From: rhw@chaser.co.uk (Roland H. Watson)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: reply to Dr. Siddiqui
Date: 15 Nov 1992 23:17 PDT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: romeo.caltech.edu
Originator: Mughal@Romeo.Caltech.Edu (Asim Mughal -Moderator)
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    



Dr. Habib Siddiqui writes:


>This is from Dr. Habib Siddiqui
>(RBNXHS%ROHVM1.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU)


Thank you for your expansive reply which I feel I must answer lest my silence
makes anyone think that your replies are irrefutable.

>Roland Watson writes:
>>May I quote John 5:17-18 as regards the equality of Jesus with God:

>These verses have been explained in my article (A rebuttal of missionary
>theology). Please, read that article for the explanation.

I do not seem to have this article though you reference John's Gospel in an
article entitled "A lesson in history" which I shall address when you refer to
John's Gospel later on.

>>I have never heard or read of anyone in my eight years of studying theChristian
>>faith who proposed that the term"son of man" indicated the deity of Christ.

>You are obviously unaware or ignorant of views made by gospel-thumping,
>born-again Xians. In my last *14 years* of study of your faith, I have
>come across several of those hard-core Xians. In their zealous attempts

No doubt there are those who hold such an argument but they are still wrong. My
studies place emphasis on works by major theologians and not conversations with
less qualified Christians. For example, Herman Hoeksema in Part IV Chapter II of
"Reformed Dogmatics" says

	It is generally accepted that the name "Son of Man" is derived from
	Daniel 7:13, and certainly refers to His HUMAN NATURE as He assumed
	it in Bethlehem ...

As you can see, not every scholar uses Ezekiel as the origin of the phrase "Son
of Man".

>In my original article what I have tried to explain is that the usage of
>such terms "son of God", "son of Man", 'saviour','messiah', etc. are not
>unique for Jesus, and that there are several candidates for each of

On the subject of saviour, when the *synoptic* gospel calls Jesus the saviour of
his people (Matthew 1:21), is this not a title that should only be given to God
since only He can save us from our sins?

>>  Moreover, if Jesus of Nazareth was only claiming to be one figurativeson
>>amongst many,then why did he call Himself the "only" Son of God? For example,
>>  John 3:16
>>  "For God so loved the world, that He gave his ONLY begotten Son, that
>>  whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

>The King James Version uses the term "begotten" for sonship of Jesus.
>This is based on an inaccurate translation of the NT manuscripts. In the.

The words "only begotten" come to us from the Greek compound word "mono-genes"
meaning:

	monos - only, alone, single, solitary, without company
	genes - begotten, born

It is a valid translation, there is no argument here.

Nevertheless, you will note that my emphasis was on the word "ONLY" and not
"begotten" since I anticipated your focus on the latter word (many months of
debating with Muslims at Speakers' Corner in London has given me some foresight
in these matters!). I notice that rather than explain theologically why Jesus is
called the ONLY son of God, you seek to prove that the verse is a fabrication, 
yet at the beginning of your original article you ask:

> Does the Bible explicitly or implicitly state that Jesus was co-equal with
> Yehwah (God)?

I presume you mean a modern Bible translation and am I not presenting verses
from such a Bible to answer your original question?

>In Psalms 2:7, David is called a "begotten" son of God ("I will declare
>the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art *My Son*; this day
>have I *begotten* thee.") Thus, Jesus's claim of being a begotten son
>of God is *not* unique, and as the Psalm shows he was definitely not the
>ONLY such begotten son.

Psalm 2 does not refer to the prophet David. It refers to the Messiah of verse 
2 (His Anointed One). I ask you, did David receive the nations as his 
inheritance (verse 8)? Did he have the ends of the Earth as his possession(verse
8)? Did he rule them with a rod of iron (verse 9)? No, David ruled a very small
nation called Israel and nothing else. These verses refer to a more potent 
figure - the Messiah.


>> I object to the use of the adjective "Pauline" for it implies that the early

>You are wrong, again. Read Acts 15:36-39 which clearly shows that the
>division within the early christians was too great to be mended by the
>church. 

