From: Dr. Habib Siddiqui thru ahmed-shakil@CS.YALE.EDU (RBNXHS%ROHVM1.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Jesus did not claim Godhood
Date: 10 Oct 92 21:46:28 GMT
To: religion-islam-request@ncar.ucar.edu
Status: RO


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

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

>"But Jesus answered them,my Father worketh hitherto, and I work.
> Therefore, the
>Jews sought the more to kill Him, because he not only had broken the sabbath,
>but said also that God was His Father, making Himself EQUAL with God."

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

>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.
>Rather the opposite is true,the term speaks of the humanity of Christ just as

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
to prove the divinity of Jesus, they have left very few prophetic verses
untouched, no matter how irrational and idiotic these arguments may have
been in support of such a claim. (You may like to browse at 180+ cita-
tions that your fellow Christian, John Emery, posted in the Net and the
ensuing debate with Tim O'Neill to refresh your memory.) How about the
reference to "Son of Man" (Bar Nasha) in the book of Daniel 7:13? I know
most Christians claim that this refers to Jesus, although the identity
of this person is not explicated by Daniel.

The Qur'an mentions Jesus as a son of Maryam (which is equal to son of a
woman) thus signifying his humanity. Contrasted with the non-use or very
limited use of "son of God" (in gospel according to John) by Jesus
himself, we find him using the expression "son of Man" many times in the
Christian Bible. You are right, an expression like this automatically
negates any literal interpretation of "son of God" (for *God* is not
equal to *Man*). In our opinion the phrase truly emphasizes that Jesus,
the son of Mary, thought of himself as a *man* only and nothing more
than this. Further, scholars determined that Jesus's usage of this very
term for himself was meant to be a reminiscent of that of the Prophet
Dhul'Kifl (Ezekiel), i.e., a nabi or a rasool (messenger) of God. (Ref:
J. Hastings, The dictionary of the BIBLE, Scribner's Sons, New York,
Rev. Ed., (1963))

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
these. In none of these cases, divinity was ever attributed. These
terms became the symbols of divinity for Jesus only through the
fertile imagination and wilful interpretations by the Trinitarians.

>The word "son" has several Greek counterparts.The Greek word "paidos" used
>above does indeed mean child or servant,which of the two meanings to use can
>normally be adduced from the context of the verse.
>Your implication that "son of God"means "servant of God" is incomplete. The
>other Greek word for "son" - "yios", rarely if ever means "servant".
>  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."
>  John 1:18
> "No man hath seen God at any time; the ONLY begotten Son, who is in the bosom
>   of the Father, he hath declared Him."
> These sample verses would indicate that Jesus of Nazareth was claiming a form
> of sonship which was unique and higher than what was generally conceived and
> given to members of the human race.

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.
Revised Standard Version (RSV), 1954, the word "begotten" has altogether
been expunged (for translations in the English language only). Biblical
scholars now don't value KJV for its accuracy but only for its archaic
literary style. (See my previous article where I showed how the meaning
of the verse in Isaiah 9:6 was changed to suit Trinitarian theology.)

The use of such verses can only be found in the gospel according to John
(the most favourite gospel for Trinitarians; written around the beginning
of the second century), and not in any of the earlier Synoptic gospels
(composed after the Jewish Revolt of 66-70 C.E.). The verse merely shows
how the writer(s) of this gospel, writing mainly to a gentile audience
many years since the failed Revolt in the heartland of pagan Hellenistic
world looked at things quite different from the rest of the authors of the
socalled canonical gospels. Remember, by then the Temple had been grounded
by Titus and the Jews banned from entering or residing in Jerusalem
city. The remnants of early disciples and their followers were either
dead or killed, while the followers of the self-appointed disciple- Paul
were having  much success in converting the goyims of the Hellenistic
world. (Note: the Paulines did not participate in the Revolt.)

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.

> I object to the use of the adjective "Pauline" for it implies that the early
>church experienced schism at the Apostolic level which is not borne outby the
>scriptures.
> Any potential for schism was resolved at church councils such as the council
>of Jerusalem in Acts chapter 15.On the Apostolic unity of the church read

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. READ also the book: The Trial of Jesus of Nazareth by Prof. S.
Brandon (Dorset Press, N.Y.). (I strongly recommend you and other
Trinitarians to read this well-researched book to defog your mind about
the early history of Christianity of which you are so ignorant.)
Whether you or other Trinitarians like it or not, the fact of the matter
is 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.
It is because of this schism with the early Nazarenes (Christians)
that we are now left with the NT canonical books containing mostly views
expressed by Paul (in 14 out of 27 books). We are never told as to what
happened of Barnabas in his mission with Mark in the Acts (following
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)?

>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?
 You probably intended to write "... messiah indicated the deity of
 Jesus" and not "Christ", for the root of the Hebrew word Masiach/Messiah
 is derived from the word 'masah' meaning to rub or anoint. The Greek
 translation would make it equivalent to the word Chirstos (for mascu-
 line). In English, Christians dropped the letters 'os' at the end to
 reduce the term to "Christ".

 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).

