Bassam Zawadi has decided to go a second round (*) with us on the issue of whether Thomas identified Jesus as his Lord and God (*). Instead of wasting our time by refuting the same points that Zawadi repeats in his article we will simply omit them. This will help to prevent our rebuttal from being too lengthy.
He writes:
My Response:
First lets define what it means to take the Lord's name in vain...
Thou shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain,.... Make use of the name Lord or God, or any other name and epithet of the divine Being, in a light and trifling way, without any show of reverence of him, and affection to him; whereas the name of God ought never to be mentioned but in a grave and serious manner, and with an awe of the greatness of his majesty upon the mind. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan restrain this to swearing by the name of the Lord; and so the Jewish writers generally interpret it either of swearing lightly, rashly, or falsely; and to this it may very well be extended, though not limited; and so forbids, as all profane oaths; imprecations, and curses by the name of God, which the mouths of wicked men are full of, so swearing by it in matters trivial, and of no importance; for swearing even by the name of the Lord ought not to be used but in matters of moment and consequence, for the confirmation of a thing, and putting an end to strife, and where a matter cannot be determined and decided without an appeal to God. And great care should be taken that a man swears to that which is true, and not false; for false swearing, or perjury, is a very grievous sin, and as it is strictly forbidden, it is severely punished by the Lord, as follows; see Leviticus 19:12, this is the third command, and the reason enforcing it follows:
for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name is vain; will not look upon him as an innocent person, and treat him as such; will not acquit and discharge him as just and righteous; but on the contrary will consider him as a guilty person, a profaner of his name, and a transgressor of his law, and will condemn and punish him, if not in this world, yet in the world to come; and so the Targum of Jonathan, by way of explanation, adds, "in the day of the great judgment;" see Malachi 3:5. (John Gill's Exposition of the Bible, Commentary on Exodus 20:7, Source)So as you see, just because someone might say God's name as an expression or surprise that does not mean that he used God's name in vain. He did not insult God in any way. He did not ridicule or degrade God in any way. If that was the case then every time any of us say "Oh My God!" in a state of surprise then that would mean that we are committing a gross sin, which is non sense.
RESPONSE:
Let us post the part that Zawadi overlooks:
Thou shall not take the name of the Lord God in vain,.... Make use of the name Lord or God, or any other name and epithet of the divine Being, IN A LIGHT AND TRIFLING WAY, WITHOUT ANY SHOW OF REVERENCE OF HIM, and affection to him; whereas the name of God ought never to be mentioned BUT IN A GRAVE AND SERIOUS MANNER, and with an awe of the greatness of his majesty upon the mind. (Capital emphasis ours)
Gill clearly stated that God’s name cannot be used in a light and trifling manner, in a way which is not serious. Thomas would have been guilty of taking God’s name in a less than serious and grave manner, and been guilty of using it in a flippant and trifling way, if his statement was nothing more than an exclamation of surprise. Thus, Zawadi’s reply is simply nonsense.
Moreover, Zawadi is merely exposing his inconsistency and hypocrisy at this point. Notice what Zawadi will say about Gill’s exegesis of John 20:29:
Well obviously John Gill is a Christian and is going to interpret the text the way he wants it to be interpreted. I already shown enough proof that it is possible that Thomas did not call Jesus his God.
Zawadi will brush aside Gill whenever he manages to expose and refute him simply because he happened to be a Christian! But when Gill serves Zawadi’s purpose then he is a trusted and reliable exegete! Apart from exposing his blatant hypocrisy, Zawadi is also guilty of committing the genetic fallacy and ad hominem by trying to discredit Gill on the basis that he was a Christian.
He then says:
My Response:
The word for Lord in John 13 is
kurios (Source), which could mean...1) he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord
a) the possessor and disposer of a thing
1) the owner; one who has control of the person, the master
2) in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor
b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master
c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah
For Synonyms see entry 5830Source: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2962&t=kjv
So big deal, Jesus had a title honor to be called Lord as it signified being a master of a servant. Many others were also called Lord in the Old Testament (see this). So that proves nothing.
The word kurios is the same word that Thomas called Jesus in John 20:28. (Source)
RESPONSE:
Notice Zawadi’s straw man at this point, which is an obvious indication that he really has nothing substantial to say. Anyone reading my rebuttal can see that the reason why I cited John 13:13-14 was to provide evidence that Thomas was addressing Jesus as his Lord in John 20:28. I demonstrated that both the immediate context of John along with the text of John 13 conclusively show that Thomas was clearly identifying Jesus as his Lord. All Zawadi can say by way of response is that Lord can be a title of honor which fails to contest the point I made that Thomas was clearly referring to Christ as his Lord, and therefore his God as well since Thomas directed both expressions to the same object.
