Jesus: Divine or Merely Prophet?

Okay, first of all, I never said that I don't like Paul in Colossians 1.

If not, James Wright, Dr. James Wright said, would any prophet ever say such a thing?

You remember he said that Moses said such a thing. My argument is based on his own argument, that even

Jesus didn't say such a thing. This is Paul. It's nothing against Paul. It's against his own argument.

So he has a strong argument. So I didn't say it. So that argument remains. Number two, he made the claim that Muslims saw

Muslims except Paul, like Ibn Kathir. But if you read

Ibn Kathir's chapters on Paul and the story, he actually refutes the story.

He says, no, it has nothing to do with Paul. And it's right on the same page, right on the same paragraph.

So that argument means nothing to me. Secondly, he talks about Isaiah 53.

Now, I want to spend one minute on this. Now, Isaiah 53, according to Christians, is clear.

A virgin is going to give birth, and the person she gives birth to is God, according to them.

It's so crystal clear. So why, when Mary gave birth to a virgin boy, as Isaiah says, why can't she believe her son was

God? Does it go together? Why can't nobody believe he was God while he was alive?

If someone is born of a virgin, and the Old Testament crystal clearly says it, as he says, then why can't they just immediately believe that?

He falls in line. His own mother didn't believe he was God. Why is that?

It doesn't make sense if you think about it. So that's another point. And again, the disciples, during the lifetime of Jesus, never understood him.

First of all, what I said in regards to Paul was that Paul described

Jesus in words that could never be used of a mere prophet or result. And I simply would ask them, okay, not did

Moses say that, but did anyone who followed Moses describe him as the creator of all things? My point was that these words could not be used of a mere prophet or result.

I never said Ibn Kathir adopted the viewpoint. I said he recorded the viewpoint of early Muslims who actually believed that that had to do with Paul.

I never said, go back and listen to the tape, I never said, because I read the whole page, read it in context, that Ibn Kathir took that position.

Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with what Samuel just said. He was confusing Isaiah 53 with Isaiah 7 -14.

Second, we don't know what Mary believed in her heart. We know that she is amongst the believers who worship

Jesus Christ as their Ascended Lord in the Book of Acts. And so how we can come to the conclusion that she didn't believe that what the angel had said to her was true, that he would be

Emmanuel, I do not know. I would like to ask Samuel some questions having responded to everything he just said.

And that is, I would like to understand, since he goes to the Book of John so frequently and has simply believed in its textual reliability,

John 5 -21, John 5 -21 specifically says,

For just as the Father raises the dead and gives life in the exact same way, kutos, also the

Son makes alive or gives life to whomever He wills. Now, I would like to ask

Samuel, how can those words, can a mere prophet be described as one who gives life to anyone that he wills?

Is that the kind of description that is consistent with the Islamic position? Because remember, the

Islamic position has to substantiate itself this evening as well in light of that documentation. Okay, first of all to Mary, we do know she didn't believe

Jesus was God in the beginning of Luke. When Jesus, when they went to Jerusalem, Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, He was a kid.

Now Mary and Joseph left, and they realized that Jesus was left behind, like no one else. Now Mary and Joseph were very worried.

When Mary found Jesus, she said, why have you done this to me? Why have you caused me so much sorrow?

Like a typical mother, when she loses her child, she's going to get scared for him. But if she believed that Jesus was

God, why would she be worried about Him? This is God. It doesn't matter where He is. So that right there proves

Mary didn't believe He was God. And I'm not misunderstanding Isaiah. Christians use that reference to say a virgin would give birth to God.

And she does it. And they don't believe it. It doesn't go along.

And then about the point that Jesus gives life, I get the context. In my opening statement

I said, Jesus does these things because God gave Him the power. When He raised

Lazarus from the dead, right before He raised Lazarus, He cried, He prayed. And then after Lazarus rose from the dead, what did

Jesus say? He said, I do this in front of them so that they may know that you are giving me this power.

He prayed in front of them so they know that the one above is giving them the power. And it's not from Himself.

Secondly, Jesus doesn't heal who He wants by His own will. Because He says, I do what the

Father wills. So His will is actually the Father's will. So that's how He gives life. And then again

Paul describes this and that again. Paul describes it, show me where Jesus said it.

No father of Moses said that, because Moses never claimed it. Jesus never claimed it.

