Zakir Naik on the Deen Show: Review and Rebuttal Pt. 2

Zakir Naik’s Claims About John 14 and John 17

This is the second part of what looks like it's going to be a series of responses to Zakir Naik's appearance on The Dean Show. We started in Part 1 looking at some of his rapid-fire texts that don't actually have anything to do with the Trinity but have to do with the Islamic misunderstanding of it.

And now we're going to look at some other texts he brings up. And then I think in the third section we will look at this rapid-fire shot he gave of texts that he claims prophesy Muhammad, the Bible. And it's something that will be more enjoyable to go through each one of them and demonstrate how bankrupt that argument is.

There's no foundation whatsoever for it. I would love to get Zakir Naik to defend the texts that he lists, and that will be in the third part. So let's go back to his claims in regards to biblical texts in The Dean Show denying the deity of Christ.

And there are several quotations I can give you where Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, never claimed divinity. He never said he was God, but he was a messenger of God. It's mentioned in the Gospel of John, chapter number 14, verse 24.

Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, says that the words that you hear are not mine, but my father's who has sent me. Gospel of John, chapter number 17, verse number 3 says this is life eternal, so that you may know one true God and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.

Let's look at the text that Dr. Naik has cited here. The first is in John 14 again. We already dealt with that in the previous text, previous video. But here, verse 24, he's citing, he who does not love me does not keep my words, and the word which you hear is not mine, but the father's who sent me.

He evidently thinks that this is a denial of the deity of Christ because of, again, the unity that exists between the father and the son in that the message that the son is delivering is in perfect harmony with the father and, in fact, comes forth from the father.

We have demonstrated that this comes from a misunderstanding and ignorance on Dr. Naik's part as to what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is and the message of the Gospel of John. It is interesting that this is part of that same section where, in verse 26, Jesus says, but the helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to remembrance all that I said to you.

Dr. Naik is going to identify this as a prophecy of Muhammad, and yet, where did Muhammad bring to remembrance all that Jesus said to the disciples? In fact, Muhammad never quotes a single word that Jesus said to the disciples.

Everything we find in the Quran is just, worship God, my Lord and your Lord, etc., etc., but we don't have anything like what the Gospels reveal concerning Jesus' teachings, an interesting contradiction in that kind of gross misapplication of the text.

The other, then, is just the quick citation of John 17, 3, with, again, he doesn't offer any exegesis, he doesn't give us any reason to think that he has taken any serious time to study Christian theology, even though Eddie keeps calling him an expert in this area.

If all it takes is the ability to rapidly cite verses from someone's text to be an expert, then it would be pretty easy to be an expert on the Quran. I don't know why I'm spending all this time, if that's all it takes.

But the citation is, John 17, 3, this is eternal life, they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. And since there is a distinction made between the only true God and Jesus, then he obviously can't be divine.

And yet they don't see the fact that this is eternal life, to know two divine persons, the Father and the Son. And if they would just read the rest, Jesus says in the very next two sentences, I have glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you have given me to do.

Now Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was. What prophet could speak of the glory which he had in the presence of God before the world was?

When you isolate text, when you do not allow for a text to speak for itself, you're being dishonest. And the mere citation of John 17, 3, without dealing with it in its context, is dishonest. To know only the Father without knowing the Son is to not have eternal life.

You cannot know the Father without knowing the Son. How can that be true? You, as a Muslim, deny that Jesus is the Son of God, and yet Jesus' words that he uses of himself. How can Zakir Naik quote these texts from the Gospel of John, which constantly refers to Jesus as the Son of God, and claim he's accurately dealing with the text at all?

Again, as we said in the previous video, it just seems that he has taken Ahmed Didat's errors and just repeats them over and over and over again, and his audience doesn't seem to care. So maybe his audience is just Muslims, not actually serious Christians, but if that's the case, what does that say?

Again, something to be considered. Let's continue on.

Jesus as a Man, the Shema, and the Old Testament Witness to Christ

And it's clearly mentioned in the Book of Acts, chapter number 2, verse number 22. It says that, Amen of Israel, listen to this, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God amongst you by wonders and miracles and signs, which God did maneuver to it, a man approved of God.

Well, I guess Christians have never noticed that Jesus is called a man. Aside from the fact we call him the God-man, that we believe that he was truly human and truly divine, not 50 -50, that the eternal Logos took on human flesh, so that he is fully God and fully man, one person, two distinct natures.

