a,
a kind of,
Revelation. A revelation that is invulnerable
and,
impassable
and this is not
mixed up in the messiness of the of
the,
contingencies
of history. It's it's in that whole process.
And that's why we say in in terms
of the Christian faith respect to Jesus Christ,
we have to take the whole thing.
We can't just take one word or two
words,
but we have to take the whole thing.
And there were many images that they used
to try to interpret it. I'm not trying
to fight you on this, but but I
think it's very difficult, you know,
to to sift through all that and and
come
get to the
true message. Well, except we have already indicated
that,
our Lord said in my initial comments, said
numbers of things at John 10, John 8,
John 14, John 20,
which, would indicate that he I agree with
my doctor. Was,
expressing
claims that could be divine.
He did not reject,
he did not reject the,
interpretation
of this as divinity to him.
He accepted worship
and the early disciples like John and James,
we see did
understand
that in some way God was expressed through
Jesus Christ. This is all right back at
the beginning. But that is all scripture. In
that messiness we just talked about. Alright. But
it is it is still clear enough there
that
Jesus was Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
Is that is that message there? Is that
part of that messiness? Or is it separated
from that messiness?
When does the messiness enter in? That's the
question that the most I would say that
it is clear enough so that,
the church has not,
you know You mean the church had never
had any difference of opinion over that messiness?
The churches had differences of opinion, but it
has been
a,
largely
universal
understanding
of the church
that,
Christ did
accept divinity,
claim divinity,
his early disciples' understanding
of things. Do we all agree with that
Hinduism is correct too?
I mean, when I mean, the issue is
what is the source of all of this?
When I don't think you can claim a
privilege for yourself in this regard
because you said that all comes down to
the claim of the Quran with respect to
God. Yes.
Now that too is a claim.
And someone who does not accept the Quran
as the as the revealed word of God
is going to say it's subjective. Yes. But
the Muslim So so we've got to respect
each other at this point that that, there
is something serious that we are saying. And
we want to respect that there's something serious
that you are saying.
And if we can begin from that point
Yes. Then we can can can can really
share. Right. But there is a fundamental difference
here, which we're gonna take up in a
couple of minutes, about the Quran and the
New Testament. The Muslim I mean, we we
can't dodge the issue all day long until
we finally
get to the lecture. The Muslim believes,
and there are many Western critics of Islam
who believe also, that the Quran
represents
authentically
the sayings of Mohammed, which he believe which
he received on which he believed at least
from a Western critical standpoint, which he believed
he received under
divine inspiration.
So there must have been You see that
just appeals to to Mohammed's experience.
Okay. Let's be No. It's the But the
point of it is is the messenger,
the original messenger I mean, we might deny
that the mess any messenger was true,
but at least we have what the messenger
preached.
The point of it is is is that
you were telling me that involved in the
New Testament is a mixture of what the
messenger preached, commentary,
witness, editing,
messiness.
To the Muslim, this is a far degree
from the what what I think there has
been a little of mix up here. I
think,
you're you're quite entitled, Doctor. Martinson,
to point out that both sides should respect
each other's
basis for their views, even though you may
not agree with them and
no side has exclusive claim on,
the right
to make their claims. There's no question about
that. But I think there's a little mix
up
here. You see there's a difference here between
saying, alright,
I am a Muslim, I base my truth
claims on the Quran. You have no right
to base it on the Bible. I don't
think that this argument or even what doctor
Lang said relates to that at all. I
think it is basically challenging, each side challenging
the other to substantiate
what they claim from their own reference. Example,
the equivalent to that would not be to
say, alright, why do you visit in the
Quran?