These verses have nothing to do with Apostolic Schism. Schism is the division of
two sectors of the Church over a matter pertaining to faith and morals. If the
first council of Jerusalem in Acts Chapter 15 had not come to agreement and gone
their separate ways, one could justifiably call that a schism. Paul and Barnabas
disagreeing over the appointment of John Mark as an assistant (a matter not 
important to faith and morals) did not lead to any part of the Church splitting.


>what you call Christianity has nothing to do with the teachings of
>Jesus or his early followers (James, Peter and others), but it is about
>what became of it in the hands of Paul - the innovator and his gentile
>followers who saw to it that their new faith might no longer be linked to
>the Jews and the Judeo-Christians (the Monotheists), esp. after the Revolt.

The Apostle John was an early follower of Jesus, but you reject his gospel
account on the pre-supposition that he could not have possibly written such a
thing. The Apostle Peter stated the so-called Pauline doctrines of the atonement
and resurrection in his first epistle.

	I Peter 2:24
	He himself (i.e. Jesus) bore our sins in his body on the tree ...

	I Peter 1:3
	He has given us new birth ... through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
	from the dead ...

The only reason to doubt Peter's authorship is to pre-judge the issue. Peter
even commends Paul's teachings in II Peter 3:15-16. Critics of Paul are forced
to assume that these verses are interpolations without any textual evidence to
support their views. They pick and choose which verses suit their theology, as
a Bible Christian I meet every verse head-on. James called Jesus "our glorious
Lord Jesus Christ" in James 2:1. If James believed that Jesus was a humble human
messenger of God, would he call Him that? I think not.

So you see, it is not just Paul's writings which exalt Jesus to a position 
beyond that of prophet. One further question, how did this "upstart" Paul manage
to delude Peter, James, John, etc, into believing his views on the atonement and
resurrection when presumably they had first hand experience that Jesus was not
crucified?

>the verse 15:39). Why the book of Acts (author(s): unknown; possibly
>Luke, a gentile follower of Paul) is also silent about rest of the
>original disciples of Jesus (see chapters 16-28)?

The book of Acts is silent because its account moves into gentile areas beyond
Judaea and Samaria. James, Peter, etc. were ministers to the Jews alone (see
James 1:1, I Peter 1:1 and Galatians 2:9) so therefore their involvement 
diminishes.

>>I have never heard or read of anyone who proposed that the term"messiah"
>>indicated the deity of Christ.
>                        ======
> Which Christ? Cyrus (Isa. 45:1) or Jesus?

In the nomenclature of mainstream Christianity, the word christ capitalised
refers to Jesus of Nazareth.

> You are either totally ignorant of views made by gospel-thumpers as to
>180+ reasons (or verses) for the divinity of Jesus or are deliberately
>trying to hide these facts. Please, read my rebuttal article where it
>shows how Trinitarians use Mark 14:61 to equate divinity with Messiah-
>ship (the rebuttal was written against a number of verses brought forth
>by a sympathiser of the Trinitarian doctrine).

Refer to my reply regarding the "Son of Man" argument. Whatever this rebuttal
article says about Mark 14:61, I would like to know what its says about Jesus'
reply of "I am ..."

>It is good to see that you also admit that among all the gospels, John's
>gospel *primarily* proclaims the so-called divinity of Jesus, despite
>the apparent contradictions within itself, e.g., John 14:2, 14:28. The
>explanation for such inconsistencies is well explained by Biblical
>scholars themselves and I have quoted O'Culman's statement in my rebut-
>tal article. You may also like to read E.G. White's commentary on the
>Bible to refresh your memory.

You must E-mail me the relevant rebuttal article so that I can comment.

>As to what the original writer of John's gospel wrote, we don't have any
>clue other than what has been passed on to us through the debate between
>the church and Bar Dishan, an early Christian of Syrian origin. It shows
>that Bar Dishan maintained that the Greek form of the genitive case
>"Theou" (meaning God's) was deliberately ALTERED by the Trinitarians
>into "Theos" (meaning God). As such, the verse should have read, "In
>the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was
>God's." If we are to accept Bar Dishan's view, then the very verse in
>John 1:1 has nothing to do with divinity of Jesus. It might be worth

I have no idea who Bar Dishan is, he does not appear in any of my books on
Christological controversies. His claim regarding John 1:1 is unprovable. I
have a Greek New Testament which gives variant textual readings for various
verses from scholars such as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford
and Wordsworth. Not ONE of them gives "theou" as a variant reading. Since such
men were prepared to mercilessly replace "theos" with "(h)os" (he) in I Timothy
3:16, I have no doubt they would have done the same thing with John 1:1. But 
they did not because there was no manuscript with such a reading of John 1:1.
Until such a manuscript surfaces, this argument must be put aside.