Moreover, Jesus is called Lord not merely in the sense of master or teacher, but in the sense of being Yahweh God:
"because, if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For man believes with his heart and so is justified, and he confesses with his lips and so is saved. The scripture says, ‘No one who believes in him will be put to shame.’ For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; the same Lord is Lord of all and bestows his riches upon all who call upon him. For, ‘every one who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved.’" Romans 10:9-13
"To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:" 1 Corinthians 1:2
Believers are to call on the name of the Lord Jesus, which in light of the OT means that they are to confess Jesus as Yahweh God:
"Abraham planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and called there on the name of the LORD, the Everlasting God." Genesis 21:33
"And it shall come to pass that all who call upon the name of the LORD shall be saved; for in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls." Joel 2:32
He then appeals to the writings of some Unitarians who try to deny that John 1:1 is identifying Christ as the Logos, assertions which have been refuted time and time again:
http://forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm
http://aomin.org/GERM_JWS.html
http://aomin.org/JOHN1_1.html
http://forananswer.org/Top_JW/JWs%20and%20Jn1_1.htm
http://forananswer.org/Top_JW/Scholars%20and%20NWT.htm
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/john-1-1.htm
And as if the desperation couldn’t get any worse:
My Response:
So what if Thomas was talking directly to Jesus? He could still have said My Lord (referring to Jesus) and My God (referring to the Father) in a state of shock.
If I haven't seen my mom in a long time and then out of no where she steps into the room to surprise me and then I say "My mom and my God!" Does that mean I called my mom my God? I exclaimed "My Mom" in realizing that the individual was my mom and "My God" to express the shock that I felt seeing her.
RESPONSE:
Zawadi’s response basically ignores the grammatical arguments I set forth proving that Thomas could not have been addressing anyone besides Christ. He fails to address or interact with the point I made regarding the Greek idiom which John used, namely Apekrithe ... kai eipen auto ("answered and said to him"), and how this conclusively shows that Thomas was addressing his comments directly to Christ.
Zawadi also commits the very chronological fallacy which I had already addressed. It may be the case that some rare individuals today use such expressions as "my mom and my God" — although it strikes me as highly artificial and unnatural, even today — but that doesn’t mean that such exclamations of surprise and shock were used during the time of Christ. We already explained that God-fearing Jews would not speak in such a manner since they wouldn’t use God’s name in such a flippant way. Hence, the burden of proof is upon Zawadi to show that Bible-believing first century Jews would use God’s name this way.
Zawadi now commits the fallacy of appealing to authority:
Michaelis, a Trinitarian, writes:
I do not affirm that Thomas passed all at once from the extreme of doubt to the highest degree of faith, and acknowledged Christ to be the true God. This appears to me too much for the then existing knowledge of the disciples; and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ before the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I am therefore inclined to understand this expression, which broke out in the height of his astonishment, in a figurative sense, denoting only "whom I shall ever reverence in the highest degree"…Or a person raised from the dead might be regarded as a divinity; for the word God is not always used in the strict doctrinal sense" (Concessions of Trinitarians, pp. 23-25, cited here)
RESPONSE:
First, Michaelis provides us no biblical or contextual data to support his view that the disciples couldn’t have made such a confession. Why couldn’t the disciples have come to the conclusion that Jesus was their Lord and God especially when they had personally witnessed and heard the claims made by and about Christ, some of which include:
"And this was why the Jews persecuted Jesus, because he did this on the sabbath. But Jesus answered them, ‘My Father is working still, and I am working.’ This was why the Jews sought all the more to kill him, because he not only broke the sabbath but also called God his Father, making himself equal with God." John 5:16-18
"‘Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.’ The Jews then said to him, ‘You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?’ Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham came into being, I AM.’ So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple." John 8:56-59
"‘My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me; and I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish, and no one shall snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.’ The Jews took up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?’ The Jews answered him, ‘It is not for a good work that we stone you but for blasphemy; because you, being a man, make yourself God.’" John 10:27-33
If the unbelievers could deduce that Jesus was claiming to be God then why couldn’t his disciples?
Michaelis is merely begging the question by his assertion that Thomas’ confession was too high a Christology for the disciples to make at this stage. The only way he can know what the Apostles were capable of knowing or not knowing is by exegeting the text in question, not by assuming beforehand what was or wasn’t possible for the believers to grasp at this point in time.