That's basic Christian theology, that if someone is an expert in these areas, they should know. So citing a text that any Orthodox Christian would go, yes, he was a man. It goes on, however, to say that he's seated at the right hand of God, in the very same text.

How can you quote one part of a text and then ignore what's right below it, which goes against your application of it and your use of it? How is that not just gross abuse of written texts? Should we do that to the Quran?

Of course not. So it seems one side is intent upon using the text rightly and respecting even the other side's text, not as the word of God, but at least dealing with it honestly, and the other side is not.

This is, again, really bad argumentation for someone who's supposed to be one of the best that's out there.

Amongst you, by wonders and miracles and signs which God did by him. And when he was asked which is the first of the commandments, it's mentioned in the Gospel of Mark, chapter number 12, verse 29, he said the same thing what Moses has said earlier.

It's the Hebrew quotation, which means, Yaro Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.

Yes, Jesus did make reference to the Shema, Shema Yisrael, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad. However, interestingly enough, the name of Christ. I mean, we've noted another context, Paul's use of that text in 1 Corinthians chapter 8, and his identification of the Father as God, and Jesus as Lord, fulfilling the Shema.

And so, Jesus, as the God-man, is going to be a monotheist, and he is going to say the Shema, as any good Jewish person is going to do. What does that have to do with the deity of Christ? See, Zakir Naik, Ahmad Didat, almost all Islamic apologists, they just assume Unitarianism, and then quote verses that fulfill their assumptions.

Not recognizing, they're not actually arguing against anything, they're just, they're making their followers go, hmm, hmm, hmm, but they're not actually engaging the issue, which if you are a lover of truth and you're really trying to reach people, that's what you've got to do.

Now, you being an expert in this area, in this field, did Moses, Noah, Abraham, the first man, Adam, did they ever worship a man-God, a son of God? Is there anything, any reference to this?

None of the prophets of God. None of the prophets mentioned in the Bible, right from Adam, peace be upon him, to Jesus, peace be upon him. Never? Never. It is a misconception amongst the Christians, which the Church proclaims, that Jesus claimed divinity.

There is not a single unequivocal statement in the Bible, where Jesus ever said, peace be upon him, that worship me, or that he's God.

Yes, Dr. Naik, we hear you keep repeating the same thing, ignoring all of the clear references to the deity of Christ, limiting the data that one can accept, and we've already pointed out how completely irrational that is, but be it as it may, Eddie didn't ask a good question there.

Because the prophets came before the Incarnation, and so why would, how could they be worshiping Jesus incarnate, prior to the Incarnation? Now it is interesting that the New Testament writers make it very plain that they see that Jesus is seen in the Old Testament, and in fact is seen as God in the Old Testament.

Look at John chapter 12, when in John 12, 39 and following, John makes it very plain that the vision of Isaiah, in Isaiah chapter 6, where he saw Jehovah up upon the throne lofty and lifted up, according to John, that was Jesus that he saw there.

Or the writer of the Hebrews, chapter 1, verses 10 -12, quotes from Psalm 102, 25 -27, which is about Jehovah in the Old Testament, applies it to Jesus. So there is that evidence, and I don't get the feeling that Dr. Naik has ever even considered those things, but the point is that to say, well, David didn't, Moses didn't worship a man-god or something like that, given that these men came before the Incarnation, not exactly an overly relevant argument.

John 10:30 and the Oneness of the Father and the Son

Now you said something that's clear, lucid, the verses that you gave are easy to understand, but someone says, you know what, I think that I heard something from my preacher. He said, I and the Father are one, no one comes to the Father but me.

How do we take this and explain what this means?

As far as the first statement you said, I and my Father are one, it's a quotation of Gospel of John, chapter number 10, verse number 30, I and my Father are one. But you have to go to the context. If you go to the context in Gospel of John, chapter number 10, verse 23, you come to know, it says that Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, entered the temple in Solomon's porch.

Verse number 24 says that all the Jews surrounded him and they asked him that if thou art the Christ, please tell us plainly. So Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, replies in verse number 25 that I told you but you believe not.

Verse number 26, you do not believe me because you are not my sheep. Verse number 27, my people who follow me, they are my sheep, they listen to me. Verse number 28, no man can pluck them out of my hand.

I give them eternal life, no man can pluck them out of my hand. Verse number 29, my Father who gave it to me is greater than all. No man can pluck them out of my Father's hand. So if you see the context in verse number 28, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, says that my followers, no one can pluck them out of my hand.