You claim the original author of John's Gospel wrote "theou" and that Hellenist
Christians changed it to "theos". In your article "A lesson in history", you
write:

* Elias. He denied *all*. (Luke 9:21) The whole episode in John's gospel
* suggesting that Yahya recognized Jesus as that Messiah, is a fabrication
* and a clever attempt on the part of the Hellenized Jew(s) who
							    ^^^
* wrote the gospel *according to* John. The whole event contradicts with
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Can you clarify your position. Did the Hellenists write or change the gospel
according to John?

>You continued on your explanation-
>> Phillipians 2:5-8
>> "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, Who, being in the
>>  FORM of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. But made Himself
>>  of no reputation, and took upon Him the FORM of a servant, and was made in
>>  the likeness of men; and, being found in fashion as a man, He HUMBLED
>>  Himself and became OBEDIENT unto death, even the death of the cross."

>You have proved my point about Christianity (see above), and, as expected,
>have tried to support your views concerning divinity of Jesus by one
>of Paul's (who else?) writings, e.g., Phil. 2:5-8, the so-called

And why not, I regard Him as one of God's infallible Apostles.

>preaching the *true* gospel. Can the views of a self-claiming-disciple
>(who even abrogates Mosaic laws, while the Synoptists remind us that
>Jesus did not violate a single iota, but rather fulfilled the laws
>- Matt. 5:17) be more important than the teacher/master? Obviously, the

Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and Prophets because He was the reality or
substance behind the symbolism of the Law's ordinances, e.g. He was the real
sacrificial lamb of God who fulfilled the symbolism behind animal sacrifices

	I Peter 1:18-19
	... you were redeemed with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb
	without blemish or defect.

As regards abrogation of the Law, why does Islam not have the sacrificing
priesthood so meticulously laid out in the book of Leviticus? If this was
abrogated in the Qur'an, then do I not have a precedent in our argument?

>that for Christians, the only document accepted as reporting the words
>of Jesus are the accounts given in the 4 gospels (*according to* Matthew,
>Mark, Luke and John).

The words of Jesus are also recorded in Acts and Revelation. Jesus says in
Revelation:

	Revelation 21:7
	He who overcomes will inherit all this, and I will be his God and
	he will be My son.

You also have the problem of explaining why these Hellenistic Pauline Christians
who corrupted/wrote John's gospel did not put in a straight interpolation into
the gospel such as

	"And Jesus said, 'I am God, worship me'"

If they were so intent on proclaiming Jesus' divinity your theory should predict
such a verse. There are no such *extremely direct* verses in the gospels so your
theory seems at best to be in need of revision, at worst, rejection.

Proof texts for the deity of Jesus are more subtle than the bold pronunciations
you demand from the gospels. Since Jesus spoke to the Jews in couched terms a
lot of the time, He was not always direct and plain speaking with them (refer to
Matthew 13:10-16 which states why Jesus spoke to the Jews in difficult parables)
One exegetical technique is to compare the qualities of Jesus Christ with that 
of Deity. For example,

			Jesus			God
Saviour of His people	Matthew 1:21		Isaiah 45:21-22
Lord of the Sabbath	Matthew 12:8		implicitly true of God
Lord of the angels	Matthew 24:31		Psalm 91:11
Judge of the world	Matthew 25:31-33	Psalm 98:9
Ruler of the world	Matthew 28:18		Psalm 103:19

You will notice that I have drawn all proofs from just one *synoptic* gospel.

>Some Biblical scholars argue that the phrase "being in the form of God"
>is a later *interpolation* by the Trinitarians. If we were to accept

Once again, my list of textual variants give nothing for this verse. Therefore,
unless you supply your source of textual variant information, I assume that this
interpolation theory is speculation with no textual proof to support it.