You say Paul did, show me where Jesus claimed it. Simple. Well first of all, it seems that for sanity, as soon as anyone meets

Jesus, they have to know everything there is to know about Him. No one can grow in their knowledge of who Jesus is. Mary is in the upper room in the book of Acts with the fellow believers in the

Holy Spirit Falls. She is amongst those who call upon the name of her own Son as their Lord and Savior.

So does she know when He's that tall? Well, maybe not. But we've got to give Mary the opportunity of learning just like you all are learning this evening.

The idea that everyone must know that Jesus bore a sign on His chest that said, I am God. And believably, just simply is not relevant to a meaningful discussion of the ancient context of the

Scriptures. What I said was, he had the wrong chapters. Not Isaiah 53. It's Isaiah 7. Isaiah 7 .14

was having immediate fulfillment in the time of Isaiah. And it has a greater fulfillment in the time of Jesus Christ.

He is called Emmanuel, God with us. If you don't believe in prophecy, fine. But it is a prophecy.

How was it fulfilled? Tell us how it was fulfilled if it was not fulfilled in Jesus. I go back to John chapter 5.

Notice what was not addressed. Jesus specifically says, so also the

Son gives life to whomever He wishes. Is that a description of the

Islamic Jesus? That He gives life to whomever He wishes. What does the

Quran say about who gives life? I think the Muslims here know. It is Allah that gives life.

Prophets don't give life. Jesus gives life to whom He wishes. I ask the

Muslims in the room, has Jesus given you life? No. There's John chapter 5.

There is the teaching of the Scriptures. So if Jesus gives life to whom

He wishes. And that is how a person has eternal life. I think we are seeing the importance of this debate right here and right now.

Because those are the words that were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the Holy Scriptures. Thank you.

Time. Okay folks. Notice how big his argument on there is. The Old Testament clearly says a virgin will give birth.

And according to Leviticus, a kid will be God. It clearly says it's going to happen. It clearly says it's going to happen.

And it happens. Why is there any doubt? Mary was a religious lady by the way.

She wasn't just some average Samantha. She was a religious lady. Okay. So she knew what the

Old Testament taught. Okay. The Old Testament said a virgin is going to give birth.

Christians believe. And they interpret it saying that this kid is God. Do you know that enough,

Mary? It happens word for word and she still doesn't believe he's God. She doesn't have to wait until he's 33.

Just when he's a baby she should know because it's already been foretold. Then he says, someone doesn't need to know

Jesus is God at once. Notice the double standards. When Jesus goes up to the

Pharisees and makes a claim, which they misunderstand, they say, look, they accuse him of being

God. You see, they understood he was making himself God. Just from one incident. But when that happens to other people, they say, well no, you have to look at it as a context.

So why one standard for the evil Pharisees and one for the others? And John chapter 5,

I didn't answer it. God gave Jesus the power. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus gave life to the clay birds.

But how? By the Lord's permission. Not by his own. And he says Jesus heals whoever he wishes.

Jesus' wish is the wish of the Father. It's together. He doesn't do anything outside the

Father's will. And he makes that clear himself. So you can't ignore the context.

So Mary didn't believe Jesus was God. That takes away the Old Testament prophecies. And just like Jesus raised the dead, healed the leper, none of that proves he's

God. Because in John chapter 17, Jesus is like, you see...

The clay bird story actually comes from Proto -Gnostic Gospels. The whole story of Jesus in the crib speaking, likewise, coming from the infancy gospel of the 2nd and 3rd century.

Actually when Jesus said the original one, he was the Son of God from the crib. I think it's very, very clear. Mary's in the upper room.

She's amongst the worshippers of Jesus. She comes to understand who Jesus is. I don't think there's any reason to argue anymore as to whether Mary can or cannot grow in her knowledge of who

Jesus Christ is. I would like to ask a question that hasn't been answered in what

I've pointed out. In Mark 14, 62, Jesus specifically said, I am the

Christ, the Son of the Blessed One. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming like the clouds of heaven.

This is a quotation of Daniel chapter 7, verse 13, which reads... I saw in the night vision to behold that the clouds of heaven there came one like the

Son of Man, became the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.

His dominion is everlasting dominion which shall not pass away. And his kingdom, one that shall not be destroyed.

