A Muslim Response to Sam Shamoun's Provocations 1

Beyond the Chal­lenge : A Mus­lim Response to Sam Shamoun’s Provocations

Recent­ly Sam Shamoun, a well-known bel­liger­ent and provoca­tive Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary at Answer­ing Islam, issued a chal­lenge” to Mus­lims to prove that Jesus (peace be upon him) did not claim to be God, as per the Qur’an­ic state­ment. His chal­lenge is two-fold :

    (1) Chal­leng­ing Mus­lims to show where in the Qur’an Jesus says he is not God or not the Son of God.

and :

    (2) to bring the Ara­ma­ic phrase where Jesus dis­avows his claim to divinity.

It is obvi­ous, how­ev­er, that his demands are as pre­pos­ter­ous as they are stu­pid. The Qur’an cer­tain­ly quotes or para­phras­es Jesus as say­ing that he is not God.See Qur’an, 5:116 – 117 where Jesus is explic­it­ly quot­ed as fol­lows : And behold ! Allah will say O Jesus the son of Mary ! didst thou say unto men worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah"? <u>He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart though I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. "Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say to witWor­ship Allah my Lord and your Lord’; and I was a wit­ness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them ; when Thou didst take me up thou wast the Watch­er over them and Thou art a Wit­ness to all things.”. So basi­cal­ly the mis­sion­ary has no case since we have here the state­ment of Jesus(P) who denies being God. Whether the mis­sion­ary wants to believe that this is a fic­ti­tious account”, that is not our prob­lem. Our belief is that the por­tray­al of Jesus(P) in the New Tes­ta­ment is most­ly fic­ti­tious, but it is not us mak­ing sil­ly chal­lenges as the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary is fond of mak­ing ! and the Qur’an denies that he is a Son of GodSuch (was) Jesus the son of Mary : (it is) a state­ment of truth about which they (vain­ly) dis­pute. It is not befit­ting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glo­ry be to Him ! When He deter­mines a mat­ter He only says to it Be” and it is.” (Qur’an, 19 : 34 – 35), but in Ara­bic. This is because the Qur’an has affirmed itself to be revealed in Ara­bic textA Book, where­of the vers­es are explained in detail ; a Qur’an in Ara­bic for peo­ple who under­stand.” (Qur’an 41:3), sent down to an Arab prophet, lest its audi­ence uses the excuse that they will not be able to under­stand the Qur’an if were brought down in a for­eign tongue.

Fur­ther­more, unlike the Bible, the Qur’an is not a his­tor­i­cal doc­u­ment writ­ten over the cen­turies by numer­ous scribes who were inspired” and was lat­er com­piled into a book. The Qur’an is an Ara­bic text in nature and has always been in Ara­bic, there­fore there is no need to bring an actu­al state­ment. To demand that the words of Jesus(P) be quot­ed in its orig­i­nal lan­guage would be akin to ask­ing an Eng­lish philoso­pher to quote the words of Con­fu­cius in his orig­i­nal Chi­nese lan­guage to a total­ly Amer­i­can audi­ence who does not under­stand Chinese !

How­ev­er, since Sam Shamoun has brought this need­less issue up, we would like to issue a counter-chal­lenge to the verac­i­ty of his claims. Per­haps we might be inclined to accept his premise, and even acknowl­edge that Jesus is indeed God in the flesh”, as per the Chris­t­ian belief, if he and his mis­sion­ary brethren are able to answer the fol­low­ing question :

    Show us where pre­cise­ly, in Ara­ma­ic, does Jesus say that he is God or the Son of God as in more than a man”?

We are not inter­est­ed in quo­ta­tions found in Greek, as it is gen­er­al­ly accept­ed that the lan­guage Jesus, peace be upon him, spoke was Ara­ma­ic. There­fore, it is not unrea­son­able to demand the exact Ara­ma­ic state­ments from Jesus, peace be upon him, and word-for-word, in invert­ed commas.

Fur­ther­more, we demand that this Ara­ma­ic quote, assum­ing if one exists, is one which all New Tes­ta­ment schol­ars deem authen­tic and agree upon with­out ques­tion, includ­ing all the crit­i­cal schol­ars. More­over, there should be absolute­ly no con­tro­ver­sy whatsover over the inter­pre­ta­tion and, of course, the authen­tic­i­ty of this ver­ba­tim Ara­ma­ic statement.

If the mis­sion­ary decides to quote some­thing in Greek, or any­thing the inter­pre­ta­tion of which is dis­put­ed or the authen­tic­i­ty of which is dis­put­ed, he would fail to meet our chal­lenge. We want, we repeat, a ver­ba­tim Ara­ma­ic quote, the authen­tic­i­ty and inter­pre­ta­tion of which is not at all dis­put­ed, where Jesus says cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly I am God” and where he claims to be the the Son of God”, as in more than a man”.