>get somewhat a different flavor. The KJV translates the word 'morphe'
>as 'form'. Some Biblical commentators, e.g., Grayston (Cambridge Bibli-
>cal Commentary) rejects this meaning (i.e., form or image) since God has
>no form or image, and argues that, instead, "nature" is more appropriate
>as a meaning. Similarly, the Greek word "(h)arpamagos" primarily means

I have no problem with the rendering of "morphe" as "nature" as long as one
understands the use of the word.

J.H.Michael on his Phillipians commentary says:

	It seems certain that the word always signifies a form which truly
	expresses the being which underlies it ... though the word does not
	actually mean nature, yet a thing cannot be said to be in the
	"morphe" of God unless it possesses the essential qualities of that
	other.

He uses the translation "though he was divine by nature ..."

J.H.Thayer's lexicon says of "morphe":

	morphe - the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision
	       - the external appearance

Trench in his "New Testament Synonyms" compares the greek words "morphe"
and "schema" as indicating that which is "intrinsic and essential" and that
which is "outward and accidental" respectively.

Could you expand on what you understand by "nature" since you state it without
explaining its meaning in connection with the word "God".

>as a meaning. Similarly, the Greek word "(h)arpamagos" primarily means
>'something seized or plundered or stolen' (which one did not initially
>possess). Most English translations (including NIV) ignore this primary
>meaning in favor of 'something to be grasped/retained/held onto.'

Your choice of words for the translation of "(h)arpamagos" is valid, but has to
be interpreted within the context of the passage. There are two main interpre-
tations of the passage which both focus on the negative "not".

1. Jesus did not consider his *pre-incarnate* divine equality a thing seized 
   because it was his by right.

2. Jesus did not consider his *post-resurrection* divine equality a thing seized
   because it was attained by his self-emptying ( "but he emptied himself ...
   therefore God has highly exalted him" ).

So, the word "not" simply states that His divine equality was not "robbery". The
only issue at stake is whether the stated divine equality is pre-incarnation or
post-resurrection.

>Net - alt.atheism, talk.religion.misc.) The very use of the Greek word
>'(h)arpamagos' in Phil. 2:6 shows that even Paul (oh| yes) himself did
>not consider Jesus to be *equal* to God.

As an example of Paul's belief in the divinity of Jesus, I quote

	Titus 2:13
	while we wait for the blessed hope - the glorious appearing of our
	great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ

>You then went on to explain the subordinate role that this God Incarnate
>- Jesus born of human flesh, had to play in order to take our sins. Did
>it ever occur to you that the concept of original sin is completely
>foreign to Judaism and Jews? (Deut. 24:16) Why were not they ever told

The doctrine of original sin encompasses actual as well as Adam's transgression.
The doctrine states that Adam's sin nature was imparted to his offspring via
heredity (see Genesis 5:3) and the guilt of his first sin imputed to them (the
imputation part is not so generally held). Ultimately, God will judge everyone
for their own personal sins. Deuteronomy 24:16 refers to personal sin only and
not original sin, but does not exclude it. The imputation of Adam's sin was a
once-only act, subsequent sinful acts of fathers are NOT imputed to offspring.

>foreign to Judaism and Jews? (Deut. 24:16) Why were not they ever told
>about carrying such a burden on their shoulders and that the only way
>for remission was by the sacrifice of God's *only begotten* son (a.k.a.
>Jesus)? Yet, you and other Trinitarians always remind us (when asked why

The fact that the Israelites had to obtain atonement by the blood of another
(the sacrificial victim) pointed to the "Lamb of God who takes away the sin of
the world" (John 1:29).

>Jesus)? Yet, you and other Trinitarians always remind us (when asked why
>Jesus must be divine) that Jesus must be divine if his death is to be
>sufficient atonement for the sins of mankind. When we ask why the death
>of any man would be insufficient, we are told that this is an inheri-
>tance from our fathers, so all of us are sharing that sin; Jesus on the
>other hand, did not have any human father, as such he was sinless. Never
>the less, they still require that Jesus be divine to suit the role of
>redeemer. So, when we ask, "Did God die on the cross", they say, "no,
>it was the human part (the God Incarnate part which is *subordinate* and
>not equal to God Absolute part) which died." If that be the case, then
>obviously, a slave of God (a human being) has atoned for sin, not one
>who is co-equal to God. There lies the fallacy of the Trinitarian dogma
>which demands that the Infinite is required for this (pagan, saddistic,
>cultist) ritual of sacrifice but in reality the Infinite is not actually
>sacrificed, only its subordinate.

