The Quran Confirms that Jude Identifies Jesus Christ as God in the Flesh!

The Quran proclaims that Allah does not allow his followers to serve any prophet as their Lord:

It belongs not to any mortal that God should give him the Book, the Judgment, the Prophethood, then he should say to men, ‘Be you servants to me apart from God.’ Rather, ‘Be you masters in that you know the Book, and in that you study.’ He would never order you to take the angels and the Prophets as Lords; what, would He order you to disbelieve, after you have surrendered? S. 3:79-80 Arberry

The Islamic scripture also claims that Allah is the Lord who comes with his angels to judge the earth:

No indeed! When the earth is ground to powder, and thy Lord comes, and the angels rank on rank, and Gehenna is brought out, upon that day man will remember; and how shall the Reminder be for him? S. 89:21-23 Arberry

This is where it gets quite interesting.

In the short of epistle of Jude, which only consists of twenty-five verses, the writer identifies himself as the servant of Jesus Christ, and describes Christ as the Lord who will come with his myriads of holy ones to judge the wicked and bestow his mercy upon his followers:

“Jude, the SERVANT OF Jesus Christ, and brother of James, to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called… And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him… But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost, keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.” Jude 1:1, 14-15, 17-21

To say that this is shocking would be putting it mildly since, as a monotheistic Jew, Jude would know that he has no other Lord in heaven besides Jehovah:

“Whom have I in heaven but thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire beside thee.” Psalm 73:25

“Unto thee lift I up mine eyes, O thou that dwellest in the heavens. Behold, as the eyes of servants look unto the hand of their masters, and as the eyes of a maiden unto the hand of her mistress; so our eyes wait upon the Lord our God, until that he have mercy upon us.” Psalm 123:1-2

Moreover, heavenly angels are servants created to serve God and those who inherit salvation:

“And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire… Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” Hebrews 1:7, 14

“And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things. Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.” Revelation 22:8-9 – cf. 19:10

As such, no God-fearing Jew would ever look to an angelic creature as his lord whom he serves.

Therefore, Jude would know better than to claim to be the servant of some heavenly creature, addressing that created being as his Lord and the Lord of all true believers.

Hence, the only way this inspired author could glorify Christ as his Lord from heaven, as well as the Lord of all true believers, and identify himself as Christ’s servant is if Jude believed that Jesus is God in the flesh, even though he is distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit.

That’s not all. Jude even went as far as to expressly call Christ our only Sovereign God and Lord! 

“For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the ONLY Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ (ton monon despoten Theon kai Kyrion hemon ‘Iesoun Christon).” Jude 1:4 

The sentence in Greek is what is typically called a Granville Sharp construction, more specifically it fits within Sharp’s first rule of the use of the definite article (“the”) in New Testament Greek. According to this rule, when you have two or more personal nouns in the singular case, which are not proper names, and which happen to be connected by the Greek conjunction kai (“and”), with the definite article appearing only before the first noun, then they all refer to the same Person. This is precisely what we have here in Jude.

Here is a helpful note that brings this point out more clearly:

²¹tn The terms “Master and Lord” both refer to the same person. The construction in Greek is known as the Granville Sharp rule, named after the English philanthropist-linguist who first clearly articulated the rule in 1798. Sharp pointed out that in the construction article-noun-καί-noun (where καί [kai] = “and”), when two nouns are singular, personal, and common (i.e., not proper names), they ALWAYS had the same referent. Illustrations such as “the friend and brother,” “the God and Father,” etc. abound in the NT to prove Sharp’s point. For more discussion see ExSyn 270-78. See also Titus 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1. (New English Translation [NET] https://netbible.org/bible/Jude+1; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Even though it is referring to the shorter reading found in some of the early Greek witnesses, the rule still applies here nonetheless.