As noted Evangelical author and scholar Murray J. Harris points out that,
"it is not the passage of time in itself but dramatic events that effect any deepening or broadening of human thought." (Harris, Jesus As God: The New Testament Use of "Theos" in Reference to Jesus (Paperback) [Baker Academic, July 1998], p. 277)
Moreover, Zawadi has again shown that he doesn’t read his sources carefully since Michaelis doesn’t deny that the disciples believed in the Deity of Christ, at least not from what is cited. He simply denies that they recognized his Deity prior to the giving of the Holy Spirit, which presumably he means before the Day of Pentecost. Note his words carefully:
… and we have no intimation that they recognized the divine nature of Christ BEFORE the outpouring of the Holy Spirit…
Thus, even he admits that the disciples believed in the Deity of the Lord Jesus.
Plus even if Thomas was calling Jesus theos, which is the Greek word for God in the verse (Source) that does not necessarily mean that Thomas was calling Jesus his God...
RESPONSE:
Note just how incoherent this sounds. Even though Zawadi concedes that Thomas may have called Jesus God that still doesn’t mean that he was calling Christ his God despite the fact that the text expressly states that Thomas used the expression "My God"! If Thomas was addressing Christ in John 20:28 then he was calling Jesus his God since that is what the text says Thomas said!
Zawadi continues:
Jesus never referred to himself as "God" in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus "my God"? The Greek language uses the word theos, ("God" or "god") with a broader meaning than is customary today. In the Greek language and in the culture of the day, "GOD" (all early manuscripts of the Bible were written in all capital letters) was a descriptive title applied to a range of authorities, including the Roman governor (Acts 12:22), and even the Devil (2 Cor. 4:4). It was used of someone with divine authority. It was not limited to its absolute sense as a personal name for the supreme Deity as we use it today. (Source)
RESPONSE:
First, Zawadi’s source doesn’t deny that Jesus referred to himself as God, but merely denies that he didn’t claim to be God in the absolute sense. This presupposes that Christ did claim to be God, albeit in a more restricted or relative sense. But this refutes Zawadi since he has been trying to deny that Christ claimed to be God in any sense whatsoever!
Second, none of the examples use Theos in the same sense that the NT uses it for Christ. Note, for example, the contexts of Acts 12:22:
"Now Herod was angry with the people of Tyre and Sidon; and they came to him in a body, and having persuaded Blastus, the king's chamberlain, they asked for peace, because their country depended on the king's country for food. On an appointed day Herod put on his royal robes, took his seat upon the throne, and made an oration to them. And the people shouted, ‘The voice of a god, and not of man!’ Immediately an angel of the Lord smote him, because he did not give God the glory; and he was eaten by worms and died.’" Acts 12:20-23
God strikes Herod dead for permitting the people to proclaim his divinity! This actually provides further support of what I had originally said regarding God raising Christ from the dead. I noted that the Father would not have raised Christ from the dead if he had been a blasphemer and not God in essence.
Regarding 2 Corinthians 4:4 it is not at all certain that this is referring to Satan. Let us quote the passage, and its surrounding context, and see what we can glean from it:
"Therefore, having this ministry by the mercy of God, we do not lose heart. We have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways; we refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s (tou Theou) word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God (tou Theou). And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god (ho Theos) of this world (or age - aionos) has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the likeness of God (tou Theou). For what we preach is not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, with ourselves as your servants for Jesus' sake. For it is the God (ho Theos) who said, ‘Let light shine out of darkness,’ who has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God (tou Theou) in the face of Christ. But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, to show that the transcendent power belongs to God (to Theou) and not to us." 2 Corinthians 4:1-7
The several uses of the noun Theos points in the direction that Paul has the same exact referent in view, which in this case would be the Father. There are other reasons for seeing the Father as the God who has blinded the mind of the unbelievers. For instance, the Scriptures teach that the Lord Jesus actively rules over this age, and the age to come:
"which he accomplished in Christ when he raised him from the dead and made him sit at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age (aioni) but also in that which is to come; and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all." Ephesians 1:20-23
The Holy Bible also teaches that as a result of a person’s stubbornness and refusal to accept the light that has been given to him or her God will take away the little ability he or she may have for seeing and believing:
"And he said, ‘Go, and say to this people: "Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive." Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed.’" Isaiah 6:9-10
"And he said, ‘He who has ears to hear, let him hear.’ And when he was alone, those who were about him with the twelve asked him concerning the parables. And he said to them, ‘To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables; so that they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand; lest they should turn again, and be forgiven’ … And he said to them, ‘Take heed what you hear; the measure you give will be the measure you get, and still more will be given you. For to him who has will more be given; and from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.’" Mark 4:9-12, 24-25
"Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’ Some of the Pharisees near him heard this, and they said to him, ‘Are we also blind?’ Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, "We see," your guilt remains.’" John 9:39-41