So I would like to understand how is it that a mere Rasul, a mere prophet can be described as coming upon the clouds of heaven.

That he is given dominion and glory and a kingdom when the Bible says only God is to be glorified.

And how is it that all peoples, nations and languages, especially in light of the fact that Muslims insist that Jesus is only the

Jewish Messiah. Despite the many texts in the Gospels that say exactly opposite of that.

In the ancient text we'll use one verse in Matthew. It is very clear that all peoples, nations and languages should serve him.

Who are we to serve? Do you serve Muslims? Do you serve prophets? That is the question that I would like to ask

Sammy. How can Jesus apply these words to himself? Yes, you serve prophets because they're your rulers and they're your leaders.

So you serve them but not in the same way you serve God. Now again the Jews believed that the

Messiah was a king with a kingdom. So of course they would serve him. But this Messiah was under God.

And in Daniel which he quotes, God gives the Messiah the kingdom. Notice that one,

God gives Jesus the kingdom which proves my point. And again, I'm not going to let him get away with it.

It says it crystal clearly. It says it word for word.

If I say, one day a guy is going to have triplets. And his triplets will be divine.

And it happens on that exact day the same way I said it. And he believes in what

I said, he's divine. Is he going to now wait 30 years to ask when she's sitting upstairs or whatever?

No, she would know as soon as it happened. Man was a religious baby. So no, we can't just ignore that.

Because this is one of the greatest arguments. That debunks the Christians trying to use the

Old Testament to say Jesus is God. Because if he was, then why would the people simply believe it at the first?

If the Old Testament clearly prophesies it word for word as they say. Then he says the clay birds are from the

Gnostic stories. Actually no they're not. Yes there are similarities. But the

Gnostics have the wrong version. The Quran, there is a bit of truth in the Gnostics.

But they mix it up. Do you know in the Gnostics Jesus actually kills other children?

Where is this in the Quran? Number two, your own colleague David Wood said the Prophet Muhammad is sincere.

So if the Prophet Muhammad is sincere. He would have copied the stories from the Gnostics word for word.

Why did he change it? You can't have it two ways. If he's sincere, he would take the story from the

Gnostics word for word. But he didn't. You can't have it both ways. So no, the

Quranic story doesn't come from the Gnostics. Go read the Gnostic, and then go read the Quran. The Gnostic has suffered.

Time please. Just like the Bible. Of course, we'll speak for David at this point.

The idea of Muhammad being honest or sincere. Has nothing to do with whether he had actual access to the written records of the

Gnostics. It seems rather obvious that Muhammad's knowledge of the Bible stories. And the Gnostic stories was an oral one.

And therefore that really is an irrelevant point there. I don't believe that again we've had any response to the fact.

That no one near Rasul is given eternal dominion. Which will never end. How can Rasul, a messenger, a prophet.

Be given an eternal kingdom. If he himself is not eternal. How does that work? We haven't been told that.

Well, it's just been given to him. Yes, there's perfect unity between the father and the son. Is there a perfect unity between the father and every single prophet?

Is every single prophet perfect? In every single way. We've already had Samuel saying Jesus wasn't perfect. In every single way.

Again, I see no consistency here at all. I would once again ask Samuel to respond. To some of the texts that I have presented.

And explain to us, for example. How it is that the Apostle John. Could say of the

Logos. In the beginning was the Word. How was. Please explain to us where you find the term foreknowledge in John 1.

Explain how the Word was with God. Cross on down. Show us another example in the New Testament.

Where cross is used of having mere foreknowledge. And then please explain how the Apostle could describe.

The nature of the Logos as God. By using a pre -verbal antithesis predicate nominative. As he does with the

Apostle John in John 1. Okay, first of all. You didn't say it was oral at the start.

Then you changed your argument. When you got to the future. Now you actually need to show you something from the

New Testament. Show me the names of whom the prophet got these stories from. Orally. Since you made the claim.

Follow your own criteria and standards. Show us the names. Show us where. Show us when. Number two.

Why do these people have the wrong oral stories. If it's already in text. How can you say he got it from that book.

Or this book. When they are completely different. And again. Show us the names. Show us where.

Don't just tell us. Hey, he got it from somebody. Who's that somebody? I want to know. That's not a real argument.

And then. The point about the eternal kingdom. Easy. If he's eternal. Heaven is eternal.