Therefore, the Greek construction employed here essentially means that Jude described the risen Christ as our only Sovereign (despotes) God and Lord, which is why the following translations render the text the way do:

“… and our only Master, God, and Lord — Jesus Christ — denying,” Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

“… our only Master, God, and Lord, Jesus Christ.” World English Bible (WEB)

The verse that immediately follows provides further corroboration that Jude intended to identify Christ as the Lord God Almighty:

“… and our Lord Jesus Christ. I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.” Jude 1:4-5

The context makes it clear that the Lord who saved the Israelites out of Egypt, and who subsequently destroyed them for their unbelief, was none other than our Lord Jesus Christ in his prehuman existence!

In fact, many of the earliest witnesses actually read “Jesus”, making the identity of the Lord here more explicit. As the NET explains:

sn The construction our Master and Lord, Jesus Christ in v. 4 follows Granville Sharp’s rule (see note on Lord). The construction STRONGLY implies the deity of Christ. This is followed by a statement that Jesus was involved in the salvation (and later judgment) of the Hebrews. He is thus to be identified with the Lord God, Yahweh. Verse 5, then, simply fleshes out what is implicit in v. 4.

tc ‡ The reading ᾿Ιησοῦς (Iēsous, “Jesus”) is deemed too hard by several scholars, since it involves the notion of Jesus acting in the early history of the nation Israel. However, not only does this reading enjoy the strongest support from a variety of early witnesses (e.g., A B 33 81 1241 1739 1881 2344 pc vg co Or), but the plethora of variants demonstrate that scribes were uncomfortable with it, for they seemed to exchange κύριος (kurios, “Lord”) or θεός (theos, “God”) for ᾿Ιησοῦς (though P has the intriguing reading θεὸς Χριστός [theos Christos, “God Christ”] for ᾿Ιησοῦς). In addition to the evidence supplied in NA for this reading, note also {88 322 323 424 665 915 2298 eth Cyr Hier Bede}. As difficult as the reading ᾿Ιησοῦς is, in light of v. 4 and in light of the progress of revelation (Jude being one of the last books in the NT to be composed), it is wholly appropriate. (Ibid.; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Who would have imagined that such a short epistle would contain so much evidence for the eternal Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ?

To summarize our discussion, the inspired writer identified himself as the servant of the risen Jesus, and described the glorified Christ as the Lord of heaven who shall come with his heavenly hosts to judge the world.

According to the Quran, this basically proves that Jude worshiped Christ as God Almighty in the flesh since the Islamic scripture plainly testifies that the only heavenly Being one is to serve, and the only Lord who comes with his angels to judge, is Allah, who is supposed to be the true God of Abraham.

Therefore, what further proof do Muslims need that the inspired authors of the Holy Scriptures such as Jude truly believed and worshiped Jesus Christ as their God and Savior? And what else will it take to convince them that Muhammad was a false prophet who contradicted the teachings of the Lord Jesus and his blessed followers? 

Unless indicated otherwise, all scriptural citations taken from the Authorized King James Version (AV) of the Holy Bible.

Further Reading

Jesus Christ The Lord God Who Saved and Punished Israel During the Exodus https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/21/jesus-christ-the-lord-god-who-saved-and-punished-israel-during-the-exodus/

Revisiting the Issue of the Logical Coherence of the Trinity Pt. 2 https://answeringislam.net/Responses/Osama/zawadi_trinity_r2_2.htm

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/the-quran-confirms-that-jude-identifies-jesus-christ-as-god-in-the-flesh/ 

IHS

More Groans for Shabir Ally

Shabir Ally could provide no greater proof of his deceptive and dishonest handling of sources than what he did to my own words during the Q&A section of his debate with my colleague David Wood (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvBB8b4VF6M). After referring to the following hadiths,

Chapter 8: THROWING OF NON-BELIEVERS IN HELL-FIRE FOR BELIEVERS AS DIVINE GRACE AND MERCY

Abu Musa’ reported that Allah’s Messenger said: When it will be the Day of Resurrection Allah would deliver to every Muslim a Jew or a Christian and say: That is your RESCUE from Hell-Fire. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6665 https://www.searchtruth.com/book_display.php?book=037&translator=2&start=0&number=6665)