But if I, as a Muslim, I say
the Quran negates
any form of shirk, including trinity, including trithesism,
including Maryamites,
everything,
and then you tell me, no, the Quran
does not say that. I don't get offended
when you tell me this, because I am
making that claim, and I'm saying I'm basing
that claim on my book, the Quran. But
you tell me,
substantiate it. If I fail to substantiate that
from the Quran,
then again to be honest I have to
review my claim that maybe the Quran doesn't
speak about monotheism. Maybe there's something in trinity
in the Quran that Muslims for 1400 years
did not understand. That's a fair kind of
thing. Now when we come also to the
question of divinity, most of the argument that
went on this morning, which I think very
helpful in eliminating,
seem to focus more on experience, something that
evolved, people interpret
it. But what the point that, many of
our colleagues here have been raising,
there is some claim made that Jesus was
God,
was Divine,
whichever way you interpret it. I know Christians
are even different the way they formulate it,
but Jesus was Divine.
And now we're simply saying, No, it is
not. There is no substantiation. And then you
come up and say, Right. No, but He
said this, I and the Father are 1.
Nobody comes unto the father. But then we
say, Look,
this kind of evidence you're giving does not
substantiate it. Then the point that has been
forgotten also, that I mentioned earlier, I give
you 10 points in which Jesus clearly
rejects the fact that He is divine. What
kind of God is the one who doesn't
do anything by himself, doesn't say anything by
himself, doesn't know what is in the future?
Then in that sense, then the claim of
full God and full man,
the basic argument presenting to you really is
that you made that claim on the basis
of your scriptures, but your scripture does not
seem to support that, it seems to negate
that.
And then of course you could say, no,
it's a matter of interpretation. Then I said,
right, it's not a conclusive interpretation. Yet, as
a Muslim, if you challenge me to prove
tawhid
or negate trinity in the Quran, I have
no difficulty with that. So it's just a
matter of substantiation, really. You have to give
them
a chance to respond. Please make a response
and we'll move to the
Yeah.
People are waiting here.
First of all,
I think the charge of subjectivity is it
can be equally placed if we want to
place that charge.
It's just a a different way that the
subjectivity
is,
is is there, whether it's an individual person
or whether it's a community.
The second comment is,
again there is a playing off
of the human against the divine.
And
if one takes the the word of John,
the word become flesh,
there is not a playing off of human
and divine.
There is a
presence of the divine
in the human, and the human has to
be taken very seriously. So we're not willing
to play off the 2 against each other.
And then,
thirdly,
many
evidences have been given from our scripture,
of
claims
put forward
through word and through deed
that,
are only
that which God can do.
And
if
Jesus
was sent of God,
that
we fully affirm.
Jesus did not raise Jesus self, God raised
Jesus. The only way the scripture talks about
a God raised
Jesus. That we fully affirm.
But then
there are those
events in Jesus' life
that raise the question.
And if,
if what Jesus said for instance, I mentioned
a couple things here in a moment if
what Jesus said
is really what he said, then Jesus himself
was guilty of Sherpa, and was an unbeliever.
I think, for instance, of Mark Mark 2,
it's been referred to, but not with sufficient
specificity.
As a sick person was brought to Jesus,
Jesus said, my son,
your sins are forgiven.
Now some of the scribes
were sitting there questioning in their hearts, why
does this man speak thus? It is blasphemy.
Who can forgive sins
but God alone?
Now Jesus does not does not say, I
know that God is forgiving you. That's why
I say it. He he he he accepts
that challenge.
And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit
that they thus questioned within themselves, said to
them, why do you question thus in your
hearts? Which is easier to say to the
paralytic,
your sins are forgiven, which is a prerogative
of God alone, as they have been thinking?
Or to
say, rise,
take up your pallet, and walk, but that
you may know that the Son of Man
has authority
on earth to forgive sins.
He said to the paralytic, I say to
you, rise,
take up your pallet, and go home. And
then quickly again
to the,
to the Last Supper,
where Jesus says,
where is that?
And, oops, here we are.
Yes. He says take,
this is my body.
And he took a cup, and when he
had given thanks, he gave it to them,
and they all drank of it. And he
said to them, this is my blood of
the covenant
which is poured out for many.
Only God makes covenant.
So
Jesus is guilty of shirk
if we take these words at their face
value.
I think you put your finger right on
the spot when you said, if Jesus indeed
said that.
