Tag: Farhan Iqbal

Book Plunge: The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ Part 6

What about God in the Old Testament? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Iqbal now turns to the Old Testament. The first part worth noting is when he talks about how Mark 1 quotes Isaiah. Iqbal points out that this quotation is actually a combination of a quotation from Isaiah and Malachi. He ignores that there is actually scholarship on composite quotations which occur not just in Jewish and Christian writings, but in writings in greater Greco-Roman antiquity.

He also says Jesus never refers to Himself as the Son of Man. This is a strange argument because it assumes the only way He can is if He comes out and says “I am the Son of Man.” He also rarely says “I am the Messiah.” One example that shows Jesus saw Himself as this figure is in Matthew 19 when He tells the disciples that they will sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. It’s thought to be authentic since He says the twelve will which would be problematic with what Judas did. The question is, “If the apostles sit on twelve thrones, where does Jesus sit?”

There is some discussion on what the word Echad means. He does say that it can refer to a compound one, but sometimes it doesn’t.

Okay.

But sometimes it does.

Thus, just saying echad isn’t sufficient to show that this is a one that is absolutely solitary in nature. You can point out that there are many cases where this doesn’t happen and yet, that doesn’t matter. Each time it is to be interpreted based on the context of that passage.

He also asks why it refers to three in the case of God if that is the case. Why not three?

Because three persons is the number revealed throughout the Bible….

He says that the plural means the plural of majesty. In some cases, I am open to that entirely. In some cases, it doesn’t apply. Why should I think echad refers to a plural of majesty? Iqbal gives me no reason to think so.

He also says that Paul explicitly says he didn’t get information from the original apostles of Jesus on the gospel. He ignores that in Galatians 1, Paul speaks to them and presents the gospel to make sure that his race had not been run in vain. I can’t help but wonder if Iqbal has ever truly read the New Testament for himself.

So once again, we have a Muslim who tries to argue against the Trinity and really demonstrates he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. When dealing with these arguments, I tend to hit only the highlights….errr…..lowlights? It would be too much to go over every argument and some of them have been done over and over again and I try to trust on newish arguments that I have not dealt with before.

But, there are other books, so we will soon begin going through another such book sometime to see what else Muslims have to say on the topic.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

Book Plunge: The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ Part 5

Can the Trinity withstand examination? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

You know a chapter is not going to go well when this is one of the earliest points you see.

1 + 1 + 1 = 1.

It gets worse when you see Iqbal describe this as a great challenge.

No. It’s an ignorant one. It also assumes that every Trinitarian mind in history has never noticed that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 and somehow at all the biblical councils that this basic fact escaped notice. As someone who loves math, let’s try a different one.

1x + 1x + 1x = 1y.

You would have to know what X and Y are to answer this one. Either way, this is also NOT a description of the Trinity anyway. The Trinity is not that if you add up three persons, you get one God, as if each person was a part of God. Ugh. No person of the Trinity is 33.3% God. Each is 100% God. What you have in the Trinity is three persons that each fully share a divine nature.

He goes on to quote their “Messiah” as saying:

As far as the Christians are concerned, they are clearly opposed to the Oneness of God, for they believe in three ‘Gods’— the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Their explanation, that they believe ‘three’ to be ‘one’, is really quite absurd. No sane person can be expected to accept such flawed logic, especially when the three Gods are considered to be permanently self-existing and each is thought to be a complete God in Himself. What kind of arithmetic is it that shows them to be one, and where is it taught? Is there any logic or philosophy that can explain how beings which are permanently three can be counted as one? It is only a deception to argue that this is a mystery which human reason cannot understand, for human reason clearly understands that if there are three perfect Gods, they will have to be ‘three’ and not ‘one’.

No, no, no, and no. All that is being done here is a straw man. Monotheism is ESSENTIAL to the Trinity. Muslims start from their failed misunderstanding, argue against that, and then proclaim victory.

Iqbal claims the Trinity was invented by Tertullian. Actually, Theophilus used the term Trinity before Tertullian did and neither of them had to explain it, which indicates it was something known to their audience. I do not expect the apostles to be quoting the Creed of Chalcedon immediately after the resurrection. They were too working out and understanding what Jesus told them. Acts 10 indicates Peter didn’t even understand that Christianity had to go to the Gentiles.