No one can pluck them out of my Father's hand, verse number 29. Verse number 30 says, I and my Father are one. So in context, Jesus Christ, peace be upon him and Almighty God, they are one in purpose but not one as one entity.

In context, my Father is a doctor, I am a doctor and if I say I and my Father are one, it means one in profession. It does not mean as we are joined as one human being. But yet it insists, no, Dr. Zakir, you have misunderstood the verse of the Bible.

It means one only. I said, fine. I always believe in dialogue. I agree with the wrong argument and then disprove it. If I agree with you that this one means one in person, if you go ahead, in Gospel of John chapter 17, verse number 21, it says that Jesus Christ says, my Father is in me, I in thee, talking to the twelve disciples.

We all are one. The same one is used here. Same word. So do you mean to say God and Jesus and the twelve disciples, the fourteen gods? So now you will have to coin a new word. Instead of trinity, you have to coin a new word saying fourteen in one.

And again, further, if you go, in Gospel of John chapter 17, verse 23, Jesus Christ says, I in thee and you in me, to twelve disciples and Jesus Christ is one, that means thirteen gods. So now you have to coin a new word for thirteen gods.

So the right thing is one in purpose.

Now we can only chuckle a little bit. Eddie said, well, these things are so clear. These are, you know, Eddie, come on. Take a look at them yourself. Listen to what the other side has to say. When you just listen to one side and all they're doing is just throwing out verses, folks, that should be a big red flag waving in front of your face going, that's not really how to handle things.

Don't you think the Christians have thought a little bit more about what they believe than this? That's disappointing. But then John 1030, we already dealt with it in the previous video, demonstrated that no prophet could ever say the things that Jesus says here.

He is right, by the way, I've pointed this out in my published works, that when people just jump to John chapter 10, verse 30, and apply it to some type of ontological assertion of not the oneness of person, notice here, Zacher Knight, right here, demonstrates he does not understand the Trinity, does not understand what we are saying.

He says that we're trying to prove oneness of person. We don't believe in oneness of person. It's called modalism. That was one of the earliest heresies rejected by the church. But when Christians run to this and say, well, here you have the ontological oneness of the Father and the Son in the Godhead being asserted, well, I think that's too much.

There is a unity of purpose here, but it is the unity of purpose that requires the deity of Christ. Because you have here, not only one who is holding the believers in his hand in the same way God does, and is perfectly unified with the Father, and again, no mere prophet, no mere human could ever be described in this way, but the very next verses will then, once Jesus says, I and the Father are one, they understand that, and they pick up stones to stone him.

So the context, again, completely decimates Zacher Knight's misuse and abuse of these texts, and demonstrates that Christians have been right to see the deity of Christ in these texts in the past. Next then, he goes to the John 14 6, which again, we've mentioned, so we'll be brief in our response to it.

John 14:6, the Way to the Father, and John 16 on the Spirit of Truth

Now, another one that I mentioned that is very popular.

That says that, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto my Father but by me. Exactly. So you quoted the last part, that no man cometh unto my Father but by me, but the full quotation is from Gospel of John, chapter number 14, verse number 6, which says that, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto my Father but through me.

This again, point number one, it's not an unequivocal statement saying that Jesus is God, peace be upon him. But if you read the context, you come to know what does it mean. Context, go to Gospel of John, chapter 14, verse number 1.

It says that, why are you troubled? If you believe in God, believe in me also. Verse number 2 says, in my Father's mansion there are many houses. I am going there to prepare a place for you. If it was not so, I wouldn't have told you.

The verse continues, and it says that, I am going to prepare a place for you, now you know where I go. So one disciple asked him, that, master, we don't know where you go. Then he said, I am the way, the truth, and the life, no man cometh unto the Father but through me.

In context, it means that if you have to reach God, you have to follow the pathway of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Every messenger, at his time, he was the way, the truth, and the life, no man came unto Almighty God but through the messenger.

At the time of Moses, Moses was the way, the truth, and the life, no man came unto Almighty God but through Moses. At the time of Jesus, most verily, because he was the messenger of God, at his time, he was the way, the truth, and the life.

No man came unto Almighty God but through Jesus Christ, peace be upon him. Today, the last and final messenger is Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. So Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam is the way, and the truth, and the life, no man can reach Almighty God except through the pathway of Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam.

But that does not make Prophet Muhammad as God. Not at all.