If Jesus And I think this is the
main question that Muslim raised, and Christians also
as were raised, as to whether the words
attributed to Jesus has all been said to
him, or whether these things were written after
a theology already developed and people put the
words in the mouth of Jesus in order
to support the view. Like I said, these
are conclusion of Christian scholars, not only of
Muslims. We just talked to the question of
this point. It's a question of testimony,
do we accept this testimony,
and it also is a question of truth.
There is no question. Oh, good.
Sorry for that. Can you get something?
And whatever there no Muslim would ever dare
say
that Jesus committed shirk.
In the Quran, Jesus is a holy prophet
and messenger of God, like Muhammad, like Abraham.
Anything that might have any touch of shirk,
it's the opinion of the writer, the words
put in his mouth and can never be
his own words. And we'll come to that
perhaps when it is written. Can we listen
to
the lady over here?
Just 2 quick comments before I ask a
question of our brothers in humanity here.
Two quick comments, one of which is, the
Muslim belief is that Jesus will come back
before the day of judgment to guide humanity
because of their belief that He was raised
raised up and did not die on the
cross,
as in contrast to Muhammad, peace be upon
him, who died a human death.
The question here is the divinity of Jesus.
If God is omnipotent and omnipresent as we
all believe here on the surface, The pearls
are below, but on the surface we believe
God is omnipresent,
omnipotent.
When Jesus if the Christian belief is that
Jesus returns on the day of judgment or
before the day of judgment, is he going
to come down as man or as God?
And if he comes down as God, who's
gonna be taking care of heaven in the
meantime?
There the reference to, Jesus coming down is,
is quite clear in the scripture
that he will come in judgment.
But again, you're you're a pitting
deity against,
humanity
and
we think in the in the end time,
there will be the complete manifestation
of him as he is now. And he's
taken up his position,
in heaven.
He will come
with divine authority
and he will come as he is now.
He, we believe, he is the God man.
And he can,
at any time, manifest human attributes or Divine
attributes.
In this case, in the reference in the
matter of judgment, he will be,
manifesting a divine prerogative when he judges mankind,
when he judges you. I hope you are
ready. I hope you are all ready.
The the Christian feels that again,
there's this mentality of pitting 1 against the
other. And the whole concept of Christianity is
that God is joining these.
And so,
again, if you start forcing
a question
that that the scriptures do not,
provide for as being the situation,
you will not ever come up with an
adequate answer.
So so our answer probably would be just
something like this that that, he is the
God man. He will come down in his
full nature. At this point, it's not as
it were hidden.
He's not merely in the veil of human
flesh.
But now, divine authority will be present and
he will come as as a judge.
And,
and then in the future, you will find
out. You'll find out for yourself when he
does come. Thank you. So we listen to
this. Reverend Chastain and our sister raised the
issue of the second coming of Jesus. I
feel duty bound from a Muslim side to
indicate what is our understanding of the second
coming because it's quite drastically different from our
Christian brethren understanding.
Number 1, why is Jesus is the only
prophet who's coming back, not any other prophet?
Does that give him any higher status than
other prophets? Absolutely not. The reason is that
for Abraham, Mohammed, Moses, peace be upon them,
all, there have been no argument
and dispute for 1000 of years about their
nature, human, divine, boat, *.
There had been no problem. So there's no
need for them to come back again. The
only one in history about whom there have
been less argument because of this subjective experience
that has been argued back and forth is
Jesus. It is only befitting that he comes,
according to the hadith, to declare the truth
about himself that who is no more than
a human messenger and prophet of God. Actually,
some of the hadith about his second coming,
he says he will break the cross and
kill the pig.
Breaking the cross is a symbol of deviation
in matter of belief and adopting ideas that
were never revealed by any of the Israelite
prophets or for the prophet after him, prophet
Mohammed.
And killing the pig is also a symbol
of rejection of the notion of deviation from
the Judaic law about which he said, I
came not to destroy the law or prophet.