I think that those who say that only the human side of Jesus died on the cross
have not thought through the implications of such a stance as you rightly point
out. I believe that God incarnate died on the cross, in other words, the divine
nature remained in union with the human nature throughout the death process.

Death here is physical death which is the parting of the soul and body, since
the divine nature was involved in this psychosomatic split, it is correct to say
that God incarnate died. It is not correct to say "God died on the cross" if one
means God Absolute.

>which demands that the Infinite is required for this (pagan, saddistic,
>cultist) ritual of sacrifice but in reality the Infinite is not actually

pagan - the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is the only human sacrifice acceptable
	to God.

sadistic - I assure you God gained no pleasure from this event.

>Moreover, on the question of original sin, the New Testament NT! says
>that Jesus himself was baptised by John the Baptist. (Mark 1:4) Our

Could you explain your linkage between original sin and baptism? I assume you
are referring to the Roman Catholic sacrament of Baptism which states that
original sin is remitted by application of water which I do not hold to.

Baptism symbolises the union of Jesus Christ with His Church through the
cleansing/regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was identifying His union
with His people by accepting baptism, He was not admitting to original sin.

>question is if John the Baptist inherited sin from his father (despite
>his being called the greatest among men (Matt. 11:11)) which makes him
>a sinner, how can he baptise *sinless* Jesus, a.k.a son of God? How
>about Mary, the mother of Jesus, was she a sinner, too? In 1 Timothy

John the Baptist inherited a nature predisposed to sin from his father, not any
actual sin. Mary also possessed a sin nature. Relative greatness is no 
indication of absolute purity.

>ssor. Does not that make Jesus, the son  of Mary, inherit more sin than
>others (for he was born without a father)?  (Don't also forget that the
>Synoptists have put Phares, the bastard son through union of Judas with
>Tammar - his daughter-in-law, as Jesus's ancestor.)

The work of the Holy Spirit in the incarnation of God the Son saw to it that
no quality relating to sin was inherited from any ancestor. I repeat, ancestors
pass on NO sins to their offspring - only the sin nature with the propensity
to produce personal sin.

>Jesus himself is described as disclaiming divinity: "Why callest thou me
>good? There is none good but One, that is God." (Mark 10:18)

I could be as demanding as you are and ask for a verse which says:

	"And Jesus said, 'I am not God, do not worship me'"

a verse you cannot produce. The rich young ruler was presumptuous in regarding
someone whom he thought as merely human as a reference point for goodness. Jesus
correctly told him that mere human nature is not the source of goodness buts 
flows ultimately from God Absolute.

>>How does one express such a deep doctrine simply in a few sentences?

>I am sure you can't, neither could your Trinitarian experts over the
>last several centuries. Trinity indeed is a mystery, innovated out of the
>fertile minds of the early Trinitarians (Pauline Christians to be more

The doctrine I was referring to was the Incarnation and not the Trinitarian
doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is developed from the fact that the Bible
declares Jesus Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit as having divine 
attributes, hence the tri-personal union of the Godhead. I am sure that there 
are enough things in the concept of a uni-personal God which are beyond your
logic and comprehension, but they do not stop you accepting such a belief.

I perceive that your opposition to my stance on the deity of Jesus Christ is
not so much based on the claims of liberal scholars but what the Qur'an says
about Jesus. I will not presume to perform a critique of the Qur'an (though 
watch this space...) because I am not sufficiently familiar with it. But I would
like to know one thing for the time being.

How can God forgive sins without any appeal from His attribute of justice being 
satisfied? 

Why does God ignore His justice which demands retribution for every sin?

Is the divine attribute of justice inferior to the divine attribute of mercy?

Is there subordination of attributes within the personality of God?

Or has God determined to equally glorify all His attributes in creation?

Quotations from the Qur'an are not sufficent but must be backed up by reason.

>Best luck with your reading assignments. Salam (peace).

>H. Siddiqui.

I await your educated reply.

Regards,


Roland H. Watson (rhw@chaser.co.uk)