"When they had appointed a day for him, they came to him at his lodging in great numbers. And he expounded the matter to them from morning till evening, testifying to the kingdom of God and trying to convince them about Jesus both from the law of Moses and from the prophets. And some were convinced by what he said, while others disbelieved. So, as they disagreed among themselves, they departed, after Paul had made one statement: ‘The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: "Go to this people, and say, You shall indeed hear but never understand, and you shall indeed see but never perceive. For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them." Let it be known to you then that this salvation of God has been sent to the Gentiles; they will listen.’" Acts 28:23-28
"I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the scripture says of Eli'jah, how he pleads with God against Israel? ‘Lord, they have killed thy prophets, they have demolished thy altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.’ But what is God's reply to him? ‘I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Ba'al.’ So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. What then? Israel failed to obtain what it sought. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, as it is written, ‘God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that should not see and ears that should not hear, down to this very day.’ And David says, ‘Let their table become a snare and a trap, a pitfall and a retribution for them; let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs for ever.’" Romans 11:1-10
Thus, what Paul is actually saying is that the God of this age, who is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, has blinded the mind of the unbelievers as a consequence of their sinful rebellion against the God who has clearly revealed his truth to them. This is a point which Paul reiterates elsewhere:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." Romans 1:18-28
"The coming of the lawless one by the activity of Satan will be with all power and with pretended signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are to perish, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends upon them a strong delusion, to make them believe what is false, so that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness." 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The Old Testament backs up Paul on this point:
"But my people did not listen to my voice; Israel would have none of me. So I gave them over to their stubborn hearts, to follow their own counsels." Psalm 81:11-12
"O LORD, why dost thou make us err from thy ways and harden our heart, so that we fear thee not? Return for the sake of thy servants, the tribes of thy heritage." Isaiah 63:17
"And I said to their children in the wilderness, Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their ordinances, nor defile yourselves with their idols. I the LORD am your God; walk in my statutes, and be careful to observe my ordinances, and hallow my sabbaths that they may be a sign between me and you, that you may know that I the LORD am your God. But the children rebelled against me; they did not walk in my statutes, and were not careful to observe my ordinances, by whose observance man shall live; they profaned my sabbaths. Then I thought I would pour out my wrath upon them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. But I withheld my hand, and acted for the sake of my name, that it should not be profaned in the sight of the nations, in whose sight I had brought them out. Moreover I swore to them in the wilderness that I would scatter them among the nations and disperse them through the countries, because they had not executed my ordinances, but had rejected my statutes and profaned my sabbaths, and their eyes were set on their fathers' idols. Moreover I gave them statutes that were not good and ordinances by which they could not have life; and I defiled them through their very gifts in making them offer by fire all their first-born, that I might horrify them; I did it that they might know that I am the LORD." Ezekiel 20:18-26
In light of the foregoing, appealing to 2 Corinthians 4:4 is misplaced since this isn’t calling a creature god, but is referring to the Father as the God of this age. For more on this issue please read the following article: http://www.rctr.org/journal/8.pdf
Zawadi appeals to the lexical meaning of Theos and says:
Plus the word theos could mean...
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
a) refers to the things of God
b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
a) God's representative or viceregent
1) of magistrates and judges
Source: http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G2316&t=kjv
So the word theos could possibly mean God's representative.
RESPONSE:
It is truly amazing that Zawadi could simply overlook and pass over the following definitions:
2) the Godhead, trinity
a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
Notice that the lexicon doesn’t say that Jesus is Theos in the sense of being God’s representative. The very source that Zawadi quotes clearly confirms that the NT calls Jesus Theos in the absolute sense of being the second Person of the Trinity! It should be obvious why this lexicon would say this since the NT data expressly portrays Jesus as being fully God in essence.
Zawadi brings up Mary Magdalene:
… Plus if Jesus' resurrection was the ultimate proof that he was God then why didn't Mary Magdalene call Jesus God once she saw him after his resurrection? Instead what does she call him?...
John 20:16
16
Jesus said to her, "Mary." She turned toward him and cried out in Aramaic, "Rabboni!"Mary called Jesus Rabboni, which basically was a title of honor that means master. (Source
) So why didn't she just go ahead and call Jesus God if Jesus supposedly proved himself to be God by his resurrection?
RESPONSE:
To show just how utterly weak this argument is note that Mary doesn’t call Jesus the Messiah, doesn’t call him a prophet, doesn’t call him a messenger, all of which Zawadi believes about Jesus. Using Zawadi’s logic this means that Jesus didn’t hold all these offices or that Mary didn’t believe that he was all these things simply because she never addressed him by any of these titles!