Secondly, he's not coming even as a new
prophet, because prophethood ended with prophet Muhammad, peace
be upon him. According to the Muslim tradition,
he's coming as a follower of Muhammad salallahu
alaihi wa sallam because all prophets were Muslims,
they taught Islam, and since Islam was completed
and universalized
in the person of Prophet Muhammad salallahu alaihi
wasallam, then Jesus is coming as His follower.
And Salmah hadith said he would even refuse
to lead the prayer. He said, you know,
you're leader from among you, but that means
because. Number 3, it says he will join
Muslims in fighting against the false messiah, whatever
it's however it's interpreted.
And then it says he will get married,
he will beget children,
then he will die.
And that's why the Quran say, Peace be
upon me the day I was born, the
day that I die, I. E. After the
second coming, and the day I resurrected again
from life, I. E. In the day of
judgement, like any human being. And actually, there's
1 week. The others are very very strong
tradition. But there's 1 week hadith even that
say, he will be buried side by side
by prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, in
Medina.
So I think our understanding of the second
coming is totally different
from our Christmas season. So I hope that
this observation would not lead to any misleading.
Of course, they're entitled to their understanding, but
I'd like to clarify
that this is not what Muslims Thank you.
Let's move to the There was a brief
comment that I promised to to brother. Well,
we can take it in the next one
because we have to take questions too.
I have a question for,
the Christians on the panel.
There's some unclarity,
I think, in terms of this God man
that we attribute to Jesus, or the incarnation.
I'm wondering if it would help
to draw the difference
between
incarnation
or with carnation.
We you have almost every one of you
have stated
the importance of the relationship
with,
Jesus and God.
Might that be a better category for discussing,
how God revealed himself in Jesus rather than
the carnal physical
aspect?
Or are all of you tied into
the carnal physical aspect?
And if that, then you also raised up
Philippians 2.
Did he keep that as he lived on
this earth, or did he empty
all of that,
divinity out and was a man?
Three questions in one. Right?
Thank you. This is a substance. Or maybe
you wanna As
part of
the comment on that,
I like the statement that I started out
with in, 2nd Corinthians
5:9 that God was in Christ
reconciling the world.
I think that is a scriptural way
of,
showing that,
God was at work in him,
was in some way uniquely
present in him,
yet he was also,
a man.
And, what we have been seeing this morning
is some verses
which describe
the God at work in him aspect,
and we're seeing other verses that describe the
human aspect.
With all due respect doctor Werb, I wanna
press you at that point.
In your initial presentation you spoke about how
is God in Christ,
and then you said later on that we
confront,
Jesus, and I quote,
confronting an expression
of God himself. We confront in Jesus
an expression
of God himself. And then you ended with
how we meet
God in
Christ. None of those seem to me to
demand
an incarnation
in the sense of
that an individual, Jesus of Nazareth,
was 50% God and 50% man, or a
100% God or a 100% man, very God,
very man,
those
later
ecumenical council developments.
And I'm wondering if you must, if you
need to, from a Christian point of view,
hold to
that incarnational view or if a relational view
would encompass,
the Christian faith as you, as you see
it.
And if you wanna comment on that, sir,
I guess I
don't understand the difference between an incarnational and
relational
view.
Jesus was everything that we are
and God was present in the life, death,
and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
And the only way to have a relationship,
in the full sense of the word
is,
in terms of who we are,
person to person as we are having a
relationship now. It's not just an oral relationship,
but a personal relationship.
And,
that involves
us in our
enfleshment
as bodies.
One thing I would like to say, Ed,
here is that you see you're making demands
of us
that go beyond
what is possible for either Christian or Muslim.
You want us to explicate
to the nth degree
the internal relations of of God and explain
and justify.
And what we're saying is,
God has given us enough information to know
that
somehow God was in Christ.
He doesn't tell us in the Scripture all
the details,
all the ramifications,
every little,
element of that. But that much we do
know.
And so we will tell you and affirm
to you what we think we do know,
what we see there. But then if you
say, Oh, in order to say that you
must explain every detail about God. Then I
would say, see that's not being fair. Because
if if I were to ask a Muslim
to explain everything about God, and if you
don't explain everything about God, then you you
have no right to your belief in God.