He then refers to a Muslim who asked a pastor that if he wished to pick up a pencil on the table, would he call his friends for help. The pastor thought that was crazy, understandably so. The Muslim then said that if God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit all could create the world it seems strange they should work together.

Because?…..

All three were involved because it was an act of love on the part of all three. All three do everything together. This is an appeal to ignorance. “I don’t know why God would do it this way, therefore He didn’t.”

So once again, close out another chapter entirely disappointed.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ Part 4

Does Jesus have the attributes of God? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Early on, Iqbal brings up two passages of Scripture to show Jesus was not omnipotent.

John 5:30 — By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

And

Mark 6:5 — He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.

With the former, what does he expect Jesus to say? “I do everything on my own and I make judgments the way I want to regardless of the Father?” This is a claim of strong unity with the Father. He is saying “When I judge, it is the judgment of God. When I act, it is the act of God.”

As for the latter, it seems strange to think Jesus’s ability to do miracles depend on faith when in the Gospels, His followers weren’t expecting His resurrection and yet, there it was. We can grant Muslims don’t believe in the resurrection, but that doesn’t change that it is in the Gospels and thus they are primary sources for Christian doctrine. What is going on is Jesus is responding to loyalty there. Since the people don’t welcome Him and want Him, He doesn’t do many miracles there.

Iqbal also says God does not pray to anyone, but this assumes that God is unipersonal, which is the statement under question. If there are at least two persons who are God, what is wrong with one of them “praying” to the other one? This is especially the case since Jesus was fully human. Iqbal needs to show why this is a problem and not just assume it is.

He then looks at what Warfield said about how Jesus acted in both His humanity and His deity. This is certainly true, but then Iqbal jumps to full Nestorianism saying that this means Jesus had two persons in Him. That was a position the early church called heretical. (And interestingly, could have been the kind of Christianity that Muhammad was most in contact with.)

He also says one idea also among Christians is that Jesus laid aside His powers based on Philippians 2. No. That’s known as the kenotic heresy nowadays and you will not find it espoused, at least by Christians who know what they’re talking about.

He then has D.A. Carson being quoted arguing against this in The Case for Christ and then treats it as if Carson is saying he doesn’t know how to explain the incarnation. Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of the book with me, but I do remember Carson goes on to explain what he thinks is going on in this passage. Strange that Iqbal doesn’t show that part.

Iqbal also stresses that Jesus never says “I forgive you” but “Your sins are forgiven” and saying that Jesus is saying the forgiveness comes from God. Yes. And? This is something a Trinitarian has no problem with. What is unusual is Jesus pronounces forgiveness even without a person actually repenting (Hard for that paralyzed man to repent) and acting as if He is the temple Himself where the presence of God dwelt.

He goes on to list eleven signs Jesus was a human, which no one is disputing. One is that Jesus died on the cross, but God cannot die. When people present this to me, I ask them what it means to die. If they say it means the person ceases to exist, then yes, God cannot cease to exist. But if that is the case, then what happens to passages like Colossians 1 that say the Son holds all things together? The Son could never cease to exist. If instead it means, the soul of Jesus left the body of Jesus, then we have no problem.

It’s odd to see that he says Jesus is guilty of falsehood. In one case, Jesus says to the thief that the thief will be with Him in Paradise, but Jesus went to hell for three days. I take hell to be best understood as the realm of the dead. I do happen to think Jesus did go to Paradise with the thief. Iqbal also talks about Jesus’s harsh language like calling the Pharisees broods of vipers. Statements like this are allegedly unbecoming of the Son of God. We are not told why this is.

Finally, there’s the idea Jesus got prophecy wrong. Just do a search on this blog for Preterism and what I have said about it. There are far too many to link to.

We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ Part 3

What kind of Son of God was Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re returning to this book so let’s see what a Muslim has to say about this topic.

Iqbal starts quoting the Qur’an on how Jesus was a messenger like those before Him.

Here it is clearly stated that Jesus, the Messiah, was only a messenger of God like other messengers of God who had come before him. He was a human like them and this is simply based on the fact that it is the way of God to send messengers to his people, not His literal “divine sons”. Had that been the case, sons of God in the literal sense would have always appeared before and even after Jesus.