Moreover, Mary would have been there to hear Thomas confess Jesus as his Lord and God, and John concludes this particular chapter by testifying that Jesus is God’s Son. Does Zawadi really want us to assume that even though the rest of the disciples believed that Jesus was the Christ and the Divine Son of God, Mary on the other hand didn’t solely because John doesn’t record her confessing that she did?
To put it simply, Mary’s confession doesn’t mean that she didn’t believe that Jesus was more than her master, more than a prophet. It is quite obvious that Zawadi is doing nothing more than committing the fallacy of arguing from silence.
In fact, what Mary actually does say in this chapter provides further proof that Thomas was addressing Jesus as his Lord God:
"But Mary stood weeping outside the tomb, and as she wept she stooped to look into the tomb; and she saw two angels in white, sitting where the body of Jesus had lain, one at the head and one at the feet. They said to her, ‘Woman, why are you weeping?’ She said to them, ‘Because they have taken away MY LORD (ton Kurion mou), and I do not know where they have laid him.’" John 20:11-13
Mary calls Jesus her Lord and a few verses later the other disciples will also speak of seeing the Lord alive (cf. 20:25), all of which takes place in the very same chapter where Thomas makes his confession! This is additional evidence that Thomas was directing his confession to Jesus.
He then says:
My Response:
Okay fine I believe that Jesus is the Christ as well. Yes Jesus is the son of god according to Hebrew terminology in which it means servant of God. Same thing that Adam was called (Luke 3:38)
RESPONSE:
First, Son of God does not carry the same meaning as servant:
"Jesus answered them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin. The slave does not continue in the house for ever; the son continues for ever. So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed.’" John 8:34-36
Christ clearly differentiates between a servant and a son.
Second, Adam is not God’s son in the same sense that Christ is. In order to prevent this rebuttal from being lengthier than what it already is we will provide links that illustrate this fact:
http://answering-islam.org/Hahn/son.html
http://answering-islam.org/Who/jesus_monogenes.html
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol2/8b.html
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Challenge/chap3.html
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Sharing/12son.html
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/sonofgod.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Silas/son2.htm
Third, Zawadi’s appeal to Luke 3:38 backfires against him since it shows that Allah of the Quran is not the same God of the Holy Bible. The reason is that Allah isn’t a father to anyone since all must come to him as slaves, no more no less:
And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children) [as the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that He has begotten a son [‘Iesa (Christ)], and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels, etc.)]." Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing. Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins, That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allah). But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children). There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Beneficent (Allah) as a slave. S. 19:88-93 Hilali-Khan
The true God, however, relates to his elect people as a spiritual Father. For more on this point please consult the following:
Next, Zawadi posts links to Zaatari’s "responses" and claims that he refuted some of the citations which I presented here. Instead of running to Zaatari we invite Zawadi to post the specific sections of Zaatari’s articles since this will spare us the torture of having to read his shallow materials. This will not only save us the pain of reading Zaatari’s incoherent babble but will provide us an opportunity to refute these points and show why Zaatari makes Osama look good (which isn’t a compliment by the way).
Following in the footsteps of his mentor Osama (the mantra syndrome) and like a broken record, Zawadi repeats the point that Jesus was given all authority as if this somehow refutes the Deity of Christ. Instead of repeating ourselves ad infinitum we simply post our response to this issue:
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_authority_given.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/eternal_generation.htm
http://answering-islam.org/Shamoun/q_father_greater.htm
He then claims:
As for these claims that Jesus made, we have to remember that Jesus used to talk figuratively. But then when he talked plainly with his disciples he made it clear that he was sent FROM God and that he did not say that he WAS God.
John 16:25-33
25
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly about my Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. 27No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God. 28I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father."29Then Jesus' disciples said, "Now you are speaking clearly and without figures of speech. 30Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."
31"You believe at last!"[b] Jesus answered. 32"But a time is coming, and has come, when you will be scattered, each to his own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me.
33"I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
Now if Jesus was talking plainly then why didn't the disciples just go and say that they knew Jesus was God and not just sent by God?