Abu Burda reported on the authority of his father that Allah’s Apostle said: No Muslim would die but Allah would admit IN HIS STEAD a Jew or a Christian in Hell-Fire. ‘Umar b. Abd al-‘Aziz took an oath: By One besides Whom there is no god but He, thrice that his father had narrated that to him from Allah’s Messenger. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6666)

Abu Burda reported Allah’s Messenger as saying: There would come people amongst the Muslims on the Day of Resurrection with AS HEAVY SINS AS A MOUNTAIN, and Allah would FORGIVE THEM and He would PLACE IN THEIR STEAD the Jews and the Christians. (As far as I think), Abu Raub said: I do not know as to who is in doubt. Abu Burda said: I narrated it to ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz, whereupon he said: Was it your father who narrated it to you from Allah’s Apostle? I said: Yes. (Sahih Muslim, Book 037, Number 6668)

Superiority of the believers in the Oneness of Allah and the punishment of the Jews and Christians

8) Narrated Abu Musa: Allah’s Messenger said: On the Day of Resurrection, my Ummah (nation) will be gathered into three groups. One sort will enter Paradise without rendering an account (of their deeds). Another sort will be reckoned an easy account and admitted into Paradise. Yet another sort will come bearing on their backs heaps of sins like great mountains. Allah will ask the angels though He knows best about them: Who are these people? They will reply: They are humble slaves of yours. He will say: Unload the sins from them and put the same over the Jews and Christians: then let the humble slaves get into Paradise by virtue of My Mercy.

(This Hadith IS SOUND and mentioned in Mustadrak of Hakim). (110 Hadith Qudsi (Sacred Hadith), translated by Syed Masood-ul-Hasan, revision and commentaries by Ibrahim m. Kunna [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors], pp. 19-20; capital and underline emphasis ours)

I asked Ally whether he is able to reconcile the justice of THIS perverted concept of substitutionary atonement without throwing his sources under the bus. Ally did as I predicted, since he ended up calling into question the veracity of Sahih Muslim, despite the fact that Islam’s greatest scholars have claimed this to be a collection of narrations whose authenticity have been rigorously authenticated. In fact, some of the Muslim scholars have even gone as far as to argue that in some respect Sahih Muslim is actually superior to the hadith collection of Sahih al-Bukhari!(1)

“… Although Sahih al-Bukhari is the most reliable collection of Ahadith, however, Sahih Muslim has certain aspects of superiority. Imam Muslim adhered strictly to most of the principles of the Science of Hadith which were somehow at some places ignored by his teacher Imam Bukhari. Imam Muslim accepted for his collection only such Ahadith which had been transmitted with an unbroken chain of reliable narrators, free from all defects and were in perfect harmony with the narrations of other narrators. He has recorded only those ahadith which were transmitted at least by two different transmitters from two different Companions. Imam Bukhari has sometimes used the Kunyah (surname) of the narrators and sometimes their names. Imam Muslim avoided this confusion. Imam Muslim is also particular in pointing out the slightest difference in the text of the narrations. Imam Bukhari has fragmented most of the Ahadith and presented the portions under different chapters, while Imam Muslim presented them as a whole narration. So, the works of both Imams provide different approaches for the scholars and readers of Ahadith.” (The Translation of the Meanings of Summarized Sahih Muslim, Publisher’s Note, Volume 1, p. ii; bold emphasis ours)

And:

“Imam Muslim compiled many books and treatises on Hadith, the most important of his works is the compilation of the Hadith collection Al-Jami‘ As-Sahih, which is famous by the name of Sahih Muslim. Some scholars of Hadith opine that in some respects IT IS THE BEST AND MOST AUTHENTIC COLLECTION of Ahadith. Imam Muslim laboriously collected 300,000 Ahadith, but after critical study, he selected only 4,000 Ahadith for this collection…

“Many students learned the Science of Hadith from Imam Muslim. Those who became famous and occupied a prominent position are: Abu Hatim Razi, Musa bin Harun, Ahmad bin Salamah, Abu ‘Isa Tirmidhi, Abu Bakr bin Khuzaimah, Abu ‘Awanah and Hafiz Dhahbi.” (Ibid., p. v; bold and capital emphasis ours).