And only God knows best.Endmark

Cite this arti­cle as : Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi, Beyond the Chal­lenge : A Mus­lim Response to Sam Shamoun’s Provo­ca­tions,” in Bis­mi­ka Allahu­ma, May 27, 2006, last accessed May 27, 2024, https://​bis​mikaal​lahu​ma​.org/​p​o​l​e​m​i​c​a​l​-​r​e​b​u​t​t​a​l​s​/​s​a​m​-​s​h​a​m​o​un/


  1. Those vers­es basi­cal­ly speak of Jesus say­ing that his teach­ing /​words he did not orig­i­nate from him­self, but the Father. They dont make him a deity

    1. Jesus spoke Hebrew and Ara­ma­ic and may have known Greek as well. Just because Ara­ma­ic was His native lan­guage and a few pas­sages con­firm that does not mean He did­n’t know oth­er lan­guages. As I said, Hebrew would be a close sec­ond. If the OT books had been already copied to the Pen­ta­teuch it is pos­si­ble He also knew Greek. This requires more research than peo­ple would first assume.

  2. 1. Jn 149
    2. Jn 16, 13 – 15
    3. Mt 26, 63 – 65

    No prob­lem at all…

    Can you bring me the proof that Mohamed is a prophet ?



    1.Can you bring US the Pas­sage where Jesus says I am God.

    2.Can you bring US the verse where Jesus said God is three in One.

    3.Can you bring US the verse where Jesus claims to have dual natures i.e. ful­ly man and ful­ly God

  4. Denis Giron is as brain­less as they come. I remem­ber his arti­cle about the islam­ic con­cept of hell and how he believes it is not sci­en­tif­i­cal­ly sound. For exam­ple he says it is impos­si­ble for some­one to burn for­ev­er in hell because the fire will soon run out of fuel or things to burn. If you think i’m mak­ing this up then here’s the quote :

    How can eter­nal fire be any kind of divine pun­ish­ment that one should fear ? You can­not be burned for eter­ni­ty. Your body only offers a giv­en and finite amount of fuel for fire. Even­tu­al­ly there will be noth­ing left to burn.”(Denis Giron)

    What a ridicu­lous argu­ment, Giron seems to for­get that hell is the pun­ish­ment of God and God can do any­thing. He for­gets that mus­lims believe God is all pow­er­ful and can do what he likes, this includes burn­ing peo­ple for eter­ni­ty in hell. God explains in the quran in the fol­low­ing way :

    Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire : as often as their skins are roast­ed through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penal­ty : for Allah is Exalt­ed in Pow­er, Wise.” (Holy Qur’an Surah 4 verse 56)

    So basi­cal­ly if you believe in an almighty and pow­er­ful God then such pun­ish­ments are not far fetched or impos­si­ble. How­ev­er, if you’re an athi­est then you will believe such pun­ish­ments to be impos­si­ble. Girons whole argu­ment against the islam­ic con­cept of hell stands on one belief, the belief that God does­n’t exist. Giron fails to realise that if God tru­ly does exist then such pun­ish­ments are not impos­si­ble at all. I think Mr Giron will find that his argu­ments will only work the day he proves God does­n’t exist.

  5. Who invent­ed Trin­i­ty in the first place — is what baf­fled us Muslims.

    Was it Paul, a Jew­ish phar­isee (?), a heretic (?), an agent-provac­teur for the Rome in lead­ing to Jesus being per­se­cut­ed (but not cur­ci­fied because Iscar­i­ot was the betray­er and he was put on the cross)

    Chris­tian­i­ty vs Islaam is real­ly about Trin­i­ty vs TAWHEED

    Mus­lims, if you are both­ered by con­stant Chris­tian’s har­rass­ing your thoughts and intend­ing to pull you into their folds (like is warned in the Quran that Jews and Chris­tians will not be satisi­fied until you become astray, not nec­es­sar­i­ly con­vert­ing to Chris­t­ian but becom­ing apostate)

    Then please try to stop for a while read­ing dis­cus­sions (Inter­net) where these kuf­fars tell lies and deceive your mind. Instead, search for videos, audios, etc from the like of Allah­yarham Ahmad Dee­dat, the won­der­ful speech of Syeikh Khalid Yasin, and myku​li​ah​.com collections.

    We need to debunk Chris­tian­i­ty the way Ahmad Dee­dat did it lillahitaala.

  6. This coment is for Denis Giron and Chris­tians that say that it is clear that NT declares Jesus to be god.

    Just show me where Jesus say Iam God Almighty” thats all. Dont go to read assump­tions and inter­pre­tan­tions and oth­er mean­ings. Dont for­get that being Jesus god is a the very first and the most basic teach­ing of Chris­tian­i­ty, and i won­der how Jesus failed to make ONE only ONE state­ment that he is God„,indeed very weird ! and not only that..Just show me where Jesus taught Trin­i­ty, the word RINITY“ever uteerd from the lips of Jesus?? Did Jesus said to the jews that for example…“Jews from now on your God is a tri­une god ? No!! Jesus said Your God is one God..why did­nt he say your God is 3 in 1 or 1 in 3?? Jesus nev­er claimed that he is God.. so we have :

    1) Chris­tian­i­ty claims that Jesus is God, but Jesus nev­er said that he is God and nev­er teached that

    2) Chris­tian­i­ty claims that God is Tri­une, but Jesus nev­er said that God is Tri­une and nev­er teached that.…..let us accept that Jesus said that He is God(he did­nt for sure) and God is Triune(he did­nt for sure) then most cer­tain­ly he faild to teach and elab­o­rate for Chris­tians or the jews in that times about these issues.