RESPONSE:
In his haste Zawadi overlooked the most important parts of the texts:
"Though I have been speaking figuratively, A TIME IS COMING WHEN I WILL NO LONGER USE THIS KIND OF LANGUAGE BUT WILL TELL YOU PLAINLY ABOUT MY FATHER. In that day you will ask in my name. I am not saying that I will ask the Father on your behalf. No, the Father himself loves you because you have loved me AND HAVE BELIEVED THAT I CAME FROM GOD. I CAME FROM THE FATHER AND ENTERED THE WORLD; now I am leaving the world AND GOING BACK TO THE FATHER.’ Then Jesus’ disciples said, ‘NOW YOU ARE SPEAKING CLEARLY AND WITHOUT FIGURES OF SPEECH. Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. THIS MAKES US BELIEVE THAT YOU CAME FROM GOD.’ ‘You believe at last!’ Jesus answered." John 16:25-31
The passage clearly says that Jesus WAS NOT SPEAKING FIGURATIVELY at this point in time. The apostles even respond by stating that since Jesus was speaking plainly to them they came to believe that he had come from God, which itself is a rather explicit claim to Jesus’ prehuman existence! So even if we assume that all of Jesus’ statements up to that point regarding his Divine Identity were merely figurative, this would not apply to this particular situation or to the incident with Thomas since this occurred long after Jesus told his followers that he would start speaking plainly to them.
Moreover, note again the glaring inconsistency on the part of Zawadi when he asks why didn’t the apostles go out and claim that Jesus is God. When passages are presented showing that the disciples did affirm that Jesus is God, Zawadi either denies the plain meaning of these texts or simply brushes them aside. For instance, notice his response to what John wrote in his prologue and in 20:30-31:
I could care less about the interpretation of the New Testament authors. I want to see what Jesus said about himself directly.
And:
Plus, like I said before I could care less about what the New Testament writers[sic] interpretations I just want to see what Jesus said.
So now what is it? Does Zawadi care or not care about what the Apostles had to say about Jesus’ Deity?
But since he wanted references from Jesus’ followers where they called him God we will provide him with several:
"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen." Romans 9:5
The late outstanding Greek grammarian and NT scholar A.T. Robertson noted:
Of whom (ex wn). Fourth relative clause and here with ex and the ablative. Christ (o Cristoß). The Messiah. As concerning the flesh (to kata sarka). Accusative of general reference, "as to the according to the flesh." Paul limits the descent of Jesus from the Jews to his human side as he did in Acts 1:3. Who is over all, God blessed for ever (o on epi pantwn qeoß euloghtoß). A clear statement of the deity of Christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See Acts 20:28; Titus 2:13 for Paul's use of qeoß applied to Jesus Christ. (Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament; online source)
Some other NT verses identifying Jesus as God include:
"For in him the whole FULNESS of Deity dwells bodily," Colossians 2:9
"Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." Philippians 2:5-7 NIV
One renowned NT commentator said regarding the above that:
"… It is not doubtful that Paul thought of Jesus Christ in terms of God. He says of Jesus that he was in the form of God. (Phil. 2:6). He then goes on to say that Jesus was found in human form (Phil. 2:8, RSV), where the AV renders that he was found in fashion as a man. The RSV somewhat misleadingly translates two Greek words by the English word form, whereas the AV correctly distinguishes between them. In the first instance the word is morphe, which means THE UNCHANGING AND UNCHANGEABLE ESSENTIAL NATURE of a thing; the second word is schema, which means the changing and altering external form of a person or a thing. For instance, a man has always the unchanging morphe of manhood; that is what he essentially is; but he will have different schemata, different outward forms, in babyhood, childhood, youth, maturity and old age. A tulip, a rose, a chrysanthemum, a marigold, a daffodil, a delphinium all have the same morphe, the same essential nature, for they are all flowers; but they have very different outward schemata, outward forms. Paul says that Jesus was in the morphe of God; that is to say, the essential nature of Jesus IS THE SAME AS THE ESSENTIAL NATURE OF GOD; but he says that Jesus was found in the schema of a man; that is to say, he temporarily took the form of manhood upon him. The NEB renders the Greek well here. In translating the word morphe it renders the passage: ‘The divine nature was his from the first.’ In translating the word schema it says that he was 'revealed in human shape.’ This passage leaves us in no doubt that Paul believed that the nature of Jesus is the nature of God." (William Barclay, Jesus As They Saw Him [Eerdmans Publishing Company; Grand Rapids MI, rpt. 1998], pp. 27-28; bold and capital emphasis ours)
We conclude with two final NT examples:
"awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds." Titus 2:13-14 {1}
"Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: … so there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:1, 11 {2}
Regarding Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, Murray J. Harris writes:
"Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 may be considered together, since both use a stereotyped formula, ‘God and Savior,’ in reference to Jesus. This was a common formula in first-century religious terminology, used by both Palestinian and Diaspora Jews in reference to Yahweh, the one true God, and by Gentiles when they spoke of an individual god or a deified ruler. In all of these uses the expression God and Savior invariably denotes one deity, not two, so that when Paul and Peter employ this formula and follow it with the name of Jesus Christ, their readers would always understand it as referring to a single person, Jesus Christ. It would simply not have occurred to them that ‘God’ might men the Father, with Jesus Christ as the ‘Savior.’" (Harris, 3 Crucial Questions About Jesus [Baker Books; Grand Rapids, MI 1994], pp. 96-97; bold emphasis ours)
And:
"In the light of the foregoing evidence, it seems highly probable that in Titus 2:13 Jesus Christ is called ‘our great God and Savior,’ a verdict shared, with varying degrees of assurance, by almost all grammarians and lexicographers, many commentators, and many writers on NT theology or Christology, although there are some dissenting voices." (Jesus as God, p. 185; bold emphasis ours)
The late great Biblical expositor Albert Barnes stated:
Verse 13. Looking for. Expecting; waiting for. That is, in the faithful performance of our duties to ourselves, to our fellow-creatures, and to God, we are patiently to wait for the coming of our Lord.