This means that these traditions thoroughly met Imam Muslim’s stringent criteria of authenticity, which also indicates that this renowned hadith scholar was fully convinced that these were actual statements uttered by Muhammad. Therefore, Ally is going to have to do a lot more than to simply brush aside these traditions on the grounds that they somehow contradict the Quran, since the fact still remains that according to the very strict criteria employed by Imam Muslim they are genuine sayings of the historical Muhammad (that is, as far as Islamic historiography and hadith criticism are concerned). As such, these narrations are still binding upon Sunni Muslims which Ally claims to be.

He then proceeded to go on a tirade against the Christian concept of atonement, which is nothing more than a red herring on his part. To make matters worse, he even had the audacity to twist my own words. Note what he said:

“And where is the justice in any system of justice? YOU YOURSELF SAID ITS KIND OF A PERVERTED JUSTICE IF ONE PERSON SUFFERS IN THE PLACE OF ANOTHER.”

Did you just catch what he did? He falsely accused me of saying that it is a perversion of justice for one person to suffer in the place of another, WHEN THAT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT I SAID, since I began my question my plainly telling Ally that the Quran NOWHERE denies the possibility of a person bearing the sins of another, but rather denies that a sinful person who is burdened with his own sins is able to do so. I then said that this then opens the door for Jesus doing so since he is without sin, and therefore without any burdens.

It is clear that my words were directed to Muhammad’s travesty of the doctrine of atonement, NOT TO THE CONCEPT OF ATONEMENT IN GENERAL. As anyone hearing the exchange can personally verify, I was condemning Muhammad’s teaching that Allah would torture Jews and Christians in hell as a ransom for all the wickedness and sins committed by Muslims as a perversion, since this means that Allah is punishing Jews and Christians for their own sins AND THE SINS OF MUHAMMADANS! Now that is truly despicable and perverted!

In fact, even a convert to Islam named Paul Williams could see that Ally deliberately twisted my words since he left the following comments to a youtube video produced by another shameless deceiver name YahyaSnow where he claims that I ended up embarrassing myself since Ally took my own words and turned them against me (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVlL7vjphpk&lc=z12bhhc41wndcftek23hc1fijuiudfvvn):

Pcc B 19 hours ago

that’s not quite fair on Sam. When he refers to ‘perverted concept of substitutionary atonement’ HE IS SPEAKING OF THE ISLAMIC REJECTION OF IT – not his own view. I don’t think Sam misspoke here (Capital emphasis ours)

In light of the foregoing, can there be any doubt left that Ally is indeed a liar and deceiver who has no shame in twisting and perverting the statements of scholars and apologists in order to score cheap debate points? What makes this rather unfortunate for Ally is that he thinks he can get away with his gross perversion and misquotation of people, but not any longer since we will continue to call him out on any and all lies and deliberate manhandling of any source he references anytime he opens his mouth.

So Ally, you have been forewarned!

Endnotes

(1) To better appreciate this comparison with Sahih Al-Bukhari, note what the English translator states concerning this great collection:

It has been UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that Imam Bukhari’s work is the most authentic of all the other works in Hadith literature PUT TOGETHER. The authenticity of Al-Bukhari’s work is such that the religious learned scholars of Islam said concerning him: “The most authentic book after the Book of Allah (i.e., Al-Qur’an) is Sahih Al-Bukhari.”… Before he recorded each Hadith he would make ablution and offer two Rak’at prayer and supplicate his Lord (Allah). Many religious scholars of Islam tried to find fault in the great remarkable collection- Sahih Al-Bukhari, BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS. It is for this reason, they UNANIMOUSLY AGREED that the most authentic book after the Book of Allah IS Sahih Al-Bukhari. (Translation of the Meanings of Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic-English, translated by Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Formerly Director, University Hospital, Islamic University, Al-Madina Al-Munawwara (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), [Dar-us-Salam Publishers & Distributors, Riyadh-Saudi Arabia, July, 1997], Volume 1, pp. 18-19; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Note that these are the very sources that Ally has no qualms throwing under the bus whenever they prove too damaging to his position. This is precisely why I accused Ally of preaching Hislam, e.g., his version of Islam, as opposed to actual Islam, since he presents an Islam that doesn’t exist in reality and which isn’t anchored in its primary sources. Rather Ally’s Hislam only exists in his own imagination and wishful thinking.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/more-groans-for-shabir-ally/ 

IHS

A Critique of Shabir Ally’s Debate Tactics Pt. 1b

We proceed with our exposition of some of the tactics which Ally employs in his debates and supposed dialogues https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-1a/.

Ally’s Contradictions and Inconsistencies

When the late Dr. Nabeel Qureshi asked Ally in the cross-examination section of their debate whether he would agree that the pre-Pauline hymns cited by Paul and Mark’s Gospel portray Jesus as Yahweh, Ally responded by saying,

“I wouldn’t agree that either Paul or Mark presents Jesus as Yahweh. Paul, despite what he says about Jesus and raising Jesus to a high status, which Muslims would not accept it, Paul stopped short of making Jesus Yahweh. For example, 1 Corinthians chapter 15 verse 24 shows that in the final end game, Jesus is going to return all power to God who gave it to him in the first place. And Christ will be subjected to God so that God will be all and all, which means that you do not have three co-equal and co-eternal beings. You have God who is greatest and Jesus who is under God; that’s why Paul could say in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 verse 3, that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of Christ is God.”

Ally went on to further assert that,

“Mark as well does not present Jesus as Yahweh, even though there are some passages which as you mentioned about preparing the way of the Lord, which might tease the boundaries a little bit. But that’s different from Mark coming out and saying, ‘O, looks like Jesus is actually Yahweh.’ Mark is actually very clear, when he quotes Jesus in chapter 12 verse number 29, Jesus repeating the same Shema Yisrael, saying that there is only one God, the God of Israel. And then the man who asked Jesus about this says, ‘You are right teacher! There is only one God and besides him there is no other.’ So the ‘him’ is somebody else other than Jesus, and then Jesus praised the man for having such deep insight. So it’s clear from Mark’s Gospel, that Jesus is not Yahweh. Mark chapter 13 verse 32 shows that Jesus does not know where the hour will occur.”

And in his debate with Jonathan McLatchie, Ally reiterated his claim by arguing that Paul did not ascribe the word theos, i.e. “God”, to Jesus, or identify him as Yahweh:

“Some of our friends think that the NT somehow declares that Jesus is God; so now let’s look at the NT. And before I do, let’s say something about the development of ideas as an introduction to reading the NT. In the intertestamental period, that is the period between the Old and the New Testament [sic], people began to speculate, perhaps there is an intermediary between God and man. God – the philosophers said – is so unchangeable and so remote, that he does not deal with a changeable world directly. But he deals with the world through some kind of intermediary; that could be like the divine mind or the Logos of God, his reason, or his Sophia, his wisdom. Maybe he doesn’t create the world directly, he creates through an intermediary. But that was an idea, but it did not lead the Jews to worship something other, or someone other than Yahweh.