  7. You can also vis­it http://​adeel​rehman2000​.tri​pod​.com for more info

  8. Greet­ings Tariq…

    I am more than will­ing to vis­it islam​icboard​.com or islam​life​.com. Have you already start­ed a thread in one of those forums ? If so, e‑mail me the url — denisgiron1978@​yahoo.​com -. If not, start a thread at your leisure and I will take part, after you e‑mail me the URL.

    Regard­ing the claim that Sina and I are lovers,” my point is that a lack of evi­dence does not make the claim false. The truth or fal­si­ty of a claim (any claim, includ­ing claims which we may find offen­sive) depends sole­ly on whether it reflects real­i­ty. So if Tariq says Denis and Sina are lovers” and I respond Tariq is a liar,” in no way did I prove the claim false (even though it is false). That was my point : a claim (such as Denis and Sina are lovers” or Muham­mad burned books”) may be false, and it may lack evi­dence, but declar­ing it to be false and point­ing to the lack of evi­dence does not demon­strate its falsity.

    Now, regard­ing my name being Denis Giron,” yes, I could pro­vide proof by fur­nish­ing such things as my New York state iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, my pass­port, my birth cer­tifi­cate, et cetera, but did I actu­al­ly do that ? No. I have not. My point was that I have pro­vid­ed zero evi­dence that this is my name, but the lack of evi­dence does not make the claim false. That was my point.

    Regard­ing prov­ing a neg­a­tive, I agree that is ridicu­lous. If you said Denis Giron burned books,” it would be hard for me to think of a way to prove that claim false. Nonethe­less, me yelling that you’re a liar” would not prove it false. This is a sim­ple point about log­ic. My point was that Nadir over­stepped his bounds a bit. What he should have done was note that, thus far, Dr. Sina pro­vid­ed zero evi­dence, and left it at that (and I would have agreed with him). But Nadir took it fur­ther, and claimed that by call­ing Dr. Sina a liar, he had actu­al­ly demon­strat­ed the fal­si­ty of the claim.

    Now again, I agree that in the case of the claim that Muham­mad burned books,” the bur­den of proof is on Dr. Sina. I also have said that I, per­son­al­ly, do not believe Dr. Sina’s claim is true. And fur­ther­more I have not­ed that Dr. Sina has yet to pro­vide any evi­dence. Nonethe­less, my point was a sim­ple point of log­ic : even if Dr. Sina’s claim is false, Nadir yelling liar” is not a suf­fi­cient demon­stra­tion of such. Mind you, I’m not claim­ing it is Nadir’s job to prove it false, but Nadir did claim that he proved it false by call­ing Dr. Sina a liar, when in real­i­ty that only shows that Nadir had a poor sense of what con­sti­tutes proof”.

    If any­one on the FFI forum thinks I have proven Sina’s claim about book-burn­ing true, then they are bad­ly mis­tak­en. I was unable to find any posts via the FFI search option in which posters were claim­ing such, but if you pro­vide me with such a thread, I am more than will­ing to go on record and clar­i­fy my posi­tion in that thread.

    Any­way, if you do start a thread in one of the above-men­tioned forums, e‑mail me the URL. I look for­ward to fur­ther dis­cus­sion with you on this sub­ject and others.

  9. To Tariq, this is not rel­e­vant, as you well know, so per­haps it is bet­ter if you e‑mail me, or if you e‑mail me the URL of a forum thread where you’d like to dis­cuss it…”

    The forum at islam​icboard​.com or islam​life​.com would be fine

    That being said, your claim about Sina and me being lovers is not nec­es­sar­i­ly false just because you pro­vid­ed no evidence”
    actu­al­ly it is. if it isnt then u too ARE lovers. i made the claim so i have to prove it u dont have to prove me wrong. if with­in a rea­son­able amount of time i cant, then u can safe­ly con­sid­er me a liar.

    (the fact that it is poten­tial­ly insult­ing is not going to make me sud­den­ly turn my back on this fact of logic).”
    Insult­ing ? arent u a free mind­ed per­son ? wots wrong with a per­son in love with anoth­er per­son ? any­ways plz read wot i said again :

    IF I was to use the same log­ic as Mr. Giron, I CAN eas­i­ly say that Sina and Giron are lovers ! I give no proof of that so that means im wrong ? ”

    And plz read this part again :
    of course u can make a sim­i­lar claim against me, but it wont work. Why ? because I BELIEVE THATPERSON IS INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY AND NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND as you and sina have implyed”

    I, in oth­er words, i dont believe u to be a lover of sina, but if we WERE to fol­low ur log­ic, i could claim u to be and be hap­py and con­tent­ed that i was right. it would­nt mat­ter that i pre­sent­ed no evi­dence and nev­er will because i cant as i was wrong