(1.) We are to believe that he will return;
(2.) We are to be in a posture of expectation, not knowing when he will come; and
(3.) We are to be ready for him whenever he shall come. See Barnes "Matthew 24:42", seq. See Barnes "1 Thessalonians 5:4"; See Barnes "Philippians 3:20".
That blessed hope. The fulfillment of that hope so full of blessedness to us.
The glorious appearing. See Barnes "2 Thessalonians 2:8". Compare 1 Timothy 6:14; 2 Timothy 1:10; 4:1,8.
Of the great God. There can be little doubt, if any, that by "the great God" here, the apostle referred to the Lord Jesus, for it is not a doctrine of the New Testament that God himself as such, or in contradistinction from his incarnate Son, will appear at the last day. It is said, indeed, that the Saviour will come "in the glory of his Father with his angels," (Matthew 16:27,) but that God as such will appear, is not taught in the Bible. The doctrine there is, that God will be manifest in his Son; that the Divine approach to our world will be through him to judge the race; and that though he will be accompanied with the appropriate symbols of the Divinity, yet it will be the Son of God who will be visible. No one, accustomed to Paul's views, can well doubt that when he used this language he had his eye throughout on the Son of God, and that he expected no other manifestation than what would be made through him. In no place in the New Testament is the phrase epiphaneian tou theou "the manifestation or appearing of God"--applied to any other one than Christ. It is true that this is spoken of here as the "appearing of the glory --ton doxon--of the great God;" but the idea is that of such a manifestation as became God, or would appropriately display his glory. It is known to most persons who have attended to religious controversies, that this passage has given rise to much discussion. The ancients, in general, interpreted it as meaning, "The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ." This sense has been vindicated by the labours of Beza, Whitby, Bull, Matthaei, and Middleton, (on the Greek article,) and is the common interpretation of those who claim to be orthodox. See Bloomfield, Rec. Syn., and Notes, in loc. He contends that the meaning is, "the glorious appearance of that GREAT BEING who is our GOD AND SAVIOUR." The arguments for this opinion are well summed up by Bloomfield. Without going into a critical examination of this passage, which would not be in accordance with the design of these Notes, it may be remarked in general,
(1.) that no plain reader of the New Testament, accustomed to the common language there, would have any doubt that the apostle referred here to the coming of the Lord Jesus.
(2.) That the "coming" of God, as such, is not spoken of in this manner in the New Testament.
(3.) That the expectation of Christians was directed to the advent of the ascended Saviour, not to the appearing of God as such.
(4.) That this is just such language as one would use who believed that the Lord Jesus is Divine, or that the name God might properly be applied to him.
(5.) That it would naturally and obviously convey the idea that he was Divine, to one who had no theory to defend.