“Now in the NT we have some developments. Some people now begin to think of Jesus as that intermediary. We have in one of St. Paul’s writings that Jesus is that agent through which God created the world, so that here we have the agent idea. But Paul does not attribute to Jesus the title theos, which in Greek would mean God; Paul always distinguishes between God and Jesus. He’s granting Jesus a lofty status as Creator of the world, but still as an intermediary between the ultimate Creator God and the world. So he is an intermediary, BUT NOT YAHWEH HIMSELF. So this is why when Paul would speak of Jesus, he would speak of Jesus in a very exalted language, and some of our Christian friends would say, ‘See, that means God!’” (Emphasis ours)

Ally then went on to make the following argument:

“Now when Paul and other writers are speaking about God, they sometimes take OT passages where Yahweh is mentioned, and they start, in a tantalizing way, putting it in such a manner that when our Christian friends read it now, they’re thinking, ‘Oh, it looks like Jesus is that Yahweh!’ But what needs to be distinguished very clearly is the usage of ‘the Lord’–which is ambiguous, and vague and more general–and a reference to ‘the Lord God,’ the ultimate God; and Paul does make that distinction. We have to be aware of this. So when we read Paul’s writings, whose writings are the earliest that we have of the NT, we should keep that distinction in mind.”

“If we keep that distinction then when we go to John’s Gospel we understand what is happening. For John’s Gospel as well, there’s the ultimate God, the only true God according to John chapter 17, verse number 3. Jesus looks up into heaven, he’s praying, and he’s saying ‘this is eternal life that they may know you as the only true God, and Jesus your messenger as Christ.’ So he’s distinguishing between himself and the true God. It is true that John’s Gospel also uses the term God to refer to Jesus, but not the ultimate God. John’s Gospel begins, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was divine’… is the best translation because the word used there in Greek is theos, which means ‘God.’ But it can mean ‘a god,’ as opposed to ho theos, which means definitely ‘the God.’ Now one can argue it the other way and say that its grammatical necessary for John to put it in this way for what he wanted to say at this point. However, because the point is disputed and the grammarians are arguing it both ways, I want to ask you if John definitely wanted to say that Jesus is the ultimate God why would he put the matter in such a manner, that people would dispute over it and they would not be able to come to a definite and unified conclusion about this? He should state it somewhere very plainly. But what he is stating plainly is that Jesus has a God!

“So even if you can call Jesus God this is a kind of an intermediary God. It’s not something that Muslims will accept to be sure, we do not accept intermediary gods; but we should be clear what John is saying. What John is saying is neither acceptable to Muslims nor to Trinitarians, because John does not have this concept of the Trinity. The Trinity requires that there are three eternal Persons who are eternally co-equal, and according to John, Jesus is not coequal with the ultimate God. That is why John in chapter 20, verse 17 has Jesus saying to his disciple Miriam Magdalene, ‘Tell my brothers that I am ascending to my God and your God, My Father and your Father.’ So Jesus has a God according to this. This passage is important because some of our friends say that Jesus was not known to be God during his lifetime; it is the resurrection from the dead that proved that he conquered death, and therefore that he is God. But that now, we have Jesus saying this, according to the Christian narrative, after the resurrection from the dead, and he still has a God. So even though John’s Gospel is referring to Jesus as, in a way, as a theos, he is referring to Jesus as a begotten God; so there is an ultimate God and there is a begotten one according to this Gospel.”

Suffice it to say, we will thoroughly refute all of these assertions in this series of rebuttals. At this point we would like to simply point out how Ally has no qualms with contradicting himself, even in the very same debate!

For instance, it must have slipped Ally’s mind what he previously stated to Qureshi in his opening statements:

“Two streams of teaching. On the one hand there is Paul, and hence we find in the NT statements about… Paul saying for example THAT GOD CAME DOWN, HUMBLED HIMSELF, BECAME JESUS – Philippians chapter 2, the Carmen Christi that Nabeel spoke about. 1 Corinthians chapter 8, verse number 6, Paul takes the Shema Yisrael AND HE MAKES TWO PERSONS OUT OF THAT ONE. In the Shema Yisrael there was only one Lord God. Now Paul makes it one Lord AND one God – one Lord Jesus, one God the Father; he splits them. So we know the hydrant collider has split the atom recently, now Paul did a splitting way back when. But Paul is representing one particular view here.” (Emphasis ours)

Notice how Ally admits that Paul identifies Christ as the Yahweh whom Deuteronomy 6:4 says is one, and also acknowledges that the Apostle taught that Jesus is God that came down and humbled himself.