We can say that kingdom is in heaven. Why not? We can't. And again. It doesn't erase the point.

That God. Has given. Jesus. This kingdom. Eternal. Finite.

It doesn't matter. As long as God has given it to him. Show me. Show me where. Jesus. Has his own kingdom.

Show me where Jesus has his own kingdom. Number two. He brought up a point about the nature. Of Jesus.

Yet he ignores my first criteria. That the nature of Jesus. Contradicts the nature of God.

So why don't you address that? How Jesus' nature. Is different from God. God is all knowing.

Jesus is ignorant. How can he be God man? Wait. If I have that nature.

How can I be ignorant? The human nature. Overtakes my divine nature. How does that work?

Because that's what he's saying. If you're fully God fully man. You should always be all knowing. And you can't be ignorant.

At the same time. So you have to address. The nature. Which completely refutes him.

By the way. When they say Jesus is ignorant. He can't be. Number two. They say

Jesus took on the flesh. I don't believe this. I will explain this later. Well we did not get any response.

What so ever. To John 1 .1. Because I don't believe. There is one. But hopefully maybe. The next time. Samuel will respond.

To the actual question he was asked. No one has a clue. Of who Muhammad was listening to. To get moral stories.

The point is. There are many scholars. Including Muslim scholars. Who have recognized.

The parallels between these stories. And had to wrestle with. Whether these came to Muhammad. And how they came to Muhammad.

And how he understood those things. It's not really an issue. Could Moses. I ask you. Have been given the eternal kingdom?

Could Moses have been given the eternal kingdom? When Jesus identifies himself.

As the son of man. Coming upon the clouds of glory. Is that the Muslim Jesus? That's the question.

You have to ask. If it's not. Why not? The only way. For Muslims. To make that case.

Is to simply say. I reject the New Testament. I reject the very thing. That the. The. The. The people of the gospel.

Are commanded to judge. Muhammad by. I reject it. And I consider that. To be a very inconsistent.

Position to take. Instead of answering. My question. He came back. With another question. That again. Demonstrates. That Samuel.

He simply refuses. To allow. The Christian position. To define itself. We say.

That Jesus Christ. Took on human flesh. That's what John 1 .14. Says. That's what Philippians chapter 2.

Says. That's what Ephesians chapter 1. Says. It's stated repeatedly. What is one of the great attributes.

Of Jehovah God. In the Old Testament. Is he not glorious? Does not. Is not his glory.

Something that is so great. That we cannot even look upon it. Without dying. And yet people looked upon.

Why? Because he veiled. His glory. He became. The God of man.

He had a purpose. In walking amongst us. And teaching us. And as such.

Even his glory. Is veiled. For one moment. It's gone back. In the mount. Transfiguration. But his glory is veiled.

Those self limitations. Are purposeful. On Jesus's part. Okay. First of all.

You have to answer questions. As well. Number two. He makes it seem.

Like if I answer a question. With a question. That's a bad thing. But I learned it from Jesus. In the gospels.

Because that's what he did. Is what. When they asked him a question. He said. I will ask you a question. And when they didn't answer.

He said. I'm only going to answer you. So you have to answer. He didn't. Did he answer us on. How can

Jesus be fully God. And fully man. How can he be fully knowledgeable. And ignorant at the same time. I didn't see an answer there.

Then he brings up the point about nature. Let me give you the analogy. I wanted to give you. I'm a man right now. Let's say.

I go. Add some. Female nature. To myself. I. Or I'm Aphrodite.

Something like that. That's two natures. You're losing part. You're adding to your nature.

If someone adds to your nature. It's no longer the same. It doesn't matter. If some of that nature.

Is still there. You still added to it. Didn't you? So the nature. Is different.

And this is again. From Malachi 36. Because the Muslims. Learn this argument. They don't add to their nature. Malachi 36.

God's nature doesn't change. And his response. Doesn't answer it. Yes Jesus added to his nature.

But when you add to your nature. You're still changing your nature. Because you have something extra. Number two.

God himself said. I am not a man. Don't forget his criteria. Which he hasn't.

Refuted. Up to this point. And then he says. Just because Moses. Didn't have an eternal kingdom.

Okay. So Jesus. Has something. Moses doesn't. Therefore Jesus is God. How does it.