Iqbal, Farhan. The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 882-887). Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at Canada. Kindle Edition.

I honestly can’t make heads or tails of what he is saying here. The best I can gather is that Iqbal thinks that Jesus is one divine son of many and God would send many more. This is nothing that Christians believe in that sense. Angels can be called sons of God, but certainly not in the same way that Jesus is the Son of God. John 1:18 kind of clinches for us that Jesus is the one and only.

Iqbal later in this chapter talks about the I AM statements and says “People say I am” all the time in the Bible. This is true. If we had an apostle saying “I am hungry”, no one would take that as a claim of divinity. The question is how are the phrases used by Jesus and what do they mean? John 8 has a clear usage in the end of Jesus taking the divine name upon Himself. Other usages have them speaking of Him in glorious terms.

Going back to John 8:58, Iqbal says that Christians have to go to Jesus’s enemies. We don’t say Jesus’s enemies explain what Jesus meant. We say that they understood what Jesus meant. The meaning was clear.

He later goes on to give out the same claim of Gospels being written decades after Jesus’s death and Paul never meeting Jesus. Of course, the book that was written about 600 years after the time of the ministry of Jesus by someone who never met Jesus either is completely reliable with what it says about Him. No. There is no interaction with something like Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses.

He does say that many prophets claim to be doing the works of God, which is true. Why is it that Jesus’s should be different? The difference in Jesus is the emphasis was on Himself. Jesus saw Himself as greater than the Sabbath, greater than Jonah, greater than Solomon, and as a walking temple. Jesus said He did miracles by the finger of God meaning the Kingdom was among the people.

So that’s it for this entry. There is some other stuff in here, including claims of dreams and visions from their “Messiah”, but nothing relevant to the topic. We’ll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

Book Plunge: The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ Part 2

Why didn’t He just say it? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

News flash! Jesus never came out and explicitly said, “I am God!”

This is something cultists and Muslims and others expect, to which I say “Why should you?” Think about this. What would it have meant for Jesus to say that? Would they hear Him saying He is the Father? As soon as He says “I am not” then they ask “Well if you’re God, but not the Father, who are you?” (Assuming they hadn’t already stoned Him.) With each answer, more and more questions come out.

No. Jesus handled this the same way as He did His being the Messiah, which He also very rarely came out and claimed for Himself. Others were claiming it of Him before He was claiming it of Himself. Could it be because like the God question, people had an idea of who the Messiah was to be as in what kind of person he was to be? Could it be He didn’t want to be tied to that image?

It’s not a shock that John 10 is pointed to as Jesus denying that He is God. (You know, that place where He said “I and the Father are one.”) I have already covered this one here. Not only did Jesus not deny it, He really upped the ante on His claim.

Iqbal goes on from there to make a number of other nonsense arguments, such as Moses being called a god. Yes. That was an analogical sense. No one understood Jesus as ever speaking in that way. This is also an argument Jehovah’s Witnesses make and it’s just as awful when they do it.

Israel is the firstborn. Yes. And?

Israel is referred to as the children of God. Yes. They are. Context determines meaning. In an analogical sense, we can say Jesus is the one who is the true Israel of God seeing as He is the true Son of God.

David is begotten. Yes. All kings of Israel were declared to be begotten, but again, this is not in the same way. David is a type of the greater one who was to come. The greater one of Jesus is begotten in the most unique way of all, eternally begotten from the Father and declared to be the king forevermore.

The righteous are called children of God. Yes. Our righteousness is not found in ourselves. It is found in the one who is the most righteous of all, the spotless lamb Christ. He is the righteousness and if we are in Him, then we are declared to be righteous. The sad reality is that if Iqbal had bothered to really understand these passages, he would have seen that they really argue against his position more.

I really wish I had more to give you all, but really this is it. The bulk of the argument that Iqbal had was based on John 10 which is a pathetically weak argument. I know I have often gone after internet atheists on here, but in a way, Muslim argumentation is often sadly worse.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

 

 

 

Book Plunge: The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ Part 1

What do I think of Farhan Iqbal’s book? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So at the start, Iqbal is an Ahmadiyya Muslim. I understand this is not a sect that many Muslims consider orthodox, but the arguments are still incredibly similar. Also, they do have a promised Messiah figure already from their own number. Finally, many quotes will have names that have an “as” right after them, which is a way of wishing peace upon the person.