    For a less-abu­sive exam­ple, I have pro­vid­ed zero evi­dence that my real name is Denis Giron — do you believe, there­fore, that I am lying?”
    Your name is some­thing which IS THERE. i mean it exists. it is some­thing which can be proven. u can prove ur name by show­ing a valid pass­port etc i can prove u wrong by maybe steal­ing ur pass­port, or show­ing YOUR own com­ment on the inter­net where u con­tra­dict urself.
    But wot about the burn­ing of the books ? lets sup­pose it did­nt hap­pen, so can i prove some­thing WHICH ISNT THERE NOT TO BE THERE???!!!
    sup­pose i come up to u and tell u i HAVE a fer­rari. u tell me that i need to prove it to u. so wot so i do ? i show it to u along with the nec­es­sary papers prov­ing the own­ers identity.
    But sup­pose I DONT HAVEFERRARI ? But u claim i have one. and u tell me that i have to PROVE SOMETHING THATDONT HAVE??!!
    wot can i do ? NOT SHOW U A FERRARI ? thats crazy.
    Ur anal­o­gy was false. sina says some­thing hap­pend in history(book burn­ing), but it did­nt hap­pen, so how do i prove him wrong ? by not show­ing him his­tor­i­cal sources ? HE has to prove him­self right. tell me one thing, y did sina say that Prophet Muhammad(P) burned books ? i mean there has got to be a rea­son right ? knowl­edge does not come from inside u have to LEARN it, spe­cial­ly wen it comes to an event which hap­pened cen­turies before sinas grand father was even born.
    i think u would agree with me that knowl­edge would­nt come from inside. and ali sina seems to have knowl­edge of some book burn­ing. where did he get this knowl­edge from ? thats all Nadir Ahmads ask­ing . till now(how much time has passed) ali sina did­nt cite us the source of his knowl­edge so it would­nt take a rock­et sci­en­tist to con­clude that sina is a liar( in my last com­ment i pro­vid­ed u with a link that PROVES sina a liar, or atleast igno­rant. sina claimed that the alexan­dria library was burned down by mus­lims. now this event is some­thing which real­ly HAPPENED so it can be proven as to who did it.)

    I nev­er claimed that Dr. Sina’s claim has been proven true.”
    i know but if u go to the FFI forum you’ll see that many of his sup­port­ers are link­ing to ur arti­cle as a defense for sinas lie. they believe that u have proven tht sina is right!! so i request that u either write a note on the arti­cle that you havent proven sina right or remove this sec­tion. apper­ant­ly not all humans have crit­i­cal think­ing skills to under­stand that u havent proven sina right.

    ” No where have I claimed a per­son is guilty until proven inno­cent. You have mis­un­der­stood me…”
    i know u did­nt cliam this. but wot about all the islam­o­phobes out there ? all they want is an arti­cle against mus­lims, does not mat­ter wot the con­tent. and u mis­un­der­stood me on the lover issue.

  10. I have sev­er­al small com­ments to make.

    First, to Doc­tor­Maybe, I admit that was pret­ty fun­ny, but not very sub­stan­tive, much less relevant.

    To Skip­man, you absolute­ly have my persmis­sion to repost what I wrote (though, could you e‑mail me the URL of the thread you start — denisgiron1978@​yahoo.​com — as I’d like to see the respons­es of others).

    To Tariq, this is not rel­e­vant, as you well know, so per­haps it is bet­ter if you e‑mail me, or if you e‑mail me the URL of a forum thread where you’d like to dis­cuss it… That being said, your claim about Sina and me being lovers is not nec­es­sar­i­ly false just because you pro­vid­ed no evi­dence (the fact that it is poten­tial­ly insult­ing is not going to make me sud­den­ly turn my back on this fact of log­ic). For a less-abu­sive exam­ple, I have pro­vid­ed zero evi­dence that my real name is Denis Giron — do you believe, there­fore, that I am lying ? And in no way has it been proven that Sina and I are lovers. There is a dif­fer­ence between say­ing that a state­ment has yet to be proven false, on the one hand, and say­ing that it is true on the oth­er. I nev­er claimed that Dr. Sina’s claim has been proven true. No where have I claimed a per­son is guilty until proven inno­cent. You have mis­un­der­stood me…

    Final­ly, to Adeel, I think you’ve mis­un­der­stood what I am about. I’m not a Chris­t­ian. Nonethe­less, what is this about speak­ing in a for­eign tongue on Paltalk ? Are you chal­leng­ing me to utter a sen­tence in a lan­guage oth­er than Eng­lish over Paltalk ? I can do that if you’d like, but not because I’m a true believer”…

  11. The bible con­sists of count­less sci­en­tif­ic errors which even chris­tians cant explain let us if Mr. Giron to fig­ure them out how could a true beliv­er speak for tongue now Giron is on paltalk and i chal­lenge him to speak for­e­ing tongue if he is a true beliver.
    See The Mir­a­cles of Quran at