Ally must have also forgotten the third question he had asked Dr. James R. White during the cross-examination period of their debate in Pretoria, South Africa:

“Now you cited the Carmen Christi from Philippians chapter 2 where Paul IS OBVIOUSLY REFERRING TO THE BOOK OF ISAIAH CHAPTER 45. Now are you aware that Paul HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN A REFERENCE TO YAHWEH AND THEN MADE THAT A REFERENCE TO JESUS, and so he has in fact here modified the original belief in one God Yahweh, AND NOW HE HAS MADE JESUS THIS YAHWEH? And if Jesus is this Yahweh then how could Yahweh be Father, Son and Holy Ghost, because in that case Jesus is not part of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? You have Yahweh who is Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and then you have Jesus. Explain that.” (Did the Earliest Followers of Jesus Believe in His Deity? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDmiTGmjqwA; emphasis ours)

It must have further slipped Ally’s mind the answer he gave to Dr. White when the latter cross-examined him:

“Now in Paul using this hymn, and representing Jesus in this way, we can see that he has actually departed from the OT, because he has taken an OT passage that referred to Yahweh and he has made that refer to Jesus. He is now departing from that original commandment which says you shall have no other god but Yahweh. Clearly Jesus was a human being, and the book of Numbers chapter 23 verse 19, it says God is not a man and not the son of man. So if Jesus is a man to all appearances, well then, you cannot take him to be god, he cannot be Yahweh, he is not Yahweh. And by taking him to be somehow Yahweh, AS PAUL IS NOW DOING IN HIS LETTER, even in a tantalizing way, Paul is actually departing from the OT scripture.”

So according to Ally, the blessed Apostle of the risen Lord not only identifies Jesus as Yahweh, but also applied the following monotheistic passage about Yahweh,

“For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye that are escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god that cannot save. Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.” Isaiah 45:18-23

To the worship that every creature must render to Christ in acknowledgment of his being the Lord whom God the Father exalted above all creation!

“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” Philippians 2:9-11

Now which Ally should we believe? The one who denies that the Apostles and earliest disciples identified Jesus as Yahweh God, even when they applied OT Yahweh texts to Christ? Or should we go with the Ally who candidly admits that Paul and the early Christians who composed hymns which the Apostle included in his writings, such as the Carmen Christi, all believed and worshiped Jesus as Yahweh and as the God who came down and humbled himself to become a man?

More importantly, what does this say about Ally’s willingness to blatantly contradict himself, even within the same debate? Doesn’t this prove that Ally has no problem with being inconsistent, in fact deceptive, if and when it helps him win a debate? And yet what does this say about Islam itself when its very own faithful adherents and apologists have to resort to lying and trickery in order to convince people to become Muslims?

Finally, should it really come as a shock that Ally would be so inconsistent when the Quran describes Allah as a conniver and trickster who changes his mind and contradicts himself, just as the following articles and rebuttals prove?

Contradictions in the Qur’an (https://answeringislam.net/Quran/Contra/index.html)

Abrogation? (https://answeringislam.net/Quran/Contra/qi019.html)

Allah as a Deceiver (https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/allah_deceiver.htm)

Allah – The Greatest Deceiver of them All (https://answeringislam.net/Shamoun/allah_best_deceiver.htm)

After all, the kind of deity you worship and serve will often impact the kind of person you end up becoming.

Therefore, since Allah boasts about being the best of all deceivers who doesn’t mind or hesitate to use lies and schemes to get his way and/or to accomplish his purposes, then why should it surprise us that Ally would resort to employing the very same kind of tactics that his own deity uses in order to win debates?

It seems that in Islam the ends do justify the means.

There is more to come in the next segment of our examination https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/11/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-2a/.

Source: https://answeringislamblog.wordpress.com/2018/09/29/a-critique-of-shabir-allys-debate-tactics-pt-1b/ 

IHS