You would say, well, no, that's not fair.
And so both of us have to be
ready to admit that their God
is, too deep for the human intellect.
Those areas that He has revealed, we can
speak about those. For the Christian,
God has shown to us that in some
way God was in Christ,
but without giving all the details.
And so,
I would just suggest that if we keep
going on and you keep pushing and pushing,
we will eventually have to stop. But as
a matter of fairness,
we then could turn around to you and
say, well,
in Islam
all of God's attributes
are totally different from anything in man. If
God if God's love if God loves,
well, man's love is not comparable to that
at all. Which of course, then we could
say, well, how do you know it's really
love and not really hate? Or any attribute
of God is unlike anything in man,
man. God is is different from man. And
then you say, well, how can you understand
anything at all about God then if that's
the case? And, then we say, well, you
invalidate your own belief in the one God
because you cannot explain everything about Him. So
I think we can only go so far.
Well, I I just would want to respond
to that. I I'm not trying to be
unfair, I'm trying to understand.
And I tried to lift up 2 different
categories, 1 relational
and 1 flesh and blood, incarnational.
And I ask you what was your choice
there and which one would you have to
choose, then to come back and and charge
one with unfairness is indeed unfair.
I would like to, you know Put them
together, can you say that they're they're we're
not we don't wanna make the dichotomy. Relational
isn't that's why it happened Would it be
fair to say your position a relation. Would
it be fair to say your position is
that it's a mystery?
This God in Christ, this something of God
in Christ is a mystery, which we cannot
understand and Not the totality. Not the totality.
We cannot understand the totality, but some things
are are written. Is it miraculous? Is it
different than God's spirit being being one with
us here?
Again, there would be a mix there. There
would be things I would say that are
like that, but their elements are different. Well,
there
Would you like to have a comment? Yeah.
There's a uniqueness
of God's presence in Jesus.
Okay. Check it.
See, first of all,
in in the question you asked about
the presence of God in Jesus,
and the affirmation came from
our Christian friends
that we are struggling
for no avail, because
we're asking them to prove otherwise their, you
know, faith is unacceptable to us. That's very
untrue.
We're we're having no judgment over you, nothing
whatsoever.
We are seeking
the interpretation
of what is written in your Bible.
We're not seeking
to judge your faith or judge
your faithfulness.
That's not in the question. The question is,
when Jesus is portrayed in your talk as
1 and the same as God,
at the same time I read in the
Bible that He says,
The Father is greater than
I, then it is not even 50%.
It has to be less than 50%.
Because He said, He's greater than I. It
cannot be 50%, it cannot definitely be 100%.
He can't be 100% God, and 100% man,
or 50% God and 50% man, because He,
Jesus, in the Bible,
made the statement that the Father is greater
than I. Not only that,
but He separated His own being
from the Being of God. He said that
I speak of my I speak nothing of
my own authority,
but on the authority that has been given
to me by the Father who sent me,
as He
Himself given me commandments.
One does not command himself.
Right? So if Jesus, according to the Bible,
is commanded by God, bidden by God, sent
by God, I don't think that God is
doing good to Himself, He is doing good
to someone
out of himself. Doctor. Vavula? Okay. Yes. I
think that What did you say? Yeah. Yeah.
Okay.
That,
if we can take you seriously when you
say you want
to help interpret the scriptures from you know,
the the scriptures, I think we would we
welcome that fully a 100 a 150%.
I think we're we're perhaps
we have problems is if you doubt
you you really don't want to use the
witness of the scripture, or you question the
witness of the scripture. The scripture. Well, that
that's
we would we'd be delighted if you would
do that. That's what we use. And if
the Muslims would, incorporate
the Bible into the Quran
and with a lot of footnotes and references,
let Muslims read the Bible, let Muslims read
the New Testament, struggle with us through these
issues,
I think that'd be wonderful.
But I think what happens
is that you really begin to question the
testimony. You say it's subjective.