(6.) That if the apostle did not mean this, he used such language as was fitted to lead men into error. And
(7.) That the fair construction of the Greek here, according to the application of the most rigid rules, abundantly sustains the interpretation which the plain reader of the New Testament would affix to it. The names above referred to are abundant proof that no violation is done to the rules of the Greek language by this interpretation, but rather that the fair construction of the original demands it. If this be so, then this furnishes an important proof of the divinity of Christ. (Barnes' Notes on the New Testament; online source; underline emphasis ours)
Another expositor Adam Clarke had this to say about 2 Peter 1:1:
Of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ
This is not a proper translation of the original του θεου ημων και σωτηρος ιησου χριστου, which is literally, Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ; and this reading, which is indicated in the margin, should have been received into the text; and it is an absolute proof that St. Peter calls Jesus Christ GOD, even in the properest sense of the word, with the article prefixed. It is no evidence against this doctrine that one MS. of little authority, and the Syriac and two Arabic versions have κυριου, Lord, instead of θεου, God, as all other MSS. and versions agree in the other reading, as well as the fathers. See in Griesbach. (The Adam Clarke Commentary; online source; bold and underline emphasis ours)
Murray Harris ties in all the NT references to Jesus as God in order to bring out their significance:
This brings to an end our brief survey of these seven crucial passages. First, the ascription of the title God to Jesus is found in four New Testament writers - John (three uses), Paul (two), Peter (one), and the author of Hebrews (one). Second, this christological use of the title began immediately after the resurrection in 30 (John 20:28), continued during the 50s (Rom. 9:5) and 60s (Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1), and then into the 90s (John 1:1, 18). Third, the use of "God" in reference to Jesus was not restricted to Christians who lived in one geographical region or who had a particular theological outlook. It occurs in literature that was written in Asia Minor (John, Titus), Greece (Romans), and possibly Judea (Hebrews), and Rome (2 Peter), and that was addressed to persons living in Asia Minor (John, 2 Peter), Rome (Romans, Hebrews), and Crete (Titus). Also, the use is found in a theological setting that is Jewish Christian (John, Hebrews, 2 Peter) or Gentile Christian (Romans, Titus). Fourth, the three instances in John's Gospel are strategically placed. This Fourth Gospel begins (1:1) as it ends (20:28), and the Prologue to this Gospel begins (1:1) as it ends (1:18), with an unambiguous assertion of the deity of Christ: "The Word was God" (1:1); "the only Son, who is God" (1:18); "my Lord and my God!" (20:28). In his preincarnate state (1:1), in his incarnate state (1:18), and in his postresurrection state (20:28), Jesus is God. For John, recognition of Christ's deity is the hallmark of the Christian. (3 Crucial Questions about Jesus, pp. 98-99)
For a more thorough discussion of these texts we highly recommend the following articles:
http://aomin.org/GRANVILL.html
http://forananswer.org/2Peter/2Peter1_1.htm
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1496
http://biblicalapologetics.net/NTStudies/Sharps_Rule.pdf
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=555
http://forananswer.org/Romans/Rom9_5.htm
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/rom-9-5/pt-1.htm
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/rom-9-5/pt-2.htm
We now finish off our rebuttal by quoting Zawadi’s own words against him.
Conclusion
Sorry Zawadi, but your utterly desperate attempt of rebutting the plain reading of John 20:28 has been refuted again. The verse is a powerful testimony proving that disciples such as Thomas believed that Jesus is God.{3}
Jesus is the risen and immortal Lord for ever and ever who shall come again! Amen. Come Lord Jesus. Come.
Notes:
{1} All throughout this short epistle the blessed Apostle applies the term "Savior" to God and Christ:
"and at the proper time manifested in his word through the preaching with which I have been entrusted by command of God our Savior; To Titus, my true child in a common faith: Grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Savior." Titus 1:3-4
"nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior." Titus 2:10
"but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which he poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior," Titus 3:4-6
The ease with which Paul can switch between calling both God and Christ "Savior" is a further demonstration of the Deity of the Lord Jesus.
{2} Peter applies to Christ specific titles and functions which anyone familiar with the OT would easily see as being nothing less than descriptions of absolute Deity. According to the Old Testament there is only One who is God, Lord and Savior, only One who grants righteousness:
"Declare and present your case; let them take counsel together! Who told this long ago? Who declared it of old? Was it not I, the LORD? And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn; from my mouth has gone out in righteousness a word that shall not return: ‘To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.’ Only in the LORD, it shall be said of me, are righteousness and strength; to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him. In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory." Isaiah 45:21-25
Moreover, it is Yahweh’s kingdom which is eternal:
"All your works shall give thanks to you, O LORD, and all your saints shall bless you! They shall speak of the glory of your kingdom and tell of your power, to make known to the children of man your mighty deeds, and the glorious splendor of your kingdom. Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations." Psalm 145:10-13
"At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnezzar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives forever, for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation; all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, ‘What have you done?’" Daniel 4:34-35
Peter was essentially identifying Jesus as Yahweh God, the only Savior who is able to give the righteousness which results unto eternal life!
{3} This may give the somewhat misleading impression that the only way that the Apostles or the NT writers could identify Jesus as God is if they expressly applied the noun Theos ("God") to him. We say this is misleading since Christ’s Divinity is not based solely or even primarily on the fact that Jesus is called Theos. The writings of the NT demonstrate the fully Deity of Jesus by ascribing to him certain Divine qualities, characteristics, and functions, i.e. Christ is the Agent of creation and redemption, the Sustainer, has all of God’s omni-attributes etc.
Rebuttals to Answering-Christianity
Articles by Sam Shamoun
Answering Islam Home Page