  12. I know this is off-top­ic but still…
    Denis Giron wrote on his website :
    Dr. Sina made the DUBIOUS asser­tion that Muham­mad burned all the books that were in the pos­ses­sion of the pre-Islam­ic Arab populace.”(emphasis added)
    then continues :
    I, like Nadir, ques­tion the truth of Dr. Sina’s claim. Also, I agree with Nadir that evi­dence was not pre­sent­ed (i.e. no schol­ar­ly source was cit­ed to back this claim up). Does this mean the claim has been dis­proven ? ABSOLUTELY NOT!”(emphasis added)

    Why not ? if sina cant present evi­dence for his argu­ment then he is a liar. he cant just accuse us and say we are guilty of some­thing. its not guilty until proven inno­cent, its inno­cent until proven guilty.
    If I was to use the same log­ic as Mr. Giron, I can eas­i­ly say that Sina and Giron are lovers ! I give no proof of that so that means im wrong ? ABSOLUTELY NOT???!!!
    I believe that i cant accuse u with­out proof. But on your web­site, Mr Giron, u first stat­ed that sina’s claim is dubi­ous, and lat­er implyed that Sina has not been proven a liar because Nadir Ahmad could­nt prove him wrong. Please edit your page and remove the part which says :
    evi­dence was not pre­sent­ed (i.e. no schol­ar­ly source was cit­ed to back this claim up). Does this mean the claim has been dis­proven ? Absolute­ly not ! The chal­lenge, under Nadir’s under­stand­ing, was to prove a sin­gle claim wrong.”

    Either edit this page, or admit that i have proven’ through your log­ic’ that you and sina are lovers.
    [of course u can make a sim­i­lar claim against me, but it wont work. Why ? because I believe that a per­son is inno­cent until proven guilty and not the oth­er way round as you and sina have implyed]

    And please read this article :

  13. http://​www​.iidb​.org/​v​b​b​/​f​o​r​u​m​d​i​s​p​l​a​y​.​p​h​p​?​f​=60

    giron can i have your per­mis­sion to post he will be wor­shipped” part in the above forum ? i would like to know the views of agnos­tic jews on this issue.

  14. Quot­ing Jesus say­ing that he is the son of God will not prove Jesus’ divin­i­ty coz we’ll find thou­sands of god’s sons on the OT. The term can sim­ply mean a pop­u­lar phrase used at that time and not to be tak­en literally.

    Same thing if Jesus claims that he is the begot­ten son coz we can still find many begot­ten sons of god in the OT. In fact, god was the one who gave them the title.

    If Jesus say I am the lord, then, you’ll find many of those in England.

    Even if Jesus claim he is god, it won’t do good coz did­n’t god say to Moses ” I made thee a god to pharoah.…?

    The best thing is to chal­lenge the chris­t­ian to show where did Jesus say WORSHIP ME”.

  15. Denis Giron is an agnos­tic who has a crush on Dr.William Lane Craig.

  16. Greet­ings Bassam…

    Indeed, I am in fact an agnos­tic, and not a Chris­t­ian. Note that in my post I did not declare any of these doc­trines to be true (i.e. I did not claim they reflect real­i­ty). I don’t believe there was any­thing dis­tinct­ly Chris­t­ian about my post, as I think one can sen­si­bly argue that the Bible attrib­ut­es a cer­tain claim to Jesus with­out nec­es­sar­i­ly believ­ing that claim is true. That being said, how­ev­er, despite my being an agnos­tic, most who are famil­iar with my writ­ings over the last year or so know that my posi­tion regard­ing Chris­tian­i­ty has soft­ened con­sid­er­ably after com­ing into con­tact with the writ­ings and debates of William Lane Craig (the appar­ent slay­er of Athe­ist intellectuals).

    Regard­ing Jesus being the son of God, the rel­e­vant pas­sages in Mark 12 and 14 do seem to present him as such in a unique way (some­what dif­fer­ent from the way a pre­vi­ous prophet or mere believ­er might be a son of God”). Com­bin­ing this with the instance of tri­adic coör­di­na­tion in Matthew 28, we see that only one son is men­tioned, thus again the term is being used in a unique way.

    Fur­ther­more, on the sub­ject of the instance of tri­adic coör­di­na­tion, notice that it is in the name of all three beings. So I am not cer­tain that the sha­haa­da is anal­o­gous. I’m sure that utter­ing bis­mil­laahi wa’n-Nabee or bis­mil­laahi wa bis­min-Nabee would move a bit too close to shirk for an Ortho­dox Muslim.

    As for the bit about Jesus being David’s Lord, it was meant to be tak­en in con­text with the oth­er propo­si­tions : Jesus is not mere­ly David’s descen­dant, but his Lord (i.e. Mas­ter over Israel’s great­est King), he is the son of God in a unique way, and baptism/​conversion is car­ried out in his name as well as the name of the Deity.

    Regard­ing Daniel 7:14, I did­n’t under­stand the rel­e­vance of the link you offered. The ques­tion was if Jesus iden­ti­fied him­self as divine in the quotes attrib­uted to him in the gospels, while your link seemed to be deal­ing with a dif­fer­ent sub­ject (Bib­li­cal erran­cy?). I think this rather pow­er­ful point still stands : Jesus iden­ti­fied him­self with a being who was to be wor­shipped by men from all nations, eth­nic­i­ties and lan­guage groups.