Moses didn't die like a blasphemer. Jesus died like a blasphemer. And was he even a curse.

So these aren't real arguments. Comparing them. And saying. Who has which. And who has who.

And he didn't show us. From where the prophet Muhammad. Borrowed those stories.

I'm not going to let him. Get away with it. Because that's his criteria. As I pointed out.

God's nature. Does not change. According to Philippians chapter 2. Jesus takes on.

That human nature. That does not cause. The human nature. To cease. The criteria being used.

To require that God. Is completely inactive. That he can only do one thing. And that he can never do anything else. Because if he does something. His nature is changed.

That is a misuse of Malachi 3. That is a misuse of all those. Old testament texts. And I simply invite you. The audience.

To take the time. To read those texts. In their context. And verify. Whether what Sam is saying.

Is true. Or if he is abusing. The text. With the Bible. I'm going to go back. To the question.

That has yet to be answered. In two rounds now. I would like to ask Sam. One more time. Please explain to us.

How the apostle John. Says that the law of us. Existed in the beginning. That as far back.

As you push the beginning. The law of us existed. Where does the term. For knowledge appear. In John 1.

1. Please explain. Where else. In the new testament. Cross is used. In the way it's used.

In John 1. 1. B. And the word was. With God. The word was.

As to his nature. Deity. Please explain. The apostle

John. Would describe. The law of us. As having. As his essential nature. Deity.

When the whole point. Of the debate. This evening. Is that the essential nature. Of Jesus. Is that. Of a mere.

Result. That is the Quranic claim. If that Quranic claim. Is contradictory. To the new testament.

As it is. This explains. Why the conflict exists. Between Christianity. And Islam. And we have to ask ourselves.

The question. Why do we accept someone. Who lives 600 years. After Jesus. Rather than someone. Who walked with Jesus.

These are my questions. To Sammy. I would like to hear. His answers. Thank you. Okay. Notice the double standard.

I showed the people. Walking with Jesus. And they didn't believe. He was God. And then. Again. Notice the other double standard.

He wants me to show him. Something specific. From the bible. And he made a claim. That he can't show me. A specific example.

Of where the prophet. Borrowed the stories. Give me who. And where. This is your criteria.

By the way. I wouldn't. I wouldn't. Really ask for it. And number two. Yeah. Take the time. To read what

I say. Go read the gospel. Where Jesus says. I can do nothing by myself. I rely on the father.

Everything I have. Is from the father. I do his will. I have a God. I pray.

Go read all of this. Go read the gospels. Where you will never find. Jesus saying. I am God. Go read the gospels.

Where you find. Jesus saying. I am he. And then he clarifies. The Christ. The prophet.

Not what he says. God. So. And back to another point. Jesus takes the nature on.

That doesn't refute. My point. Yeah. He takes the nature on. So he's adding to his nature. So it's different.

That's common sense. So. So. So.

So. So. So. So. So.

So. So. So.

So. So. So. So. So. But it's when Jesus said.

I am he.

Go read. The gospels. Where you find.

I am he and he's clarifying. Yes. to be held as glory, the glories of the

One God with the Father? Could you show us where God's knowledge appears in John 1? Show us how the term wadahs in John 1 is defined as God's knowledge, just simply by fiat, say, that's what fits for me.

It's not exegesis, and that is not handling the Word of wrath. Instead, John 1 tells us exactly what is wrong with the

Islamic perspective on Jesus, and what we're hearing here clearly is an unwillingness to actually engage the text at that point, and respond to those things.

Now, I think that point has been established, so I'll add some other questions. Could Sami Zazari please explain to us how it is that the writer of the epistle to the

Hebrews could take a section that is about the unchanging God Yahweh, the creator of all things, who does not age, who does not get old, and apply those words to Jesus in Hebrews chapter 1, verses 10 -12.

Explain to us how a monotheistic Jew can take the words about Yahweh from the

Old Testament and apply them to Jesus. What does this tell us about their beliefs?

Sami keeps saying, oh, nobody back then believed, nobody back then believed. Please explain to me, then, how monotheistic

Jews can take words that were originally written about Yahweh and are true only of Yahweh in a unique sense, and apply them to Jesus Christ in the

New Testament if they do not, in fact, believe in the deity of Christ, and they believe what Sami believes.