Now, we noted in the previous video that this is a complete misreading of John chapter 14. No prophet could ever have said these words other than Jesus. Jesus is not saying, I am a way, a truth, and a life.

He is saying, I am the way. Now, what Zechariah says, well, at his time, at that time, he didn't limit anything there. In fact, when he says, no man comes to the Father but by me, he doesn't say, no Jewish person because I am just the Jewish Messiah.

He says, no one comes to the Father but by me, not by my teachings. Notice that Nike decided to change all of this. Well, you know, now you don't come to God except by Muhammad's teachings. That's not what Jesus said.

Jesus' words are personal. No one comes to the Father but by me. He gives us no indication that's going to change sometime in the future. And so, again, gross misuse of the text of scripture, not doing serious exegesis, just trying to find a way to twist these words to fit the interpretation demanded of it, not just by something written 600 years later, but by a system of theology that develops even longer after that.

That is the essence of what Muslims have to do with the New Testament to attempt to deal with it at all.

As Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, said in the Gospel of John, chapter number 16, verse number 11 to 14, I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now, for he when the spirit of truth shall come, he shall guide you unto all truth.

He shall not speak of himself, all that he hears shall he speak, he shall glorify me. This is talking about Prophet Muhammad. So it means, this verse means that Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, was the messenger of Almighty God.

Now as I mentioned in the third video, we will look at the string of texts that Zakir Naik presents, but since he mentioned it here, I wanted to look at John chapter 16 and once again demonstrate that there is no logical or rational way to read this text in this way.

It's interesting, I think Shabir Ali knows this and I am hoping that very, very soon I'm really pressing to get the video of my debate with Shabir Ali on whether Muhammad is prophesied in the New Testament because I made a presentation on these texts and Shabir Ali, when he attempts to find Muhammad in the sections on the Holy Spirit, doesn't do it the way that Zakir Naik does.

He takes rank liberalism and posits that you can basically tear the Gospel of John into little segments and, because he knows there are certain segments of the Gospel of John that you just can't possibly apply to Muhammad.

So he tries to tear them up. Zakir Naik is not as advanced, shall we say, as Shabir Ali in that way, of course I would argue that once you buy into that kind of form criticism that can theorize things without any physical evidence whatsoever, then we can do the same thing with the Quran and therefore Shabir Ali is grossly inconsistent.

And it's a whole lot harder to explain to audiences what you're doing when you try to follow liberal Roman Catholic scholars in chopping John up and saying, well this section must have come from here and this section came from over here and so when we look at this, because the average person is going to go, well if all this stuff really just came from over here and over there and it's not really a divine record, then why would there be anything about Muhammad in here at all?

How is that consistent? So I think Shabir's approach has pitfalls in and of itself, but it doesn't seem to me that Naik is even aware of that perspective. He just grabs these texts, throws them out, completely ignores the context.

John chapter 16, verse 8, and he, when he comes, will convict the world, world, concerning sin and righteousness and judgment. That sounds like everybody in the world, Muhammad hasn't judged everybody in the world in that way or brought conviction of sin, has he?

Concerning sin because they not believe in me, not believe in Muhammad, believe in Jesus. And concerning righteousness because I go to the Father and you no longer see me. Now I guess he could try to fit that in with Surah 4, verse 158 somehow as if that would be the connection.

And concerning judgment because the rule of this world has been judged. That judgment will be in the cross, by the way, so that wouldn't fit at all, would it? I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now, but when he, the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you, you, the disciples.

Muhammad came 600 years later. He will guide you into all the truth, you, the disciples. That's not Muhammad, can't be Muhammad, impossible for it to be Muhammad. Cannot be done. So why quote it? Why not deal with the obvious problem that this text was spoken to the disciples about them and Muhammad comes 600 years later?

For he will not speak on his own initiative, but whatever he hears, he will speak and he will disclose to you what is to come. He will glorify me. Glorify me? You say Jesus is not the Son of God, how is that glorifying him?

He will glorify me for he will take of mine and will disclose it to you. How? There is no rational way to connect any of that to Muhammad, but Zakir Naik just did. But to do so, you have to utterly ignore the meaning of language and the context of the scriptures.

God’s Power, the Incarnation, and the Doctrine of the Trinity

A couple more points, so much to cover, so little time. Tell us. Some people say, well, God is almighty. He knows all. He has power over all things. He can do anything. What does this mean? So they say that God can do anything, so why can't he become a man?

What do you say about this? That's a common argument that's put forth, that why are you restricting the powers of God? Exactly. God can do anything, everything. So why are you restricting the powers of almighty God?