--------------------------------------------------------
I wrote in my original article: (explanations in parentheses added) -
 My conclusion is that Jesus never claimed divinity. His prime message
 was : "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)
 Jesus also is reported to have said -
 "I do nothing of myself." (John 14:28) (i.e., Jesus is *not* self-
 sufficient.)
"My Father is greater than I." (John 14:2) (i.e., Jesus is subordinate,
 and not *co-equal* with God.)
 "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which
 are in heaven, neither the son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) (i.e.,
 Jesus is *not* Omniscient.)     ==============

You tried to explain these by writing:

>Christ is here admitting to a form of subordination and ignorance.
>Simple logic
>may run as follows- God knows everything, Jesus does not know everything
>therefore Jesus is not God.This line of logic is true but makes an
>assumption
>which I shall show is not necessary. Let us first put some context on
>the two verses quoted from gospel ofJohn. The gospel of John is the
>gospel which primarily proclaims the divinity of jesus of Nazareth.
              =========
>Therefore, we are not surprised to find the very first verse
>of the gospel says:
> John 1:1
> "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
> was God."
>There is no doubt about theApostle's intentions there and this continues
>up to the penultimate chapter when Thomas says of Christ:
> John 20:28
> "My Lord and my God"

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.

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
pointing out that this formula concerning LOGOS (word) was philosophised
by a Hellenized Jew, Philo of Alexandria, decades before the birth of
Jesus. It is quite obvious that the writer(s) of John's gospel simply
copied that view while writing the gospel. There was no divine inspira-
tion there, as were many places within the gospels (compare the gospel
accounts for Jesus's baptism, birth, crucifixion, etc. between the
Synoptic gospels and that *according to* John).

In my Rebuttal article, I have already explained the verse - John 20:28.

You continued on your explanation-
>With John's intention in mind,why does he then produce those two verses?
> "I do nothing of myself." (John 14:28)
> "My Father is greater than I." (John 14:2)
>So what do theologians thinkJohn meant by these two verses which appear to
>contradict John's "divinity" verses?It is all expressed in the doctrine of
>Condescension of Christ. Verses 5 to 8 of Phillipians chapter 2 expressthis
>doctrine:
> 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
doctrine about *condescension* of Jesus. In so doing, you have expunged
Jesus's own view about himself, and put priority to views made by a
self-appointed disciple, who had never met Jesus when the latter was
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
answer is a flat NO, if you care to value what Jesus himself had to say
concerning master-disciple relationship (Matt. 10:24). We are definitely
not interested about views made by others (and especially not someone
who might well have been deceived by Satan to preach the false gospel)
concerning Jesus, but rather about what Jesus himself had to say about
his own relationship with God. Produce your proof that Jesus himself
claimed that he is God. You can never produce that, simply because he
never claimed such a thing. In this regard, let me remind my readers
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).

I am quite familiar with the kind of arguments that you and other
Trinitarians bring about in support of their views concerning Trinity.
Such arguments could have won at least a bronze medal in the "Christian
Logical Circus", but not with Muslims. Nevertheless, I shall explain
the verses in Phil. 2:5-8 as used in the KJV:

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
their view then Phil. 2-6 does not have anything to do with divinity of
Jesus, but rather the slavery of Jesus to God. For the sake of our
debate if we retain the phrase and look at the Greek version, we still
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
'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.'
Maintaining the primary meaning of '(h)arpamagos' while retaining the
word 'morphe' (because of confusion associated with its meaning(s)),
the passage should read, "Jesus!, being divine in 'morphe',
did not consider equality with God something to be SEIZED but RATHER
TOOK THE FORM OF A *SLAVE*. ..." In that sense, the verses in Phil. 2:5
-8, far from demonstrating the divinity of Jesus stresses that Jesus was
"not equal" to God, but rather that he was nothing more than a honored
slave of God.(For further clarification, I would refer you to the debate
between Tim O'Neill and Emery on this subject, which was posted on the
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.

Phil. 2:6-8 cannot be used as an unambiguous statement of the deity of
Jesus. This passage is a good example of the poverty of the English
language in trying to interpret an ancient language (here we are not
even speaking about Aramaic - the language in which Jesus preached, but
the Greek language used by Paul in his writings).

You remarked-
>To be precise,Christ is God Incarnate which is not the same as God Absolute.
               ======
You again probably wanted to write, "To be ...., Jesus (and not Christ)
is God Incarnate ....  " In any case, there is not a single verse in the
Bible where it shows that Jesus ever claimed that "I am God incarnate".
Such an understanding of the so-called divinity of Jesus is not drawn
from the Bible (as I have shown earlier) but only  by wilful, cunning
distortion of the meanings of certain verses in the Bible.

         < your arguments are paraphrased below >

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
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
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.

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
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
2:14, Paul - the self-appointed disciple, even suggests that Adam was
not deceived by Satan, but it was Eve (the woman) who became transgre-
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.)

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

>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
precise), which is beyond logic and beyond man's comprehension. One
has only to swallow it without questioning, because there is no room for
wisdom in it. (1 Cor. 1:21) Islam, on the other hand, challenges human
minds to reasoning, wisdom, and intellectual querries. The Glorious Qur'an
rightly has challenged human beings for the last 14 centuries:
"Do they not consider the Qur'an with care? Had it been from other than
Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy." (4:82)
About Jesus (^Isa alaihe-was-salam) the Qur'an says, "He (Jesus) spoke:
Behold|  I am the *servant* of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and
hath appointed me a Prophet. He hath made me blessed wheresoever I may
be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and alms-giving so long as I remain
alive. And (hath made me) dutiful toward my mother, and hath not made
me arrogant, unblest. Peace be the day I was born, and the day I die,
and the day I shall be raised alive." "Such was Jesus, son of Maryam;
(this is) a statement of truth concerning which they doubt." (19:30-34)

Best luck with your reading assignments. Salam (peace).
---
H. Siddiqui.