It's this. It's that. Did they really say
it? And you see, then then already we
are losing.
I mean I guess I have to move.
Sorry, Elliot. The point is clear. So let's
move to one more question. This is the
question time. So you have to forgive me.
To the next question. A little bit.
First of all, I'm delighted
that you people are getting together to talk
about this topic.
I pray the almighty God aloft that you
will do it again and again.
It's not gonna be solved today. We are
not gonna get all the answers today, but
if we go around and do these things
over a period of time, maybe you we
see ourselves and you see ourselves how close
we are to you and how close you
are to us.
Practically, the difference when you talk, when when
we listen to you on this level,
it is it seems that you have yourself,
you're focusing on the,
greatness of God the same way that Muslims
do,
except that the love you have for Jesus
forces you to give Jesus a title,
and that title is really a subject of
interpretation between Muslims and Christians.
To think of it, when we think of
the greatness of Jesus,
the the the importance of Jesus in the
history of mankind,
we have the same love for him. There
is absolutely no difference. We see it. We
see him as a great person.
We also see signs of God in him.
But the difference is that we see at
one point, we come to a point, say,
no, you cannot do that anymore. And that
was really the basis
of Islam. Islam came, Muhammad came on the
word of God, that you are gonna tell
these people that he was not the God.
There is no God but one God.
Now, my question is, is it possible that
the love that Christians have for Jesus, which
is
very important, has forced them
to give this man
a title,
a responsibility,
which is somewhat
more than what it should be. Is it
possible that that law has kept Christians in
that framework,
that they do not look outside to see.
Yes. We gotta look at him as a
as a man, and we gotta look at
him as a prophet of God. Thank you.
Okay.
No. That's that's that's to you. Yes, please.
Jesus
points us to God
And all of Christian
legitimate Christian understanding of Jesus
is about God.
The same testimony
that speaks of the word became flesh.
So,
what is at stake there is
the
way in which
God is being present in this person.
But
to believe in Jesus
is precisely to believe in God,
and if that is,
if belief in Jesus is not to believe
in God
then it would not be faith in Jesus
Christ.
We can't separate
them.
Yeah. A quick comment and then, doctor Mercy
might add something to this. Oh, just one
one one comment,
please. Either you or Doctor. Mosse? Yes, Doctor.
Mosse.
Well, I'd like to go back to the,
what has been like to
called the unfair accusation of unfairness,
in terms of demanding a more conclusive evidence
of demand of deity. Yes. I think it
is fair to demand that, not really unfair.
Because if one looks in the tradition of
the Old Testament, when God speaks, God speaks
in no
mistakable or confusing terms.
At least when the essence of the the
matters that really are very essential in the
faith, God speaks in a very very clear
language.
The, the book of Isaiah also says God
is not the issuer of confusion.
And as such, it's only fair when we
speak about deity that the creator of the
whole universe,
if the statements are so,
iffy
and has been interpreted differently, even by Christian
scholars throughout history, even by some disciples, we
have disputed that in the early days.
I think that seems to point to something
that perhaps
this could not be the statement emanating from
God, because God is not the issuer
of confusion. And in a matter of fundamentals
of faith, it should have been made very
clearly and very decisively. Not to let people
argue for 2000 years even, it hasn't been
totally
settled among various Christian sects. The other point
that,
reverend Chastain said,
that,
he says that you Muslims also said yesterday
that God is so great that we cannot
fully understand. It means too deep for us
to understand. But, there is a difference between
saying that God
is too deep for us to fully understand,
And between saying the statements
representing
evolution and theological development
by human beings in church councils is too
deep for us to understand, so we must
accept it as mystery. I think there's a
big distinction between the
2. Thank you, Doctor. Jeman. Doctor. Woodbury,
the question, please? Okay. We have a written
question, so we'll read this question. The floor.
This coming from a Christian source. From myself.
Why don't you read the question? He will
read it. I think, we'll do our good
job.
The the question is, do you believe that
Melchizedek
is a reincarnation
of Jesus
first mentioned in Genesis
and then a New Testament,
without mother,
father,
No. I do not believe,
Melchizedek.