    Inter­est­ing­ly enough, notice that we both could not resist the temp­ta­tion to go out­side the quotes of Jesus (e.g. you quot­ed what Luke said about Adam, and I used the text of Daniel to estab­lish con­text for one of the say­ings attrib­uted to Jesus). The exer­cise is fun, but it seems it would make more sense to also con­sid­er what the Bible says about Jesus for fuller con­text (for exam­ple : the six propo­si­tions I derived from Jesus’ say­ings in the syn­op­tics rep­re­sent a the­ol­o­gy which is more ful­ly devel­oped in the NT). I like to make the alleged divin­i­ty of Jesus anal­o­gous to the alleged vir­gin birth of Jesus : there is no real evi­dence that Jesus was born of a vir­gin, and Jesus nev­er explic­it­ly claims to have been born of a vir­gin, but it is nonethe­less a fact that the Bible claims he was born of a vir­gin (hence that aspect of Chris­t­ian doctrine).

    Final­ly, regard­ing Jesus and God, I explain one view of this in the fol­low­ing post to a pre­vi­ous entry on the Bis­mi­ka Allaahu­ma site :


  17. This is respond­ing to Denis Giron.

    First I thought Denis Giron is an agnos­tic, not a Chris­t­ian. So I dont know why he is try­ing to defend Christianity.

    Denis Giron said :

    if Mr. Zawa­di is allow­ing the Chris­tians to quote from anyquote attrib­uted to Jesus in the Bible

    My Response :

    No, that was not my inten­tion. I said…

    EVEN READING THE GREEK Bible we do not see Jesus claim­ing divin­i­ty from his own mouth in the Gospels.

    I was refer­ring to the Gospels. Sor­ry if i Did­nt make it clear enuff. Book of rev­e­la­tion was writ­ten over a 100 years lat­er. I don’t want a quote from guy’s vision. I want a quote from Jesus’ time on earth.

    So what if Jesus is called son of God. So was Adam (Luke 3:38). Big deal ?

    As for him attribut­ing him­self to the son of Man in daniel 7. Well this verse is refer­ring to Matthew 24:30, which is a false prophe­cy. See this http://​www​.answer​ing​-chris​tian​i​ty​.com/​k​a​r​i​m​/​f​a​l​s​e​_​p​r​o​p​h​e​c​i​e​s​_​i​n​_​t​h​e​_​b​i​b​l​e​.​htm

    Regard­ing Matthew 28:19. Well just becuz their names are in the same sen­tence that does not nec­es­sar­i­ly imply coequal­i­ty in essence. Just like how Prophet Muham­mad’s name and Allah’s name are in the same sen­tence in the Sha­hadaah does not imply co equal­i­ty between them.

    As for being david’s lord. Well we know that Lord could also mean mas­ter and not nec­es­sar­i­ly mean God.

    Jesus made it clear that the father is the only true God in John 17:3. End of story.

    By the way Denis, i only hap­pend to check this site by coince­dence. Besides that i would not have seen ur mes­sage. So if you are going to reply back to me then please email me at b_​zawadi@​hotmail.​com


  18. Obvi­ous­ly, being that there is no Ara­ma­ic orig­i­nal of any of the Chris­t­ian scrip­tures, it is impos­si­ble to give a ver­ba­tim Ara­ma­ic quote from the mouth of Jesus (assum­ing, for the sake of argu­ment, that the quotes attrib­uted to Jesus in the NT actu­al­ly are from his mouth) rel­e­vant to his divinity.

    That being said, I would like to respond to the post by Bas­sam Zawa­di. Again, if we *ASSUME* that the quotes attrib­uted to Jesus in the NT are his words, then it is not that hard to con­clude from that assump­tion that Jesus affirmed his own (alleged) divin­i­ty. Let me elaborate.

    To begin with some­thing humor­ous, recall the famous and oft-quot­ed pas­sage from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Chris­tian­i­ty, where it is said regard­ing Jesus :

    [L]et us not come up with any patron­iz­ing non­sense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that option open to us. He did not intend to.

    Iron­i­cal­ly, jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for this sen­ti­ment can be found in a verse which is often called to wit­ness by those attempt­ing to dis­cred­it the doc­trine of the divin­i­ty of Jesus : Mark 10:18. It is there that Jesus lays out a very sim­ple bicon­di­tion­al propo­si­tion : Only God is good,” or Jesus is good if, and only if, he is God.” So it is indeed true that the words of Jesus do not leave open the option of declarimg him a good teacher who was a mere mortal.

    Far more valu­able is the 12th chap­ter of Mark. First, to a minor degree, there is the para­ble of the vine­yard in Mark 12:1 – 8. It is clear that Jesus is, in a rather sub­tle way, describ­ing him­self as the son of God. Lat­er on in the chap­ter (Mark 12:35 – 37), Jesus describes him­self as not mere­ly being a descen­dant of David, but rather as David’s Lord. In between these two pas­sages (cf. Mark 12:29), Jesus declares Deuteron­o­my 6:4 to be the great­est com­mand­ment (which seems to be a clear and obvi­ous endorse­ment of Monotheism).