So the first chapter is about the Bible. Right off, we’re told that the scholars generally agree that the Gospels are written around 40 years after the crucifixion and are not eyewitnesses. Unfortunately, none of these scholars are named. No arguments against the authorship of Matthew and John are given. No interaction is done with Richard Bauckham’s work. We are not told why we should trust the Qur’an which is around 600 years later. If the Muslim wants to say Allah is behind the Qur’an, a Christian could just as easily say the Holy Spirit is behind the Gospels.

He then lists some requirements for writing history and they are:

It is necessary for a historian to avoid exaggeration; secondly, there should be no weakness in his memory; thirdly, he should have sound judgment and not be a person confined to superficial thinking; fourthly, he should be a researcher and not confine himself to shallow matters; fifthly, whatever he writes should be eyewitness testimony, not a compilation of good and bad material.[

Iqbal, Farhan. The Myth of the Divinity of Jesus Christ (Kindle Locations 349-352). Ahmadiyya Muslim Jama`at Canada. Kindle Edition.

I don’t know of any historian who uses these criteria and Iqbal doesn’t tell me who they are. I don’t know of any ancient historian who did this. Exaggeration would even be seen as adding color I suspect to an account. Readers recognize exaggeration.

So what examples does he give that show the accounts aren’t historical? In John 21:25, we are told that Jesus did so much that I suppose the whole world couldn’t contain the books that would be written if all He did was told. I have spent many years debating atheists. I have not met one who would say this is a problem text. All of them would know that whoever wrote this is using exaggeration to say something and credibility doesn’t rely on it.

The second is Luke 9:58 saying the Son of Man has no place to lay His head, when Jesus had a money bag and several patrons. Again, not a problem. Jesus is comparing Himself to Wisdom and saying He has no full habitation on Earth.

The next is in Matthew 2:23 where the prophets said Jesus would be called a Nazarene. Now this is a real one that has been raised. My look at this is the only place where Matthew says that this was done to fulfill the prophetS with a Scriptural citation. The idea then is that Jesus would be seen as a rejected figure in His time, a Nazarene.

Next he goes to Matthew 5:43 where Jesus says it was said to love your neighbor and hate your enemy. Iqbal is right in saying this is not found in the Torah, but the thought is that this is how Jesus’s contemporaries understood the text. If you love your neighbor, then the corollary to that would be to hate your enemy. Jesus tells us to love even him.

He later tells us that if someone goes to a tomb expecting to find a dead person and he’s not there, there are two possibilities. They went to the wrong tomb or the person wasn’t dead in the first place. There are more possibilities I can think of easily and even skeptical scholars have thought of them. It’s worth pointing out that the Ahmadiyya think that Jesus went to Kashmir, India after recovering from the crucifixion, but more on that later.

Next, Iqbal goes to 1 John 5:7-8 to go after the Trinity and cites Bart Ehrman in his defense. Most every evangelical scholar if not all of them knows that’s not something in the original text. It’s not a problem to go to multiple texts to show a doctrine like Iqbal thinks it is.

Iqbal also asks how we can trust Paul when he says that to the Jews he became like a Jew and to the Greeks, a Greek. Such a person doesn’t understand Paul is really talking about cultural sensibilities and not doing anything to needlessly offend a group. If you want to reach Jews, you don’t go in eating a pork sandwich. If you want to reach Hindus, you don’t invite them over and share a hamburger. You might even love those foods, but you don’t do it in front of them. I love my tea, but I avoid it in front of Mormons.

On the crucifixion, he says that such an event would bring doubt about the message of Jesus since He would be under a curse. Exactly! That was the point! His enemies wanted Him to be seen as under the curse of God and thus everything He said is called into question. However, a divine resurrection reverses all of that and seals the deal that everything He said is absolutely certain.

Iqbal says the Sign of Jonah can’t apply to Jesus since Jonah went into the fish and came out of it alive. Jesus however has said that one greater than Jonah was there. Jesus would go into the Earth dead and come out alive. The point is made stronger.

So thus far, I’m not impressed a bit, but next time we’ll see what Iqbal says Jesus said about Himself. Maybe it will be better.

But probably not.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)