Melchizedek
was a priest
in what is today Jerusalem,
at that time called Salem.
And when Abraham
As Abraham was coming back,
Melchizedek
came out to bless him,
and he was not a Jew. He
was a gentile.
And, yet in the Old Testament,
it was not Abraham who blessed Melchizedek,
but Melchizedek
who blessed Abraham.
And in the book of Hebrews in the
New Testament, he is referred to again,
not as a reincarnation of Jesus,
or Jesus as a reincarnation of him, but
as a type,
an analogy
of Jesus.
Do you have any comment on the same
point? Yes, Doctor. Mercier.
Same point, please. Same point, the objective.
I wouldn't deviate Ahmed,
Hamid for anything.
Melchizedek
is written in the New Testament,
without beginning, without end,
without father, without mother.
He is eternal,
yet the Christians
do not use the same criteria
that they are using
to consider Jesus to be God in the
flesh
or God incarnate,
that he did miracles, that he
does not have a human father, that he
was born miraculously
to Mary, that he did raise people from
the dead.
The same criteria that are used
to elevate Jesus, peace be upon him,
to a divine
status and to consider him eternal with God
a member of Trinity,
is not used for Melchizedek,
who is described in the New Testament
even to be eternal and to have no
father, no mother.
Some of the titles that are given to
Jesus is extremely also confusing. You know, doctor
Chastain mentioned that Muslims are asking Christians to
explain every small detail about
God. But we are not asking Christians to
explain every small detail about God, but we
are asking
for a reasonable,
logical
explanation for the evidence that's presented for the
divinity of Jesus.
Some of the terminology that's even used to
apply to Jesus is very confusing to the
Muslims.
For example, if we say that Jesus is
the Son of God,
sonship itself describes someone
who has received life,
and while
saying divine
describes someone who derived his life from no
one. So these are contradictory
terminologies that are being used to apply to
Jesus.
You see, to be someone's son
is less than divine,
and to be divine
is to be no one's son. So most
of the confusion or most of the clarification
that the Muslims are seeking
is clarification for the Christian position,
why do you consider Jesus to be divine,
not trying to give you a hard time
or not to be argumentative.
If the evidence is at least half clear,
you wouldn't have any argument for Mars. Thank
you. You wanna make a response, please? And
we'll conclude this session after this. First of
all, I pardon me, but I do think
you are being a bit ingenuous,
frankly.
The statements in the New Testament, for instance,
about Melchizedek
are not for the sake of talking about
Melchizedek.
Melchizedek is simply
drawn out as a type of Christ.
And,
to to say that it's to imply that
it's talking about Melchizedek and making some claims
about Melchizedek just simply is,
it it it has has no support from
the from the from the context.
And, what was there was a second question
that you ended with? I
That's the son of God the son of
God showing inferiority rather than Yes. I I
I think that
we need to understand
what is intended in the use of the
term son.
The use of the term son of God
is not intended
to say
that this one has derived life from the
father
in the sense that a father begets children
in this world.
The point of the use of the word
son
is that this one is representative,
fully representative,
of the father. It is in that sense
that son is being used.
So using the same measuring
stick, if a Muslim would say that Mohammed
is a representative of God,
would you accept him if he says that
Mohammed is the son of God? Would you
accept it if he believes that Mohammed is
God?
We
when we speak of Jesus as the Son
of God,
there is,
there are different kinds of
representation.
We believe
that Jesus
is fully,
totally
representative
of God,
not in a partial way but in a
full and complete way. It says in Hebrews,
for instance, that he bears the
full imprint
of God's deity.
And also in that chapter, it talks about,
Jesus as Lord and as God,
in very specific language.
Well I'd like to thank you all for
a wonderful presentation you have. We have to
stop as we have. Otherwise, we'll not finish
it. I really thank you very much and,
we'll have a break for 10 minutes and
we'll come back to continue for the next
session. Thank you very much.
10 minutes. You got to be kidding me
at least half an hour.