    Then, in Mark 14:62, Jesus explic­it­ly accepts the title of son of God”. From that alone it fol­lows that if Jesus is the son of God, then God is, in some sense, the Father of Jesus, and Matthew is replete with ref­er­ences to a divine Father in heav­en. More inter­est­ing, how­ev­er, is that Jesus explic­it­ly con­nects him­self with the Song of Man fig­ure in Daniel 7. As I will note below, Daniel 7:14 makes it clear that this fig­ure is to be wor­shipped by men from all nations.

    Most inter­est­ing of all, how­ev­er, is the for­mu­la of tri­adic coör­di­na­tion explic­it­ly put forth in Matthew 28:19, where the dis­ci­ples are told to bap­tize not mere­ly in the name of God, but rather in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”.

    Thus, from the above we can derive the fol­low­ing doc­trines from the words attrib­uted to Jesus :

    1. There is only one God.
    2. Jesus is the son of God.
    3. Jesus is the Lord of King David.
    4. The Father is God in some sense.
    5. Jesus is to be wor­shipped by all men.
    6. In the bap­tismal for­mu­la, the Holy Spir­it is men­tioned in the same breath as the Father and the Son.

    What we see is that at least two, and pos­si­bly three, divine beings are dis­cussed, yet there is only one God. Such propo­si­tions com­bine to form a doc­trine of a mul­ti­per­son­al God­head, not unlike the doc­trine of the Trin­i­ty. Thus the ear­li­est texts of the New Tes­ta­ment have Jesus mak­ing a series of state­ments that, if put togeth­er, imply a doc­trine sim­i­lar to the doc­trine of the Trinity.


    Some­what con­tro­ver­sial would be the 5th propo­si­tion of the six list­ed above, which is based on Daniel 7:14. I became aware of this inter­pre­ta­tion while read­ing the com­ments in an entry on the Failed Mes­si­ah blog. For those who don’t know, this blog is pri­mar­i­ly the home of a polem­i­cal stance against a recent strain of Jew­ish mes­sian­ism. A cross-sec­tion of the Lubav­itch­er Cha­sidic com­mu­ni­ty (quite pos­si­bly a major­i­ty) believes that their deceased Rebbe (i.e. head Rab­bi) is the Mes­si­ah, and a small­er sub­set of that cohort believes he is God. The Failed Mes­si­ah” blog cri­tiques these over­lap­ping beliefs.

    In the par­tic­u­lar entry I was read­ing, there was debate, amongst those com­ment­ing, on the sub­ject of Elok­ism” — the belief that the Lubav­itch­er Rebbe was not mere­ly the Mes­si­ah, but God as well (i.e. this is Chris­tian­i­ty all over again). The pro­po­nents of this view took it for grant­ed that he was the Mes­si­ah, and sim­ply attempt­ed to demon­strate that the belief that the Mes­si­ah is God is a part of Jew­ish belief (which has obvi­ous impli­ca­tions for Jew­ish polemics against Chris­tian­i­ty). One com­ment attempt­ing to offer argu­ment in favor of this posi­tion which I found quite inter­est­ing (and which influ­enced my under­stand­ing of Daniel 7:14) was the following :

    go read daniel 7:13 and 14. on the bar enosh rashi sim­ply said hu melekh hamoshi­ach. so this is refer­ring to melekh hamoshi­ach and even there it says moshi­ach will be wor­shipped (leh yifl­choon). he will be served the way g‑d is served in a service.

    In short, this per­son who con­sid­ers them­self a prac­ti­tion­er of Ortho­dox Judaism is claim­ing that Daniel 7:13 – 14 is a Bib­li­cal proof­text in favor of the posi­tion that the Mes­si­ah is also God. Inter­est­ing­ly, I don’t believe I have ever seen a Chris­t­ian employ this verse as a proof­text for Jesus’ divin­i­ty, but it seems like a strong exam­ple. So let’s exam­ine the claim here.

    The text of this Bib­li­cal pas­sage (which is in Ara­ma­ic) refers to one who is like a bar enash (“son of man”). While in Chris­t­ian the­ol­o­gy the son of man is Jesus, I was not famil­iar with Jew­ish inter­pre­ta­tions of who this per­son was. The com­men­ta­tor makes ref­er­ence to Rashi, a medieval Jew­ish exegete who is con­sid­ered one of the most author­i­ta­tive sources of prop­er doc­trine and hermeneu­tics in Judaism. Well, I checked Rashi’s com­men­tary on Daniel 7:13, and sure enough, regard­ing the son of man” he wrote sim­ply three words : hu melekh ha-mashiach (“he is the King Mes­si­ah”). So while Chris­tians and Jews may not be able to agree on pre­cise­ly who the Mes­si­ah is, they can agree that Daniel 7:13 is refer­ring to this fig­ure (in fact, it seems it is pret­ty much an arti­cle of faith for both religions).

