Jesus: Divine or Merely Prophet?

And that is, I simply believe, that same way Putos also wills 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.

Mary’s Unbelief and the Virgin Birth in Luke

Okay. First of all, to Mary, we do know she didn't believe Jesus was God in the beginning of Luke. 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.

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. Christians use that reference to say a virgin would give birth to God, and she does it. And they don't believe it. When he raised Lazarus from the dead, right before he raised Lazarus, he cried, he prayed.

And then after that, so that they may know that he prayed, 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 birth. And then again, Paul describes this and that again. Paul describes it, show me where Jesus said it. There is no God. No one can grow him. 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? 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 wore 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 had 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. 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.

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? There is 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. Okay, folks. Notice how weak his argument on Mary is. The Old Testament kid will be God. It clearly says it is going to happen.

It clearly says it is going to happen. And she is a religious lady, by the way. She wasn't just some average Samaritan. She was a religious lady. Okay? So, she knew what the Old Testament taught. The Bible said a virgin is going to give birth.

Christians believe, and they interpret it saying that this kid is God. It happens word for word, and she still doesn't believe he is God. She doesn't have to wait until he is 33, just when he is a baby.

Then he says, someone doesn't need to know that Jesus is God at once. Notice the double standards. When Jesus goes up to the Pharisees, which they misunderstand, they accuse him of being God. He was making himself God, just from one incident.

But with that, so why do we have a standard for the evil Pharisees and one for the others? Jesus gave life to the clay birds, but how? By Paul'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. And just like Jesus raised the dead, healed the leper, none of that proves he is God. Because in John chapter 17, 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 is 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.

The Son of Man in Daniel 7 and Mark 14:62

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.

He came to 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 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 the opposite of that, and the a-contextual use of 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? I'd like to ask Sammy, how can Jesus apply these words to us? 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 point? God gives Jesus the kingdom, which proves my point. And again, I'm not going to let him get away with the Mary. It says it crystal clearly. It says it word for word. And his privilege will be divine.

And it happens. On that exact day, the same way I said it, what I said is divine. Is he going to now wait for when she's sitting upstairs or whatever? No. She would know as soon as it happened. So no, we can't just ignore that.

Because this is one of the great 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 copy is sincere. So if the Prophet Muhammad is sincere, he would have copied. You can 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 Gnostic, and then go read the Quran. The Gnostic has such a great 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 there. I don't believe that, again, we've had any response to the fact that no mere Rasul is given eternal dominion.

It shall never end. How can a Rasul, a messenger, a prophet, be given an eternal kingdom if he himself is not eternal? I've been told that. Well, it's just been given to him. Yes, there's perfect unity between the Father and the Son.

Is there perfect unity between the Father and every single prophet? Is every single prophet perfect in every single way? We've already had Sammy saying Jesus wasn't perfect in every single way. No consistency here at all.

I would once again ask Sammy 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 Lot of Us, 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 Lot of Us as God by using a pre-verbal antithesis predicate nominative as he does with Theos in John 1c. 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're 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 that 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 it's 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 do you address that? It's different from God. God is overwhelming, Jesus is ignorant. The human nature overtakes. And you can't be ignorant at the same time. So you have to address the nature, which completely refutes them, by the way.

Well, we did not get any response whatsoever to John 1 and Samuel 1. There are many, many scholars, including Muslim scholars, who have recognized the parallels between these stories. And had to wrestle with whether these came to Muhammad.

I understood those things. It's not really an issue. Can Moses, I ask you, have been given the eternal kingdom? Because does Moses himself? Is that the Muslim Jesus? If it's not, why not? The only way for a Muslim to make that case is to simply say, I reject the New Testament.

I reject the very thing that the analogy of 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 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? Is not his glory something that is so great that we cannot even look upon it without dying?

And yet people looked upon Jesus. Why? Because he veiled his glory. He became the God-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 of Transfiguration.

But his glory is veiled. Those self-limitations are purposeful on Jesus' 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. When they asked him a question, he said, I'll ask you a question. And when they didn't answer, he said, I'm going to answer you. So you have to answer.

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'm an aphrodite, something like that. That's two natures. 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 to Malachi 3, 6. Because if Muslims learn this argument, they can't get away with it.

Malachi 3, 6. 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 of man's 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. Moses didn't die like a blasphemer. Jesus died like a blasphemer. And was he even a curse? So these aren't real. Who has which and who has who. And he didn't show us from where the Prophet Muhammad followed up the story.

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 then he can never do anything else.

Because if he does something, his nature is changing. 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 Sammy is saying is true. Or if he is abusing the text of 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 Sammy one more time.

Please explain to us how the Apostle John says that the Logos existed in the beginning. That as far back as you push the beginning, the Logos existed. Where does the term foreknowledge appear in John 1 .1?

Please explain where that was in the New Testament. Prophets used in the way it's used in John 1 .1 .b. And the word was with God. Where is that kind of language used of foreknowledge? And then please explain to us once again, John 1 .1 .c.

And the word was God. The word was as to his nature, deity. Please explain how the Apostle John would describe the Logos. 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 basul. 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 you 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. And he can't show me a specific example. Of where the prophet bought all the stories. Give me who and where. This is your criteria by the way. I wouldn't really ask for it. Number two.

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 pray. Go read all of this.

Go read the Gospel. Jesus is 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. 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. That's common sense. So that point there remains. Now in the beginning was the Word.

Exactly. In the beginning was the Word. That's what we Muslims believe. God. The Word is God's foreknowledge. Now he's asking. Show me where it's said. He can't even show you. Where Jesus ever said. I am God.

And now he wants to play the game. Of show me where this is there. Okay. We all know. God is all knowing. Of course. His Word is always written. His Word is His plan. Wisdom. But we know. Because. He's always with Him.

Since the beginning of time. Since He doesn't come up on Sunday. And all of a sudden. Think that. Hey. I'm going to come up with this new idea. And this is completely consistent. With the Islamic views.

Since you want to say. Islam and Jesus. This is completely consistent with it. Since God's Word. Is always written. From the beginning. And indeed. Jesus. God's Word. God. And He's one knowledge. Just like.

I did not get an answer. Now we've been told. That the Word. Of John 1. 1. Is God's knowledge. Where does John 1. 1. Say this. John 1. 1. Says the Word. Eternally existed. But then John 1. 14. Says the Word became flesh.

So is it. The assertion. Of. That Jesus. Is Allah's knowledge. That Allah's knowledge. Became flesh. And dwelt among us. And we beheld his glory. The glories of the One God. The Father. Could you show us.

Where God's knowledge. Appears in John 1. 1. Show us. How the term. Wadah. In John 1. Is defined as God's knowledge. Just simply by. Fiat. That's what fits for me. Is not. Exegesis. And that is not. Handling the Word.

Correct. Instead. John 1. 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 writers. Of the epistles. Of 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. Well 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 have. Belief. In the D .H .U. Christ. And they believe. What Sami believes.