And I tell them, for sake of argument, I agree with you, God can do anything and everything. And you say that God can become a human being, so if I agree with you God can become a human being, then you have to realize once God becomes a human being, he ceases to be God.

You say God can become a human being, I have no problem, but he ceases to be God. You cannot say there's a God-man. If you say there's a God-man, God who has become man and has the power of God, it doesn't make sense.

Why? Because by definition, God is immortal. Human being is mortal. You can either have an immortal person or a mortal person. You can have a person who is immortal and mortal at the same time, it is meaningless.

Doesn't make sense. Doesn't make sense. Almighty God has no beginning. Human beings have a beginning. You can't have a person who has no beginning and has a beginning at the same time, it's meaningless.

Almighty God has got no end. Human beings have an end. You can't have a person who has no end and has an end at the same time, it's meaningless. It's like telling eyes of a tall, short man, you either have a tall man or a short man.

It is, it is, it is absolutely, you cannot use a word like in tall, short, you either have a tall man, short man or a medium man. You cannot have a tall, short man. You cannot have a fat, thin man.

Similarly, you can't have a God-man. Now once again, we have dealt with the objection from Muslims concerning the incarnation literally for years now. And once again, at least in this context, Zakir Naik is not providing us with anything new and in fact is once again demonstrating he does not understand the subject that he is addressing with such authority.

And that is he is objecting to the incarnation based upon the idea that God would cease being God and become a man. And that Jesus isn't the God-man, that Jesus isn't one person with two natures, he just rejects that.

Allah cannot do that. He cannot join a human nature to himself and cease being God. Now, if Allah can't do that, great, Yahweh managed it just fine and that's the revelation of the New Testament that came long before Muhammad who clearly had no more understanding of it than Zakir Naik does.

But to misunderstand something is not the same thing as to refute it. All of his objections, well, you know, you become finite, so God isn't finite and that's not what we're saying. The Lagos continues to be the Lagos, continues to be divine.

It doesn't cease to be divine, it doesn't become 50 man and 50 God, it doesn't become 100 man and cease being God, none of those things are true so objections based upon them are not objections to the doctrine of the incarnation.

And so you need to come up with objections to actually what we believe which again was well known by the time of Muhammad's ministry and yet I see no evidence that he has any meaningful knowledge in writing the Quran of what it is Christians actually believed.

He has a second hand knowledge that would be very consistent with a Bedouin tribesman type person who has encountered Christians in traveling up into Syria. But no access to the Christian scriptures, no immediate understanding of what Christians believe and again even if you say it's irrelevant because this is just all the words of Allah, Allah knew those things.

Would you not agree? Consider a, well I've had, I've listened as people have said that Nabil Qureshi was never really a Muslim because he was Ahmadi. Alright, let's take that, let's run with that for a moment.

Would Allah have perfect knowledge of all Ahmadi teachings? Even though from a Sunni Muslim perspective they are false, would not Allah have a perfect knowledge of what they are? Well of course he would.

So at the time of the writing of the Quran did not Allah know perfectly what Christians believed about the fact that Jesus is one person with two natures? Then why does the Quran never reflect anything like that?

Why does the Quran show no understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity? I think that is a fatal objection to the claim that the Quran is the very words of Allah. It is not rational. So one more section in the third video to do and that is where Ahmad Deedat, might as well be Ahmad Deedat, uses the same, very same text.

Zakir Naik presents this string of verses that allegedly demonstrate that Muhammad is prophesied in the Bible and we will demonstrate very clearly that none of them do. And that will be pretty much it for the entirety of the appearance of Zakir Naik on the Dean Show.

And so I would ask the folks at the Dean Show, given the refutation of this material, wouldn't it be good for the Dean Show to maybe have some responsible counter voices on? Maybe to sponsor a debate?

Show portions of it on the program? That would be great. I would be happy to travel to where they are doing something and engage in that kind of encounter. I think it would be wonderful, especially Yusuf Estes.

We did a whole series demonstrating that Yusuf Estes truly has no idea what the doctrine of the Trinity was and he claims to be a former Christian, former Christian minister. I think if you look at this material and see that we've got solid argumentation on our side and the documentation is all on our side, that should make the folks at the Dean Show I think give some consideration to some of the stuff they're putting out.

But third video will be coming up, Muhammad is not prophesied in the Bible. We'll see it then. Thanks for watching.