    More inter­est­ing, how­ev­er, is what verse 14 says about this per­son (which the com­men­ta­tor allud­ed to). The Ara­ma­ic text speaks of kol ammayaa umayaa w’lis­hanayaa (“all peo­ples, nations and lin­guis­tic groups”), and then it has two rather shock­ing words : leh yifl­choon (“him they will wor­ship”). I checked the verb yifl­choon (from the feh-lamed-chet root) in Franz Rosen­thal’s won­der­ful work, A Gram­mar of Bib­li­cal Ara­ma­ic, and indeed it states that it can mean to wor­ship (see also Reuven AlQalay’s Milon Ivri-Angli Shalem, or Thay­er’s Lex­i­con).

    But many trans­la­tions, both Jew­ish (e.g. JPS) and Chris­t­ian (e.g. KJV), trans­late the verb not as wor­ship,” but rather as serve”. Antic­i­pat­ing such an objec­tion, the com­men­ta­tor inter­pret­ed this as mean­ing that the Mes­si­ah will be served the way g‑d is served in a ser­vice” (i.e. served” in the sense of wor­ship). Inter­est­ing­ly, all the usages of this Ara­ma­ic verb in the rel­a­tive­ly small por­tion of the Old Tes­ta­ment in Ara­ma­ic per­tain to serv­ing a deity (e.g. Daniel 3:12, 14, 17, 18, 28, 6:16, 6:20, 7:27, et cetera). Also, in the Ara­ma­ic text of Ezra 7:19, a deriv­a­tive of this root appears : falchan — reli­gious ser­vice” or wor­ship”.

    This is, in my opin­ion, a rather pow­er­ful argu­ment in favor of the posi­tion that even the Old Tes­ta­ment (i.e. the Hebrew Bible of Judaism) teach­es that the Mes­si­ah will be divine, and that is sim­ply fascinating !

    Harsh crit­ics of Lubav­itch­er Elok­ism (such as Rab­bi David Berg­er) have com­plained that these doc­trines will make Chris­t­ian argu­ments seem more plau­si­ble with­in the Jew­ish par­a­digm. Such an objec­tion makes the argu­ment above espe­cial­ly iron­ic. Imag­ine a debate between a Chris­t­ian and a Lubav­itch­er Elok­ist. Both agree that the Mes­si­ah has come, and both believe he is God in the form of a man (and that he is referred to in Daniel 7). The only thing they dis­agree on is who this per­son is (Jesus vs Men­achem Schneer­son). I can imag­ine the Chris­t­ian ask­ing rhetor­i­cal­ly : who best fits the descrip­tion of being wor­shipped by peo­ple from all nations and lin­guis­tic groups?”

    But what­ev­er the case, this sheds new light on the NT sto­ry about Jesus iden­ti­fy­ing him­self with the Son of Man and being charged with blas­phe­my. He was iden­it­fy­ing him­self as a man who will be wor­shipped by men from all nations, eht­nic groups, and lin­guis­tic groups.

    Oh, on a side note, if Mr. Zawa­di is allow­ing the Chris­tians to quote from anyquote attrib­uted to Jesus in the Bible (i.e. we assume, for the sake of argu­ment, that all of the words attrib­uted to Jesus are accu­rate­ly report­ed), what about the lat­est and most the­o­log­i­cal­ly devel­oped book of the NT : the book of Rev­e­la­tion. In Rev­e­la­tion 1:8, God is the alpha and omega, yet in Rev­e­la­tion 1:17 – 18 and Rev­e­la­tion 22:12 – 16 Jesus is describ­ing him­self as the alpha and omega, the first and the last, et cetera. It gives the impres­sion that Jesus is iden­ti­fy­ing him­self with divin­i­ty in some regard.

    I look for­ward to Mr. Zawadi’s comments.

  19. Excel­lent counter-chal­lenge. Of course, the fact that such a chal­lenge could be issued in the first place by the answer­ing islam team, prove that he is not…” is in itself absurd. As is the sec­ond chal­lenge ; even if Jesus does not dis­avow being God, does that mean he is ?


  20. Excel­lent article.

  21. I think the author did not under­stand Shamoun’s argu­ment. Shamoun is say­ing that if you are going to ask for a quote from Jesus in Arami­ac to claim he is God then he is also going to ask it from you the Mus­lim. Shamoun is right in this point. I dont know why the author could­n’t under­stand this and still con­tin­ued ask­ing for the quote in Arami­ac. Because if Greek is not good enough for us then Ara­bic is not good enough for him because Jesus did not speak Ara­bic. So the author is mak­ing a mis­take here.

    The author should just make the plain challenge.…

    Even in your Eng­lish, Greek, Ara­bic or any oth­er lan­guage trans­lat­ed Bible show me where Jesus claimed divinity!!!!!

    EVEN READING THE GREEK Bible we do not see Jesus claim­ing divin­i­ty from his own mouth in the Gospels. Even in the Eng­lish Bible as well. So why are we being so tough on Shamoun and the Chris­tians by ask­ing for a verse in Arami­ac ? For God sake, ask them for a verse from the Eng­lish Bible ! They won’t even able to do that!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *